the timboucher experience

Lately I have been pretty gung-ho about exploring this notion of the technocracy (which I almost always accidentally spell technocrazy by accident - Freudian typing slip?). That crazy technocracy is basically a “rule by experts.” We could even call it an expertocracy if we wanted, but that doesn’t have as quite of a sweet ring to it.

Though some people seem to get rather defensive over it, calling the idea that this might really exist “ridiculous,” I find the metaphor a very compelling one. Basically, the fringe-upon-fringe conspiracy theory that I am threading would suggest that the “ruling elite” that everybody is so uppity about isn’t actually (or maybe isn’t just) the rich, but it is composed of those who consider themselves fit to rule because of their superior knowledge. If this is indeed a real thing (and frankly, I’m just constructing a narrative - not stating unequivocal truth), I would suspect that its modern form dates back to Enlightenment and groups such as the Freemasons and Illuminati - who ushered in the birthing of modern scientific thought and who sought to free humanity from the superstitious theocratic ways of the past. The idea of a rule by experts, however, is nothing new, and can be traced back to “philosopher kings” in works such as Plato’s Republic and probably beyond.

It’s been interesting to explore this theory among conspiracy theorists. For a group who are so ready to see hidden agendas and secret cabals operating behind the scenes, people seem to have a lot of emotional energy invested in the idea that these people and their agendas are “evil” and have nothing but the worst intentions at heart. What if they didn’t though? What if they really wanted to liberate us and to create a world for us to exist in, almost like loving parents? The idea seems too much to bear, given the violent and crazed state of the world - nevermind that it posits that there really are people who know what’s best for us. It makes the rebellious teen in all of us shriek in rage and slam the door to our bedrooms. And yet it nags at me to explore it further, if only for a little while as it transforms my thinking…

One of the other points that I have seen people use to “disprove” the technocracy has to do with “experts” making bad decisions. Noryungi writes:

Even people who may have both smarts and real world experience will make terrible mistakes if confronted with an unusual — or totally new — problem or set of issues.

A perfect example of this is the old USSR. To augment cotton production, technocrats decided to divert two rivers for irrigation. But these two rivers were the only ones who brought fresh water to the Aral Sea, one of the largest lake in the world. The result? A terrible ecological catastrophe, with thousands of people slolwly losing all means of subsistence.

Proof that people make bad decisions though doesn’t disprove a theory of technocratic control. It just proves people make bad decisions - even experts.

One of the other arguments I have seen against this narrative which I’ve been threading has to do the technocracy being monolithic. People seem to think that it first of all can’t be monolithic (ie, organized and centralized from top to bottom) and if it’s not, then it doesn’t exist. But my argument would be that a technocracy thrives on competition - just like science itself does, which is ultimately the ground from which rule by experts springs. Scientists need to disagree and to challenge one another and to review one another’s work - because each has a different background and brings something different to the table…

Let’s look for a moment though at how a technocratic system of government might look to us, the casual observer. To me, the signs seem to be all around. When you watch the news, what do you see? Typical shows consist of “straight” reporting, followed by commentary from an “expert” in the field (or sometimes two, who each have only very slightly different opinions to artificially “frame” a debate - ie, to drive it towards a specific goal). Whether it’s a doctor, political scientist, university scholar or whatever is beside the point, as is the question of whether or not they are consciously a part of a “conspiracy” to rule the world. The point is that all of the “official” information which is conveyed to us is done so through experts. Information which comes to us outside of official channels, which doesn’t have the sanction of “experts” is seen as not entirely credible (such as blogs, and other user-created media). It may certainly have some value and it may have a wide impact, but it’s far from official.

And speaking of blogs and the like, the most “credible” blogs are those who stray the least distance from the opinions and attitudes and stylistic conventions of experts in the field. They quote from experts, reference experts - they may even debunk them. But a secret part of that drive is the goal of such people to become recognized as experts in their own right as well - to be looked at with authority. And Authority + Experts = Technocracy.

Technocracy seems to be a natural human drive - to defer to experts. If your car breaks down, you don’t ask your friend who rides a bike how to fix it; you ask your father who has been a car fanatic for the past forty years to take a look at it. If you want to hear about new musicians, you don’t ask your cousin who has never been to a single concert in her life for her opinions; you ask your best friend who lives and breathes music and can’t do anything but tell you who their favorite bands are.

It’s very simple to unequivocally prove that technocracy exists on a mundane informal everyday level. But does that make it a worldwide conspiracy or simply a statement about how things work? Why not both? If you and I defer to experts in making our decisions, wouldn’t people with more money and power than us do the same thing? Haven’t kings and presidents and emperors throughout all of history relied on their advisors and sages and wisemen?

Ubiquity doesn’t, of course, indicate conspiracy. Which is why, in order to prove conspiracy, we would need to look for evidence of complicity among those advisors and sages and wisemen that cross borders and betray stated loyalties. Dribs and drabs of such evidence does seem to exist for those interested in pursuing this type of narrative about how the world works. Of course, if you’re consciously inventing a narrative, you have to ask yourself if it’s right and proper to become too wrapped up in your own artistic creations, and if they should be taken as actual fact?

• Abbas: Send in the Technocrats!
• A Technocrat’s Response
• Technocracy & Science Fiction
• Green Sustainable Technocracy
• Technocracy In-Fighting