Fathom: The Source for Online Learning  
 
Help About Us Course Directory
Browse Fathom


 
 
 
The Information Revolution and the Destiny of America
From: RAND | By: John Godges

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION | The growing predominance of networked information systems challenges the American government to find the best means to harness the power of the information revolution to promote US diplomatic and military goals. In this article, edited by John Godges of the RAND Review, RAND researchers explore the needs of a national "information strategy" and suggest an innovative approach, which they dub "noopolitik."


everal US government agencies have asked RAND to take the lead in broadly outlining what may lie ahead and boldly deducing the implications for government and society. The work has proceeded on three fronts: (1) to chart the future course of the information revolution throughout the world over the next 10-20 years; (2) to identify potential forms of global governance that might become necessary as a result; and (3) to suggest a national "information strategy" appropriate for a global information age.


Realms of InformationTo suggest an American information strategy for the 21st century, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt drew inspiration from the prophetic writings of a French soldier, paleontologist, and Jesuit theologian of the early 20th century, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (TAY-yar DUH Shar-DAN). The controversial writings of Teilhard during World War I and the 1920s were censored by the Vatican but published posthumously in the 1950s and 1960s. He asserted that evolution and Christianity, far from being at odds with each other, are in fact part of the same process: the evolution of a benign spiritual force through increasingly complex forms of material life on earth. Teilhard foresaw that human beings would rise to a new evolutionary plane characterized by the global coordination of intellectual, social, and spiritual energies. He called this higher plane the "noosphere" (NEW-oh-sphere), defining it as an all-encompassing realm of the mind (from the Greek noos, or "mind"). Teilhard predicted that this realm would eventually supersede the prior evolutionary realms of the geosphere and the biosphere as the supreme milieu of the spirit on earth. Today, Teilhard is occasionally credited with anticipating the Internet.


The all-encompassing realm of the mind, though intangible by definition, forms the backbone of the American information strategy proposed by Arquilla and Ronfeldt. They advance the notion of "noopolitik" (NEW-oh-poh-li-TEEK) as a new form of statecraft for the information age. As opposed to realpolitik, which often refers to a policy of national expansion across geographic terrain, noopolitik would seek instead to advance national ideas, values, laws, and ethics across the "psychic terrain" of the noosphere that envelops the planet. Noopolitik represents an evolutionary leap in statecraft made possible by the information revolution.

The destiny of America

In their call for a new form of statecraft for the information age, Arquilla and Ronfeldt decry the "imbalance" they now see in efforts to craft an American information strategy. A good strategy would balance two opposite poles, they explain. One pole is technological--that of ensuring the safety and security of information infrastructures. The other pole is political or ideational--that of harnessing and disseminating American ideals to attract, influence, and lead others.


Both poles are important, but the technological concerns have grabbed the bulk of the attention. Meanwhile, the broader sociopolitical objective of sharing ideas has been neglected. It is time for US civilian and military leaders to look beyond the defense of information infrastructures, say Arquilla and Ronfeldt. There is much more at stake in cyberspace than technological vulnerability. There are also unprecedented opportunities. In other words, beyond merely defending against an "electronic Pearl Harbor," America should endeavor to fulfill a new information-age "manifest destiny" of propagating its ideals, values, and ethics around the world.


The original notion of the noosphere, as articulated by Teilhard, was never neutral with respect to values or ethics. He was a priest, after all. In his vision, the higher evolutionary plane of the noosphere would be reached not merely through the coordination of human energies but, more intrinsically, through a devotion to moral and juridical principles. Arquilla and Ronfeldt embrace that idea. They contend that the Internet and other forms of global communication should serve a higher purpose beyond just disseminating information or fueling commerce. Hence, America should harness the new technologies to promote the ideals for which it stands: openness, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, humane behavior, human rights, and a preference for peaceful conflict resolution.


Such an information strategy would be called noopolitik. Unlike realpolitik, which is foreign policy based on raw calculations of power and narrow national interests, noopolitik is foreign policy based on global ideas, values, norms, laws, and ethics. Realpolitik works through the "hard power" of men, missiles, guns, and ships. Noopolitik emphasizes the "soft power" of attraction rather than coercion. Realpolitik asserts that might makes right; noopolitik, that right makes might. Realpolitik tends to be amoral if not immoral. Noopolitik succeeds only by upholding shared principles.


There are immense implications for the US military. To simultaneously disseminate and defend American ideals, the military would need plenty of new capabilities to deal with both friends and foes. On the one hand, the military would need globally interconnected information systems that allow conditional sharing of information with semitrusted allies. On the other hand, the military would need new organizational designs and doctrines for using information-age "swarming" strategies against terrorists, authoritarian regimes, or other adversaries. These swarming strategies would entail striking at foes from many directions simultaneously--sometimes with heat-seeking missiles and other smart munitions, sometimes with truth-seeking teams of "special media forces" armed with the weapons of the media rather than traditional military weapons. The media forces would be dispatched into conflict zones to help settle disputes through the discovery and dissemination of accurate information.


For the time being, the leading practitioners of noopolitik are neither nation-states nor their militaries but, as indicated above, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). They are already utilizing information technologies to promote a global civil society. Prime examples include the Nobel prize-winning campaign to ban land mines; the Greenpeace-led campaign against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific; the transnational defense of Zapatista insurgents in Mexico; and the Internet-based efforts by Burmese and Chinese dissidents, with support from NGOs based in the United States, to press for human rights and political reforms. Such efforts suggest that old tenets of "peace through strength" are yielding to new tenets of "peace through knowledge."


An American information strategy of noopolitik would build on the successes of NGOs. Once again, the researchers do not call for some kind of overarching global government. Rather, they explain that the most effective strategy for the US government would be to form a cooperative network with allied governments and NGOs in pursuit of common global missions. At the same time, an American information strategy for the future could not be confined strictly to American interests and institutions. The inherently global nature of modern information and networking would undermine such a narrow strategy. National interests would still play a role, but they would need to be recast in universal terms.


For example, US foreign policy might face widespread global opposition. In this case, US policy itself might need to be reconsidered. This sort of problem has recently occurred. The United States has refused to join more than 100 countries in signing a treaty to ban land mines, mainly because of the US military's reliance on land mines on the Korean peninsula. Yet the United States could reconsider its reliance on land mines, either by shifting to tactics that have little use for land mines or by developing mobile mines that travel with ground troops. Either solution would resolve the impasse, and both could lead to greater US military effectiveness.


There are certainly risks in pursuing a strategy that could place limits on American freedom of action. A vibrant, global civil society built on an interconnected network of NGOs and nation-states might one day curtail the autonomous exercise of American power. Yet if free flows of information do indeed foster democracy and open markets, the overall benefits of such a strategy are likely to exceed the liabilities. In some ways, such a strategy resembles the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Western Europe and Japan after World War II. The United States used its power to strengthen others against a communist threat, even to the point of creating new economic giants that could rival America's own market power. Similarly, Arquilla and Ronfeldt believe that America stands to benefit, on balance, from the emergence of the noosphere and the pursuit of noopolitik.


At the beginning of this strategy, American hegemony might even be the necessary precondition to consolidate the global noosphere. Much as classic theories of trade openness depend on a benign hegemon to keep markets open and to provide the "public goods" (like freedom of the seas) that make trade possible, a benevolent hegemon may now be required to coordinate a network of NGOs and nation-states as the nucleus of a global civil society. At the end of this strategy, however, American hegemony might indeed fade. But here is the consolation: America would transcend itself on behalf of a greater global good. American ideals, with modest refinements, would write the constitution of a global civil society, even as the American state itself would lose its primacy. That would be a fitting legacy of the primacy of American ideals.

Relevant links

Transcendental Destination
(www.rand.org/publications/randreview/ issues/rr.12.00/transcendental.html)