This article is a consideration of the question: "What should be the role of the expert in technologically based democracies?"
Naturally there are two views:
Hickman takes us through the debate on the question. He traces the arguments of Emanuel Mesthene (planning/experts) and John McDermott (populism/limited experts) and he provides an integration of views by John Dewey on the subject.
I am not aware that we are consciously following Mesthene's recommendations. However, I fell that we have or are moving toward much of what he sees. He calls it an "indirect society" and points out these characteristics:
New political forms:
Direct participation in government becoming less relevant;
Experts required for the technical processes of government
(sophisticated information handling and management techniques).
As I look around --- we have career politicians, lobbyists and more lobbyists, very low voter turnout, many experts within government departments (government is one of our largest employers), very complicated issues that are often reduced to sound bites, extensive polling on issues, (and there's probably more).
(1) What do you think?
McDermott: ".. technology itself and its need for a skilled and knowledgeable population has created within the population ample resources for self-management even of the most complicated activites."
My head and my heart are with this view; however, I am not confident that it is happening.
(2) What do you think?
Hickman uses Dewey's writings to show that Dewey dealt with the question of experts forty years prior to Mesthene and McDermott. Dewey comes down on the side of the limited expert:
".. expert is researcher and clarifier of facts, hypotheses and the means and methods of bringing about resolution of experienced difficulties."
//see you Thurs.
-- Lee Ashcraft (ashcrafl@ride.ri.net) Regional Technology Coordinator Woonsocket (RI) Area Career and Technical Center (V) 401/767-4674 (F) 401/767-4665