Read different
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 2 people (1 private), first by anonymouse user on 2008-10-04
- Transtracker on 2008-10-04 - Tags nonlinear_science , new_media , 4gw
- Spdrock on 2008-08-29 - Tags government , military , warfare , web2.0 , reading , list , enterprise2.0 , singularity , wikinomics
Public Sticky notes
Since the early 1990s, the defense industry has been talking about the revolutionary technological changes taking place across society. It has worked hard to ensure we know what those changes are and how they are affecting national security. Yet, the industry rarely talks about the fundamental requirement to change the way we think in order to understand the implications of the technological and social changes we face.
Although the wider academic and business communities are coming to grips with the fact that many of these advances are changing the way we understand the world, the defense industry does not seem to see this as an issue. We still tend to view the world as responding to linear approaches applied by bureaucratic entities.
Fortunately, over the past couple of decades, a number of books have provided thought-provoking new theories of how the world works. Unfortunately, these theories do not align with the planning processes we use in the defense industry. The first step in fixing our planning processes is to examine how science’s understanding of reality is changing.
Highlighted by TransTracker
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
In my dissertation, I wrote about military theory as "articulation." That is the idea that military theory seeks to define and link certain elements in the world in a way that makes sense. Especially in the twenttieth century, military theory has often served to define and link military understandings of science, technology, society, military, and war. These efforts often begin with the assumption that changes in any one of these areas should mirror/be mirrored by changes in the others. The elements either are or should be in sync or congruent, should change in a "coperiodized" way. Elements out of sync are typically identified as a problem in need of solution. This is exactly the reasoning we see in Hammes' introduction to his recommended reading list. His three short paragraphs provide one of the most concise renderings of this narrative. In effect, he is saying that there have been changes in technology and science that have led to changes in society and war. Unfortunately, he says, the U.S. military has not kept pace, has not changed its "internal" thinking in a way that is in sync with changes in these other elements of the world. Another common piece of this narrative is the claim that others (e.g. businesses, terrorists, insurgents, etc.) have recognized changes and adapted themselves appropriately while the U.S. military has not. Thus, the need for action, the need to "read different" so as to think differently and, ultimately, act differently, in a way that is congruent with the world "out there."
Highlighted by TransTracker
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Assumption: Epistemological and organizational changes in the world "out there" should be mirrored by the same kinds of changes "within" the military.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Nonlinear science related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Nonlinear science related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Nonlinear science related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Technology/new media related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Technology/new media related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Nonlinear science related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Nonlinear science related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Technology/new media related.
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Technology/new media related.
Public Comment