Manuel Castells Manuel - Critical Education in the New Information Age

It is a striking paradox that the theory of postindustrial society was formulated, in its essential nucleus, in the late 1960s (Touraine, 1969) and early 1970s (Bell, 1973), just before the full blossoming of the revolution in information technologies. Yet, todays social theorizing of structural transformation of our societies is still dominated by these early theoretical constructions, harbingers of a broader set of social and economic interpretations elaborated approximately in the same period (Richta, 1969; Fuchs, 1968; Porat, 1977). All these theories were based on the common idea that industrial society (not capitalism) has been historically superseded in its logic and structure. The fact that the theory anticipated the major technological transformations to come (the microprocessor, 1971; the personal computer, 1975; the recombination of DNA, 1973) shows that information technologies are an essential component of the overall social transformation, but it is not the only determinant factor. These technologies are the result of social and institutional demands for the tasks they can perform as well as the source of a series of fundamental transformations in the way we produce, consume, manage, live, and die.

In its essence, the theory of postindustrialism starts from a major empirical observation, that productivity and economic growth still organize societies around their logic, both in the work process and in the distribution of the wealth thus generated. In this sense, the theory is in line with the Marxian tradition. Furthermore, the engine for change to postindustrialism is an innovation in the productive forces; throughout the first half of the twentieth century, science and technology became the main sources of productivity. And in the post-World War II period, knowledge and information became the fundamental elements in the generation of wealth and power in society. This is the foundation of the theory. However, an immediate specification of such a statement makes things more complicated. Technology is not just science and machines; it is social and organizational technology, as well.

Indeed, in the first econometric analyses that founded the theory of postindustrialism (Solow, 1957; Kendrick, 1961) it was clear that the combination of production factors (basically labor and capital) and the efficient use of energy, all through organizational technology, were the basis for the hypotheses on the sources of productivity. According to these econometric analyses, the growth of productivity in industrialized economies did not come from the quantitative increase of capital or labor in the production process. It came from somewhere else, from a mysterious, unidentified, statistical residual that appeared in the equations characterizing the aggregate production function. It was hypothesized that such residual was the empirical expression of science, technology, and management.

Because both science (and its technological applications) and social technology (including, at some level, social science, along with managerial expertise) were considered to be the critical forces in the steady growth of productivity over time (above 2 percent per year in the United States), all social processes and institutions were to be involved in the productive forces. The various dimensions of society become more interdependent, and the worlds of economy and technology depend more than ever on government and, therefore, on the political process. Postindustrial societies, organized around social choices, are more political than agricultural societies (organized around survival against a hostile nature) and than industrial societies (organized around processes of economic accumulation).

Thus, the occupational structure of society becomes more diversified in terms of activity. The expansion of services means simply an ever-growing extension of human work beyond the sphere of direct, material production. Postindustrial societies are characterized, and even defined in the thinking of some authors, by the shift from goods-producing to service-handling activities. This is the hard empirical trend repeatedly used by social theorists as evidence of postindustrialism. The decreasing weight of manufacturing in employment and in its contribution to gross domestic product is cited as the critical indicator for the fading away of the industrial society.