Cyber-Subsidiarity: Toward a Global Sustainable Information Society
Most attempts to use the potentials of information technologies in benefit of the fulfillment of the democratic requirements from the local to the global levels are based on the power of social networks and the utilization of big-data approaches. However, both the network itself and the portliness of data processing have fundamental limitations that need to be overcome when the size of the population is larger than a reduced group. As to cope with the related complexity, the network provides in certain conditions a characteristic structure which facilitates the emergence of new functional features and consequently a system. It is this structure – the fibers of the systemic relations – and new functionalities concerning the circulation of data what change the portliness of data processing into an appropriate percolation and management of relevant information. By these means, complexity and the corresponding information flow are managed at the lowest possible level, while cooperation and higher-level management is ready to cope just with the excess of complexity the lower level cannot manage properly by itself. But this is the very idea of subsidiarity whose application to the organization of heterogeneous societies has been a foundation of decentralized government since the sixteenth century in many different contexts.
At the age of the global information society, the necessary management of global issues (environment, geopolitics, inequality, etc.) requires both proper levelism and information management from the peoples to communities, to national authorities, and to international institutions. Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model provides a suitable approach to deploy subsidiarity with the backbone of an information and communication infrastructure based on the acquisition, circulation, and processing of relevant information to enable decentralized, democratic decision-making.
KeywordsNetwork theory Semantic networks Big-Data Viable system model Subsidiarity Small-World Cybernetics Internet Information divide Biological information Complexity management
- Aristotle. (2004). Politics: a treatise on Government. Trad. In W. Ellis (Eds.), Gutenberg Project. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6762 Accessed 20 Aug 2016.
- Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
- Baran, P. (1964). On distributed communications: I. Introduction to distributed communications networks. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3420.html. Also available in print form. Accessed 15 Aug 2016
- Beer, S. (1975). Designing freedom. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm. 2, Wiley, UK.Google Scholar
- Browning, N., Krisetya, M., Lairson, L., & Mauldin, A. (2012). Global Internet Map 2012. TeleGeography. http://global-internet-map-2012.telegeography.com/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- Cavanillas, J. M., Curry, E., & Wahlster, W. (Eds.). (2016). New horizons for a data-driven economy: A roadmap for usage and exploitation of big data in Europe. Basel: Springer.Google Scholar
- Díaz-Nafría, J. M. (2014). Ethics at the age of information. Systema: connecting matter, life, culture and technology, 3(2), 43–52.Google Scholar
- EU (European Union). (2008). Treaty on European Union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Official Journal C, 115, 1–388. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:TOC. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., & Faloutsos C. (1999). On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 29, 251ss. ACM S/GC0MM 99.Google Scholar
- Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lambertz, M. (2016). Freiheit und verantwortung für intelligente organisationen. Düsseldorf: Mark Lambertz.Google Scholar
- Le Diplomatique, M. (Ed.). (2012). Atlas der Globalisierung – Die Welt von morgen. Berlin: Le Monde Diplomatique-Deutsche Ausgabe.Google Scholar
- Mattelart, A. (2003). The information society: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Medina, E. (2012). Cybernetic revolutionaries: Technology and politics in Allende's Chile. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Milanovic, B. (2009). Global inequality and the global inequality extraction ratio. The story of the past two Centuries. Policy research working paper 5044. World Bank – Development Research Group.Google Scholar
- Milo, R., & Phillips, R. (2015). Cell biology by the numbers. New York: Garland Science.Google Scholar
- Norretranders, T. (1998). The user illusion. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
- Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power. The ways to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
- UN. (2014). Global governance and global rules for development in the post-2015 era. United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_publications/2014cdppolicynote.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2016.
- van Steen, M. (2010). Graph theory and complex networks. Twente: Marteen van Steen.Google Scholar
- von Nell-Breuning, O. (1990). Baugesetze der Gesellschaft. Freiburg: Solidarität und Subsidiarität.Google Scholar
- Zimmermann, R. E. (2012). An integral perspective of social action: Imagining, assessing, choosing (onto-epistemology of networks). International Review of Information Ethics, 18, 221–236.Google Scholar