User:Lordrosse/sandbox

Technocratic Divide
Technocracy  an ideology that models government in such a way that emphasizes technical skill and efficiency. In theory, technocracy is pragmatist before it is populist. Ideally, technocratic leadership is assigned based on merit, rather than influence or inheritance. Technocracy is naturally not conducive to career politicians, instead favoring government leaders who specialize in other relevant trades and industries than politics and government. [1] Technocratic discourse is most clearly characterised by the way it represents itself: although it has a clearly hegemonic function, it consciously presents itself as “above the fray”, as a supplier of “facts”, neutral and objective, free of all interests and values except truth, which all parties must take into account in deciding policy. It does so by adopting a form of scientificity that is a mere parody of science, and by representing its epistemic claims - often tacit - as objective knowledge.[2] Technocractic divides  have  challenged  the  relationship  between  government  and  citizens  in recent years, as many societies during the second half of the 20th century operated under the assumption that government could deliver solutions to many of the problems faced by relying primarily on professional expertise[3]. This has been due in part to the exponential growth of technological knowledge in many areas addressed by the government. It might seem as though the technocratic model is ideal—complex industries seemingly benefitting from governance by experts supposedly in touch with empirical research and endowed with the know-how to make decisions that would promote efficiency and progress.[4] =Conceptualization of the term=

Structural Subordination
Structural subordination refers to the inability for citizens to access the processes of government deliberation in a manner that is fair and reasonable. Physical limitations of time and distance make it difficult for working individuals, not living in or near Washington, DC, to participate fully and repeatedly in government processes. Structural subordination also extends to access limitations associated with the inability to understand and navigate systems of public engagement. This could begin with a lack of knowledge about the existence of a policy-making process as well as a lack of information about the method or manner of comment submission. The latter could include not knowing a government organization’s mailing address, phone number, or website. This also includes not knowing how to navigate the various systems associated with this form of communication, such as which forms to sign, which office to contact, or how to access the correct section of an electronic comment filing system.

Rhetorical Subordination
<Rhetorical subordination  deals with the individual ability and suggests that technocratic discourse privileges dominant modes of rationality. The subordination of members of the general public results not only from a lack of technical knowledge but also because of an inability to communicate in the formalized, jargon-filled language of the technocrats. McKenna and  Graham  (2000) refer to the language of technocracy as a “closed discourse,” noting that because “incorrect” oppositional discourses are often cast as naïve “common sense,” they are pervasively denigrated by technocrats, and are tacitly supposed to defer to the more  intelligent  scientific  knowledge  generated  by  the  technical  elite. In this  way,  the pseudo-scientific language of technocracy legitimizes its claims to power in matters that are uniquely social in nature, simultaneously silencing “common-sense” opposition by their claims to expertise. The inability to understand and use technocratic language impacts all stages of communication between the individual and the government process. This includes the inability to understand the call for comment, the materials to consider and analyze to address the call, the language necessary to construct comments, as well as the language of the resulting consideration,  debate, and decision.

Deliberatory Subordination
The previous two forms of subordination—namely, that individuals are limited by geography, time and access, and  that individual input  is  not  technical  enough—contributes  to the  power  structure  that perpetuates these concerns,and produces a form of deliberatory subordination that limits the abilities of those  marginalized  to  set  the political agenda,  direct  the  deliberatory  process,  and  affect  the  outcome. Deliberatory subordination is not a focus of the current analysis. This study investigates the extent to which digital form letters, facilitated by activist intermediaries, close technocratic divides. The analysis will address comment submission to the U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) 2014 network neutrality proceeding in which approximately 4 million individual comments were submitted—the most in the FCC’s history.

Origins
(William Henry Smyth), a Californian engineer, is usually credited with inventing the word technocracy in 1919 to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists, and engineers", although the word had been used before on several occasions.[5]

=Examples=

Technocractic divide in Education
In Education the evidence of a technocratic divide is evident as Within the education system in the U.S., we are seeing this new dividing line in our students. On the highly technical side of the line are those who can grasp the deeper conceptual understanding of various subjects, including calculus, statistics, genetics, all things related to molecules, network theory, cognitive and neurocognitive psychology, the complexity sciences, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, quantum theory and yes, data science and software engineering. On the other side of the line is the rest of humanity who knows little of these things.

The Inherent contradiction with Technocracy
Professor Jonathan Obar, mentions the existence of two parallel narratives have unfolded. On the one hand, there exists a pervasive need for technical experts operating in all areas of society. For example, Manyika et al. (2011) report that all sectors of the global economy are now addressing Big Data questions. Beyond Big Data’s possibilities, and how IBM’s “smarter planet” promises to further marginalize the multitude being swept out to sea by the Big Data deluge (e.g., Obar, 2015), one can find technological experiments and promises everywhere. Along with  this  rise  in  technological  optimism  is  the  need  for  technical  experts  to  lead  health-care systems, education systems, militaries, infrastructure projects, and utility efforts, to name a few. At each juncture, the  ever-expanding  role  of  technology  corresponds  to  a  seemingly  ever-expanding  citizen marginalization. The  second   narrative   contradicts   the   first. As governments   encourage   linkages  between technocratic processes and all areas of society, they concurrently champion the role of public involvement in societal governance. The voice of the average person is praised as both vaccine and penicillin, proactive and reactive  medicine  for  societal  ills,  capable  of  addressing  social,  economic,  and  moral  stratifications. Perhaps calls for public involvement are manifestations of a democratic delusion, perpetrated and internalized by leaders and followers,presented withou tany possibility  of consistent implementation. Considering the challenges associated with the technocratic divide, it seems unclear how both narratives might be realized at the same time. How fitting that such a contradiction should be articulated in the context of one  of  the  most important  and  uplifting  public interest victories in  recent  memory. Indeed, the net neutrality debate  is flooded  with  political  and  social  idealism, not to mention  promises of innovation,  access,  and  speech.

List of other similar terms

 * Digital Divide
 * Technocracy
 * Meritocracy
 * Positivism
 * Post-politics
 * Post scarcity
 * Price System
 * Project Cybersyn