In a recent blog entry, Matt Armstrong draws on the recent thread on Information Operations at SWC and on some of my posts on the topic and, towards the end, asks some really good questions.

1. are we simply recreating stove-pipes?
2. Is IO strategic, operational, or tactical?
3. Where does IO, for example fit in with Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism?

The short answer, at least from my perspective, to #1 and #2 is “Yes”. Needless to say, I am going to pull that out before I even attempt to answer #3.

Are we simply recreating stove-pipes?

Yes, but why that is happening is important since a large part of the process is involved with how we socially organize “knowledge”.

In general, the social organization of “knowledge” tends to be based on the twin concepts of who knows and how risky is that knowledge - the infamous 2 x 2 matrix beloved of sociologists. More correctly, these two dimensions should be stated as

• who has the social right or obligation (or both) to know and/or practice a given cultural taxon of knowledge, and
• what grade of social risk is ascribed to the holding and/or practice of that knowledge.

Let’s first of all start with a simple definition of knowledge based on Bateson’s definition of information which was that information is a difference that makes a difference. If that is the case, then “knowledge” may be defined, loosely, as the definition, processing and subsequent prescribed actions based upon information. In effect, “knowledge” tells you how to parse out sensory data, how to process it and what to do with the result. Knowledge, in this definition, is the equivalent of cultural mapping conventions.

The first dimension in the matrix, “who has the social right or obligation (or both) to know and/or practice a given cultural taxon of knowledge”, needs a bit of pulling apart. The first bit is “the social right or obligation (or both)”. As an example, driving is a skill (knowledge) but the social right to practice it is dependent on holding a drivers licence in most places. In a similar manner, we often find cultural expectations surrounding a taxon of knowledge (BTW, a “taxon” is a component of a taxonomy). For example, when I got married, my wife was flabbergasted to discover that I “don’t drive” (actually, I know how, I just don’t have a licence). In New Jersey, where my wife is from, “driving” (actually, getting a licence) is something that “everyone” does whereas in Ottawa, while many people “drive”, it isn’t uncommon for people not to.

In most cultures, the social right and obligation to hold and/or practice a particular taxon of knowledge is usually granted, or restricted, based on an ascribed attribute such as age, gender, class (or caste), “race” (in a minority of cultures), etc. It is only with the relatively recent rise of “modernity” that we find these ascribed attributes being (partially) replaced with educational credentials - a bureaucratization of knowledge rights as it were. Despite this partial replacement, there are still ascribed expectations operating in all cultures, and we still see restrictions on the holding / practice of knowledge based on them.

Now, in rhetoric, these restrictions / expectations are often based around the second dimension “what grade of social risk is ascribed to the holding and/or practice of that knowledge”. I say “in rhetoric”, because the actual risk is only loosely associated with the rhetorical risk. Sticking with the driving example for now, consider the social cost of driving - estimated at 62.7 billion dollars annually in Canada based on 2004 data - and yet driving is still considered as “normal”.

Getting back to the social risk dimension, we do find certain commonalities across cultures. Anything to do with “religion”, loosely construed, tends to be seen as “high risk”, although there are exceptions. Health, is almost always a high risk area, as are the primary foci of the cultural socio-economic system (e.g. hunting, farming, ship navigation, computer security, etc - it all depends on the socio-economic “critical areas”). And, of course, warfare in any form is always “high risk”.

Taxons of knowledge that are categorized as “high risk” tend to be formalized by a culture. In effect, surrounded by social conventions, rules, obligations, etc. In most cases, there may also be a restricted component in both knowledge and the right to practice that knowledge. For example, basic sanitary practices are a part of “health” in the Western taxonomy of knowledge, but surgery is a restricted taxon as is the prescription of “drugs” (but not many “supplements” or herbs).

There are many explanations for why taxons of knowledge become restricted, but one of the effects of such restrictions is to shift the balance of social power within a culture (an excellent model of this was produced by Stewart Clegg in Frameworks of Power). While I wouldn’t go as far as many of the conspiracy theorists, I will point out that there is always a competition going on within cultures between individuals to gain status, power, etc. and, once having achieved that power, people are unlikely to give it up voluntarily.

I would suggest that, following Andrew Abbott, taxons of restricted knowledge, and especially “new” knowledge, are formalized and linguistically differentiated from their more commonplace relatives, in such a manner that entry into the social right to practice is restricted. Part of this formalization process involves the creation of a distinct definition of “us” (practitioners) vs. “them” (non-practitioners) that is manifested, in part, by creating a specialized “language”. Another part of the formalization process, after a separation into “us” and “them” has been created, is a process of maintaining the perception of the area as both “high risk” and, also, something that only “we” can do (the social restriction on practice).

Now, going back for a second, let me note that this is how groups evolve / emerge around “new” taxons of knowledge. In the sociology literature, this is called the process of professionalization. The maintenance of a taxon of knowledge as a profession and, hence, of restricted practice and social power, is a different matter. As I noted earlier, this maintenance requires a continuing perception of the taxon as being “high risk” and, also, that the ability to use the area can only be done by those who are members of the group.

But the ability to use knowledge is different from the right to practice knowledge; a point that is crucial to many current problems in the various professions. For the past 200+ years, it has become increasingly difficult for knowledge to be physically restricted. The recent advent of Net 2.0 technologies, cell phones, etc. has made this even more difficult. The phrase “knowledge wants to be free” is an anthropomorphization of the actual effects of our current communications systems: knowledge doesn’t “want” to be free, it is just more accessible than ever before and, once accessible, people will access it and use it regardless of any external restrictions.

Increasingly, it is difficult for any knowledge to be “hidden”, a situation that makes for very porous boundaries in communities of practice (as opposed to professional bodies) and has some very serious, and long term, implications for societies. Consider, by way of example, all of the “interesting” social change that happened after the Bible was translated into the vernacular languages of Europe.

Back to stove-piping…

I said that the short answer was “Yes”, and it is because “professional” areas emerge out of “new” areas of knowledge, and the act of maintaining them keeps them as stove-pipes. That being said, however, the entire IO debate is actually looking at a “new” process of agglomeration. Basically, there is a re-organization of the taxons of knowledge that lumps a whole slew of smaller areas together into the larger taxon of IO.

The implications of this are many but, just on the surface, the central problem for such an agglomeration will be to harmonize the separate areas of knowledge and, at the same time, develop a consistent specialized language that crosses all of the smaller areas.

Is IO strategic, operational, or tactical?

“Yes”. “IO”, in and of itself, does not exist - it is a shorthand term for a collection of practices and taxons of knowledge that covers the entire range from tactical to grand strategic. Personally, I agree with Matt that Strategic Communications needs to be included; at least at the theoretical level.

Where does IO, for example fit in with Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism?

I have already burned enough electrons on this post, so I won’t even try and answer this particular question here and now - maybe later. The pre-conditions necessary to establish a model for this are quite extensive. As a (very) rough start towards answering it, however, I will say that two terms would have to be defined “ideological support” and “terrorism”. And, since it took me an entire blog entry to define “IO”, that will have to wait.