Knowledge, economy, technology and society: The politics of discourse

The WSIS is centrally interested in knowledge and has defined for itself a mission that is broadly humanitarian. Its development 'talk' is rightly, replete with notions of equity. preserving culture, justice, human rights and and so on. In incorporating such issues into knowledge society and economy discussions. WSIS has adopted a different posture toward knowledge than is seen in dominant discourses. This study analyses the dominant knowledge discourse using a large corpus of knowledge-related policy documents, discourse theory and an interrelation understanding of knowledge. I show that it is important to understanding this dominant knowledge discourse because of its capacity to limit thought and action in relation to its central topic, knowledge. The results of this study demonstrate that the dominant knowledge discourse is technocratic frequently insensitive to the humane mission at the core of the WSIS. and is based on a partial understanting of what knowledge is and how knowledge systems work. Moreover I show that knowledge is inherently political that the dominant knowledge discourse is politically oriented toward the concerns of business and technology, but that an emancipatory politics of knowledge is possible.

[1]  Philip W. Graham,et al.  Technocratic Discourse: A Primer , 2000 .

[2]  Jay L. Lemke RESOURCES FOR ATTITUDINAL MEANING , 1998 .

[3]  J. Lemke Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics , 1998 .

[4]  David Rooney,et al.  Public Policy in Knowledge-Based Economies , 2003 .

[5]  David Rooney,et al.  Public Policy and the Knowledge Economy: Foundations and Frameworks (New Horizons in Public Policy) , 2003 .

[6]  Philip W. Graham Analysing policy values in a knowledge economy , 2005 .

[7]  J. Habermas,et al.  Knowledge and Human Interests , 1972 .

[8]  M. Archer Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory , 1996 .

[9]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[10]  Herbert I. Schiller,et al.  Mass communications and American empire , 1971 .

[11]  G. Gutting The archaeology of knowledge , 1989 .

[12]  J. Lemke Textual Politics: Discourse And Social Dynamics , 1995 .

[13]  M. Archer,et al.  Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach , 1997 .

[14]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[15]  P. Burke A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot , 2000 .

[16]  Steve Fuller,et al.  Is there Life for Sociological Theory after the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge? , 1995 .

[17]  Brian Vickery,et al.  A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot , 2002, J. Documentation.

[18]  Daniel Lerner,et al.  The passing of traditional society: modernizing the Middle East , 1958 .

[19]  David Rooney Wisdom, values and creativity in a knowledge society , 2005 .

[20]  Roy Bhaskar,et al.  Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy , 1989 .

[21]  M. Foucault The archaeology of knowledge , 1970 .

[22]  R. D'amico Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 1978, Telos.

[23]  M. Brady World Summit on the Information Society , 2006 .

[24]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[25]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Language and Mind , 1973 .

[26]  Bernard McKenna Public policy in knowledge-based economies: Foundations and Frameworks , 2004 .

[27]  David Rooney,et al.  A sociolinguistic approach to applied epistemology: Examining technocratic values in global 'knowledge' policy , 2001 .

[28]  James Paul Gee,et al.  The New Work Order: critical language awareness and ‘fast capitalism’ texts , 1995 .

[29]  Wimal Dissanayake,et al.  The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. , 1986 .

[30]  Hamid Mowlana Communication and development , 1996 .