"The most dangerous aspect of technology is that it distracts attention from what actually makes up a human being and from what people really need" (Elias Canetti)
 

The modern information society is based on applications of technology.  Anyone who wants to live and survive in this form of society needs the ability to handle technology and, in particular, personal access to it.  There are two additional requirements that apply to the missionaries propagating the great vision of an "information society": a knowledge of social and cultural issues.  In the present context, I only want to consider three aspects in more detail, three theoretical models of which I was unaware when the local IS project known as "GMOA" was conceived.  When I later looked back on the project I discovered that the success of our approach can best be explained by the following theories and theses.

1)

We did not understand the information society as a social revolution but as a natural evolution.  However, what is the actual difference?  I think that the proponents of the information revolution want to revolutionise all the aspects of an existing system, such as the organisation of a municipality or district.  This involves the unconditional replacement of the "old" by the "new".  In this way, both tried and tested approaches and those that have failed to prove themselves are sacrificed to the gods of software and hardware.  I would also describe this as the technological imperative: what is technically possible must, according to the principles of this revolution, also have been implemented - irrespective of whether it is socially acceptable or whether it is effective and sensible in the long term.

Evolution, on the other hand, always integrates the existing into the new.  Tried and tested strategies, media and customary means of communication are adopted and placed in a new context.  What does this mean in concrete terms?  Let us take an example from the records of the GMOA project: there is no reason to replace the gossip of a village with 2600 inhabitants by e-mails and news groups.  Gossip exchanged over the garden fence is a tried and tested form of communication and of tremendous social importance.  However, there were good reasons for us to extend the scope of the village gossip by making one addition: the setting up of a public GMOA information terminal as a new meeting-point for the generations, social classes and individual interests.  In fact, shortly after it had been installed traditional recipes were input into the local "World Wide Web bazaar" (what a contradiction in terms!) and called up by other individuals.  However, in spite of this the actual exchange of important information took place some distance from the computer terminal by means of face-to-face communication.  Only the content of the conversations was new and transcended national borders - a wonderful effect of the information society.

2)

A precondition for the further development of a complex system is the smooth functioning of very simple procedures.  Usually, an attempt is made to integrate all the aspects of the information society, in all their complexity, into the project concerned.  In my experience, these preconceived complex systems cannot be grafted on to a regional system if even the simplest procedures have not been properly thought through.  The question is, how must a supply of information be prepared, organised and administered so that the unemployed, academics and young people have equal access to the service?  How can the simplest needs for information that have existed for many years be satisfied when it takes months to integrate the local bus departure times or the times of regional events into such an information service?  I am neither worried about how we can build up a profitable video-on-demand service in the next ten years nor do I wish to ask this question.  The barriers to technical progress have come down but this has on no account happened as far as the limits to social perception are concerned.  For this, we do not need any new information barons but we do require a large number of clear thinkers to act as catalysts.

3)

An intact, regionally based information society does not need a central brain for everyday matters.  For a long time, information was an instrument of power, and anyone with access to it also had access to knowledge.  For political institutions this aspect is sometimes difficult to swallow.  After all, how can one preserve one's own image when everything is merged into a featureless "network" within the information society?.  I think that the most important role of a project leader is that of a non-partisan manager who looks after individual interests.  Anything else leads to a widening of existing divisions by electronic means: farmers only meet farmers and lawyers only meet lawyers.  However, where are the interdisciplinary synergies between the local primary school and regional farmers going to develop if everything is administered by a central brain that only has its own interests in mind?  How can we create information relay points in places where there has been no communication for some time?  And, in particular, what will happen if the relevant information is once again discussed behind padded doors and information made available to the public is mere "infotainment"?

4)

The central question is WHY