Will Sociology & Technology Trump The Combination of Corporatism and Control ?

Jon, Dave Rogers here.

I’m interested in understanding what makes you think there are aspects of sociology that suggest they could be a remedy for the undesirable parts of corporatism and control? I view the elevation and near-beatification of Scoble to be symptomatic of those aspects of corporatism which are able to adapt themselves to changes in their environment. That is, I regard Scoble as little more than better camouflage. And I suspect it is the exploitation of our “social” nature, those aspects of “sociology” which we regard more favorably than “corporatism” (with reason), which is behind this phenomenon, that allows it to take place at all. When so many formerly skeptical people seem to fall over themselves to be the first or most fawning over a superficial and insignificant comment by Scoble regarding Firefox, I’m dumbfounded and stupified.

I suspect there is more than a small amount of people seeing what they wish to see in pursuit of having their own ideas validated. I believe Scoble says the things he says in order to garner attention, in order to keep people linking to him, not because he possesses some keen new insight into anything. I think it’s indicative of the nature of his thought process, such as it is, that what prompts Scoble’s comment is not any appreciation of technical merit but rather the number of downloads. Scoble’s attention, when it’s not focused externally on himself, is focused on those things that threaten his employer; and superficial characteristics like size and numbers are the characteristics he normally points to, because those are easier for him to comprehend than more ethereal concepts like “cool.”

His most recent post, about taking the head off of one of his co-workers is transparently attention-seeking. His emotional response is clearly out of proportion to the supposed “offense.” Yet by exhibiting this type of response, he seems to wish to suggest to his readers that he retains his independent voice within the “belly of the beast,” as it were. Part of what Scoble believes makes him unique as a MS blogger is that he is supposedly unafraid to criticize his employer. Or treat his fellow employees harshly. Presumably on our behalf? Yet what he most clearly demonstrates is his need for attention; and, if it’s an accurate reflection of a genuine emotion, a sad indication of his own alienation from himself. Unsurprising though, given the squandering of his attention resources in the service of his corporate masters and his own need for attention. Anyone who “reads” a thousand feeds a day probably has little time to perform introspection or self-examination of his feelings.

I don’t think anyone is well-served by Scoble’s elevation by the “blogosphere,” except, perhaps, Microsoft. I think all the attention does not serve Robert well, because he will have to continue to write and behave in ways that will garner it in the same quantities he’s becoming accustomed to. There are limits. I can’t believe this is good for his family, or for him. I believe ultimately all that attention will find a new target to elevate, and Robert will have to cope with a significant, and difficult, let-down. His suffering will be a product of both human nature, and the nature of technology which allowed him to climb high and fast through the attention of so many people networked together and guided by the links of would-be authorities, who endorsed and praised and enabled, but seldom counseled.

Will the people who celebrate Scoble today be there for him when all the attention and the celebrity are gone? How “intimate” will his online friends be? I don’t know.

I suppose it’s possible, even likely, that I’m utterly wrong. Truthfully, I wouldn’t mind too much if I am. But I think there are questions in this process that no one is bothering to ask. And I know that suffering is the difference between the way things are, and the way we want them to be.

Cluetrain in the end is about how to create a denser weave of wealth bondage. It is a book by markters for, implicitly, their corporate clients, about how to market more effectively by more closely impersonating human beings. This is crazy. Corporations are not human beings. Having them sound like people only makes it more insidious. With one voice they sound like your closest friend, then, if you miss a payment, the other voice sends you a demand letter, followed by a bill collector. A third mouth lobbies in DC, another creates law suits to intimidate critics. A clued in voice is just another lie. You tell this to Gonzo and he starts reaching for his meds. The guy needs a paycheck. Don’t blame him. We all get by in WB as best we can selling whatever Candidia is buying. The day we find corporations sweet and lovable is the day Candidia has finally one forever. She is a domineering bitch, and I don’t care what she does to me. I said and I say it again, Candidia is a domineering bitch!

-The Happy Tutor

For Wealth Bondage

Yes, yes, yes and yes … and I don’t know what to say, really.

Whenever I bump up against this (which is almost always) what i tend to remember is the following story … and Tutor, I think I’ve mentioned this you before …

I once attended a public *speech* at a university given by Herman Daly, a noted World Bank (?) economist and one of the early proponents of triple bottom lines and the incorporation of social cost accounting into our current economic system. He wrote a book in the early ’90’s, I think, titled “For The Common Good”.

I listened intently, as did the other 200 - 300 people attending. As I kept listening I kept waiting for something .. which never came. So of course me being me, I felt I had to say something, but i was nervous, nervous, nervous. There was a Q & A period, so I raised my hand with temerity, sweating and with a slightly quavering voice … when I got to speak, I suggested to Daly that it seemed to me that he had missed an extremely impoortant point, and that I wondered if this point was not at the core of the problem.

What I suggested is that we can suggest many many changes to systems, economic and otherwise, but that the structure, dynamics and demands of capital markets as they are currently set up and function was the ultimate roadblock against any fundamental change … that in essence, without that fundamental change to what we call “capitalism” all the rest is just tinkering at the edges and that the basic system wouldn’t really change very much at all … in shorthand, we might say “Candida is a domineering bitch, AND always gets her way” and that until she has a real honest-to-goodness nervous breakdown and subsequent soul-depth level change, we are well and truly hooped.

To my immense surprise, he said that I was absolutely right, and noted to the whole audience that he should have placed his entire argument within that context.

That was my first and last go at economics.

Dave Rogers here.

Tutor, I’m so relieved. Thank you.

I wrote this the other day: While Caitlin Sleeps.

I suppose I could have been channeling you.

Hopefully this weekend I’ll get around to finishing deconstructing The Myth of the Intimate Planet. Once that’s in the can, I want to deconstruct the Cluetrain Manifesto. That’s probably both a bigger job and a smaller one. Which is to say, the truth is so simple, it should take about as much as what you just posted above. But as a famous author once said, “Adults always need things explained to them.” Or words to that effect.

Jon, I’m of the opinion that we need not change “the system” any more than we need change “the world.” The challenge remains exactly what it has always been, each of us must learn to begin to change ourselves. I don’t need corporations with human voices, I need corporations made up of authentic human beings. Chances are, such things would never get to be the size of, say, Apple Computer, let alone GE or GM, but I think things would be different, in a better sort of way.

But even that is sort of beside the point. The point is about waking up to one’s humanity, to discovering what it means to be alive and not alone. To knowing that all suffering is shared suffering, that we’re all in this together. In that regard, the world is the way it is, and likely will always remain that way, so that we may discover these things for ourselves. At least, if we’re lucky. I think that’s the point.

I could be wrong.

Nah .. i’m probably more wrong than you I may be thick, but somehow I get the sense that we’re all groping to say pretty much the same thing.

So .. I agree with your point “The challenge remains exactly what it has always been, each of us must learn to begin to change ourselves. I don’t need corporations with human voices, I need corporations made up of authentic human beings. Chances are, such things would never get to be the size of, say, Apple Computer, let alone GE or GM, but I think things would be different, in a better sort of way.

and dave … in terms of being an authentic person in a corporation .. if that authenticity involves saying or doing something that doesn’t fit with the objectives or mission, who’s gonna go first ? In terms of corporations with *authentic* human beings, what i believe is that if a whole whack of people started being *authentic* in aany way or ways that weren’t in alignment withthe corporate mission or objectives (which can change after one jopins a corporation, most of that whole whack would be out of jobs pretty farkin’ quickly.

As Tutor has pointed out before, one of the reasons so many people go to shrinks as mid-life adults is to get some form or other of attitude adjustment so that they can sort-of pretend to be authentic (or have at least one person/place they can be authentic), whilst still going about what it takes to fit in .. rather than having to be fucked off.

From my (limited) perspective, I know a bunch of people … many of my friends, and certainly me .. who have in some way or other made the choice(s) you suggest. In my case it happens to work (so far) because I live very simply and inexpensively, and I would completely agree that it boils down to choices. In other cases, I know people who have more independence, and somewhat more authenticity, but still have to come up with some kind of service (consulting, coaching, whatever … ) for which they must put on masks and make compromises with their authenticity in order to get some MONEY from that corporation for said services, in order to pay things like mortgages, buy food, etc … and if they went merrily off being completely authentic whilst seeking to sell some service or other to many of the corporations I know, they’d be whistling in a long, dark, empty corridor … a reasonable number of types of authenticity are not necessarily best-selling nor easily tolerated in many corporate settings.

yes, indeed, the point is to wake up to one’s own humanity, and discover what it means to ba human alive, and not alone .. and imo too many corporations crowd almost all room for that out of one’s life … if you work 8, 9 or 10 hours a day, commute an hour, sleep 7, waste 1 hour in unconscious habits, various forms of getting ready for this, that or the other thing, waste one more hour with the inevitable interruptions and things not operating completely smoothly and efficiently, then you gotta about 2 or 3 hours left .. and then it’s Groundhog Day the next day all over again … mix and repeat for 20 or so years, and then get tossed out at about age 45 or 50.

i’m not exactluy sure whether we’re arguing, agreeing, or (in my case) I hope learning. i would (I think) argue that *the sytem* could be architected very differently .. for example, whilst I understand (or perhaps more accurately, believe) that there needs to be a bit of what I would call *healthy* competition necessary to keep a reasonabe proprtion of people moving and doing useful things, I don’t take it as a given that capitalism (with a reliance on the need for competition) in its extant form(s) in North America, europe, russia and Asia/China is the only socio-economic architecture that will work …. thios planet’s going nowhere particularly fast.

I will agree that at its present stage, it’s all wealth bondage, after all, but I’m pretty sure I believe that this is a systemic arrangement accompanied by the necessary psychological propaganda, starting in grade school, that is necessary for a relativley small quasi-plutocracy to maintain an exploitive relationship over the bulk of people .. can’t let them have too much a view beyound the boundaries of the dumpster park, or they’ll get funny ideas about the possibilities that things could be different.

i still (naively, i’m sure) hold onto the belief that sociology and technology are making some reasonably significant changes to the aggregated impacts of people watching, thinking, speaking, writing .. whther it will turn out for the good or turn towards a dystopian reality i don’t really have a clue .. but i would prefer that it be for the better than some form of 3D Brazil (Terry Gilliam’s movie).

i don’t know either, and I’m almost certainly much too idealistic, added to which it’s probably clear that I don’t really understand the way(s) humans or the world works.

But with the choices I’ve made, i’ve calculated that if I never make any more money i’ll run out of my savings sometime around age 75 or 76. At that point I’ll just lie down outside my dumpster and wait until my body shuts down.

For me that means that I don’t have to go and ask some corporation or other for permission to be authentic, and find out whether or not they’ll let me or fire my ass if i try and they don’t like it.

When I said I’mnot sure whther we’re arguing or agreeing .. the way i read (and certainly intended !) my post is as a nuanced criticism of Scoble’s post and rageboy/CBO’s praise of same. If it doesn’t come across that way, it’s probably because I am indeed a polite person, demonstrably *Canadian* in my employ of that politesse, and in general agreement with the Tutor’s point that the CM is a means of effecting a denser weave of Wealth Bondage.

I tend to think that scoble .. the symbol .. is indeed a corporate meat puppet who just reflects the fact that with the general conditions we all arguably swim in these days - increased linkage and visibility - it is skillful and wise manipulation of the growing dynamics inside corporations that reflect that visibility/transparency.

If there weren’t blogs and *push-button publishing for the people*, none of this would be going on, or at least not in the more-or-less public eye, and we wouldn’t have very much at all to say about it.

the way i interpret your initial comment is starting off addressing that criticism in terms of the *sociology* and then getting caught up in the theme you’ve offered before that scoble (and others who blog in similar ways) are seeking … and … getting attention. so, to the degree that my post adds to that attention, sure I’m guilty of some degree of participation .. but I wouldn’t at all interpret my initial post as beatifying scoble, nor suggesting that said early-stage beatification is appropriate, worthwhile or desirable.

Again .. it’s probably my candianness or my too-clever-by-half obfuscatory writing style, but I think I was trying to say that corporations aren’t likely to change very muich regardless of how much we (want to, in all our authentic-ness) converse, cooperate and collaborate.

It’s fine to do so, as long as it fits with and serves the corporations’ mission and objectives … otherwise, its fifo in wealth bondage, and in god we trust.

Dave Rogers here again.

“Scoble (The Economist’s Chief Humanising Officer for Microsoft) is building a considerable reputation for being open, listening well, and playing back to Microsoft the conversations going on amongst its customers.

He’s also been lauded (rightly, imo) for congratulating Firefox for its rapid success … I think he cited approximately 25 million downloads in about 10 weeks. ”

This is from a previous post, one or two before the one currently under discussion.

My point was that it is those desirable aspects of what I interpreted you meant by “sociology” (your Canadian politeness for example), that permit Scoble to receive the level of attention he receives.

While your tempered criticism of Chris Locke’s post was evident, it wasn’t clear to me that you were making the connection between the exploitation of “sociology” in the service of “corporatism,” and therefore the question you posed was likely missing the point.

I mentioned the beatification of Scoble because you and others, Dave Weinberger to name one, mentioned Scoble’s congratulations to Firefox. And you asserted that Scoble listens well. I submit that Scoble does not listen well. Indeed, he can’t listen well. His listening, as is the case with all his perceptual apparatus, is corrupted to the service of achieving and maintaining his status as a high attention-earner.

His most recent post, during his sort of on-again, off-again “blog vacation” about Julie Leung’s apparently very affecting presentation is little more than a recitation of the appropriate sentiments prompted, no doubt, by numerous other citations of Julie’s talk that preceded his. Little more than a blurb to add some gloss to his persona as a “human” voice in a “humanizing” service to humanity at large.

There is little criticism of Scoble in the “blogosphere,” probably because of “sociology.” By all accounts, he’s a really nice guy. And it is in the nature of our “sociology” to elevate and affirm what others around us, particularly the perceived “authorities” elevate and affirm. And there is a pronounced lack of skepticism, or reflection, or even caution in our eagerness to be part of the crowd that “gets it.”

Is it impolite to criticize? Is it impolite to be skeptical? Is Scoble being well served by all this attention? Are others being well served by his elevation as a “Chief Humanizing Officer?” I don’t think so, and perhaps you don’t either, but it’s hard to tell.

Certainly it’s possible to work for a corporation and remain an authentic human being, at least I think it is. I’d like to think I’m having some success in that regard, but one must always be at pains to not become too complacent in that regard. Everyone’s capacity for self-delusion seems greater than our capacity for self-criticism; but there are practices one can employ to help guard against that.

I think the history of technology is one that clearly demonstrates that corporations, nations, religions, large social organisms of any kind, learn to exploit technology against our “sociology” in order to ensure our efforts, our choices, are congruent with the needs of the larger organism. I see little reason for optimism that this is ever likely to change. Social organisms are learning organisms and clearly have the capacity to adapt and evolve faster than purely physical, genetically-based, multi-cellular organisms. Which is to say, we’re not likely to get a lot smarter in the near term, so we have to make better use of the assets at hand if we hope to preserve the notion that being a person is something more than being a constituent element of a larger social organism.

In that regard, it seems to me that human voices that hope to promote that point of view need to speak loudly and clearly, though in the end, I’m not sure we have much cause to be optimistic.

Well, since you seem to want to keep on going … let’s look a bit more closely at what you cited and my perspective on what I said, down to the separate phrase level … no doubt I’ll “get it”, eventually.

“Scoble (The Economist’s Chief Humanising Officer for Microsoft) is building a considerable reputation for being open, listening well, and playing back to Microsoft the conversations going on amongst its customers.”

As far as I can tell, whether or not he is an authentic human being, he IS building a reputation such as the one described above .. deserved or not. From my point of view I do not see in the above statement any judgment on my part as to whether this is a good thing or not … but I’m mainly a Mac user, if that means anything
Your second point in the comment above:

“He’s also been lauded (rightly, imo) for congratulating Firefox for its rapid success … I think he cited approximately 25 million downloads in about 10 weeks.”

Yes, I do think it’s right for a company like Microsoft to notice and congratulate someone/some other company for putting them (Microsoft) on notice that there are alternatives - better alternatives, based on OS - now in town. Again, this has nothing directly to do with whether or not Scoble is an authentic human being or not.

I have met him, btw (and I doubt that he remembers my name) and he seems like a genuinely nice guy, although I have little doubt that he is a workaholic AND a blogaholic, and believes strongly that he is a positive, if not *humanising* influence on the beast that is Microsoft .. which personally I think is quite a stretch. I don’t believe I’ve anywhere endorsed the Economist’s point of view, but if I have then I made a mistake. And yes, like you I do have the sense that there’s a fair bot of blog-based *star-fucking* going on .. hey, just another one of those maladaptive, attention-seeking human things .. always been thus.

In fact the rest of that earlier post that you cite was also intended in my back-assed canucky way to be skeptical and critical, and I believe the last 2 paragraphs (posted below) from that post suggest this .. do they to you ?

“What are the backwards-looking odds that without such a clear and significant improvement from Firefox (not to mention some of the other great alternative browsers out there), Microsoft would have happily continued on deflecting and not really listening to its customers who, after all, have been complaining long and loud for some time about the inadequacies of IE 6.0 ?

My guess is that they would have - maybe - gotten around to it on their own time, notwithstanding their growing reputation (is it just really slick but maybe ultimately unsubstantive PR is the question that comes to mind) for listening to and working with their customers.”

Up to you, I guess, as to whether you think I’m being a cheerleader for Scoble. If I were him and were audtitioning me for the cheerleading squad, I don’t think I’d have me back after the first audition.

So, now back to your other point(s). I’m glad that you believe that you are able to maintain your authenticity whilst working for whatever corporation it is for which you work. And … my key point above … I believe .. is just that it would be interesting to know or find out what their definition of “authenticity” is, and whether or not it is the same or similar to yours, when push comes to shove … just exactly how “authentic” is the “authenticity” that they are prepared to tolerate ?

With respect to your “I think the history of technology is one that clearly demonstrates that corporations, nations, religions, large social organisms of any kind, learn to exploit technology against our “sociology” in order to ensure our efforts, our choices, are congruent with the needs of the larger organism … I think that you’re pretty much right.

I hope … somehow, vaguely … (and I know that this is the part you don’t like, and where you’re gonna have to just accept my stubbornness and let me be my “authentic” self, or else eventually we’ll find that line across which we don’t want to keep talking) .. that this almost-completely-new-to-humans set of interconnected, interlinked conditions … and yes, imo it is substantively different than telephone and radio .. those conversations more or less evaporate, and don’t have the persistence nor two-way hypertextyness nor visual interface that does this blogging and wiking stuff that is growing around us) … will help us learn faster, and make connections and grow relationships that will turn out to help us learn faster and wider, (perhaps) make better decisions, and also perhaps enable new and different (and both near and far, incarnate and virtual) ways of being with each other in community, whatver that may come to mean in ana era that offers us gated communities, metal detectors and countless opportunities to seal ourselves off from our next-door neighbours. That’s more-or-less what I mean by the *sociology* that may be enabled by the interlinked technology that now surrounds us in North America, Europe and much of Asia … whether it will cause widespread fundamental change to the structures that now shap *us* … well, i’m not (yet) prepared to just roll over and admit that it has always been thus so therefore it will always be thus .. but you’re probably right, and it probably will be. I guess that’s also why one should just let GWB and cronies work in plain sight at setting up a plutocracy or oligarchy (pick your term) as well as deconstruct any social program rhat may be of use to that whole crowd of indolent, non-personal-responsibility-taking poor people out there. Why dissent … its always been like this and it alwyas will be, right … there will always be neros and caesars and machiavellis, and … and … why bother working at the *sociology* .. it’s always been thus .. just get to know yourself more deeply and then it will be all good.

And yes, i do feel and consider myself part of several *communities* of people with whom I interact (much) more virtually than in 3D flesh, but i’ve got another 25 or 30 years or so to live and my intention at this stage is to keep interacting with and knowing at least some of them for the rest of that time period. What that looks like, and the depth and breadth of the relationships that it reveals, is yet to be seen, experienced and understood.

“Well, since you seem to want to keep on going.”

Sorry. It won’t happen again. Really appreciated that penultimate paragraph. I think at least one of us has crossed that line you mentioned.

And now it seems I have too.

Touchy ? I admit to it … do you ? .. seems so … I guess why I feel touchy is that I do indeed understand the message you keep offering, and generally, and in specific ways, I agree with it … but I think I think that if all we ever do or can do is concentrate on ourselves, then it’s more likely than ever that we’re doomed … and I think I do have a bit, though not a deep understnding, of the paradox wherein if we come to a greater conscious awareness of our selves, we are much more likely to have compassion on an ongoing basis for both our selves and others, and so perhaps begin to behave differently / “better”.

i wasn’t really ready to draw the line in the sand yet, but was adopting a slightly differenttone … my awkward attempt maybe at mimicking, since i have notioced the use of strong words such as stupified, banging head on keyboard, or offering people compassion because they keep on fooling themselves .. sometimes it feels as if you’re essentially saying you’re stupid cuz you really don’t get it .. and I also infer that you have taken a definitive positionthat will brook no other possibilities notwithstanding that this is a new set of conditions that a reasonable number of reasonably intelligent people DO feel may have some sort of real impacton individaul and collective consciousness, and sociological behaviour.

I’ll be around … this is my other front porch, so to speak.

hehe .. I guess if you were a corporation and I were an employee, there’s a reasonable chance i’d have had my sorry ass fired by now for being *authentic* ?