← Back to home

Information Society

An information society is, at its core, a social structure where the production, dissemination, and manipulation of information form the bedrock of its existence. It’s a cultural milieu, a subculture even, where the very act of engaging with information—creating it, sharing it, refining it—becomes a primary, defining activity. This isn't just about having more data; it's about how that data shapes everything. The engine driving this transformation? Undoubtedly, it's the relentless march of information and communication technologies. These aren't just tools; they are architects, rapidly expanding the forms and reach of information, fundamentally altering the very fabric of social organization. Think education, the economy, the intricate dance of health and government, even the brutal calculus of warfare and the delicate balance of democracy. All of it is being rewired. Those who can navigate this new landscape, who are adept at its digital currents, are sometimes labeled computer users or, more aptly, digital citizens. As K. Mossberger wisely put it, these are individuals who "use the Internet regularly and effectively." It's one of many terms that signal a profound shift, a new phase in human society, as if we've collectively stepped through a portal.

The signs of this seismic shift are multifaceted. They’re not confined to a single domain; they manifest technologically, economically, occupationally, spatially, and culturally. It’s a tapestry woven from all these threads, a complex interplay of factors that defines our present and shapes our future. This concept of the information society isn't born in a vacuum; it's seen as the logical, if somewhat chaotic, successor to industrial society. It shares kinship with a constellation of related ideas: the post-industrial society, often described through the lens of post-fordism; the fluid, ever-changing landscape of post-modern society; the all-encompassing computer society; the intellectually driven knowledge society; the interconnected telematic society; the performative society of the spectacle as theorized by postmodernists; the epochal Information Revolution and its concomitant Information Age; and the pervasive logic of the network society, so eloquently articulated by Manuel Castells. Even the unsettling fluidity of liquid modernity seems to capture a facet of this evolving reality.

Definition

The trouble with defining an "information society" is its slippery nature. There’s no single, universally agreed-upon definition, no neat little box to contain it. Most scholars, however, can pinpoint a transformative period, a metamorphosis that began somewhere in the 1970s, accelerated with the geopolitical seismic shifts of the Eastern Bloc nations transitioning from socialist to capitalist economies in the early 1990s, and solidified in the 2000s, forging the digital principles that now fundamentally alter how societies function. The influence of information technology extends far beyond the internet itself; its design principles and usage patterns permeate other spheres. The debate continues regarding the precise weight of specific media or modes of production in this grand transformation.

Frank Webster offers a useful framework, identifying five key dimensions that help define an information society: technological, economic, occupational, spatial, and cultural. According to Webster, it's not just the presence of information, but its transformed character that has reshaped our lives. Our daily routines, our interactions, our very ways of being are now inextricably linked to theoretical knowledge and the constant flow of information. 

Researchers Kasiwulaya and Gomo, from Makerere University, have suggested that societies fitting this description are those that have exponentially increased their use of Information Technology (IT) to drive economic, social, cultural, and political change. This notion was further solidified in 2005 when governments recommitted to the foundational principles of the Information Society at the Tunis Commitment, outlining a path for implementation and follow-up in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Crucially, this agenda tackled persistent issues like the financing of ICTs for development and the complex governance of the Internet, matters left unresolved in the initial stages.

Some thinkers, like Antonio Negri, frame the information society through the lens of "immaterial labor." This concept points to the production of knowledge and cultural artifacts. However, a significant critique of this view is its tendency to overlook the foundational material and industrial underpinnings of such a society. It raises a pertinent question for the workforce: how many creative individuals does this society truly need to function? It’s possible that a select few "star performers" are sufficient, their work amplified and distributed globally, potentially relegating others to the fringes of the market. We see this trend in publishing, where publishers often focus on their best-selling authors, and in film, where box office performance in the opening weekend can dictate a movie's fate, often short-circuiting organic word-of-mouth growth.

Michael Buckland, in his insightful book Information and Society, explores the multifaceted nature of information itself. He posits that information is not a monolithic entity but is interpreted subjectively, filtered through the unique experiences of each individual. 

The dynamic interplay between the metaphors we use for information and the technologies that convey it is crucial. We can, for instance, describe a society like Japanese society as an information society precisely because we conceptualize it as such. 

The very word "information" is a chameleon, shifting its meaning depending on context. Buckland, in Information and Society, categorizes its various interpretations into three broad domains of human knowledge: information as embodied knowledge, information as a dynamic process, and information as a tangible thing. 

Therefore, the "Information Society" is best understood as highlighting the paramount social significance now accorded to communication and information, where economic, social, and cultural relationships are fundamentally mediated by these elements. 

Within this societal paradigm, the capture, processing, and dissemination of information become the defining activities. Consequently, a vast majority of the population is engaged in the service sector, with those services centering on the manipulation, distribution, or utilization of information. 

The Growth of Computer Information in Society

The sheer volume of data stored globally has experienced an explosive growth since the 1980s. By 2007, a staggering 94% of this data was already in digital format. This exponential increase in technologically mediated information can be measured in several ways: society’s capacity to store information, its ability to communicate it, and its computational power. 

Estimates suggest that the world’s technological capacity for storing information, when optimally compressed, surged from a mere 2.6 exabytes in 1986—equivalent to less than one 730-MB CD-ROM per person that year—to an astonishing 295 exabytes by 2007. This translates to the informational equivalent of 60 CD-ROMs per person in 2007, reflecting a sustained annual growth rate of approximately 25%. In parallel, the global capacity to receive information via one-way broadcast networks reached the informational equivalent of 174 newspapers per person daily by 2007. 

The collective ability to exchange information through two-way telecommunications networks has also seen remarkable expansion. This capacity grew from 281 petabytes of optimally compressed information in 1986, to 471 petabytes in 1993, then to 2.2 exabytes in 2000, and finally to 65 exabytes in 2007. This equates to the informational equivalent of 6 newspapers per person per day in 2007. Meanwhile, the world's technological capability to process information using general-purpose computers, guided by human input, has grown exponentially. From 3.0 × 10^8 MIPS in 1986, it reached 6.4 x 10^12 MIPS by 2007, demonstrating a growth rate exceeding 60% annually over the preceding two decades. 

James R. Beniger eloquently captures the critical need for information management in modern society: “The need for sharply increased control that resulted from the industrialization of material processes through application of inanimate sources of energy probably accounts for the rapid development of automatic feedback technology in the early industrial period (1740-1830)” (p. 174). He further elaborates, “Even with enhanced feedback control, industry could not have developed without the enhanced means to process matter and energy, not only as inputs of the raw materials of production but also as outputs distributed to final consumption.” (p. 175). 

Development of the Information Society Model

The economist Fritz Machlup is recognized as one of the early pioneers in conceptualizing the information society. His research, which began in 1933 with a focus on the impact of patents on research, culminated in his seminal 1962 work, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. This book garnered significant acclaim and was subsequently translated into Russian and Japanese, where the concept of jōhōka shakai (情報化社会), or information society, also gained traction.

The scientific discourse surrounding technology and its role in contemporary society has employed a variety of labels and concepts. This section will delve into some of these, including ideas related to the knowledge economy or information economy, the post-industrial society, postmodern society, the network society, the information revolution, informational capitalism, network capitalism, and other related concepts that have been debated over recent decades.

Fritz Machlup (1962) introduced the notion of the knowledge industry. His initial investigation into the effects of patents on research led him to distinguish five key sectors within the knowledge domain: education, research and development, mass media, information technologies, and information services. Based on this classification, he calculated that in 1959, a substantial 29% of the Gross National Product (GNP) in the USA was generated by these knowledge industries. 

Economic Transition

Peter Drucker posited a fundamental shift from an economy primarily driven by material goods to one increasingly reliant on knowledge as its core resource. 

Marc Porat further refined this economic perspective by distinguishing between a primary sector—encompassing information goods and services directly involved in the production, distribution, or processing of information—and a secondary sector, which includes information services created for internal consumption by government entities and non-information-focused firms. 

Porat utilized the total value added by both the primary and secondary information sectors to the GNP as a metric for quantifying the size and influence of the information economy. The OECD subsequently adopted Porat's definition for its own analyses of the information economy's share within national economies (e.g., OECD 1981, 1986). By these standards, an information society is often defined as one where more than half of the GNP originates from the information economy, and over half of the workforce is employed within this sector. 

For Daniel Bell, the sheer number of employees engaged in producing services and information served as a key indicator of a society's informational character. He famously stated, "A post-industrial society is based on services. (…) What counts is not raw muscle power, or energy, but information. (…) A post industrial society is one in which the majority of those employed are not involved in the production of tangible goods." 

Alain Touraine, writing as early as 1971, spoke of the "post-industrial society." He argued, "The passage to postindustrial society takes place when investment results in the production of symbolic goods that modify values, needs, representations, far more than in the production of material goods or even of ‘services.’ Industrial society had transformed the means of production: post-industrial society changes the ends of production, that is, culture. (…) The decisive point here is that in postindustrial society all of the economic system is the object of intervention of society upon itself. That is why we can call it the programmed society, because this phrase captures its capacity to create models of management, production, organization, distribution, and consumption, so that such a society appears, at all its functional levels, as the product of an action exercised by the society itself, and not as the outcome of natural laws or cultural specificities" (Touraine 1988: 104). In Touraine's "programmed society," even cultural reproduction, encompassing information, consumption, health, research, and education, becomes industrialized. For Touraine, the increasing capacity of modern society to act upon itself signifies a reinvestment of production within society, leading to self-production and self-transformation. This perspective significantly diverges from Daniel Bell's focus on the capacity for efficient societal functioning through information processing and generation.

Jean-François Lyotard contended that "knowledge has become the principle [sic] force of production over the last few decades." He viewed knowledge as being transformed into a commodity. Lyotard believed that postindustrial society democratizes access to knowledge, as information and communication technologies diffuse throughout society, dismantling the dominance of centralized structures and "Grand Narratives." He termed these evolving circumstances the "postmodern condition" or "postmodern society." 

Echoing Daniel Bell's observations, Peter Otto and Philipp Sonntag (1985) proposed that an information society is characterized by a workforce predominantly engaged in information-related jobs, dealing more with information, signals, symbols, and images than with physical matter and energy. Radovan Richta (1977) argued that society has evolved into a "scientific civilization" built upon services, education, and creative endeavors, driven by scientific-technological advancements and the increasing prominence of computer technology. In this view, science and technology emerge as immediate forces of production. 

Nico Stehr (1994, 2002a, b) asserts that in a knowledge society, the majority of occupations involve working with knowledge. He states, "Contemporary society may be described as a knowledge society based on the extensive penetration of all its spheres of life and institutions by scientific and technological knowledge" (Stehr 2002b: 18). For Stehr, knowledge is a capacity for social action. Science becomes a direct productive force, and knowledge is no longer primarily embedded in machinery but rather represents an appropriated understanding of nature, rearranged according to specific designs and programs (Ibid.: 41-46). Consequently, the economy of a knowledge society is driven less by material inputs and more by symbolic or knowledge-based inputs (Ibid.: 67). There is a proliferation of professions requiring advanced cognitive skills, while jobs demanding lower cognitive abilities, particularly in manufacturing, decline (Stehr 2002a).

Similarly, Alvin Toffler identifies knowledge as the central resource in the economy of the information society: "In a Third Wave economy, the central resource—a single word broadly encompassing data, information, images, symbols, culture, ideology, and values—is actionable knowledge" (Dyson/Gilder/Keyworth/Toffler 1994).

Towards the close of the twentieth century, the concept of the network society gained considerable traction within information society theory. For Manuel Castells, the logic of networks—alongside information, pervasiveness, flexibility, and convergence—is a defining characteristic of the information technology paradigm (2000a: 69ff). He elaborates, "One of the key features of informational society is the networking logic of its basic structure, which explains the use of the concept of 'network society'" (Castells 2000: 21). Furthermore, "As an historical trend, dominant functions and processes in the Information Age are increasingly organized around networks. Networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies, and the diffusion of networking logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power, and culture" (Castells 2000: 500). Castells posits that the network society is the emergent outcome of "informationalism," a new technological paradigm.

Jan Van Dijk (2006) defines the network society as "a social formation with an infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of organization at all levels (individual, group/organizational and societal). Increasingly, these networks link all units or parts of this formation (individuals, groups and organizations)" (Van Dijk 2006: 20). While Castells associates the network society with capitalist transformation, Van Dijk views it as the logical consequence of the expanding and intensifying interconnectedness of networks in both nature and society. Van Dijk likens these networks to the "nervous system of society." Darin Barney employs the term to characterize societies exhibiting two primary features: "The first is the presence in those societies of sophisticated—almost exclusively digital—technologies of networked communication and information management/distribution, technologies which form the basic infrastructure mediating an increasing array of social, political and economic practices. (…) The second, arguably more intriguing, characteristic of network societies is the reproduction and institutionalization throughout (and between) those societies of networks as the basic form of human organization and relationship across a wide range of social, political and economic configurations and associations." 

Critiques

A significant critique leveled against concepts like "information society," "postmodern society," "knowledge society," "network society," and "postindustrial society" by critical scholars is that they imply a radical break from the past, suggesting a completely novel societal form. As Frank Webster observes, "If there is just more information then it is hard to understand why anyone should suggest that we have before us something radically new" (Webster 2002a: 259). Critics like Webster argue that these perspectives overemphasize discontinuity, creating an impression that contemporary society bears little resemblance to societies of 100 or 150 years ago. Such assumptions, they contend, can carry ideological weight, fostering a sense of powerlessness and the need for passive adaptation to existing political realities.

These critics maintain that contemporary society remains, fundamentally, a capitalist society driven by the accumulation of economic, political, and cultural capital. While acknowledging that information society theories highlight important new societal characteristics, such as globalization and informatization, these critics argue that they fail to adequately demonstrate how these attributes are integrated within broader capitalist structures. Webster, in particular, stresses the continuities that underpin societal change, distinguishing between historical epochs of capitalism: the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century, corporate capitalism of the 20th century, and the emerging informational capitalism of the 21st century.

To better describe contemporary society through a dialectic of continuity and discontinuity, other critical scholars have proposed various terms:

  • Transnational network capitalism, transnational informational capitalism (Christian Fuchs 2008, 2007): Fuchs argues, "Computer networks are the technological foundation that has allowed the emergence of global network capitalism, that is, regimes of accumulation, regulation, and discipline that are helping to increasingly base the accumulation of economic, political, and cultural capital on transnational network organizations that make use of cyberspace and other new technologies for global coordination and communication. [...] The need to find new strategies for executing corporate and political domination has resulted in a restructuration of capitalism that is characterized by the emergence of transnational, networked spaces in the economic, political, and cultural system and has been mediated by cyberspace as a tool of global coordination and communication. Economic, political, and cultural space have been restructured; they have become more fluid and dynamic, have enlarged their borders to a transnational scale, and handle the inclusion and exclusion of nodes in flexible ways. These networks are complex due to the high number of nodes (individuals, enterprises, teams, political actors, etc.) that can be involved and the high speed at which a high number of resources is produced and transported within them. But global network capitalism is based on structural inequalities; it is made up of segmented spaces in which central hubs (transnational corporations, certain political actors, regions, countries, Western lifestyles, and worldviews) centralize the production, control, and flows of economic, political, and cultural capital (property, power, definition capacities). This segmentation is an expression of the overall competitive character of contemporary society." (Fuchs 2008: 110+119).

  • Digital capitalism (Schiller 2000, cf. also Peter Glotz): Schiller contends, "networks are directly generalizing the social and cultural range of the capitalist economy as never before" (Schiller 2000: xiv).

  • Virtual capitalism: This refers to the "combination of marketing and the new information technology will enable certain firms to obtain higher profit margins and larger market shares, and will thereby promote greater concentration and centralization of capital" (Dawson/John Bellamy Foster 1998: 63sq).

  • High-tech capitalism or informatic capitalism (Fitzpatrick 2002): These terms emphasize the computer as the pivotal technology that has transformed capitalism's productive forces and facilitated a globalized economy.

Other scholars favor terms like "information capitalism" (Morris-Suzuki 1997) or "informational capitalism" (Manuel Castells 2000, Christian Fuchs 2005, Schmiede 2006a, b). Manuel Castells views informationalism as a novel technological paradigm, or "mode of development," characterized by "information generation, processing, and transmission" becoming "the fundamental sources of productivity and power" (Castells 2000: 21). He asserts that "the most decisive historical factor accelerating, channelling and shaping the information technology paradigm, and inducing its associated social forms, was/is the process of capitalist restructuring undertaken since the 1980s, so that the new techno-economic system can be adequately characterized as informational capitalism" (Castells 2000: 18). Castells significantly contributes to information society theory by highlighting how dominant functions and processes in contemporary society are increasingly organized around networks, which form the new social morphology. Nicholas Garnham critiques Castells, suggesting his account leans towards technological determinism. Garnham points out that while Castells frames his approach as a dialectic between technology and society, where technology embodies society and society utilizes technology (Castells 2000: 5sqq), Castells also acknowledges that the emergence of a new "mode of development" is shaped by capitalist production, implying that technology is not the sole driving force.

Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt propose that contemporary society constitutes an "Empire," defined by a singular global logic of capitalist domination centered on immaterial labor. Through the concept of immaterial labor, Negri and Hardt integrate aspects of information society discourse into their Marxist analysis of contemporary capitalism. Immaterial labor is defined as labor "that creates immaterial products, such as knowledge, information, communication, a relationship, or an emotional response" (Hardt/Negri 2005: 108; cf. also 2000: 280-303), or services, cultural products, and knowledge (Hardt/Negri 2000: 290). They distinguish two forms: intellectual labor, which produces ideas, symbols, codes, texts, linguistic figures, images, etc.; and affective labor, which generates and manipulates emotions such as feelings of ease, well-being, satisfaction, excitement, passion, joy, or sadness (Ibid.).

Collectively, neo-Marxist perspectives on the information society underscore the crucial role of knowledge, information technologies, and computer networks in the restructuring and globalization of capitalism, and the emergence of a flexible accumulation regime (David Harvey 1989). They caution that new technologies are interwoven with societal antagonisms, leading to structural unemployment, escalating poverty, social exclusion, the deregulation of the welfare state and labour rights, and a decline in wages and welfare provisions.

The proliferation of concepts such as knowledge society, information society, network society, informational capitalism, postindustrial society, transnational network capitalism, and postmodern society reflects the vibrant sociological debate surrounding the nature of contemporary society and the roles played by technology, information, communication, and collaboration.  The theory of the information society delves into the impact of information and information technology, the debate over defining concepts, and the precise articulation of these definitions. It has evolved into a distinct subfield within contemporary sociology.

Second and Third Nature

This section primarily draws from a single source, which might warrant further investigation and the inclusion of additional references for a more comprehensive understanding. 

The "information society" can be understood as the intricate system by which information is transmitted and received across distances.  As technology has advanced, so too has humanity's capacity for sharing information.

The term "second nature" refers to a collection of experiences that are shaped and transformed by culture.  These experiences are then reinterpreted, imbuing them with new meaning. As a society, we internalize this process, making it feel almost instinctual—hence, "second nature." By adhering to cultural patterns, we develop ingrained ways of using and disseminating information. Whether it's communicating across different time zones via online platforms or sending a letter overseas, these actions have become habitual, often taken for granted. 

However, the process of information sharing has been further amplified by the development of "vectors," which allow information to travel and detach from its original means of conveyance.  This has given rise to what is termed "third nature." As an extension of second nature, third nature exerts a form of control over it, expanding beyond the limitations of its predecessor. It possesses the capacity to reshape information in novel and unforeseen ways. Thus, third nature can "speed up, proliferate, divide, mutate, and beam in on us from elsewhere."  Its aim is to create a dynamic equilibrium between the boundaries of space and time, building upon the foundations of second nature. A prime example of this is the telegraph, which represented the first successful technology capable of transmitting and receiving information faster than human physical movement.  Consequently, diverse groups of people are empowered not only to shape culture but also to forge new possibilities that ultimately redefine society.

Therefore, through the interplay of second and third nature, society gains the ability to explore and exploit new vectors of possibility, where information can be molded to foster innovative forms of interaction. 

Sociological Uses

Estonia, a small Baltic country nestled in northern Europe, stands as a testament to one of the world's most advanced digital societies. 

Within the field of sociology, the concept of the "informational society" is often associated with a post-modern societal structure. Theorists such as Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Manuel Castells argue that a global-scale transformation from industrial society to the informational society has been underway since the 1970s. 

Just as steam power was the defining technology of the industrial society, information technology is viewed as the primary catalyst for the shifts in work organization, societal structure, and politics observed in the late 20th century.

In his influential book Future Shock, Alvin Toffler coined the term "super-industrial society" to describe this evolving societal model. Other scholars and thinkers have employed similar terms like "post-industrial society" and "post-modern industrial society" to convey comparable meanings.

Related Terms

A variety of terms are currently in use, each emphasizing distinct yet interconnected aspects of the emerging global economic order. The "Information Society" aims to be the most comprehensive, recognizing that an economy is intrinsically a subset of a broader society. The "Information Age" is somewhat more circumscribed, referring to a specific temporal period—roughly 30 years—marked by the widespread adoption of computers and the rise of the knowledge economy, rather than an entire economic order. The "knowledge era" focuses on the nature of the content being exchanged, rather than the socioeconomic mechanisms governing its trade. The "computer revolution" and the "knowledge revolution" denote specific transformative shifts, distinct from the ultimate state toward which we are evolving. The "Information Revolution" shares conceptual ground with well-established historical transformations like the agricultural revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

  • The information economy and the knowledge economy highlight the content or intellectual property being traded within an information market or knowledge market, respectively. Electronic commerce and electronic business focus on the nature of transactions and business operations conducted via the Internet and World-Wide Web. The digital economy concentrates on the exchange of digital bits within cyberspace, as opposed to physical atoms in real space. The network economy emphasizes a collaborative operational model, where businesses function collectively within webs or as part of business ecosystems, rather than as isolated entities. Social networking refers to the process of large-scale, global collaboration. The internet economy specifically examines the characteristics of markets facilitated by the Internet.

  • "Knowledge services" and "knowledge value" situate content within an economic context. Knowledge services integrate Knowledge management within a Knowledge organization that operates in a Knowledge market. The pursuit of knowledge acquisition for individuals can involve surveillance, as exemplified by the use of drones for data gathering on other individuals. While these terms may seem synonymous, each conveys a unique emphasis or perspective. Collectively, they represent facets of the likely nature of economic activity in the emerging post-industrial society. It is also conceivable that this new economic order will encompass all these elements and others yet to fully emerge.

  • In tandem with the development of the information society, the phenomenon of information pollution arose, which in turn spurred the development of information ecology—a field associated with information hygiene. 

Intellectual Property Considerations

A central paradox within the information society lies in the ease with which information can be reproduced, creating complex challenges related to intellectual property and the tension between freedom and control. Businesses and capital, whose primary function in this new economy is the production and sale of information and knowledge, often seek to exert control over this resource to manage and monetize it effectively as the foundation of the information economy. However, achieving such control presents both technical and social hurdles. Technically, copy protection mechanisms are frequently circumvented. Socially, users and citizens within the information society may resist the absolute commodification of the facts and information that constitute their environment.

Responses to these concerns vary widely. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (and similar legislation globally) criminalizes the circumvention of copy protection measures (see Digital rights management). Conversely, movements such as free software, open source, and copyleft advocate for and disseminate the "freedom" associated with various information products, emphasizing both cost-effectiveness ("gratis") and the liberty to use, explore, and share them.

It is important to note that the term "information society" is often used by politicians in a superficial sense, implying a general adoption of the internet. The sociological concept of the information society, however, carries deeper implications concerning fundamental shifts in societal structure. The current lack of robust political control over intellectual property leaves us without a clear map of the issues, a balanced analysis of costs and benefits, or cohesive political groups that can effectively represent the diverse opinions shaping this complex landscape within the information society.