The difficult language of Web 2.0/social media
May 13, 2008
This is a bit of a psycho-sociological-political semi-rant so if that doesn’t float your boat, click elsewhere. If you enjoy ethical debates, this might give you pause for thought.
A few weeks ago I had a Twitter exchange with Euan Semple on the issue of language as it is applied to many of the tools that characterize what we know as Web 2.0/social media. This was in the context of a post by Euan that used a cartoon by Hugh MacLeod where Hugh declared: “Business is socializing with purpose” and the conversation that ensued about language in comments to that post. Euan then followed up with:
The ideologies of the thirties filled the vacuum left by the loss of faith in religions triggered by the thinking of Einstein and Freud and the destabilization of the old order speeded up by the impact of the first world war. I am constantly thinking about the similarily major changes happening now in how we see societies and relate to each other, partly brought about by the impact of the web on our ability to connect with and understand each other, and the risk of slipping into utopianism and our own dogmas.
Yesterday, I saw the shownotes from a podcast recorded by Johnnie Moore where there was much more on language. [Download the podcast]. Words like love, passion, disruption, governance, power relationships and intimacy all get thrown into the mix. Taken together, they are a potent mix.
While I understand why these words fit into the landscape around the new forms of computing, they grate when viewed through the lens of the hard nosed business person. This is the language of what some will see as a politicized view of the world that derives a good deal of its thinking from an adapted form of Neo-Marxism. This is at odds with modern business, which, like it or not, has moved a long way from the patrician forms of organization we saw in the mid-20th century and which were extinguished in the late 1970s-80s. We need to move on if the new forms of technology are to make sense and deliver value. But there are more flaws in Euan’s argument.
I believe Euan’s explanation for what we see today is inaccurate because it ignores the influence that PR and marketing has had on the choices people make and the way those choices are made. What’s more, it ignores the psychopathy Joel Bakan identified that I believe informs the way professionals view tax avoidance and ethics.
An alternative view is that the language currently in vogue is both a reaction and an effort to recreate the social cohesion that seems lacking in modern society and which in part leads to the cynical antipathy recently reported around ‘green’ issues in The Independent. In that sense, those forms of words may well be the right fit.
But I can’t see this lingua franca working in the business environment with any degree of permanence. They are too politically charged. Euan disagrees, saying he has enjoyed success explaining these ideas to business leaders. I know Euan is a believer in self-organized ground up adoption of Web 2.0 technologies. I also know this can work as a model, especially where the informal hierarchy that exists in business is already operational. But that is not a universally applicable model and is a poor fit to professionals who experience difficulty in understanding the value that new technology brings and don’t see the value of ‘community.’
In the case of ICAEW members, this is perfectly understandable given the 30+ year history of grass roots members feeling as if they’ve been ignored. Euan might argue: “Ah-ha: a perfect reason for my approach.” He is right. But not couched in politicized language, nor without an intention of reconnecting members back to the Institute. This is one of the fundamental ambitions behind ion.
That is why I prefer to view these technologies as a pathway to collaboration where purpose is tied to business goals and models. There is no reason why there should not be an ethical, compassionate dimension to this approach. I’d argue strongly that there are very good reasons for baking those concepts into any Web 2.0 framework. But as to the language? It needs a radical rethink if it is not to serve as an alienating weapon for those that think social networks like Facebook should be banned and that the notion of community is just another marketing tool.
For an alternative approach where the concept of sharing is examined from the position of what has been happening among knowledge workers (which is what professionals are), I recommend reading through JP Rangaswami’s recent analysis of collaboration and why it fails. Notice the language. Here’s a tibit to whet the appetite:
Each of us has to learn to do what we are good at, and to let others do what they are good at. Even if we think we’re good at those things as well, we have to choose to do the things we are disproportionately better at. That’s not just a prerequisite for collaboration. That’s not just a prerequisite for teamwork. It’s a prerequisite for being a human being.
Collective stewardship requires respect for others. Respect for others requires respect for their skills and abilities. For some reason, we could handle it during the Agricultural Revolution, we could handle it during the Industrial Revolution, but when it comes to the Information Revolution, we’re falling short.
Comments
7 Responses to “The difficult language of Web 2.0/social media”
Got something to say?
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 0 times hide
The perils of quotes.
My reason for writing the paragraph you quoted was in fact meant to be a warning against too ideological an approach to what IMHO should be individual and pragmatic. Much of my work is with the very people you imply might feel uncomfortable with my ideas as the insitutions they work for try to keep up with the changing expectations of their workforces.
As to ignoring the effects of PR and marketing I’d love to but, as discussed in “Mediated” it’s bloody hard!
[Reply]
Fair comment Euan though it’s not the way I read it (the perils of context!!)
My argument is that the para you wrote provided a very one sided view of events. I’d give much greater weight to the influence of the Freudian movement under Bernays interpretation in the context of business.
Even so, it doesn’t address the language issue as I find it, hence my alternative way of considering how language could be moderated.
I trust you see that while we may not agree in the detail, I’m offering a considered alternative.
[Reply]
I’v responded on my blog - at some length!
[Reply]
[...] The difficult language of Web 2.0/social media | AccMan (tags: web2.0 business) [...]
Without motivating utopias there would be no web.
The web was created by weird people. The weirdest of these people are still going strong and continue to come up with ideas, tools and practices that the business world eventually adopts.
Those of us who think differently - creatives, makers, philosophers - non-corporate in the box types have always been a threat to corporate thinking because it is the very definition of a closed system. The corporate world - like academia and education - consititutes an echo chamber that is only just now starting to change. That change, I’d argue, is a direct consequence of the democratization of technologies and the voice of the commons.
I’m tired of hearing people say ” should” in relation to the web. That smacks of net neutrality and top down control to me. And I hear this “should” speak every time there’s a new application “it should be this. This is what it should be used for.” I’m sorry, we will define what it is and will be. We the users. Corporations can learn from us. And they can choose to adapt or perish.
[Reply]
@Melanie: Is that a joke? Because you certainly demonstrated the reverse-snobbery of “creatives” toward business, and thereby kinda proved Dennis’ point.
Your point seems to be that corporations aren’t really different from the Web utopians, just slower. That’s a POV unlikely to endear you in any context, especially when punctuated with a command to “adapt or perish.”
Some creative, non-mainstream ideas get popular and become mainstream. But most don’t. Some ideas change how business is done in some places; most don’t. It’s nuts to assume that the mainstream-adoption rate will be inevtiably higher for the socal-technology ideas being fostered right now on the Web.
[Reply]
[...] Engaging post on Web 2.0/social media by Dennis Howlett who works entirely “in the cloud”… [...]