Technocracy ->
Periodicals ->
NW Technocrat ->
Q2, 90 #319 ->
Meanderings Into Obfuscation
|
Technocracy ->
Periodicals ->
NW Technocrat ->
Q2, 90 #319 ->
Meanderings Into Obfuscation
|
Search |
Published in:
As new educators come along to update the definitions for dictionaries and encyclopedias, the truth sometimes becomes fractured along the way, just as a tale of gossip gains in mythical momentum the more it is told and tramples facts into obfuscation.
Most people hold faith in their dictionaries and encyclopedias. Why shouldn't they? After all, aren't these bastions of information based on truths gathered by learned educators? They wouldn't dare distort these truths, knowing how much the public relies on dictionaries and encyclopedias for factual information. They would go to the proper source, if necessary, to get correct information.
Or would they?
Consider this: According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981 edition, political means ``adept at, sensitive to, or involving politics and esp., party politics.'' And what does apolitical mean? According to the same dictionary, it means ``having an aversion for or having no interest in political affairs.'' Well enough, These seem to be reasonable definitions.
In this same edition of Webster's, theism is defined as ``belief in the existence of a god or gods.'' So shouldn't atheism be defined as ``disbelief in the existence of a god or gods''? (apolitical--atheism) It is, but Webster saw the need to add ``wickedness'' and ``ungodliness'' to this definition, somthing you don't find in most old dictionaries. When the head honcho at Webster's was approached on this discrepancy in definitions, he wrote: ``You need to understand that words are defined as they are used in a certain time period.'' So, evidently writers of definitions can incorporate their own use of a word with impunity. And in this age of fundamentalism and TV preachers, is it any wonder that atheism has taken on new meaning? Is Mark Twain, that intelligent man of words and compassion, now considered ``wicked'' because he embraced atheism?
In the 1939, 1940 editions of The Encyclopedia Americana, Harry Elmer Barnes, noted historian, said this about Technocracy: ``Whatever the future of Technocracy, one must fairly say that it is the only program of social and economic reconstruction that is in complete intellectual and technical accord with the age in which we live.''
The late H.G. Wells stated: ``Essentially Technocracy is a soundly scientific effort to restate economics on a purely physical basis.''
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defined Technocracy as: ``An organization and management of a country's industrial resources by technical experts for the good of the whole community.''
These definitions all say much the same thing but in different words. The studies of Technocracy embrace the entire fields of science and industry. Biology, climate, natural resources and industrial equipment all enter into the social picture. Technocracy is dealing with social phenomena in the widest sense of the word, including not only actions of human beings but also everything that directly or indirectly affects their actions. No one can expect to have any understanding of our present social problems without having at least a panoramic view of the basic relationships of these essential elements of the picture.
Factual definitions on Technocracy and its objectives like those quoted above were on the wane as was shown in the 1959 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana. Written by Richard P. Cecil, perhaps a political science teacher, he called Technocracy an American ``reform'' group. He should know that Technocracy is a research, educational organization whose objectives are to prepare the people of this North American Continent for social change; and Technocracy isn't trying to reform anyone! ``Technocrats believe...'' he says. He should understand that Technocracy is not a ``belief'' system. Its members accept facts on social trends as researched by Technocracy and other reliable sources. Technocrats are required to know. Not believe. ``Government will be in the hands of technical experts,'' says Cecil. Most dictionaries and encyclopedias today would have the public believe that Technocracy means a country ruled by scientists and technologists. But Technocracy is for the people directly and offers the greatest latitude of personal choice within the limits set by nature. In view of environmental degradation, which didn't just start yesterday, Technocracy has tried through the years to inform the people of the necessity of understanding the bounds of nature. The same technical experts who are holding this Continent together today would still be holding this Continent together in a Technate only without the interference of politics and money -- in other words, an intelligent social operation of North America, with technology under the direction of science.
The Encyclopedia Americana's most recent edition (1987) meanders even deeper into obfuscation. ``Technocracy was a radical social movement and philosophy that exploded into prominence in the United States in the early 1930s,'' says Sherman E. Gunderson of Wisconsin State University. He, too, should understand that Technocracy's scientific research on social trends is based on the firm foundation of fact; it is not philosophy of any kind. Any new scientific idea is considered radical: first it is suppressed; second it is ridiculed; and third it is accepted. Technocracy's blueprint for a social system that is compatible with our advancing technology and existing resources will some day reach that third stage. It has endured through the first and second stages.
Gunderson gives Thorsten Veblen credit for being the ``chief intellectual source of Technocracy.'' This simply is not so. Thorsten Veblen wrote articles for Dial Magazine based on meetings with the Technical Alliance, forerunner of Technocracy. Howard Scott was the intellectual source of Technocracy along with Willard Gibbs, Nicola Tesla and Steinmetz, to name a few. Veblen's articles were later incorporated in his book, ``The Engineers and the Price System'' (1921). Price System was Technocracy's term, not Veblen's. Veblen eventually allied himself with the raisin king, Ardzrooni, as his last few Dial articles were undoubtedly masterminded by Ardzrooni. The economists and sociologists associated with Veblen, an educator, became frightened in 1919 about the ideas and social implications of Technocracy, and they drifted toward the liberalism that was a prime exhibit of the New School for Social Research and other accredited education institutions.
Had either Richard P. Cecil or Sherman E. Gunderson taken the time to contact Technocracy Headquarters or any Technocracy Section across the Continent, they could have come up with a factual definition, but since fact doesn't seem to be a requirement in either Webster or the Encyclopedia Americana, why bother. At least Cecil said that the Technocracy movement has persisted. But Gunderson talks as though it may have faded away. The only reason Technocracy seemed to have ``faded rapidly'' is because William Randolph Hearst and others of his ilk issued orders to every newspaper official that the name Technocracy was not to be used under any condition whatsoever. They would be subject to dismissal and severance from their organization if they did so. Technocracy posed a threat to those who seek power. So if a new idea that has been heavily publicized in the national news media is suddenly silenced by those in power without the public knowing why...of course it seems to fade rapidly. The sabotage of silence against Technocracy has worked well. Writers of famous encyclopedias and dictionaries and national newspapers don't know where to find the facts about Technocracy, so they resort to fiction.
Funk and Wagnalls' 1976 edition of their ``New Encyclopedia'' says that Technocracy is a ``theoretical'' system of government...and that it offered a ``political'' system based on scientific and physical laws. Funk and Wagnalls has been corrected on their flawed definition and was sent Technocracy literature to help set the record straight. They were considerate enough to send a letter, saying they would correct the definition in their next edition. The next 1978 edition printed the same definition as the 1976 edition. So you can't trust Funk and Wagnalls either.
One can't help but wonder what other meanderings of obfuscation can be found in Webster dictionaries and Americana and Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedias.