Neither.
Technology is not either some suppressive and destructive phenomena which
enslaves and demolishes individuals, or a vehicle of emancipation and freedom
which directs humanity to democracy. It has nothing to do with social,
political, and economic structures. Technology surpasses sociality. It is the
extension of intelligence of human organs.
Capitalism
is always preoccupied with capturing the individual in the cage called society,
whereas slavery and feudalism were using spiritual cage for obedience of
multitudes of people.
In
the middle of capitalism, Hegel claimed that our behavior, language, and
morality depend on the relationships within a society and economic, and
political awareness come out of this web of worldly interaction. His was a
revolutionary idea, but turned out to be the worst understanding of social
formations. Many followed him. His theory was the theory of humanity at the age
of steam engines.
In
the late capitalism, Marcuse and Habermas worked on Hegel’s revolutionary but
partly false idea and turned it into criticism of rationality through accepting
that the technology as ideology. Theirs is the theory of society at the age of
electromagnetic transmission.
It was good that they (Hegel—he couldn’t, Marcuse and Habermas) did not mingle Marx into their highly ornamented but shallow idea. Because Marx never thought about technology as ideology. Although Habermas had read the passages, Marx wrote on technology upside down (please see above Habermas' "Science and Technology as Ideology" article's vignette). Let's see what Marx had said:
“Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production, in changing the way or earning their living, they change their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.”
Marcuse contended, most probably he had not fully read Marx, relying
upon Weber’s rationality concept, that technology itself is a form of dominance
that advances particular interests and objectives and that the idea of
technical reason itself may be an ideology. He did not ask the question: Do hand-mill and steam-mill look like an
ideology in dominance? In the midst of the Vietnam War, he did not see that weapons
technology could not even dominate Vietnam.
He observed that dominance tends to become reasonable in sophisticated
capitalist societies by upholding a system that can defend itself by pointing
to the rise in productivity associated with advancements in science and
technology.
Here is his second falsehood: Science has nothing to do with technology.
Productivity is only the matter for capitalist, not the bread eating serfs.
Based on the essential difference between work (or rational activity
equated to science) and interaction (or language equated to society), Habermas
claimed that work is defined as instrumental or logical conduct that is directed
by technical specifications and knowledge (technology and science) or strategic
considerations. While interaction (society) is founded on analytical knowledge
(philosophy and religion) and develops value systems and general principles,
work is grounded in empirical knowledge and generates conditional predictions
about events. (Parentheses are mine).
Habermas
is voluminously simple minded and pragmatically social democrat, who once told
me, at the breakfast table in Dubrovnik in 1982, that in the European Union
Democracy, technology will be slaves and all people (in Europe, of course) will
be citizens just as in the Athenian Democracy. He was proven by technology to
be wrong just like his critical counterpart: Marcuse.
Had
Marcuse seen Trump and AI, he would not had written what he had wrote; where is
the rationality, where is the instrumental purpose in the USA today? At the age
of 95, Habermas have seen both, so that he is speechless.
They are both wrong. Firstly, science and technology are two very distinct activities of homo faber. Technology is the life survival kit destined in death. Science tries to go beyond death, claiming that it is the only truth. Secondly, science follows technology, so do society, politics, and economics. Read Marx!…
Long before science, there was technology and human intellect! Read Digitalism vs. Capitalism!
Prof. Dr. Sara Imari Walker, “An Informational Theory of Life”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhzxQraB2m0
Key sentences:
“Theories are existential technologies.”
"We are our history."
“Within assembly theory, the fundamental unit of life is not the
cell, but the lineage.”
“Life is causal histories — lineages of propagating information.”
“AI is shallow, for now.”
Trumpets of Trump:
I hope Trump will provide the answer
by declassifying the Roswell-1947 documents...
After Roswell-1947, why have the faces of all aliens been depicted as the
same face of the "breastfeeding woman" statuette in the Ankara
Archeological Museum? Was she an alien? The "breastfeeding woman" statuette was discovered in 1961 by archaeologist James Mellaart at
the Çatalhöyük site. Today, this significant piece resides in the Museum of
Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, Turkey. The "breastfeeding woman"
statuette, dated to the end of 3000 BC and made of bronze, was found during excavations
at the Horoztepe Mound belonging to the Hatti civilization in the Erbaa
district of Tokat province in Turkey-Central Anatolia.
The International UFO Museum and Research Center explores the July 3, 1947, incident and its evolving place in pop-culture.
Were aliens with us for millions of years?
This is a serious non-science fiction question. Why
were the allegedly found “alien” body’s face near Roswell in 1947 and the face
of the "breastfeeding woman" statuette in Ankara Archeological Museum
depicted similarly? Or, why are all drawings of alien faces similar to the
"breastfeeding woman" statuette? Is it just because of the drawings
of the 1947 incident and others replicating the breastfeeding woman statuette?
It cannot be. Is there a link between aliens and breastfeeding women? There is
no link except the depiction of the eyes of all aliens and the "breastfeeding
woman's" eyes are the same. The statue, which is dated to the end of 3000
BC, was made with a casting technique. In many regions of Anatolia, there are
many more of this statue with the same faces and body. Precious metal stones and
terracotta samples of female figurines of this age, representing the mother
goddess, were also often found in tombs, which also means a technique that was
beyond the know-how of the Hatti period.
Here are some
sources further to be investigated, FYI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzinHNSQbC8
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/04/20/the-roswell-incident-what-really-happened-in-1947/
On July 8, 1947, the FBI
Dallas Field Office sent a teletype regarding a “flying disc” that resembled a
high altitude weather balloon found near Roswell, New Mexico. This single page
is a serial from the larger UFO release found at http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO.
The 1994 Air Force report concluded that the predecessor to
the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, recovered debris from an Army Air
Forces balloon-borne research project code-named MOGUL. Records located
describing research carried out under the MOGUL project, most of which were
never classified (and publicly available), were collected, provided to GAO, and
published in one volume for ease of access for the general public.
This report discusses the results of this
exhaustive research and identifies the likely sources of the claims of
"alien bodies" at Roswell. Contrary to allegations, many of the
accounts appear to be descriptions of unclassified and widely publicized Air
Force scientific achievements. Other descriptions of "bodies" appear
to be actual incidents in which Air Force members were killed or injured in the
line of duty.
Air Force activities that occurred over a period
of many years have been consolidated and are now represented as having occurred
in two or three days in July 1947.
"Aliens" observed in the New Mexico
desert were actually anthropomorphic test dummies that were carried aloft by
U.S. Air Force high-altitude balloons for scientific research.
The "unusual" military activities in the
New Mexico desert were high altitude research balloon launch and recovery
operations. Reports of military units that always seemed to arrive shortly
after the crash of a flying saucer to retrieve the saucer and "crew,"
were actually accurate descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in
anthropomorphic dummy recovery operations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Anatolian_Civilizations
Hearing Date: November
13, 2024 11:30 am
Unidentified
Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth
Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation
National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Witnesses and testimonies:
Dr. Tim Gallaudet
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (RET.)
Chief Executive Officer, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC
Document
Luis Elizondo
Author, and Former Department of Defense
Official
Document
Michael Gold
Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy
and Partnerships; Member of NASA UAP
Independent Study Team
Document
Michael Shellenberger
Founder of Public
Published: Nov 13, 2024
WASHINGTON—The Subcommittee on
Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a joint
hearing titled, “Unidentified Anomalous
Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.”
Members discussed the Department of Defense (DoD) and the intelligence
community’s lack of transparency regarding UAPs, including undisclosed spending
on UAP-related programs and the national security implications of UAP
encounters at U.S. military installations. Members emphasized the need for
greater accountability from the DoD to share information with Congress and the
American people.
Key Takeaways:
The DoD has failed to provide
transparency on the existence and effectiveness of programs related to UAPs not
only to Congress but to the American people.
·
Dr. Tim Gallaudet—Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
(Ret.)—emphasized the importance of transparency on UAPs: “There is a national security need for
more UAP transparency as well. In 2025, the U.S. will spend over $900 billion
on national defense, yet we still have an incomplete understanding of what is
in our airspace… The
failure of the Executive Branch to share UAP information with Congress is an
infringement on the legislative branch that undermines separation of powers and
may be creating a constitutional crisis.”
Congress and the American people have
fundamental questions on the topic of UAPs and incursions near sensitive
military installations. Increased disclosure and transparency are needed to
provide security and information.
·
Michael Shellenberger—Founder of Public—discussed the
Executive Branch’s responsibility to be forthcoming with Congress on
information related to UAPs: “There
is, however, a growing body of evidence that the government is not being
transparent about what it knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP),
formerly called UFOs, and that elements within the military and IC are in
violation of their Constitutional duty to notify Congress of their operations.“
Member Highlights:
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information
Technology, and Government Innovation Chairwoman Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) discussed
the need for transparency on the level of taxpayer funds dedicated to UAP
research.
Chairwoman Mace: “I obviously would like to know how
much taxpayers are spending on this. You have the right to know. And if we are
spending money on something that doesn’t exist, why are we spending the money?
And if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public? Of course, national
security is a big issue, and if there is technology that could harm us or our
allies that is in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to stay
ahead of that to the best of our abilities.”
Dear Colleagues:
Digitalism is here… stabbing
capitalism. It seems the musketeers of Trump, namely Musk and his friends, are
the first stabbers. Capitalism will not die easily and quickly. Even communist
China had become capitalist after Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 declarations. The
social, economic, and political power that culminated in the hands of
capitalists is enormous compared with that of the feudal lord, but the
intelligence of the human has more historical accumulation and intrinsic and
scientific potential to change things.
Walter Benjamin wrote in his
article in 1935, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”:
“…When
Marx undertook his critique of the capitalistic mode of production, this mode
was in its infancy. Marx directed his efforts in such a way as to give them
prognostic value. He went back to the basic conditions underlying capitalistic
production, and through his presentation showed what could be expected of
capitalism in the future. The result was that one could expect it not only to
exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity but ultimately to create
conditions that would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself. The
transformation of the superstructure, which takes place far more slowly than
that of the substructure, has taken more than half a century to manifest in all
areas of culture the change in the conditions of production. Only today can it
be indicated what form this has taken…”
There is no technological
regression in world history, although social, economic, and political
repetitions and U-turns are inevitable.
That is why, in the
electronic age, Marshall McLuhan declared the social and economic "Global
Village", asserted that world politics were turning into the Middle Ages,
although the technology leaped forward to digitalism and politics regressed into
ecumenism.
Intelligence is
persistent; humans are volatile.
Intelligence is
with us; humans are transient.
Let’s get
into it:
Their Algorithmic
Constitutions? On The Emergence and Functioning of Platform Governance
Prof Ignas Kalpokas, Vytautas Magnus University, May 12, 2023
While the idea of platform governance is not new, the
complex nature of its functioning and the reasons for its emergence and
entrenchment still lack holistic conceptualisation. While it is impossible to
develop such a perspective in a single blog post, the considerations below are
intended as a sensitising tool and a call to think about platform governance as
simultaneously premised upon societal developments from which it has
emerged and a pervasive force shaping contemporary societies.
In order to better understand the how and why of
platform governance, at least two arguments are possible, although they are by
no means mutually exclusive: a historico-political and an economic one.
On the historico-political side – and for perhaps the
most eloquent account, see De Gregorio –
attention is drawn to the convergence in time between neoliberal deregulation
policies adopted by states and the rapid expansion of the Internet and the
associated digital technologies. The companies that have sprung from this
development have not only benefitted from the lax regulation of their own
business activities but have also stepped in to fill the regulatory and
governance lacunae left by the retreating state.
However, there is an important caveat: platform
companies have acquired quasi-public functions without the corresponding checks
and mechanisms for public oversight. While the public is capable to exert
democratic control over decision-making bodies (or, at least, that is the ideal
anyway, subsequently enabling critiques of democratic deficit or opening up the
space for more radical democratic alternatives) and the regulatory power of
states is (or, at least, ought to be) limited by constitutional norms and
international human rights commitments, that is entirely absent from platform
governance. Crucially, even the normative ‘ought’ element is absent – although
platform governance practices are typically premised upon sets of rules, norms,
or guidelines, often framed in terms of ‘community’ or similarly popular (if
not populist) references, they are, instead, sets of externally imposed
demands, based upon the commercial interests of platform companies and/or the
personal visions of tech entrepreneurs.
For
the rest of the article: https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/their-algorithmic-constitutions-on-the-emergence-and-functioning-of-platform-governance/
What Ignas Kalpokos rightfully puts forward against Yanis Varoufakis’ TECHNO-FEUDALISM and misses about digital social and economic platforms are both, in my book... Digitalism vs. Capitalism.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL
Humans want to be machine...
Nazım Hikmet, 1923
AI wants to be human...
Stanislav Lem, 1961
I want to be
machine…
Trump, rumble,
rumble!
trak tiki tak trak!
Being a machine is what I want!
This originates from my skeleton, my brain, and my flesh!
I am frantically trying to subdue every dynamo, like a whirling dervish!
Auto-draisine locomotives are dashing through my veins as my salivating tongue licks the copper wires!
Trak tiki tak, trrrrump, trrrrump…
Being a machine is what I want!
I will undoubtedly find a solution, and I will only be pleased with it, really.
The day I attached a double screw to my tail and mounted a turbine on my belly!
Trrrrump!Trak tiki tak!
Being a machine is what I want!
Nazım Hikmet, 1923 [with contribution of Veysel Batmaz]
Nazım Hikmet Ran, the Turkish poet and political activist, is one of the greatest literary figures ever to emerge from Turkey. Not only a communist committed to revolution, but also a romantic who was passionately in love with his country and his people, Hikmet was repeatedly arrested for his political beliefs and sentenced in 1938 to twenty-eight years imprisonment. Although an international campaign helped to secure his release under an amnesty in 1950, he fled to the Soviet Union in 1951, where he died in 1963 stripped of his Turkish citizenship. The poem, "Makinalaşmak İstiyorum-I want to be a machine," he wrote in 1923 in the Soviet Union.
“I also invented for them numbers.”
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound
….
§ 435
PROMETHEUS: Don’t think
that it’s out of delicacy or willfulness
That I’m silent. My heart is devoured with anxiety
When I see myself being insulted like this.
And
yet, who else but I completely determined
Their privileges to these new gods?
But that’s enough of that --- you know
The story I could
tell you. Now listen to the plight
Of human beings, how they were childish before,
And I made them intelligent and
possessed of mind.
I’ll tell you about them, not because I
blame them at all,
But to explain the kindness I granted them.
First of all, though
they could see, they saw to no purpose,
Though hearing they didn’t hear, but like
Shapes in dreams in their long life
They muddled up everything at random. They didn’t know
Brick-built sunny houses, or word-working;
But like ants that burrow, light as air,
They lived in the sunless corners of caves.
They
had no reliable sign of winter,
Flowering spring, or fruitful
Summer --- they did everything
Without intelligence, until I showed them
When the stars rose, and their settings that are hard to tell.
I also invented for them numbers,
The most
outstanding cleverness, and how to put letters together,
The recording of
everything, working
mother of the muses.
I first yoked the wild beasts
Enslaving them in
harnesses and in pack-saddles, so that
People might have a relief from their
heavy
Burdens, and brought under chariots rein-loving
Horses, the adornment of proud wealth.
And no-one else but me invented the sea-wandering
Fabric-winged vehicles of ships.
Although
I invented all these devices for mortals,
Alas! I myself do not
have a clever means whereby
I can escape my present distress.
…
(From Seven Tragedies, translated by Herbert Weir Smyth (1857-1937),
from the Loeb edition of 1926, now in the public domain, with thanks to
www.theoi.com and the Perseus Project for making the text available online. https://topostext.org/work/15)
Characters:
PROMETHEUS, cousin of ZEUS, a Titan HEPHAESTUS, son of ZEUS, an
Olympian POWER
(Kratos) and FORCE (Bia), servants of ZEUS
OCEAN, uncle of
Prometheus, a Titan (also uncle of ZEUS) IO, daughter of
Inachus HERMES, Son of ZEUS, an
Olympian CHORUS of
OCEANIDS, daughters of OCEAN and cousins of Prometheus.
NOTE: The Ontology of Digitalism is the title of coming book by Veysel Batmaz ...
Please first read Digitalism vs.
Capitalism by Veysel Batmaz... But before you read, you have
definitely and kindly to order it if you are interested. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL
(*) “Fernand
Braudel explains that the 15th to 18th
centuries offer very important theoretical insights to understand how and why
capitalism is born in Europe. One of his main conclusions is that contrary to
the common view that “capitalism” is synonymous with “free market economy,"
Braudel argues that these are not only different but also constitute two
opposite poles. Capitalism emerged out of the market economy [via technology]
but consolidated at the expense of it by bending the rules of the market.
Market economy is the sphere of routine economic life. It is where exchange
takes place with modest profits. Markets at every level are the vessels of economic life; they seize society from down to the top. Capitalism, on the other hand, is at the top of the pyramid. It is the sphere
of “super” profits. It deals with the aggregates [accumulation] at the top. It
has the power, flexibility, and superior access to information. Even though
capitalists constituted only a minority of society, they accumulated huge
wealth and soon began to control the rest of the society at the top of the
social hierarchy. Where capitalism got stronger, the societies began to be
transformed in the direction of the needs of capitalism. So, capitalist class
and capitalism had an influence much larger than their absolute size and thus
played a role of a “lever” for the transformation of the whole society.” (N. Tolga TUNCER, ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ İİBF DERGİSİ, 2011, 6(2), 55‐69)
Digitalism is a mode of
production and consumption; not a "new era," "fourth
industrial revolution," different "institutional logic,"
"digitalization of economies," or "phase of capitalism." It
is a novel mode, just like feudalism, which was killed by capitalism starting
500 years ago. After 500 years, now, digitalism is killing capitalism.
For Further Information
See:
Veysel Batmaz, Digitalism vs. Capitalism Amazon KDP, 2024.
Go
to Amazon and order it!
[1] Gamze Sart, Orkun
Yıldız, “Digitalism and Jobs of the Future”,
Istanbul, 2022
“The Fourth
Industrial Revolution takes the automation used today to a higher level and
uses technology to perform the tasks done by humans. Thus, the undeniable
presence of technology is seen in every field, from biology to production, from
logistics to education. The Fourth
Industrial Revolution is different. First of all, people can constantly
produce new information. People can realize the connection with each other
without any limitation due to internet and mobile devices, which has required
processing, storage, and image capacities because of technological advances by
the fourth industrial revolution. At the same time, thanks to the developing
technology, the relationship between the form of production and the elements of
its processes have also been changing (Sun, 2018). Third and last, the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Digitalism]
will give rise to a new economy form, the “sharing economy.” As a result,
new technologies are being heard of globally, such as intelligent machines, the
Internet of Things, and Neuralink, which aims to implant wireless computer
chips into the brain to cure neurological diseases. … countries’ economies are moving towards technology
and automation, too. However, with the digitalization that came with industry
4.0, humanity will face an unprecedented revolution in the era of computers,
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots, and radical changes will occur in
every field. Labour and occupations are among the elements that this change
will transform.”
For full
article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356191391_Digitalism_and_Jobs_of_the_Future
Istanbul Cerrahpaşa University
[2] Metin Gürler, “The effect of
digitalism on the economic growth and foreign trade of creative, Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) and high-tech products in OECD countries”,
Istanbul, 2023
“Digitalism refers to the increasing use and
integration of digital technologies in many areas of the economy, and ICT has
had a profound impact on economic growth and foreign trade in the creative and
high-tech industries. With the emergence and rise of digital technologies, new
sectors such as ecommerce, digital media and social networking, which create
new job opportunities and drive economic growth, have led to the creation of
new business opportunities and sectors. The development of these industries
has also led to the creation of new jobs and increased demand for highly
skilled workers, further spurring economic growth. In addition to all this,
digitalism has facilitated the internationalization of ICT, creative, and
high-tech industries, thanks to the increasing use of digitalism, it has become
easier for companies to collaborate by communicating with partners and
customers from around the world. In this way, businesses have been able to
expand their operations globally, and foreign trade and economic growth have
increased thanks to their entry into new markets. Digitalism
has also had a significant impact on the nature of commerce in the ICT,
creative and high-tech industries. The development of digital technologies has
made the cross-border trade and exchange of digital goods and services easier
and cheaper, resulting in growth in the digital economy. In this way,
businesses were able to sell their products and services globally without
needing to be physically present in each different market, thus creating new
opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to participate in
international trade. As a result, the impact of digitalism on the economic
growth and foreign trade of ICT, creative, and high-tech industries has been
quite significant. Digitalism has created new business opportunities and
industries, facilitated the internationalization of businesses, and transformed
the nature of business in these industries. There are four skills which will
be needed in the workplace of the future. These fastest-growing, highest-demand
emerging skill sets are: • Artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML).
• Cloud computing. • Product management. • Social media (WEF 2023a).”
For full
article: https://doi.org/10.56038/ejrnd.v3i2.267
Istanbul Medipol University
[3] Mohammad Alkarem
Khalayleha, Dojanah Baderb, Fatima Lahcen, Yachou Aityassinec, Ayat Mohammadd,
Majed Kamel Ali Al-Azzame, Hasan Khaled AL-Awamlehf, and Anber Abraheem, Shlash
Mohammad, “The
effect of digitalism on supply chain flexibility of food industry in Jordan." Amman, 2022
“The
importance of digitalism is to keep pace with the development of global
technology that has changed the ways of thinking and behavior of beneficiaries
and consumers. The digital transformation also accelerates the daily way of
work so that technology is exploited at work to be faster and better, which
reduces work effort and saves time to think about development and innovation.
Digital transformation has become the ultimate way in which organizations work.
Digitalism refers to "the change in people’s communication and behavior in
society as a result of the widespread use of digital technologies" (Gimpel
and Roglinger et al. 2015). Digitalism creates opportunities for organizations
and supply chain practices. Many organizations have started digital
transformation because they have noticed the importance and value of digital
technologies to help them M. A. Khalayleh et al./Uncertain Supply Chain
Management 10 (2022) 1551 in their business performance and development, and
organizations have also increased their administrative support for such
technologies (Bughin et al. 2015).
For full
article: Growing
Science /doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2022.6.001
Al al-Bayt University, Amman College, Al-Balqa Applied University, the World Islamic Sciences and Education University, Yarmouk University, Balqa Applied University, Amman University College, Petra University
[4] Lars Erik Kjekshus and
Bendik Bygstad, “The
Institutional Logic of Digitalism”, Oslo,
2021
“The concept
of institutional logic has proven to be fruitful for understanding
institutional change and in IS research. An important assumption in the
understanding of institutional logic is that interests, values, professional
norms and identities are embedded in the competing institutional logics within
an organisation. Decision behaviours result from how these interests, norms and
identities are enabled or constrained by these institutional logics. The
starting point of our study was the observation of unwanted inertia after
implementing large scale ICT (Information communication technology) systems in
hospitals. How are large scale ICT systems related to organizational
development and management? In this article, we show how ICT in organisations
could be seen as an institutional logic in itself. We suggest digitalism as a term for a new institutional logic, as opposed to other, more well-known logics
in organizations, such as managerialism and professionalism. Applying an
institutional logic way of understanding ICT allows us to unfold a pattern and
to explain the impact of change and stability that ICT has on organisations. To
develop our argument, we combine organisational change research and
institutional theory with information system research on enterprise
architecture, and large-scale ICT systems. The institutional perspective
unfolds the institutional features of large-scale ICT and contributes to the
explanation of strategies, which encompass organisational change and development,
in a dialectic manner of both deterministic and voluntaristic perspective.
Digitalism represents
a new way of understanding organisational development and adaptation and it
challenges the mainstream understanding of organisational behaviour as well as
the established IS literature. Our research aim is to analyse the implementation of
ICT systems in healthcare organisations according to this theoretical
framework. In the last part of the article, we give a discussion of the impact
of different blends of institutional logics and why it is useful to understand
ICT as an institutional logic in itself. The practical result of ignoring
digitalism and instead only seeing ICT as a tool is unwanted inertia and
organisational dysfunctionalities. We illustrate our arguments with examples
from a case of ICT implementation at a large Norwegian hospital where
digitalism was not acknowledged.
Digitalism represents a new set of regulations, values, integrations and perspectives on the co-ordination of organisations. Introducing large-scale systems, such as DIPS, brings digitalism into healthcare organisations. Does digitalism apply outside the healthcare field and in smaller organisations? We believe that the answer is yes, but this should be investigated by further research.”
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences,
and Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
University of Oslo
