We-Think: 2.0 transforming democracy

From Future of Local Services to the Public

Contents 1 Summary 2 Impacts 3 Relevance 4 References

Summary

 

"We-Think" is a term used by Charles Leadbeater to describe the new culture of mass participation and innovation evolving as a result of Web 2.0 technology, and its reshaping the fundamentals of modern economy and society: “The range of tools available for pooling, exchanging and developing ideas determines the extent of our possible innovation and creativity and so fundamentally our prosperity” (Leadbeater, 2008: 222).

• Web allows for this creativity as long as people organise themselves in the right way, but it will come up against vested interests, conventional wisdom and scepticism as it challenges the idea that private property is the basis for capital.
• The web gives a central role to the way things are expressed and shared rather than focusing on how things are locked down in property – much of what we value (language, culture, art, science, learning) comes from ideas being passed person to person.
• This gift culture needs non-market institutions to support it and market institutions to exploit it: “The most exciting organisational models of the future will mix collaboration and commerce, community and corporation” (ibid.: 227).

 

Impacts

 

• New technology for collaboration will make it easier for people to work creatively across borders and disciplines.
• Innovation will become more central, and this will depend on what we share with others and create together.
• “Collaborative business models succeed because they reward people, satisfy desires, achieve personal objectives...” (ibid.: 228); they are underpinned by a desire for recognition – people want their worth to be realised by those who count – their peers. Recognition cannot be bought and sold and it doesn’t form a part of traditional hierarchy.
• People are increasingly participants, contributors and innovators, as well as workers and consumers. This will have a wide range of applications, and they won’t necessarily all be positive. Possible negatives include erosion of professional authority and knowledge, loss of individuality, eradication of downtime, degradation of friendship. The openness of the web also leaves us vulnerable to disease, infection and viruses.
• Web critics focus on the idea that the web makes the world less orderly, anarchic. We must create order and security without undermining capacity for sharing.
• Three main ways of bringing things under control: 1) those who have top-down control now will fight to retain it – China will be the biggest battle, but another example is software, entertainment and media companies trying to protect content; 2) more forms of peer-to-peer control (as academia is governed now); 3) more self-control, use growing technological power more responsibly

 

Relevance

 

• Libraries will make material available in digital forms as with journals and online publising sites (e.g. Google Books): the British Library has started the process of digitising its collection; libraries will become a platform for participation and collaboration.
• We-Think will seep into other areas too – public goods are often the result of collaboration between service providers, private entrepreneurs, household and voluntary groups. Bureaucracies cannot always respond to the need for more personal services, which is where We-Think steps in.
• Education: schools are central but they are out of kilter with the world (connected, digital) which kids live in. Learning should fit in with the rest of their lives, for example the collaborative learning programme used at Lipson Community College, Plymouth.
• Health: patients must become participants - producers of their own health - with an increase in self-assessment and diagnosis and more types of peer support: a move towards a system based on personal responsibility as well as services.
• We-Think cannot apply to all public services but “younger generation will expect more say and choice, more opportunities to participate and collaborate” (152).
• Applied to public services, We-Think means “mobilising citizens as player-developers in creating public goods” (153).
• Open access research will lead to increased collaboration in science and greater progress, as in the Human Genome Project and the Encyclopaedia of Life, which has implications for government in terms of the development and provision of medicines and protecting the environment.
• However, Web 2.0 provides a platform for undesirable groups also – for example, the BNP gets more web-traffic than any other British political site.
• The web can be partisan and niche, and the proliferation of amateur comment could weaken democratic scrutiny.
• However, communications between politician and voters can be more direct, debates more deliberative, citizens more engaged and political procedure more legitimate and creative; the web can build networks, civic engagement and participation.
• Online politics allows politicians to engage with small, committed communities and tailor policies to them, much as the web allows the ‘long tail’ of niche interests to exist as a viable commercial entity (see Anderson, 2007).
• Social networking may help to reverse the decline in social capital and the existence of civic community.

References

Leadbeater, C. (2008) We-Think, Profile Books, London.

Anderson, C. (2007) The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand, Random House, London.