You question: "Why is Government still associated with the old-fashioned notion of hierarchies patronising and constraining human development?"

This is not an answer to that question, rather some loose thoughts. I would say because an alternative understanding has not convincingly and thoroughly been articulated. The term "governance" is still being debated upon and filled with meaning. While "government" in some aspects may be considered the opposite to "governance", the view you refer to is not the only possible association of "government".

Hi Wanhamidi, nice association between government and authority and power. I am though puzzled about the power of globally interconnected people. It is true that they are better informed as global connectivity improves the transparency of information. I can see also that people (and in particular in democratic societies) have the power to protest. However, I am not sure about what is the power of these global movements to make a change. They still need someone in Government to design and implement the aspired social change and very often they hold different opinions both of the desired ‘end’ and the agreeable path to this ‘end’.

Hi Jimmie, I am intrigued - why do you think government and governance are two opposites?

Hi Emanuela, "governance" can simply mean the processes and procedures of governing, but the term is increasingly used to refer to government efforts at public engagement, collaboration, and sharing of authority as opposed to simply exercising formal, "top-down" authority in an effort to regulate actions. A trend towards this form of governance is occurring in many democratic societies, but often at a different pace within different functions of government (or specific government agencies) or regions of the world. I've written about this a bit in my field (natural resource management - wildlife management in particular) in an effort to raise awareness among students and professionals about this trends and a variety of reasons apparently driving them. I suggest in various instances this trend is driven by efforts to meet public expectations/demands for higher levels of engagement, to draw upon a wider array of private and public funding and expertise, or through simple acknowledgement that some issues that governments wish to address extend beyond the scope of authority of a single state or agency.

interesting question. Government should be intertwined with governance however governance means more than government. International connectivity has opened many doors for people to be more aware of what, where and how things are happening. Social media has been used in many responsible ways to move forward the needs of the community and the give the community a voice. It has also been used in destructive ways that has caused the loss of property and lives.

In regards to power, this can be traced back to the League of Nations and the UN both these international organisations vested power in the state and along with power comes responsibility. How often have we seen the state wanting all the power but not the responsibility that goes with it. In many ways governance is part of that responsibility

Social Theory explains 'governmentality' !

I think it is misleading to construct a radical difference between 'old-fashioned' and 'modern' governance and government. Ultimately, government in modern as in historic times is about collective action. Digital media and other developments have changed the coordination cost of getting organized and voicing interests, resulting in new power configurations. But the underlying dynamics of social collectives have not really changed. The fact that social contracts of societies usually involve some form of hierarchy (or agency) does not mean that all resulting structures are 'patronizing'. The occupy movement itself required enforcement of equality rules. Bacon said that 'knowledge is power' more than a hundred years ago - what else is the purpose of intrusive information collection? In my experience, most of the time classic theories still have a lot to tell and teach, and the wheel does not really need re-invention.

How do we want governance to act in the face of Occupy and how do we assess privacy breaches? My decision rule would be Confucius, writing more than 2,000 years ago: "Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, then the people will submit. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, then the people will not submit.”

Great question!

I'm not sure a lot has changed about governments as an arena in which people compete for power and influence, although governments are less dynastic and imperialistic than they were even 40 years ago... not sure they are any less hierarchical, in fact they may be as far removed from the governed as ever even if the people feel connected by reading an official's twitter posts.

What may have changed as much as government is the structure of the base of their power, especially in countries with elected representatives. The form of networking facilitated by the digital age is divorced from locality, and instead is grounded in already-formed opinions. Networking now is more polarized and segregated than ever, as studies of linkages among twitter accounts have shown; this helps segregate and polarize the election of representatives especially in countries like the USA with winner-take-all elections and a two-party primary system that brings out the most extreme candidates.

I would love to know how Weber would adapt his concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in todays's society, which is more connected yet paradoxically more split apart into factions. Simmel's and Marx's comments would be interesting too (Marx would need to start back in 1917 to adjust his theories to fit new realities). But instead of new social theory, which is lacking in the social sciences in general except for microtheories and theories disconnected from facts, we have some studies of the new social-political forces facilitated by the digital age, such as the book "Networks of Outrage and Hope" by Manuel Castells. Although it's not about government per se, it's about forces influencing governments, which again I think is where the real changes have been.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745662854/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_10?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

When considering the opposition or resistance to governments in a point that the challengers ability to mobilize resources is such that they easily exceed the basic problems to develop contentious collective action, social movements are no longer a threat to the interests of the government and members of the political system. This logic of mobilization and social movement as "repertoire" is overcome and generating interest that can’t be satisfied by the political and economic system, either by the nature of governments or their protected interests.

In this sense, social movements, the speed with which they develop and the changes that implies its success, not only related to the interests of the government and its coalition but give rise to a new form of organization in which no coercion be sufficient and government requires consent of the participants (public participation). The social movement can lead to the transformation of the organizational logic, with the inclusion of interests that are not covered by the ideology that protect governments and unconsciously conservative society members.

I think that crises of governability can be developed in two ways: 1) the substantial change in ruling elites and government coalitions, 2) the integration of society as a decision-making actor, 3) a scenario in which the resistance to action of social movements is of such magnitude involving a prolonged contention and probably the radicalization of repertoires, relative to the increase in mobilization resources that challengers display.

Scenarios 1 and 2 not only involve greater participation and changes in the political elite, in this scenario, governments should contemplate and reassess the source of social organization and its mechanisms, the social movements claims which have a greater tendency to transnationalism is the green ones, which includes non-utility interests and is completely binding once its framed better, the policies of the new governments will not only controlled by the movement society, but should function according to the interests that have been revalued.

Hi Emanuela! In accordance with the answer Brent Rudolph gave you, my usage of governance as an opposing force to government points to the process of decentralization of governing away from strictly public organizational bodies. However, it is impotant to realize that this might not imply a decentralization of power, as decisions might still be taken by a rather small part of the population. This connects to the answer given Ellen Pfeiffer. Perhaps it is the case that not much has changed, it is rather the surface that has changed. Not the deep dynamics. Social contracts still includes hierarchies (at least in most cases) and deemed improper or unlegitimate, these contracts will be opposed by the citizens.

What does matter, in my opinion, is that it is harder for citizens to judge the degree of legitimacy if a governing process is split up between more actors, making the process less transparent and harder for citizens to evaluate. What actor is responsible for what, when, where, how and to what extent? How are different actors being punished if they do not live up to agreements made, etc? In this case we might speak of a democratic deficit in more governance type systems compared to government type systems. The latter does bear with them other problems of democracy, though.

Not a an academic paper, but the Economist picked up the question a week ago. Highly recommended.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2013-06-27/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk-0

I am sorry, becausee, being not expert in uploading answers to the Research Gate, I sent by error an incomplete remark, that perhaps the system will send.

I would like to add on the question about what Socila Theory could say about the role of Goverment, specially in currently undeveloped countries. The ideas are reviewed in the attached SSRN prerpint. Acknowledging your kind comments on the subject,

I remains friendly yours

In this new remark, I would like to complete the previous one, in which again, I was not able to attach the publication!. Now , I simply add the link to the paper, in which the mentioned ideas on the role of Goverment in Developing countries are presented.

I thank your kind undertstanding.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1422007

Hi there. I came across your post and wondered if the work of Jürgen Habermas might be of interest to you.

Habermas talks about society as being divided up as essentially 2 spheres: the system and the lifeworld. Broadly speaking, the system is concerned with the macro-level (i.e. society functioning at its most efficient). The system is largely driven by [see Weber] purposive-rational action, i.e. the course of action that achieves a goal the most effectively. On the other hand the lifeworld of society is concerned with the micro-level, vis-à-vis the people at its core. Habermas warns that society is becoming less equal and that the system is taking precedence over the lifeworld of people (termed the colonisation of the lifeworld). This is detrimental for people in society as their needs become generally less important than those of the system. These are just some thoughts based on the critical theory of Habermas that I hope you find useful. Please contact me if you wish to discuss this further.

I would expect government (from the national to the local level) to do a much better job in communicating with its constituency. Social media offer plenty of possibilities for doing that.

One example is explored in a bit more detail at http://philippines.actor-atlas.info/tutorial (in reference to Pres. Aquino's 2013 State of the Nation Address).

Positioning Confucius in our time: Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, then the people will submit. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, then the people will not submit.”

The upright have nothing to fear from social media and the transparency it could bring - they will be able to explain the basis for their ''decisions on behalf of the public''.

The same cannot be said about the crooked (no matter which side...)

On the other hand the decision problems the lifeworld (ref. Habermas) brings up are not easily addressed.

Giving all stakeholders a voice is not very productive if arguments pro and contra are expressed in ''monologues'', e.g. some on the street, others in the parliament, still others in reports by companies, etc.

Take the example of the Tampakan Copper and Gold Mine project ( Southern Philippines - ref. http://philippines.actor-atlas.info/mdb:tampakan ) - check the arguments in the references for further reading vs. the coverage in http://www.spundge.com/notebooks/16558/ (

With the world wide web we can now ''map/list'' all arguments and their proponents in a single open space. That is the purpose of what I call ''social capital wikis,'' especially for local governance issues this could mean a world of difference for the upright (on all sides of any issue).

Well, perhaps this is a little bit of an aside - but still instructive as a reflection taken in the wider context of this post.

A couple of years ago I bought a train ticket to London from station X a day in advance. Within a few hours I'd received an invitation to coffe in town Y which is a just 25 kilometres down the line in the direction of London. I therefore calculated that I both could meet the person for coffe and then jump on the same train I otherwise would have boarded in station X. No way! This was an irregularity the ticket controllers at station Y just could not get round their heads. I was forced to buy a ticket to the next to station Z another 25 km down the line just to get the right to get on the train and thus claim my original seat.

Put this down to the stupidity of individuals if you like. I think there's more to it. And with respect to Ellen Pfeiffer's Confucius citation it raises the question of whether the "submission of the people" is in any way a desideratum, upright or crooked. The hierarchies spawned by social contracts may indeed not necessarily be 'patronising' but many nevertheless are so. The anecdote i just cited seems clearly to me to demonstrate a filter down effect at microcosmic level of a burgeoningly ineffective and cramping over- patronising social and political system at the macrocosmic.

So ideally we want a government which acts with and for the people, instead of against them. That would certainly mean a government which would abhor wholesale surveillance of the entire population, as being fundamentally undemocratic and patronising in the extreme. For a population to have the real experience of being a free people, great care and effort needs to be expended to ensure citizens feel that they have shared responsibility in keeping the democratic spirit alive. We need to be actors in this show not audience because it should be our show, and our autonomy must be respected, even though there needs to be a director and stage manager. These have to lead however by example and inspiration. The experience of being herded and manipulated as when we discover that our movements and conversations have for years been logged by some murky secretive agency we knew almost nothing about, is poison to the democratic life and spirit; not just for the "crooked" but also - and perhaps even especially - for the "upright".

I am sure that if this kind of governance - ie a governance which expects, respects and depends upon the full and qualified political and social responsiveness of individual citizens - was the norm rather than the exception then I would have received a completely different and greatly more intelligent treatment at station Y. People would not be so afraid to act in accordance with their own sensibilities.

Social media have proved to be a double edged sword in that they seem to offer a potential channel to strengthen democratic rights and involvement but in the wrong hands can certainly be misused to kill democracy stone dead. I, at any rate, avoid the popular ones like the plague.

Hi Colin,

I agree with your answer regarding the rights of the people. However for this to be realized the people must be united and be prepared to speak out and act.We have seen governments reacted to people's expression by killings and by covert monitoring of movements and conversations. The true nature of democracy has been lost and replaced by an American version which is self centered and based now on fear. Social media can have a significant role to play in supporting the voice of the people when used with care and thought but as he have said can also be abused.

At the risk of being obvious, "the state is the executive committee of the ruling class." End of story. Or at least, the main title.

As for "post-Weberian," we are barely "post-Hobbesian." To me, Weber's ideal-type of a "rational-legal" bureaucratic state remains an utopian fantasy. Just read the last few pages of "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," wherein he pretty much summed up the 20th century (in words published in the same year that James Joyce located "Ulysses"). Weber speaks of "mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance" and described "specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity, he adds, imagines that it has achieved a level of civilization never before achieved."

A good pen portrait of Bill Gates, no?

And Occupy? Well, I enjoyed the festivities as much as anyone, and my Union even contributed $60,000 to help them out in Toronto ... but just as the Jefferson Airplane morphed into the Bee Gees, so the Occupy Movement may have been just a sensational splash in a dirty old pan.

Still, I'll stick with the sentiments of Joe Hill, as he faced a firing squad in Utah: "Don't mourn. Organize!"

Government is a taxing authority in more ways than one!

Gwen

Interesting discussion indeed! I contribute by attaching a paper that you may find useful.

Most discussions of government ignore the fact that the property rules that establish and support the "private sector" economy are government just as much as the defense department or the post office. The modern private sector economy is basically a delegation of governmental powers and protections to private corporate actors. These private (unaccountable, undemocratic) economic interests are not to be confused with civil society, where actual people have interests such as privacy, human rights and generate the resources to create democracy. Instead, those exercising "private" governmental powers try to dominate civil society. So any account of this "digital age" must take into account so-called intellectual property rights and the various efforts to create a "digital commons". It seems to me that the "networked society" has created some new venues and resources for both sides of the same old conflict. I agree with the suggestion that Habermas has a lot of useful things to say about these issues.

Hi Stephen,

I agree with the private sector economy being a delegation of governmental powers without the checks and balances. I would add that this sector is very powerful and continues to grow in power due to the economic and political might it can bring to bear on situations and event. Hopefully civil society can harness the digital divide and use this medium to have a voice by sheer numbers and try and influence the governments and share holders of multinational companies to be more accountable and socially aware.

Hi,

as some one mentioned above the theories of Habermas would probably provide you with some answers. Recently the writings of Manuel Castells on networked society probably would be a answering your issues directly. He answers a number of isssues directly or indirectly you have raised.

It is the detachement and non engagement in politics of the citizens that allows government excesses.

Government are elected. By who? If they do not feel threatened by alteration they will resort to abheration. There is a worldwide digital revolution taking place consequences of which will take years to be clear. Patience is a virtue and the belief in freedom is essential in these times.

Social theory refers to ideas, arguments, hypotheses, thought-experiments, and explanatory speculations about how and why human societies—or elements or structures of such societies—come to be formed, change, and develop over time or disappear.