Journals / Verimlilik Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 2013 - Sayı: 1

Technocratic theory: The basic themes in historical perspective

Teknokratik teori: Tarihsel perspektifte temel temalar

Pages
107–122
Publication Date
2013-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Indeed, it is from this premise that the study draws its primary theme; “the politics of expertise.”

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Even though technocracy has yet to arrive as a governing system, the issues posed by the project are now seen to be critical concerns in contemporary political and social theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Some postindustrial writers maintain that technocratic strategies only lead to a new type of politics, much more technical in nature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Indeed, it is from this premise that the study draws its primary theme; “the politics of expertise.”
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Even though technocracy has yet to arrive as a governing system, the issues posed by the project are now seen to be critical concerns in contemporary political and social theory. In every environment, there are experts and their functions in society are recognized to be among the most fundamental social and political issues of our time. There is, however, an important difference between early and modern theories of technocratic development. Whereas earlier technocratic writers saw knowledge replacing politics in governance processes, leading contemporary theorists no longer necessarily see the ascent of experts ushering in the demise of politics per se. Some postindustrial writers maintain that technocratic strategies only lead to a new type of politics, much more technical in nature. Indeed, it is from this premise that the study draws its primary theme; “the politics of expertise.”

Özet

Teknokrasi, yönetim sistemi olarak vasıl olmamasına rağmen projenin ortaya çıkardığı konular günümüz politik ve sosyal teorisinde ciddi ilgi uyandırmak- tadır. Uzmanlar her ortamda bulunmakta ve onların toplum içindeki işlevleri, çağımızın en temel sosyal ve politik meseleleri arasında tanımlanmaktadır. An- cak, erken ve modern teknokrasi gelişme teorileri arasında önemli bir fark var- dır. Daha önceki teknokratik yazarlar, yönetim süreçlerinde bilginin politikanın yerini aldığını söylemişler ise de; önde gelen çağdaş teorisyenler, uzmanların yükselişinde politikanın terkini artık başlı başına bir unsur olarak görmemek- tedirler. Bazı post endüstriyel yazarlar, teknokratik stratejilerin sadece doğal olarak daha teknik yeni bir politika türüne öncülük edeceği fikrini sürdürmekte- dirler. Nitekim çalışma, bu önermeden kendi ana temasını belirler; “uzmanlığın politikası.”

🔖

Cite This Article

TOSUN, C., KESKİN, F. (2013). Technocratic theory: The basic themes in historical perspective. Verimlilik Dergisi, Cilt: 2013 - Sayı: 1, 107–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/24512

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Langdon WINNER, Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977), p. 47 2. Robert HEILBRONER, The Limits of American Capitalism (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 115 3. Wilbert E. MOORE, Social Change (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 89 4. Walter E. ROSTOW, Politics and the Stages of Growth (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971), p. 56 5. Daniel BELL, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 349 6. Jacques ELLUL, The Technological Society (New York: Knopf, 1964), p. xxv 7. Şuradan alıntılanmıştır: Herbert MARCUSE, “Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber” in Negations (Boston: Beacon, 1968), p. 204 8. Elliot FREIDSON, Professional Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 3 9. Ibid 10. Max WEBER, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner, 1958) 11. Hans GERTH and C. Wright MILLS, From Max Weber (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 221 12. Ibid 13. Johanno STRASSER, “1984: Decade of the Experts?” in 1984 Revisited ed Irving Howe (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), pp. 162-63 14. Peter BERGER, Brigitte BERGER and Hansfried KELLNER, The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (New York: Vintage, 1973), pp 97-115 15. Ibid 16. WEBER, The Protestant Ethic, p. 182 17. Paul GOODMAN, New Reformation: Notes of a Neolithic Conservative (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 192-93 18. William H. SMYTH, “Technocracy: Definitions and Origin”, Nation 125 (December 28, 1932), p. 646 19. Francis BACON, The Great Instauration and the New Atlantis, ed. J Weinberger (Arlington Heights, IL: AHM, 1980) 20. Bkz. William LEISS, The Domination of Nature (Boston: Beacon, 1972) 21. Peter GAY, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, 2 vols. (New York: Knopf, 1966-69) 22. Marquis de CONDORCET, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (New York: Noonday, 1955) 23. E. H. CARR, Studies in Revolution (New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1964), p. 2 24. Howard P. SEGAL, Technological Utopianism in American Cultural (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 62-63- 25. Ibid., p. 47 26. BELL, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society 27. Henri de Saint-SIMON, Social Organization, the Science of Man and Other Writings (New York: Harper Torch, 1964), pp. 1-27 28. Bu benzetme, Saint-Simon’un eseri L’Organisateur’da vardır (1819). Bu, Felix M. H. Markham’ın, Henri Comte de Saint-Simon: Seçilmiş