The Societal Design of a
Societal Cyberspace

Erik Stolterman
erik@informatik.umu.se
Department of Informatics
Umea University, S-901 87 UMEA
Sweden

Doug Schuler
douglas@scn.org
The Evergreen State College
Olympia, WA 98505, USA

ABSTRACT

Information technology is rapidly infiltrating into nearly all aspects of modern life. At the same time cyberspace is emerging as an important new "space" that can store information and facilitate communication. Although the idea of cyberspace is imbued with both pragmatic and utopian potential for societal uses there is little effort underway to recognize the importance of cyberspace as an occasion for societal design nor to initiate the process. In this paper we consider the dynamics of cyberspace evolution, theories of societal design of technology, and ways in which societal design could be initiated. There are several areas where cyberspace already can be used to contribute in a societal way is: (1) create communities; (2) societal design and visioning; (3) use cyberspace as a tool for its own design; (4) build awareness with conferences, projects, and information sharing; and (5) institutionalization.

Keywords: cyberspace, society, design, societal design, social implications, public good.

INTRODUCTION

We as a society are facing a future in which information technology will play an increasingly important role. It would be difficult if not impossible to precisely identify all the complex facets of that role, but all the evidence seems to validate the hypothesis that information technology is here to stay and will diffuse into almost all other technologies, systems and artifacts that we employ in everyday life. It doesn't stop there, however. Our society is not only being infiltrated by new technology, a new staging ground for our societal activities is emerging. A societal cyberspace is growing rapidly, the product of an uncoordinated, short-term oriented and conflicted "design process" that is rarely grounded with explicit principles. The purpose of this paper is to argue that we, as researchers and citizens, need to more actively engage in a societal design of this new and increasingly critical aspect of our society.

New technologies have traditionally been implemented and adapted over time, thereby providing at least some time for reflection, adjustment, and, in some cases, rejection. However, this does not imply that we, as a society, necessarily foresaw the consequences of accepting a new technology. For instance, very few people could have foreseen how cars and a well developed system of roads would completely change the way we live our lives. This happened even when the new technology itself did not challenge the common understanding of reality or society at that time. Roads already existed and cars could easily be seen as a new form of horse and carriage. It was not the isolated technology itself (the car) that made the new world appear: it was the physical and social system or network that sprang up to accommodate the use of the car.

With information technology, we are facing a technology that is different in many ways from everything we have previously encountered, and it is spreading at a blinding speed. It seems as if we know and feel that something important is happening but we can not really see it or understand it: Too much is happening and too quickly. To many of us it may feel like we are running at full speed with our eyes closed. We feel the speed and the wind in our hair but we have no control over where we are running and, seemingly, no time to think about consequences. This paper is about that feeling and how it might be tempered. Is it true that we have our eyes closed? Can we open them and if so, do we know how to turn? Do we know where we want to run? Or how fast?

Information technology has some distinct properties that challenge our way of understanding and working with a new technology. First of all it has the character of being a meta technology. This means it can be used to simulate and hybridize other technologies, and especially other media (Schuler, 1996). At the same time, computer technology is disappearing; it is diffusing into all our artifacts. We do not see everything as computers but we know that our artifacts are probably already becoming connected to other artifacts or to the net. This is true, or will soon be true, for our cars, appliances, houses, musical instruments, etc. This means that cyberspace is growing, not only as a virtual space but also in relation to our physical reality. It is moving into that reality, becoming a part of it. In this respect, the real and the virtual are merging. It also works the other way around. On our computers many of us have something that can be controlled as and works like a CD-player. On the screen you can see something that resembles a CD-player control board, but it is only a graphic visualization of a common CD-player control. We are recreating the physical in the realm of the virtual. With the technology we can work with graphics images, video, music, or information in any form, in ways we could never have done with traditional technologies.

Information technology transcends traditional technologies in addition to being a meta technology for traditional technologies. When this happens we do not know how to understand and fully appreciate the new thing since we have to change our understanding of what is and what is not possible to accomplish with the technology. The evolving global information and communication infrastructure (for convenience called "cyberspace") is a good example of where "transcendent" technology could take us.

Because every consumer ("client") node on the Internet can potentially be a producer ("server") node and because the basic protocols are non-proprietary and widely available, the technology is easy to use in a "tectonic" way. Tectonic, according to Webster's dictionary, is "the science or art of assembling" materials in construction A tectonic approach is possible when systems allow new parts and new functionalities to be added without necessarily changing the basic structure and dynamics of the system. Architectonic systems, on the other hand, are designed in their entirety at the onset (Stolterman, 1999). A tectonic system can be designed without one super designer, since the technology allows continuous adding and linking of new parts to the overall system. An ubiquitous multicast, digital communication network with well-known protocols is an early perfect medium for tectonic development. The evolution of tectonic systems are much more difficult to predict than architectonic systems, since the latter has a purpose and a goal that is well-known and often built into the structure of the system itself. A tectonic system does not have to have an overall agreed upon purpose or goal, the system can evolve in many directions at the same time.

Cyberspace is a good example of a tectonic system. As soon as a thing, a machine, a system, or an artifact is computerized in some way it is also possible to connect it to other computerized things. This is evident if we look back at the evolution of computers. From the beginning, computers were stand-alone machines with specific functions. Today computers are only those things we need to get in touch with the system, or the Net. The shift from stand-alone machine to the idea of a global computerized telecommunication system of digital connections changes the preconditions for our society to handle this new technology; we are facing a new kind of basic infrastructure, an infrastructure that actually is part of a new reality, a new and real part of our society. (Actually the telephone system got this process started. The Internet, being more tectonic, will presumably carry this much farther due to its relatively low starting costs, more connections, reliance on digital rather than analog information, open standards, and programmable interfaces.)

This paper is concerned with the question of whether we, as a society or as a society of societies, should formulate strategies for the future of that new infrastructure. And if so, how do we do it? Is it even possible? Strategic work requires at least a partial understanding of the dynamic processes governing the system in question. As a society we are presumably not interested in change for the sake of change, but in intentional change, though our intentions may differ. Maybe we would like to push technology in a way that strengthens our democracy or our basic societal values and ideals (Wenk, 1995). Maybe we see intentional change as a way to create a technology that will support strong democracy (Sclove, 1995) or any or all of the other five community "core values" (Schuler, 1996). Or maybe we want to see the technology as a way to support a sustainable society along ecological guidelines. But whatever our societal goals in this respect may be, we need to know how important is it that we understand the present situation and the basic forces behind the changes that are now taking place whether they are intentional or not.

In this paper we will focus on the possibility of successful interventions in the evolution of a societal cyberspace by considering what needs to be known and understood, and what kind of approaches might work. At this stage it is important to acknowledge that it might not be possible to fulfill all societal intentions concerning the future of cyberspace. There may also be something innate in the technology or in "human nature" that prevents the fulfillment of these societal intentions. On a less "philosophical" level, we need to realize that some organizations, forces, and institutions have intentions such as profit-taking, censorship, need for power, etc. that might serve to negate (or seriously marginalize) other intentions. There may, in fact, "not" be "room" for fulfilling these intentions in cyberspace, in spite of conventional wisdom to the contrary.

It is important to realize the impossibility of perfect knowledge. It is not possible to wait until we understand everything before we can do anything. There is today a risk that we as a society could become paralyzed by this wish of only acting after we are fully "enlightened." On the other hand, rushing in with simplistic and naive (and possibly irreversible) suggestions on how we as a society should steer cyberspace development should be avoided. Our recommendation is for strong, open, and active societal engagement in the design of a societal cyberspace.

THE DYNAMICS OF CYBERSPACE EVOLUTION

The most important forces that we can see behind the future evolution of cyberspace can be (at least) grouped into: (1) technological innovations and developments (as distinct from) (2) new software designs and products, (3) emergent uses of cyberspace, (4) the adaptation to societal structures and processes, (5) commercial interests, and (6) policies and regulations. Of course, these forces are strongly interdependent; how they interact may result in even more important (yet unforeseen) forces. It is also true that how we acknowledge and interpret these forces shapes our overall conceptualization and expectation of cyberspace. These conceptualizations and expectations are among the most important aspects of a societal design. This conflicting and diverse body of biases, knowledge, and apprehensions has a substantial impact on how we understand cyberspace and how we act upon it. That is why what is being said and written -- along with what is not being said or written -- about cyberspace is so important.

(1) Technological Innovations and  Developments

The basic physical structure making cyberspace possible is, of course, the technological system of hardware and software systems. This physical structure has over the last years grown in ways that would have surprised almost anyone ten years ago. The growth is truly remarkable and what is perhaps even more stunning is the fact that it actually works. We can probably take that fact as a sign that the conceptual and physical underpinnings are sound; The Internet has survived thus far in spite of many pessimistic prophecies.

The technological development of cyberspace is too multifaceted and complex to be framed in a simple way. The research and resources put into new technological ideas are overwhelming, both in size and scope. Moreover, we still foresee a continuous development of computers both in capacity and power. The ability to store and manipulate information will continue to be enhanced. We will probably see the same development in telecommunications. The possibilities to send and transfer large amounts of information to larger numbers of people and devices will continue to increase. We will also probably see new technological breakthroughs and innovations that will make these predictions come true. We can never predict, however, the appearance of new technological systems that completely change our perceptions of the nature of the technology itself and how that technology might be used. While this is true, we still need to remember that the technology itself is not without limits. There are inherent barriers to unlimited development. In fact we may be approaching limits imposed on computers by nature: the degree of miniaturization, the speed of light, exponential increase in costs in some fields, etc. All this is to a certain degree possible to predict. But at the same time, additional technological advances may be the least important, in terms of societal uses and intentions. People have predicted the future power of computers but few could foresee cyberspace in the form we know it today or in the forms it may assume tomorrow.

(2) Software Designs and Products

If we look at large software companies, such as Sun, Microsoft and America OnLine, we can both understand and predict their behavior to some degree in relation to how they will try to change and shape cyberspace. But the innovations, the new and radical software and products that will truly change cyberspace, may not came from those sources. Software development is different from technological development in that it still may be possible to come up with a new idea -- and new software -- that changes our way of using the underlying technological structure. Cyberspace currently is a tectonic system providing a basic infrastructure on which anyone can potentially build. This is not to say that the nature of the tectonic environment can not radically change. The World Wide Web provides through open standards a tectonic environment quite different from the Internet upon which the web was built. Certainly software developers can still write non-web applications on the Internet, ignoring the web, but realistically how can one of these actually gain popular acceptance? The technological environment for all practical purposes has changed.

The force of new software designs and products is very difficult to predict, not only in terms of what it will produce but also where it will come from, who will be behind important changes, and also how organizations and individuals will act within traditional social contexts (such as economic and political systems). History has shown us that when innovations emerge from marginal or other non-institutionalized sources, there is also a possibility that the source has a motivation or purpose for its work that is at odds with the dominant paradigms. The innovation might, for instance, not be used as a vehicle for attaining fame or wealth, instead it might be used to serve a cause. When this happens dominant expectations and predictions are severely challenged since they usually build on the assumption that actors will act within prevalent systems.

The force of software development therefore is a force of great but somewhat unpredictable power. It is not a force easily guided or steered by any kind of regulation or policy. It may be difficult to influence the course of "marginal" development by social or economic strategies or plans since these programmers may reject dominant economic and social systems.

(3) Emergent Uses of Cyberspace

Cyberspace is expanding and evolving. Every time someone comes up with new and unanticipated ways to "use" cyberspace, people are intrigued by the prospects of the emergent reality. We have witnessed its development from a pure ASCII-text based use to a situation when sound and pictures are becoming commonplace. We also see how three dimensional worlds, video, and different forms of interactivity are being developed, disseminated and embraced. And these are only the new emergent direct effects.

With the development and use of these new capabilities, imagination and creativity seems to be flourishing. People are designing and talking about ways to socialize in new cities, new communities, new networks. They create new ways to spread knowledge and information, to spread ideological, cultural, social messages to the rest of the world. They create wonderful and strange new art forms and artistic experiments. Even if everything we do is grounded in our history and present reality, it is possible to talk about emerging new "life forms" in cyberspace which may ultimately complement, replace or damage existing patterns of relationships ("life forms") outside of cyberspace. How these new life forms will change our perception of society is difficult to say. History is littered with reasonable and unreasonable prognostications that never arrived. How these new life forms influence and change our perceptions of society will in turn change our design strategies and philosophy, our ability to reshape society in desired directions with cyberspace applications and services may prove to be even more elusive. Some barely noticed characteristics of one new system may respond with unanticipated resonance to specific social or historical conditions, vastly overwhelming what seemed to be reasonable forecasts based on prior technology. It is clear today that within the last five years we have seen the introduction of so many unanticipated ways to "use" cyberspace that it may seem almost pointless to try to predict anything for the next five years.

But we have learned some things. For instance, we know that the real inventive use of cyberspace is not determined by technological breakthroughs alone. Policy, investments, expectations, and the ways in which people elect to use cyberspace are important as well. In many cases, new "life forms" have been based on prior technology with known functionality. One of the most inventive and fascinating uses of cyberspace is different forms of MUDs, MOOs (Curtis, 1997) and chat groups, most of which take advantage of simple text based technology without sophisticated interfaces. It is obvious that when our perceptions and our understanding of what cyberspace is and can be are changed, new spaces of possible actions (that may have been there all the time but went unnoticed) are opened up. We also know that knowledge (which includes biases and misconceptions as well as factual information) in the larger population can greatly effect the further evolution of cyberspace. Although we may think of cyberspace as being very popular, it is so far a place for a minority of people. In the future we are likely to see a much broader mix of inhabitants in cyberspace. The diversity and the way new forms of "use" will be developed and spread is likely to increase as new inhabitants influence cyberspace and cyberspace influences new inhabitants.

We need to continue to study cyberspace as a genuine part of our society. Cyberspace is not necessarily just another arena for doing the same things in the same ways as we always have done. It creates new opportunities and limits for our way of holding society together and to change it into something we want it to be. If the ways in which cyberspace affects society are not recognized they will take us by surprise, when we ultimately recognize that things have changed in ways we were not aware of. Therefore, studies of emergent life forms, new ways of using cyberspace, new ways of structuring social networks and communities, and new ways of keeping things together and apart, all must be essential foci of our research activities. This task, of course, will demand an effort from almost all traditional academic disciplines. It needs almost the same broad approach as the study of our traditional non-cyberspace reality.

(4) Adaptation to Societal Structures and Processes

In the evolution of cyberspace we will not only see new life forms in cyberspace, we will also see a lot of collisions and connections between these new ones and the already existing forms in real life, such as companies, organizations, regions, counties, cities, neighborhoods, etc. All these collisions will probably give rise to second ordered consequences, important both to the evolution of cyberspace and to the development of our traditional society. The way commerce is conducted is likely to change and also, more significantly, how we relate to people in our closest social networks such as relatives, neighborhoods and communities as well. A tremendous adaptation process has already begun. Banks and insurance companies are struggling with the questions of how cyberspace will change their business. (Although financial institutions and other larger corporations have a "head start" in that financial operations are already familiar with globalized information systems.) Non-profit organizations are trying to use cyberspace as a way to reach their goals in a more cost effective way, and also, perhaps, in a way that is more in line with their values and ideology. The study of new life forms in cyberspace has to be complemented with studies on how traditional institutions will find new ways of doing business. We will probably see as many new unanticipated consequences of cyberspace outside cyberspace as we will see inside. In this process all parties will have to struggle with adapting a system of customs, regulations and laws that have been designed for a traditional society and may not be strictly applicable for the new cyberspace influenced society, as evidenced by current struggles on copyright, privacy, and censorship, to name just a few areas.

(5) Commercial Interests

Whenever a new field of human activity is opened up by technological, social or some other kind of change, there will be always be people who see the new arena as a possibility for business. This is a very strong force in our society and will obviously be also present in cyberspace. Since the Internet was originally conceived for non-profit use, the basic structure and technology that was implemented ignored (and in some cases frustrated) many of the capabilities that would be required had the system been designed for commercial use. This has caused some problems for commercial interests, since there has not been sufficient security for transactions, no way to charge for transmission and no mechanical way to charge for -- or prevent -- copying of digital material. These interests have, however, quickly adapted to the situation and have put extensive effort into some larger re-designs, or at least, additions, to the basic technological structure.

John Perry Barlow has characterized cyberspace as "where your money is." At this time, commercial interests devote a lot of energy to adopt their activities to these new technologies. We are today close to solutions concerning money transfer and security good enough for commercial use in a larger scale. This is likely to have a tremendous impact on cyberspace as a public place, and in many other areas as well. For example, we now see Java interpreters embedded in credit cards, thus merging consumer credit institutions with web based technology. Economic repercussions will be felt when we have operational and widespread technology of this kind. Once again we are faced with implications that are difficult to foresee.

We are concerned with how these forces hinder or promote societal development and use. Cyberspace is not a limited space, but we can easily imagine it being dominated. We observe similar things happening, for instance within other media such as the airwaves, magazine or book publishing (Bagdikian, 1992). Whether commercial forces can occupy the "whole space" is only interesting from a theoretical point of view -- the important question is whether commercial (or other hegemonic or monopolistic) interests can or will dominate cyberspace to such a point that they effectively marginalize all others. If so, then there may be cause for concern. A good empirical test for whether some forces effectively occupy cyberspace may be to check peoples' perceptions; if people perceive that commercial forces occupy the whole or nearly all of cyberspace, then it may be equivalent to them actually dominating the whole .

(6) Policies and Regulations

We have in these last years seen some attempts to shape cyberspace and its use. Some regulations have been discussed and some have been implemented, with varying results. There has been an awareness that actions have to be taken from a societal point of view. These concerns so far have almost always been related to legal matters, such as copyright, privacy, the legal status of an email, censorship, what is an electronic document, intellectual property, etc. There have been many problems in the process of formulating these new policies and regulations because cyberspace is still evolving in terms of both technology and societal use; cyberspace is changing so fast that regulations may become outdated by new technological developments and changes in the basic infrastructure before they are even implemented. Finally, it must be noted that many people who are proposing legal solutions are acting on incomplete or, in some cases, erroneous information.

The activities in this field can so far be characterized as a problem-solving-approach. It is usually event-driven. When new legal or social problems occur, legislative bodies attempt to fix them, by adding a new paragraph to an already existing law or by creating some new regulations or policies. This is all to be expected, but it is not a suitable approach when we are facing the task of creating and designing a whole new part of our society. We cannot "repair" our way to our future. We have to accept our (society's) role as the designer of this new reality, this new societal "space."

Whether or not changing the policies a bit at a time is the correct way to proceed, it is still probably the way it will happen at least in the near future. But what can we say about this process? What other knowledge can we employ to help us get some feeling for the process? That different countries use different models. That the Internet can only be "shaped" at broad levels, and then only, incompletely. That government may have only two real tools -- the "carrot" of incentives and the "stick" of regulations. And that socially relevant services are probably possible but they may not be realized without inclusion of all people, government investment, social activism and creative public design.

ARE THERE DARK FORCES?

There is a strong public relations effort (coming from industry, the media, and many governments; e.g., the U.S. and the European Union) that cyberspace evolution will continue, without any real threats, to continuously develop; that it will inexorably grow into a more and more inclusive medium, growing more useful with each passing day. But how realistic is this? Might there be "dark forces" that could force this dynamic system to halt or to pervert it into something that meets narrow, parochial goals, rather than broad societal goals? Today there are, at least, two potential dark forces, which may themselves be interlinked: (1) the concentration of power and control of cyberspace, probably through the telecommunications and media industries and/or national governments and (2) Its possible use as a megaphone for new, potentially global, types of propaganda.

Cyberspace has evolved in many non-anticipated and surprising ways, both as a technology, and in the ways that it is used. If the dynamic system (described above) ends up under the power of one dominating force which can control the technological infrastructure (economically or otherwise) society will lose opportunities for shaping cyberspace in socially relevant ways. This is not only a threat to the societal use of cyberspace but, taking a long-term perspective, to the future of communication and therefore, to the future of democratic discourse and influence.

Secondly, as our experiences with newspapers and radio have shown, new media offer new opportunities for propaganda. On the one hand, the Internet offers new possibilities for those in power to extend their power further; Goebbels suggested that the state should use the media to play the masses like a violin. Thus far, the Internet has shown a pronounced resistance to this impulse. On the other hand, groups with little power can use the Internet to reach potential allies and converts, thus extending their reach far in excess of their "power," however legitimate or illegitimate it may be. Manuel Castells (1997) has noted how the American rightwing "militia movement" has successfully used the Internet for recruitment. At any rate, we can't rule out with any confidence either possibility. A message or messenger of unexpected resonance (perhaps due to unexpected new social conditions) may erupt in cyberspace with surprising virulence.

The strength and effectiveness of these "dark forces" could prevail if they were not balanced by a willingness from society (the citizens) to take an active part in the future development and nurturing of cyberspace. If people withdraw because they don't understand the technology or believe that cyberspace only leads to kids being seduced into bad habits, or because that "porno is the only thing on the net", we could soon have a situation where an important part of society (perhaps the dominant media of the future) is developed by a relatively small group of "digerati" representing large economic and other non-societal interests. Even if these dark forces have enormous power, there is probably still time for effective societal counter measures. We may find that the most dangerous force today may be the unwillingness of people to take action. If we do not accept that cyberspace is an important new societal space that, at least partially, has to be designed and that this design is part of our political and ideological responsibility, we run the risk of ceding its future to dark forces.

Theories on societal design of technology

Without diving too deeply into intricate philosophical questions concerning the "true nature" (if indeed there is such a thing) of technology we need at least to pay some attention to what history can tell us about our chances of governing or steering the development of new technology. Even if technology is to some extent recognized as a key determinant in the evolution of modern society, it is rarely given adequate or appropriate attention. Technology contributes directly to the quality of modern life, from the most mundane of personal endeavors to the operation of global systems that affect every vital function of society (Wenk, 1995; Sclove, 1995). Even if this fact is acknowledged, it is rarely turned into a societal interest in the technological dimension of society (Sclove, 1995). Feenberg (1995) writes that people designing and developing technology have more control over the way society will evolve than all the governmental institutions of our society put together. One implication of this is that "ordinary people" or societies can become -- or contract with -- designers to develop applications and services that they find useful. It is also always possible for government to develop regulations and policies related to technology, thus making the policies and regulations real and more powerful. The argument is not that technology is actually more "inherently" powerful than government, but that governmental institutions are not taking technology seriously enough. Technological development for the most part is being handed over to private initiatives.

Over time, two mainstream interpretations of the role of technology in society have evolved: the idea that technology more or less determines society (technological determinism) and the idea that technology should be understood as socially constructed (Mitcham, 1994; Feenberg & Hannay, 1995). There are today many different interpretations of what a deterministic and a constructivistic understanding of technology would mean. The question here is whether society can effectively engage in the overall design of a new technological system (such as cyberspace), and, if so, how -- in practical terms -- should that be carried out? Feenberg (1995) argues that even if technology to some extent shapes its context, it also opens up many possible branches that can be chosen and the determination of the "right" branch is not within the competence of engineering, because it is simply not inscribed in the nature of the technology (Feenberg, 1995). We also note that there is no one "branch" in cyberspace; cyberspace is apparently "big" enough to accommodate a great many branches.

Does this mean that technological studies are not important, or that the choice of the branches that are chosen is only an act of chance, hidden in the complexity of societal structures and processes? The answer is yes, as long as that act of choice remains invisible, intentionally or unintentionally, while the deterministic image of a technically justified social order is projected (Feenberg, 1995). In the case of cyberspace, it is important to note that all major decisions about the Internet (including, most significantly, to divest in into private hands) were made with virtually no public knowledge or input, even though it was the US taxpayer who paid for its decades long development! There is consequently a strong need for the knowledge that reveals the hidden choices otherwise that are selected before society has any knowledge about them. The complexity of technological systems and their impact must therefore be studied as carefully as possible (Wenk, 1995). This of course will not lead to a "complete" understanding of these hidden choices but it will at least help us to see that the development is potentially in our own hands, and not something fully determined by unintelligible technological momentum. Sclove states that it is important to acknowledge that society's deepest need is not to predict future consequences of a future technology. Instead we have to observe and evaluate the technologies we already have. This might lead to promoting, reforming, or replacing certain existing technologies rather than integrating new technologies into a taken-for-granted, preexisting technological order (Sclove, 1995). Feenberg argues for similar approach when he argues for a subversive rationalization of how we understand technology. His purpose, and ours as well here, is to bring back some hope to society not totally in the hands of an invisible technological imperative, and to present an alternative to both the ongoing celebration of "technocracy triumphant" and the gloomy Heideggerian counterclaim that "Only God can save us from techno-cultural disaster" (Feenberg, 1995).

Is it possible to steer the evolution of cyberspace?

A strategy (or strategies) are clearly necessary if we intend to steer and guide future choices and actions in situations that we have yet to encounter. Strategies are conscious formulations of future actions to reach even more future goals. Strategies can simply be understood as either goal oriented or process oriented. When the strategy is goal oriented we see the future goal as pre-eminent, and we do not have to bother about the process, as long as it leads to the desired goal, a totally sustainable society, for example. In a process oriented strategy the focus is on how to handle situations where design decisions have to be made. One approach, for example, could be to devise a "strong democratic" process that engaged large numbers of people in a deliberative process. Neither of these strategy types seems to be applicable in its pure form, however. Someone espousing the perfect goal situation will most probably also have ideas on the legitimate ways to attain that goal.

An effective strategy, therefore, must address both process and goals. But how can we know that a strategy will work? It is often assumed that a strategy has to be based on an understanding of the underlying dynamics of the complex system that the strategy seeks to influence. The dynamics of the system is used as a way to see "cause - action - consequence" relations. It is a way to find the natural or causal laws or structures governing the overall system. It is, from the above, quite obvious that cyberspace and the infrastructure of information technology, especially as it applies to societal ends, is a complex system of such magnitude that a totally rational approach is not possible. This means we can not rely on the belief that more research will fully reveal the underlying dynamics of the system, i.e. all the laws, forces, relations, structures, regulations, intentions, politics behind the systems actual "behavior." We need to realize that the myriad forces behind the development or evolution of cyberspace are very strong, extremely complex, difficult to measure, and sometimes contradictory. Even within small segments, such as the development of a specific new technological feature, there are competing standards and competing interests. What feature or features will in every such instance become a survivor is impossible to predict. And when all these small processes are put together we end up with a system of extreme complexity. When a system is not possible to understand in a "cause - action - effect" way, we need to find other ways of dealing with the future of the system. If the system can not be fully understood, we can instead define limits and policies (as well as incentives) that will influence the evolution of the system. This can be done in many different ways and are a well-known strategy in other fields of society, for instance in economy, educational systems, labor market, etc.

We can do this by strict regulation, or strict standardization, or by defining laws and regulations narrowing down the possible evolutionary routes of the system. Design directions can also be established proactively through incentives and initiatives, perhaps by assisting existing institutions like libraries and schools. In many cases these strategies will still require deep insights into the purposes of the system, its role in society, its history, etc. In the case of cyberspace we have little of that, only rudimentary findings and analysis. We are faced with the question of guiding a system's evolution without knowing its "purpose" or best possible use. Still it has to be done. Design decisions must be made. We have to decide where to put our resources. Should society take full responsibility for every citizen's access to cyberspace? Must society take any actions in relation to the commercial development of cyberspace? Or do we need to address even more basic questions such as how prominent will cyberspace be in the future or is the Internet the technological foundation? Or, even, should society accept responsibility for the care and development of that basic structure? Resolving these decisions and many more design judgments like them are critical in a democratic society. Unfortunately, many of the "decisions" now being made are ad-hoc, indirect, and parochial.

When a system is too complex to fully understand or control, we have to acknowledge the situation as a design challenge. That means we can not wait for the time when we have enough information or knowledge to make truly rational decisions: That time will never come. We need to realize that we won't be able to know everything and that changes are occurring while we are studying the situation. If we don't act upon "incomplete" knowledge we will never act. At best, we'd be able to identify decisions after the fact that we could or should have been made.

We have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions concerning what kind of society we want and how cyberspace can be part of our continuous struggle to reach and build that society. It is about the conscious and deliberate design that transforms something unknown into something real. And this process includes the political and ideological dimension.

The Societal Design of Cyberspace and the Design of a Societal Cyberspace

When technology is discussed as something that can be shaped, some important aspects are often overlooked. We will here only mention some of them. A strategy concerned with such a complex system as cyberspace and its future has to deal with questions related to society's will, intention, judgment and trust. First of all there has to be the will to change, to guide and to steer society in certain directions. Will can very simply be understood as the driving energy in the process. Will is probably based on and gets its energy from our belief in some core values related to our way of living, our religion, our thoughts on society, or from our role as politicians, executives, members in organizations, political parties, citizens, etc. The strength of the will to change among influential sectors of society will likely determine whether society as a whole will engage in the strategic design of how new technology is incorporated in that society.

If will is desire and energy, then intention is direction and focus. Intention is the rationality behind our actions when we know what we want to achieve and also how to act to reach our goals. Intention has to be guided by judgment. All through the process of determining how a new technology will be used, we have to make judgments in line with our intentions. As we know, these judgments can seldom be fully informed (as discussed earlier) so they have to be made based on the trust that our judgments will lead to the goals or situations we want. Wenk (1995) states that "the grand issues of our time are settled by public policy decisions more than by market forces," although public policy decisions, at least in the US, are discredited and discouraged with regards to the Internet. But if society does not believe in its possibility to influence how these grand issues will develop, then there is no need for will, intention, judgment, and the only trust is in the hope that the inherent force of technology (and the institutions that are molding it) will create a society we want.

With these concepts in mind -- will, intention, judgment and trust -- the question of strategy becomes less a question of knowing everything or of being fully informed. It becomes less a question only for the knowledgeable and the experts. This does not mean that information and knowledge is unimportant, instead it emphasizes the relation between the existing and the not-yet-existing, and puts our strategic efforts in the social and historical context where they belong. Strategies for cyberspace and its societal use can only partially be a question of knowledge and scientific answers. It is a political question of the same kind that we ask of our educational systems, social systems, etc. It is about what we want it to be and what ends we want it to serve.

Many actions can be undertaken without any further deliberations. Since cyberspace is not something that has to be treated as a whole, parts can be designed, new opportunities can be opened, land can be broken, parallel evolutions are possible, protected zones can be created. Cyberspace will never be fully occupied, it will not run out of resources, it will not be completely finished, unless some actors are determined to close the system and monopolize its structure and functionality or, as might be more likely, society perceives it as closed and withdraws from its further development. But whatever the boundaries of cyberspace may be (or even if they exist at all) it is not too early (or late!) to think about "public space in cyberspace." There are enormous possibilities for experiments, to create societal spaces, to create communities in new ways, and to design cyberspace (or parts of it) in line with overall societal needs and visions. It is not necessary (or possible) to create everything, but it is possible to provide social and technological infrastructure in ways that will not proscribe the possible societal uses, but, instead, create opportunities for individual, local and regional design efforts.

There are several areas where cyberspace already can be used to contribute in a societal way is: (1) create communities; (2) societal design and visioning; (3) use cyberspace as a tool for its own design; (4) build awareness with conferences, projects, and information sharing; and (5) institutionalization. These can serve as areas where societal design encounters and experiments can be conducted without necessarly incurring large costs and still provide substantial knowledge on how a future societal cyberspace would look like.

(1) Create Communities

One of the most recognized emergent aspects of cyberspace is the way it is used to host virtual communities of different kinds. A virtual community consists of a number of people, brought together by a similar interest, using cyberspace as a meeting place and an information commons. Cyberspace today is a rich medium for the spawning of virtual communities. In a societal perspective it might be possible to use virtual communities as a way to enhance both local and regional social engagement by making it possible for citizens to create, develop and participate in virtual communities with societal purposes.

Today this use is restricted in many ways due to accessibility and technological and economic restrictions. Around the world, community activists are developing community networks, a type of virtual community based on the idea that access to cyberspace should be free or almost free to anyone who want to participate (Schuler, 1996). Community networks provide a rich platform for societal design because they intentionally act to expand the number and demographic characteristics of the people who "inhabit" cyberspace. Many of these systems (the Seattle Community Network, for example) encourage broad public participation in the ongoing design while intentionally broadening the policy debate. One of the purposes of SCN, to use the words of US President, Thomas Jefferson, is to "inform the discretion" of the public in order to promote good decision-making in society generally and in the realm of cyberspace specifically.

(2) Societal Design and Visioning

In a democratic society there is always a need to reach out to citizens with information and presentations of new designs and new venues for their participation on the future development of society. Citizens need to know about new proposals for sports arenas, schools, traffic systems, advisory boards, parks, and other public facilities, institutions, and policies. Since cyberspace is less restricted in terms of time and place and is a kind of meta media, it offers important opportunities as a forum or arena where these societal designs and visions can be presented and discussed. Since the visualization power of the information technology (multimedia, virtual reality, 3D-graphics, video, music) is beginning to be used with more frequency in cyberspace (Krygier 1997) new ways to reach citizens and to increase participation in the societal design and visioning processes are seemingly within reach.

At the same time, citizens also need to envision possible dark uses of cyberspace in the hopes of preventing them or diminishing their negative effects. Although much of this discussion is short-circuited (often by denigrating people who raise these issues) the point remains that an undesigned and unregulated cyberspace offers a plethora of significant threads that deserve public scrutiny. A brief list of these threats would include loss of privacy, widespread dissemination of propaganda and disinformation, manipulation and control, continued social exclusion, commercialization, and damage to geographical community.

In general, it will be necessary to try to control the "dark forces." In less ambiguous terms, this means preventing power or control from being too concentrated. This probably means limiting through some means corporate ownership and control. It also means that inexpensive, multi-way universal access needs to be a social goal. On the other hand, the "light side" forces need to have room and encouragement to grow. This means public investment, support for civic institutions, and increased public participation.

(3) Use Cyberspace as a Tool for its Own Design

Since its inception cyberspace has been used as a tool for its own design. That is because cyberspace provides media for communication and communication about the medium being used. Users also are cognizant that the medium - its policies, technology, and users - is dynamic and is capable of modification. Kollock and Smith (1999) provide numerous examples of community cyberspace design.

There are at least three ways in which the design process is undertaken. The first technique (and the least participatory) is when developers observe behavior on a cyberspace medium and identify new requirements for the system. A variant on this is when users communicate their desires or concerns to developers who are then free to add those features at their own discretion. This is the most common developmental model. A somewhat more participatory technique is when users are involved in the development and implementation of cyberspace policies. The process by which Usenet newsgroups are created is an example of that as are the policies in many MUDs.

The strongest form of design may be cases where "the community literally designs itself" as in the case of Pueblo, a "cross-generational, network-supported learning community developed by its own members" (O'Day, 1996) built on MUD technology foundation (Curtis, 1998). In the case of Pueblo, however, some distinction remains between users (who are generally elementary school students) and developers (who include researchers at Xerox PARC). This distinction, at least in theory, is much diminished in Seattle Community Network as anybody can contribute to policy discussions, although board members (elected from the Seattle Community Network Association (SCNA) membership - not by SCN users) are the final decision-makers in many cases.

(4) Build Awareness with Conferences, Projects, and Information Sharing

If cyberspace development is dictated solely by cyberspace "inhabitants," then it is an exclusive development process indeed. Even in the fairly technologically advanced United States (and the "home" of the Internet) those with Internet e-mail still constitute a minority of the population. Furthermore when the number of potential decision-makers is small and represents a fairly narrow spectrum of the population, the decisions that they render may not be the same ones that a broader group would produce. In the United States, for example, the Clinton administration declared that the proposed National Information Infrastructure (NII) would be developed and owned by corporate interests even though development of the Internet, a potentially vast public asset, was paid for almost exclusively with taxpayer funding.

To raise consciousness and to increase the diversity and participation in the societal design of cyberspace, it is important to develop public forums, and conferences that encourage multiple viewpoints and are widely distributed. These forums provide the opportunity to develop and disseminate relevant information. Although governments in democratic societies (at local, regional, and national levels) are appropriate convenors of such forums, their involvement thus far has been minor, especially when contrasted with their potential involvement. Non-profit organizations are doing some work in this area, although the resources that they can bring to bear on these issues is miniscule compared to corporate and government investments in other Internet-related projects. In early 1997, for example, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility sponsored (DIAC 97) devoted to "Community Space and Cyberspace: What's the Connection" (Page and Schuler, 1997) in which many of these topics were raised. Examples from the Seattle area were provided as a "tapestry" (below) that demonstrate the diversity of non-profit socially-relevant cyberspace projects. Working on community projects that build cyberspace capabilities through actual hands-on experience is an excellent way to promote citizen cyberspace literacy. The Benton Foundation, Libraries for the Future, and many other organizations have also sponsored conferences and workshops on similar themes. The Loka Institute is promoting community research at a national level (Scammel, North, and Sclove 1997) and recently sponsored an innovative "Citizens Panel" on the uses of telecommunications in the US. Finally, there have been attempts among computer science researchers to further this agenda in Europe (Casapulla et al, 1998; Navarro and Serra, 1997), and in the US (Schuler, 1998a, 1998b).

A "Tapestry" of Societal Design of Cyberspace Projects

1. University Collaboration. E.g. the "Civic Capital" project (http://www.gspa.washington.edu/Trust/tighome.html) at the University of Washington.

2. Community Activism. E.g. Project Compute that establishes access to computer equipment, network services, and training programs in a low income neighborhood community center; and the Homeless Women's Network (http://www.speakeasy.org/hwn) that is "dedicated to empowering women and youth to overcome the limitations of homelessness and poverty."

3. Free Public Networks. E.g. Seattle Community Network (SCN) offering free e-mail and other Internet services to anybody (over 13,000 registered users) and computer training and support to community organizations. (http://www.scn.org.)

4. Government Programs. The Seattle Public Library provides public access terminals at all their branches The city also runs PAN (the "Public Access Network") (http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us) which provides extensive information on city agencies and city issues on the system, and works with community groups to help them develop expertise and an electronic presence.

5. Community Research. In which community members develop and implement research projects that they themselves have deemed relevant to their lives. The Sustainable Seattle project (http://www.scn.org/ip/sustainable) developed a set of indicators (including participation in the arts, wild salmon population, voting rates, and many others) that provide useful data regarding Seattle's "sustainability" over time is a good example of this. The Loka Institute in Amherst, Massachusetts, has done considerable work in this area (See Scammel, North, and Sclove, 1997, and Sclove, Scammel, and North, 1998.)

6. Alternative media. The web currently is a natural haven for alternative media. For example, in Seattle, Amp Magazine (http://www.wrldpwr.com/amp), Real Change (http://www.speakeasy.org/realchange), Steelhead (http://www.speakeasy.org/steelhead), Washington Free Press (http://www.speakeasy.org/wfp). All have presence on the web.

7. Public Advisory Boards. The Citizen's Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board (CTTAB). advises the city of Seattle on technology issues, and recently launched a community technology literacy fund.

8. Internet Cafes and Other Public Technology Centers. The Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.org/) and various low-income housing centers.

9. Other access programs. Includes public access television, community radio, free public voice mail program for homeless and phoneless clients.

Whether studies like these will lead to community enhancement and an increased participation in democratic processes is not possible to say. We have seen many examples throughout history where technology had been advanced as an answer to social and societal problems but failed to live up to the claims. We believe that it is possible to diminish the possibility of another failure by designing cyberspace in a societal way.

(5) Institutionalization

In the design of a societal cyberspace, many opportunities exist today for the growth and development of community enhancing technology; not just "community" in cyberspace, but cyberspace for community. If, however, the four approaches to societal design of a societal design just discussed are not strong enough to withstand other forces, forces whose objectives solely for financial advance, for example, then the idea of community enhancing technology is likely to become a historical footnote. To this end, it will probably be necessary to advocate for ways of institutionalizing community space in cyberspace. Although institutionalizing sometimes has a negative connotation in people's minds, we need to be concerned about developing and sustaining community space in cyberspace. Institutionalizing simply means establishing a consistent and reliable pattern for replicating processes often through channeling resources in a sustainable way. An "institution" need not be static or irreformable. Certainly in today's dynamic environment this type of "smoke stack" institutionalization is inappropriate. Instead flexible institutionalization that can respond quickly and agilely is needed to meet the challenges. Nor must the institutions that husband the societal design of cyberspace be brand new. The public library, although an institution, is evolving as media and literacy evolve. Moreover, the institutionalization of alternative viewpoints is not logically impossible nor unprecedented. Realizing the importance of diversity in the public agenda and decision-making, Norway and Sweden institutionalize (through government subsidies) newspapers with alternative views.

The current investment in commercial cyberspace is staggering. Although the investment by non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), educational institutions, libraries, and government organizations is also growing, the commercial sector has gained dominance on the world wide web within a very short number of years (Internet World survey). Without significant investment in cyberspace design that is truly societal through this second set of players it is likely that societal uses of cyberspace will be marginal at best.

The news on the government front is disappointing. The Bangemann Challenge (Bangemann Commission, 1994) issued by the European Commission and the analogous documents issued by the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NIST, 1994) and the CapAccess program in Canada all suggest that the new communication technologies will be a boon to citizens yet shy away from advocating any significant investment in the societal design strategies discussed above. The societal will to change the direction of these programs in significant ways doesn't seem to exist at the time of this writing.

Conclusions

Cyberspace can, and probably will, become a very important part of our society. To meet a broad range of individual and collective, short-range and long-range goals, it is important, however, that this new element of society is addressed in a public and democratic fashion. It is not satisfactory to leave that design solely to commercial and other parochial interests.

In the societal design of a societal cyberspace we are faced with two major tasks. First there is the question of making the design process a societal endeavor, and secondly there is the question of what constitutes a societal cyberspace. These two questions must be addressed in a conscious and serious way if we, as a society, will have any chance to have an effective impact on the future of our cyberspace society. The societal design of a societal cyberspace has to be based on knowledge of the nature of the technology and how it can be used. But we also have to recognize that it is a design process governed by our will to create and our intentions to make a difference. As researchers in the field we have to accept the fact that we are part of that design process whenever we state anything about cyberspace, its future and its relation to society. As researchers we are not only describing and explaining we are also playing an active design role by influencing the thinking of citizens and politicians. This is a responsibility that can not be negated by the unrealizable desire to be totally objective or neutral. Researchers thus have a critical responsibility. We have no option but to accept that responsibility.

References