28 January, 2012 1

Technological Determinism and Ideology: The European Union and the Information Society Alvaro de Miranda Department of Innovation Studies University of East London

and Morten Kristiansen ESST Master Programme University of Oslo and University of East London

Introduction The concept of the 'information society', which has its origins in social science theory and debate, has become central in shaping the economic and social policies of the most economically developed countries, both individually and collectively through organizations such as the OECDE and the G7/8 group of nations, particularly since 1990. In this paper we demonstrate that the concept is consistently used as a metaphor to drive policy goals and that this metaphor has technologically determinist and ideological connotations. We trace briefly the historical evolution of the concept from its origins as social science theory through to its use as an instrument of recent policy in Europe. It is argued that the relationship between the concept and ideology has been present almost since its inception. A framework for analyzing the evolution of European policy on the 'information society' in terms of the tensions between what we have described as the forces for a 'social Europe' and those those for a 'market Europe' is provided. We have argued that the forces for a 'social Europe' have been politically much weaker than the forces for a 'market Europe' and that they have undermined their own case by accepting uncritically the concept of the 'information society' with its ideological and technologically deterministic connotations. The issue is not one of 'building an information society for all' but that of 'building a society for all'. Part I: The "Information Society", Technological Determinism and Ideology Our purpose here is not to try and trace the various academic strands which have contributed to the wide variety of possible interpretations of the concept to be found in the academic literature. Such an analysis has been adequately carried out elsewhere (Lyon, 1988; Webster, 1995). What we wish to do is to identify those academic ideas which have most influenced the thinking of policy makers and to demonstrate that ideology plays a major role in determining this choice. The view of the information society which has most influenced international policy making derives from the European Union, via the OECD, the first

28 January, 2012 2

international organization to adopt the concept as an instrument of policy in 1979. (Mattelart, 2000) According to the OECD:

'Industrial economies are at the threshold of potentially radical structural changes in their economic structures. Communication networks and interactive multimedia applications are providing the foundation for the transformation of existing social and economic relationship into an 'information society'. Such society is viewed as resulting in a paradigm shift in industrial structures and social relations, much as the industrial revolution transformed the then agrarian societies.' (OECD 1997)

This view of that 'industrial economies' are about to enter a social and economic revolution as a result of technological changes has been consistently reproduced during the 1990s elsewhere in the policy documents of government and international organizations of those 'industrial economies', although there may be some difference of opinion as to whether such a revolution has already started or is about to start. The proposition that it is the convergence of computing and communications technologies in the development of ‘multimedia technologies' which is inexorably leading to the development of the 'information society’ is echoed within the European Union. The web site of the EU Information Society Project Office announces with even greater certainty and clarity that:

‘Information technologies and communication are bringing about an industrial revolution based on information, on the scale of that which rocked the XIXth century. These technologies and the advances of digital electronics are now allowing the creation of new multimedia telematic services and applications which combine sound, image and text and for which all means of communication- telephone, telefax, television and computers- are used in a complementary way. The diffusion of these new technologies at all levels of economic and social life is thus gradually transforming our society into an 'information society' ’.

From Statement- ‘Towards the Information Society’, web site

(http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/backg/statement.html, downloaded on 30 July 1998) The advent of this great technology-driven new society may be inevitable, but what it is and how it is to be recognized is more difficult to discern from the policy documents and statements. Occasionally references are made to the growth sectors of the economy being those associated with ICTs. For instance, for Erkki Liikanen, European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society,

'To some extent, we already live, today, in the Information Society. Let's think for a moment about the changes that have occurred in

28 January, 2012 3

the last couple of years: the explosion of mobile communications; the exponential growth of the Internet; the increasing contribution of digital industries to growth and employment; the restructuring of business in all sectors of the economy to make the most of the Internet; the rapid emergence of electronic commerce and so on.' (Liikanen, 1999: 1)

This information society will be largely a beneficial society which will greatly contribute to improving social well being. Thus, according to the OECD:

'The development of an information society is expected to have important beneficial impacts on economies and society; it is expected to stimulate economic growth and productivity, create new economic activities and jobs. As well, a number of social benefits are expected to develop, including improved education opportunities, improved health care delivery and other social services, and improved access to cultural and leisure opportunities.' (OECD, 1997: 1)

Or, in the more poetic terms of Prime Minister Tony Blair in his foreword to the UK Government's vision of the information age:

'The prize of this new information age is to engage our country fully in the ambition and opportunity which the digital revolution offers. The prize is there for the taking. We must stretch out our hands and grasp it.' (Central Office of Information, 1998)

However, even though the advent of the information society is inevitable, it must also be built by government action. This is because:

'The first countries to enter the information society will reap the greatest rewards. They will set the agenda for all who must follow. By contrast, countries which temporise or favour half-hearted solutions could, in less than a decade, face disastrous declines in investment and a squeeze on jobs.' (European Council 1994)

Thus the prediction of the advent of an information society becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy insofar as government must be harnessed to ensure that it happens. However, the obvious contradiction between the statement that there is a race on between countries for early entry to the information society and that those that lag behind will face a 'disastrous decline in investment and a squeeze on jobs' and the optimistic view also held by the same advocates of the information society that it will benefit all seems to be lost on them. The ideological role of the concept begins to become clear when we examine the relative role which is ascribed to government and to markets in information society policies. For the OECD,

'The key element underlying these developments has been increasing competition within an exceptionally vigorous and

28 January, 2012 4

successful private sector in many previously regulated areas. A competitive environment is evolving rapidly in certain countries, most notably in the telecommunications sector, while other countries are in a transitional environment of introducing more competition.' (OECD 1997)

Furthermore, the OECD report

'… recognises that all social partners need to play an important role in the transformation of existing economic and social structures, and accords importance to allowing the private sector to take the lead in the economic and commercial development and implementation of the global information infrastructures-global information society (GII-GIS). The development of a global information society can help governments contribute to enhancing public goals, while retaining responsibility to ensure public safety and national security, the protection of citizens and the promotion of cultural diversity.' (OECD 1997)

This is also the view of the European Union, expressed in a news release issued by the Commission in the aftermath of the Bangeman report:

'The creation of the information society should be entrusted to the private sector and to market forces. Existing public funding should be directed to target its requirements. At Union level, this may require reorientation of current allocations under such headings as the Fourth Framework Programme for research and development and the Structural Funds.' (European Commission Press Release Cordis Record Control No. 2648, 13 June 1994)

The role of government is therefore to facilitate the task of the private sector and of market forces in creating the information society. In turn, it remains an self-evident truth that this highly beneficial market-created and technology-driven information society will 'help governments contribute to enhancing public goals, while retaining responsibility to ensure public safety and national security, the protection of citizens and the promotion of cultural diversity'. In policy terms, as already revealed in some of above quotes, the concept of the information society is now inextricably linked to the concept of 'globalization'1. The connection as far as the European Union was concerned was first clearly made in the Delors White paper 'Growth, Competitiveness and Employment' of 1993 (European Commission 1993). The term 'global information society' first appeared in a major policy document in the title of the1994 report to the European Union by the Bangemann High Level Group of Experts and became established on the global policy setting scenario at a G-7 Ministerial conference on this theme which was held in Brussels in February 1995. The conference enunciated a set of principles which were to govern policy initiatives in this area to which most of the OECD countries have subsequently

28 January, 2012 5

adhered. The order in which these principles are enunciated is revealing of the underlying ideology which has informed the 'information society' concept and implicitly establish the relative role ascribed to the market and to government which was subsequently made more explicit in the OECD policy documents that we have quoted above. The principles are:

• promoting dynamic competition;

• encouraging private investment;

• defining an adaptable regulatory framework;

• providing open access to networks; while

• ensuring universal provision of, and access to services;

• promoting equality of opportunity to the citizen;

• promoting diversity of content, including cultural and linguistic diversity;

• recognizing the necessity of world-wide cooperation with particular attention to less developed countries. (OECD 1996)

Following the G-7 conference on the Global Information Society, the OECD Council, meeting at Ministerial level in May 1995, began an initiative entitled 'Global Information Infrastructure and Global Information Society ' which became known by its acronym GII-GIS. The 1997 OECD report on GII-GIS Policy Requirements to which we have already referred then states

'The sea change taking place in information and communication markets and the development of interactive applications is fundamentally based on three factors: convergence, globalisation and universal network access.' (OECD 1997)

The ideology surrounding the notion of the information society in the consensus international policy documents thus becomes clear. It states that we are witnessing the inexorable arrival of a technology-driven revolutionary new global society which will be beneficial to all citizens and to society at large, and which will bring about great improvements in all areas. However, even though it is inevitable and beneficial, the information society must also be built by governments at the fastest possible rate because those countries which are left behind 'will face a disastrous decline and a squeeze on jobs'. The same logic which is applied to companies which are urged to innovate in order to survive competition is now applied to countries. The building of this brave new society involves governments giving priority to markets and to de-regulation to ensure competition. Those societies which de-regulate the fastest are those which will reap the greatest benefits. The implicit message in this ideology is that there are no choices. The inevitability of the information society, brought about by technological forces, means that the most citizens, governments and social actors can do is to facilitate it and adapt to it as quickly as possible. They might as well do it anyway as it will bring about great benefits. However as, inevitably, some will be left behind, there will be losers., such a fact must be hidden from view.

28 January, 2012 6

Part II: The European Road to the Information Society: a Market or a Social Europe? The relationship between the concept of the information society and free market ideology has a long historical pedigree. Its history is also revealing of the ideological role that predicting the future has. As Mattelart (2000) has recently pointed out, the most influential academic initiator of the concept was Daniel Bell through his 1973 book The Coming of the Postindustrial Society which Bell published following his earlier (1960) The End of Ideology. Bell's work towards his seminal book was undertaken whilst he presided over the Commission on the Year 2000. The book itself was subtitled A Venture in Social Forecasting, and as such has much in common with dominant US academic and policy thinking of the time. The function of predicting the future, as Alvin Toffler (1970) tells us in the introduction to Future Shock, is to help citizens adapt to its inevitability. According to Bell, the postindustrial society will also be free from ideology, the theme of his previous book. The prediction about the end of ideology was first discussed during a meeting on the 'Future of Freedom' in 1955 organized by the CIA-sponsored Congress for Cultural Freedom. Present at the congress were the economist von Hayek, Raymond Aron, and US sociologists Daniel Bell, Seymour Lipset and Edward Shils. (Mattelart, 2000) The inevitability of the information society was finally enshrined in European policy by the 1993 Delors White Paper Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (European Commission 1993). This most influential of European White papers set the guidelines of practically all European policy since its publication. Written at a time when Europe's unemployment problem was at its height, its main purpose was to delineate a strategy for dealing with this problem which most European governments saw as their central task. By then orthodox opinion in the international economic policy bodies such as the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF was that Europe's unemployment problem was mainly due to its social policies, with regulated and protected labour markets and welfare policies reducing Europe's competitiveness in the global economy. Negative comparisons were made between the failure of most European countries in controlling unemployment and the success of the US in reducing its own unemployment problem through market oriented policies. Within Europe, the positive role model was seen as the UK which had followed US-style policies. The Delors White paper did not challenge any of these assumptions, and conceded the inevitability of both the information society and of globalisation. The strategy it proposed to deal with European unemployment was implicit in its title. Employment would be created through growth which would be achieved by enhancing Europe's competitiveness, particularly in the global information society. The White Paper, however, attempted to maintain its European social credentials by conceding that these market-oriented policies for growth would be likely to produce both increasing inequality and environmental problems. Government action would therefore be necessary to combat 'social exclusion' and to achieve 'sustainable development'. The scene was thereby set by the White Paper for an internal

28 January, 2012 7

struggle between Europe's social and market forces. The playing field was however far from level since the White Paper already conceded both the inevitability of the information society and of globalization, both concepts which, as we have shown, are intimately associated, even in its intellectual roots, with the US's and the multinational corporations' view of the world. At the same time as the White Paper was adopted by the European Union, a decision was taken to create a High Level Group of Experts under the Chairmanship (sic) of Martin Bangemann, Commissioner responsible for industry and telecommunications2 and Vice-President of the European Commission. Martin Bangemann thus became a key actor in developing policy for building the information society not just in Europe but internationally. The High Level Group chosen by Bangemann became a 'group of executives from the telecommunications, electronics and media industries' (European Commission Press release, 16/2/1994). All but one of its 19 members, besides Bangemann, were heads of major European media or IT conglomerates, including the heads of Olivetti, Deutsche Telekom, BT, Canal+, Telefónica, Machines Bull, IBM-Europe, Ericsson, Philips and Siemens. It also included the current President of the European Commission, then head of IRI, Romano Prodi. Four of the members were simultaneously members of the European Roundtable of Industrialists, a lobby group made up of 40 heads of European-based multinationals set up to influence European economic policy3 (Doherty and Hoedeman 1994). It set about its work with commendable expediency. Its first meeting took place in February 1994 and by June 1994 it had drafted its report which, as we have noted, first enshrined the concept of the 'global information society' in European public policy. Entitled 'Europe and the Global Information Society' (European Council 1994), the report, as we have already noted, gave the private sector the main role in building the information society and gave governments the role of 'opening up infrastructure and services to competition', 'removing non-commercial burdens and budgetary constraints imposed on telecommunications operators' and 'setting clear timetables and deadlines for the implementation of practical measures to achieve these goals' (European Commission Press Release 13 June 1994, Cordis Record Control No.2648). It also urged the European Union to establish a common regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights, pointing out that such protection 'must rise to the new challenges of globalization and multimedia applications' in order not establish consumer confidence lack of which would 'certainly undermine the rapid development of the information society.' The report further established that 'initiatives in the field of applications are the most effective means of addressing the slow take-off of supply and demand' and identified the following project areas:

• teleworking;

• Distance learning;

• University and research networks;

28 January, 2012 8

• Telematic services for SMEs;

• Road traffic management;

• Air traffic control;

• Healthcare networks;

• Electronic tendering;

• A trans-european public administration network;

• City information highways. (European Commission Press Release 13 June 1994, Cordis Record Control No.2648) The urgency of the situation was constantly stressed by Bangemann. In June 1994 he told the 1994 European Information Technology Conference:

'The information society is in the midst of a revolution. In such a situation of discontinuity, the costs of inaction are higher than the cost of action.' (European Commission Press Release IP/94/51734 9 June 1994)

The Bangemann report recommendations were adopted by the European Council at its meeting in Corfu in June 1994. A press release issued soon after the Council meeting by the Commission states:

'The Council considers that the current unprecedented technological revolution in the area of information presents numerous opportunities for economic progress and development in the widest sense. It is, however, up to the private sector to respond to these opportunities…'

Following the Council's adoption of the recommendation, Commissioner Bangemann commented:

'… the race is on at global level and those countries which adapt themselves sooner rather than later will set the technological standards for other countries to follow.'

At the same time he announced that a Commission Information Society Project Office would be set up to act 'as the interface between the Commission and the outside world, in particular for industry, the research community and service providers.' Also, the 'Commission will launch studies in collaboration with other bodies such as the OECD on guidelines for economic and social adaptation to new technologies…' (our emphasis) (European Commission Press Release IP/94/683, 22 July 1994) The influence of Commissioner Bangemann's approach to building the information society widened to the global stage when the G7 group of countries, at the invitation of the European Commission, agreed to a special conference which would 'be held in the framework of the Bangemann Group report on the global information society'. (European Commission Press Release IP/94/847, 14 September 1994). The ministerial level conference

28 January, 2012 9

was held on the 24 and 25 February and largely adopted the Bangemann approach. The Bangemann report, with its technologically determinist approach and its sole emphasis on market forces, caused considerable consternation amongst the supporters of a 'social Europe'. Within the Commission a critique of this approach began to crystallize around the Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner Padraig Flynn, and the Employment and Social Affairs Directorate General V on whose employment portfolio Commissioner Bangemann had begun to encroach through his pronouncements on the employment potential of the information society. Pressure from this quarter led to the Commission approving in February 1995 the setting up of two new groups. One was the Information Society Forum, whose aim was to 'contribute to open debate and reflection on the challenges of the information society', eventually set up under the auspices of DGXIII; the other was a High Level Group of Experts on the Social and Societal Aspects of the Information Society whose work was eventually supported by DGV, an altogether much less powerful Directorate General than DGIII. The group was made up almost entirely of respected European academics who had worked in the fields of innovation and the information society with a track record of combining their technical expertise with social concerns. (European Commission Press Release IP/95/150 22 February 1995) The contrast between Commissioner Bangemann's High Level Group of Experts on the Global Information Society and the DGV's High Level Group of Experts on the Social and Societal Aspects of the Information Society is worth dwelling on because it is revealing of the relative influence of academics and industrialists on the policy making process. Whilst the setting up of Commissioner Bangemann's High Level Group was agreed by the European Union only at the end of December 1993, its composition had been established and its first meeting held on 15 February 1994 and its recommendations were announced on the 13 June 1994. The High Level Group of Experts on the Social and Societal Aspects was first announced in February 1995 and its first meeting took place on the 18th June 1995. The Group issued its 'First Reflections' in February 1996, a year after it was first announced and the full report is dated April 1997. Commissioner Bangemann took care to Chair his Group of Experts himself, whilst DGV's Group of Experts was chaired by a respected academic, Prof. Luc Soete, Head of MERIT, University of Maastricht. The Bangemann Report is poorly argued and shallow, occupies half the length of the Social and Societal Aspects report and summarizes its recommendations into a crisp Action Plan taking up 2 pages. The Social and Societal Aspects report is carefully argued, complex and the 12 recommendations that it makes, each with several sub-clauses, are extremely vague and abstract, including titles such as 'Managing time', 'including everyone', 'the death of distance'. The Social and Societal Aspects report is clearly a critique of the way the European policy had been developed thus far by the Commission under the leadership of Commissioner Bangemann, particularly its technological

28 January, 2012 10

determinism with the assumption that all that society can do is to adapt to technical change. At one point the report states:

'If we accept the argument that developing technological capabilities does involve a complex, endogenous process of change, negotiated and mediated both within organisations and at the level of society at large, it is obvious that policies cannot and should not be limited to addressing the economic integration of technological change, but must include all aspects of its broader social integration. We thus reject the notion of technology as an external variable to which society and individuals, whether at work or in the home, must adapt.

In our interim report we emphasised the lack of social integration in the current European information society debate and criticised the technological determinism of much of the expert policy language as limiting the scope for policy action. We claimed that the apparent lack of public support for the information society was in part a reflection of the predominance of technological considerations in the European policy debate. We continue to view this as our main contribution.' (European Commission 1997: 19/20)

The thrust of the report is therefore that social actors have choices, and that the choice should be, as the report's title indicates, to set about 'Building the Information Society for All’ (our emphasis). The report, however, failed to challenge the received notion of the information society or of its inevitability. It merely tried to influence what kind of society it should be. This failure limited its ability to act as a rallying platform for the forces of a 'social Europe', further compounded by its endorsement of the premises of the Delors White paper. The report explicitly states:

'But the fundamental challenge of the European IS is undoubtedly the search for competitiveness based on cultural, educational and social variety' (European Commission 1997: 61)

At the same time as the Social and Societal Aspects report was being prepared, DGV was also working on a Green Paper which took a similar approach, and tried partly to undermine the technological determinism of the Bangemann action plan by emphasizing the need to place technology in the service of people without in any way challenging its optimistic predictions. It appeared under the title 'Living and Working in the Information Society: People First’ (European Commission 1996) However, the presentation by the Commission of the issues involved continued to perpetuate the technologically determinist approach and to stress the need for people to adapt. In the Commission's Press Release announcing its publication, the Green Paper is presented in the following way:

The Green Paper examines how information and communications technologies are reshaping production and work organisation and

28 January, 2012 11

transforming people's lives. In particular it addresses peoples' concerns about social and economic upheaval and rapid changes in the following questions:

• Will these technologies not destroy more jobs than they create and will people be able to adapt to changes in the way they work?

• Will the complexity and the cost of the new technologies not widen the gaps between industrialized and less-developed areas, between the young and the old, between those in the know and those who are not?'

(European Commission Press Release IP/96/688, 31 July 1996)

Furthermore IST 98, the annual Information Society Technologies Conference held in Austria in December 1998, adopted as its theme 'Living and Working in the Information Society', the title of the Green Paper, but leaving out the 'People First' tag. The conference was organized by the European Commission's ACTS, Esprit and Telematics Applications Programmes and supported by Telekom Austria and Hewlett Packard Europe. The introduction to the press release announcing the conference stated:

'The Information Society is based on a digital revolution whose effects on society could be as remarkable as those of the Industrial Revolution.'

The other main prong of the counter-attack on the Bangemann philosophy, maintaining a similar approach to the DGV initiatives, came through the Information Society Forum. Its first annual report arrived at

'the essential conclusion that people are the initiators and are as important as markets in achieving a successful transition to the Information Society. If their needs are taken into account as citizens, as consumers and as human beings, then Europe's economic development will be strengthened, resulting in greater prosperity and a better quality of life.' (European Commission Press Release IP/96/605 9 July 1996)

Although the playing field had already been set at a considerable incline by the terms of the Delors White Paper, further tipped by the imbalance in influence of the DGs carrying respectively the market and the social flags, the forces of 'social Europe' did gain some significant concessions. The Fifth Framework Programme accepted in part a critique of the technologically determinist approach of the Fourth and chose to link technological development specifically to the solution of what it saw as socio-economic problems defined through its thematic programmes:

• Improving the quality of life and the management of living resources;

• Creating a user-friendly information society;

• Promoting competitive and sustainable growth;

• Preserving the ecosystem.

28 January, 2012 12

However, in this programme, the lion's share of its 16 billion euros budget goes to 'creating the user friendly information society', (24%), closely followed by 'promoting competitive and sustainable growth' (19%) (European Commission Press Release 14/1/1998). It remains to be seen how much of it is devoted to 'user friendliness' and to ‘sustainability’4. Their momentum was temporarily enhanced by the European Parliament indictment of the Commission which led to its resignation in March 1999. This was reinforced by the suspension of Martin Bangemann from the Commission in July 1999, during their caretaker tenure pending the arrival of the new Commission. The suspension occurred because Commissioner Bangemann accepted a senior position with Spain's largest telephone company, Telefónica (European Commission Press Release, Cordis Control No. 13226, 2 July 1999). From the end of 1998 onwards European information society initiatives began to carry the 'for all' or 'People First' tag. The research and technology development programmes associated with 'building' the information society began to use the label 'the user-friendly information society'. On the 8th December 1999 the new President of the European Commission, a member of the original Bangemann High Level Group of Experts, launched the 'eEurope' initiative' to accelerate Europe's transformation into an Information Society'. It was entitled 'eEurope-An Information Society for All' (our emphasis). At its launch Mr. Prodi stated that 'these changes, the most significant since the Industrial Revolution, are far reaching and global. They are not just about technology. They will affect everyone, everywhere…' (our emphasis) (European Commission Press Release IP/99/953, 8/12/1999). The tension between the forces of a ‘technologically/market-driven Europe’ and those of a ‘social Europe’ has continued under the new Commission, but in a somewhat more moderated form. The IST 99 had as its theme 'Europe in the Information Age- Accelerating the Transition'. The opening address was given by the new European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society, the Finn Erkki Liikanen. In his opening address most of the assumptions underlying the concept of the 'information society' are retained, albeit in a moderated form. The inevitability of the technologically- determined changes persist. Following the extract from his speech which we have previously quoted, he states

'These changes are taking place against the background of globalisation. The combination of global competition and technological progress has a sweeping effect on Information Society industries.'

On the other hand, unlike Commissioner Bangemann, he recognizes the existence of the arguments for a 'social Europe':

'Technology is at the heart of the information society. But what really matters is how this technology is used by whom and for what purpose.'

28 January, 2012 13

On the other side, Anna Diamantopolou, the new Social Affairs European Commissioner, has thought it necessary to mount a defense of the European social model at a lecture to the Institute of European Affairs in Dublin entitled 'The European Social Model: Past its Sell-by Date?' (July 2000). At the same time it denies any contradiction between this and the market model and concedes the need to modernize the social model. She states:

'..our social model, and the values, policies that underpin it, in all its diversity in Europe, need to be dynamic … its purpose and the values constant. But also the means of achieving its purpose are consistent with the conditions of the new century, not the old one.'

Conclusion The purpose of this paper has not been to deny that recent years have witnessed significant social and economic changes in which technology has played an important role. Such changes have undoubtedly taken place and are the legitimate subject of social scientific analysis, including by those involved in the social study of science and technology. Our purpose has been mainly to demonstrate through the case study of the 'information society' how certain concepts which start off as social science theory attempting to explain social change, later acquire the role of metaphor driving particular social and economic policies. The role of the metaphor is to hide the underlying social interests which are behind the particular policies being pursued or argued for. It carries therefore strong ideological connotations. We have also implicitly demonstrated that social science theory is influenced by the set of social circumstances in which it is created. Particular theories and concepts, such as that of the 'information society', are then picked up and used to drive and justify policy. The production of social science research is then, in turn, affected by the priorities set up by the policy, as is the case with social science funded under the European Framework Programmes and under various national research programmes around the concept of the 'information society'. We have also attempted to demonstrate how the concept of the 'information society' that has come to dominate official European and OECD policy discourse carries strong undertones of technological determinism. We have argued that this presentation of technology as an autonomous force driving social change has the ideological purpose of hiding the fact that the changes which are being presented as inevitable will bring about winners and losers. It therefore serves the interests of the particular social groups likely to benefit. It also aims to convince the potential losers that to resist is futile since the changes are inevitable and beyond human control (Mészáros,1989). In the particular case of the 'information society', this ideological role has also become associated with the extension of the free market to all areas of society and of the globe and with the destruction of the concept of society.

28 January, 2012 14

It has been argued, with Mattelart (2000), that the 'information society' has been associated with this ideology from its very outset in the work of its most influential academic originator, Daniel Bell, and that 'futurology' aims to lead human beings to accept the inevitability of particular changes. It simultaneously denies the existence of any conflicts of social interests, as in the case of the 'end of ideology' movement. This theme has been pursued by tracing the evolution of European Union policy on the 'information society'. It has been demonstrated that the proponents of the inevitability of the European information society use the same technologically determinist arguments and paint a picture of a rosy future in which all will benefit. The interests behind the use of these arguments are identified since the main driver of European policy in this area has been the Report of the Bangemann Group made up almost exclusively of executives from European multinational IT and media enterprises. The evolution of European policy in this area has been analyzed in terms of the tension between social and political forces which could be broadly characterized as belonging to two separate camps for which we have used the short-hand terms 'social Europe' and 'market Europe'. The arguments used by the forces for a 'market Europe' could be deemed to be contradictory insofar as they talk both of the inevitability of the 'information society' and of the need to build or create it. However, the real contradiction is between the arguments that the information society will benefit all and those stating that unless Europe is first into the information society, it will suffer dire consequences. In reality the social and economic changes which have been associated with the information society, particularly in the US, often used as a role model, have brought about a large increase in inequality and an absolute decrease in the standard of leaving of the poorest strata of society. They have also led to an increase in insecurity and social exclusion. This has been the subject of intense academic study and debate in the United States. (Head, 1996; Freeman, 2000) 5 It has been argued that the forces for a 'social Europe' have considerably weakened their position by uncritically accepting the concept of the 'information society', given its broader ideological connotations. Efforts to critique the technological determinism in the concept are therefore doomed to failure. The issue is therefore not one of building an 'information society for all' but that of 'building a society for all' in which technology plays the role of servant of social need rather than that of master. References Bell, D. (1960) The End of Ideology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe

28 January, 2012 15

Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books Central Office of Information (1998) Our Information Age- the Government's Vision. Central Office of Information Council of the European Union (1999) 'Decision of 25th January Adopting a Specific Programme for RTD on a User-friendly Information Society', Official Journal L 064 , 12 March, pp. 0020 - 0039 Diamantopolou, A. (2000) 'The European Social Model: Past its Sell-by Date?', Lecture to the Institute for European Affairs, 20 July (downloaded from http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/employment_social/speeches/ 000720ad.pdf on 10 May 2001) Doherty, A. and Hoedeman, O. (1994) 'Misshaping Europe- The European Round Table of Industrialists', The Ecologist, 24, 4 European Commission (1993) Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. COM(93) 700, 5 December European Council (1994) Europe and the Global Information Society. Brussels: European Council European Commission (1996) Green Paper- Working and Living in the Information Society: People First European Commission Comm(96) 389 Freeman, C. 'Social Inequality, Technology and Economic Growth' in Wyatt, S. , Henwood, F., Miller, N. and Senker, P. (2000) Technology and In/equality. Routledge Head, S. (1996) ‘The New Ruthless Economy’, New York Review of Books, February 29 Liikanen, E. (1999) 'Europe in the Information Age', Opening Address to the Information Society Technologies Conference, Helsinki 22 November (downloaded from http://www.ist99.fi/programme/summaries/opening/speechforopeningEL.doc on 10 May 2001) Lyon, D. (1988) The Information Society: Issues and Illusions. Cambridge: Polity Press Mattelart, A. (2000) 'Archéologie de la 'Société de l'Information', Le Monde Diplomatique, August Mészáros, I. (1989) The Power of Ideology. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf OECD (1996) Global Information Structure- Global Information Society (GII-GIS): Statement of Policy Recommendations Made by the ICCP Committee. Paris:OECD/GD(96) 93 OECD (1997) Global Information Structure- Global Information Society (GII-GIS): Policy Requirements. Paris: OECD/GD(97)139 Toffler A. (1970) Future Shock. London and Sidney: Pan Books Webster, F. (1995) Theories of the Information Society. London: Routledge Endnotes 1 The link was first made by American presidential adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1969

book Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technetronic Era (Mattelart 2000) 2 Commissioner Bangemann subsequently added 'information society' to his list of

responsibilities. 3 For a detailed discussion of the role of the European Roundtable of Industrialists and a list

of its members at the time, see Doherty and Hoedeman (1994)

28 January, 2012 16

4 In any case the concept of 'user friendliness' is arguably about making the technology

acceptable to the user rather than making technology serve social need and the concept of sustainability is difficult to define meaningfully. 5 See also the University of Texas Inequality Project publications: url:

http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/