Society 2.0???

| 11 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

After reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I wonder about the implications of such conversation on society; I was wondering about the design of society. Thinking back to childhood, I remember my parents and grandparents talking about their jobs and how one moves "up" the job ladder. This readings suggests that the interaction of Web 2.0 is creating a structure that is no longer hierarchical. Instead it is referred to as hyperlinked. Skills are valued as compared to loyalty and age. If people have a tendency to no longer move "up," where would they go...over??? Visioning this system in place, I wonder what implications those thoughts will have on society. Will the timeless adage of "survival of the fitness" have more meaning, telling workers that no matter how old you are, you need to keep up with the knowledge of the times? Will companies, businesses, educational systems, etc. be responsible for upholding the training of their more established employees or will those responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the worker? Either option has economic implications. I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding what such a structure, one built on conversation - the exchange of knowledge as goods, would look like. Can you visualize Society 2.0?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/149134

11 Comments

I think "over" is exactly where one can go. The people who can reach into other areas and connect to other aspects of their job will probably be the most valuable. Though it is different from what came before, it is comforting to me to know that people with the most skills are starting to become more valued than people with the most credentials.

Do credentials equal skills?

Aren't we already living in Society 2.0? Or is it more like Society 1.5beta?

You make a good point. Since I am quite a novice with the computer language, I have no idea what the numerals would be for the future society? Society 3.0? (I don't know what 1.5beta means...but it's possible that we have the same meaning but are speaking a different language). Can we find a common language?

I'm not terribly savvy with computer language, either (I made it up). I suppose my point was: Are we already at the Society 2.0 that you envisioned (hyperlinked, updated = successful), or are we not-quite-there (hence, 1.5 versus 2.0)?

Interesting conversation. I hope you don't mind hearing from an outsider -- If so please say so and I'll disappear. Anyway, about "up the ladder" or "over," i think that it's not about location anymore. I think that it is increasingly about "connectedness," which allows one to "be" in many places at once. Perhaps power won't come from "position" in a hierarchical system, but from connectedness -- the ability to get things and get things done through one's associations. But then again, I could be way off.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who adds words to the computerese. (I wonder if not being able to communicate in the proper language of computer speak will impact my role in the virtual community? Hmmm...interesting question...) Anyway, I don't know that I had really envisioned anything yet. I was trying to picture how I currently see society, how this class is opening my eyes and broadening my definition of community within society, and wondering if we continue on this track, what would the connectedness of the future look like? One day I think that we will be so connected that everything will be from one device (well, it almost is with the IPhone). I hope that there will be cars that drive themselves (which I know that they are working on smart cars which can park themselves). I just wonder what other possibilities exist and whether we will ever be able to disconnect once we become to connected...

Welcome to the conversation! Hearing outside perspectives is very beneficial and definitely intriguing. Your connection between connectedness and power makes sense. After all, I was taught that life is about networking - it's all about who you know. Therefore the concept of being able to connect constantly and expand the walls of community across continents makes sense, but to me, it's a very scary thought. Does it make you nervous?

It certainly makes me nervous. Will "privacy" have an entirely different meaning in 10 years, or even 10 months? Doesn't it have an entirely different meaning today than it did 10 years ago?

I agree. I constantly think of that movie with Will Smith, Enemy of the State.

I agree that connectedness is a possible metric for measuring success / achievement in a hyperconnected society. I wonder what it means to be connected, or maybe more accurately if some connections are more valuable than others - specifically face to face connects. I know that even with people I connect with online, the most valuable connections I have are in person. It seems like a quantity vs. quality issue - technology allows for lots of more superficial connections, but do they add up to substantive?

Leave a comment

Search This Blog

Full Text  Tag

Recent Entries

Spring 2012 Syllabus
Course Faculty This course is co-taught by friends and colleagues, Dr. Scott McDonald and Cole Camplese. This is the…
Annotation #3
Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R., & Mayes, C. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of…
Annotation #2
Wang, Chun-Min & Reeves, (2007).Thomas. The Meaning of Culture in Online Education. Chapter 1, The Meaning of Culture in…

Tag Cloud

Recent Assets

  • allow viewing.png
  • brad_profile_greenery_1024.jpg
  • Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you.png
  • What is the best way to assess learning.png
  • Student Participation is.png
  • What is education.png
  • Picture 2.png
  • web20image.jpg
  • circle.jpg
  • Day 223 - Learning to use computers by LShave.jpeg

Subscribe