First let me cover off the two reasons you have probably clicked on this post:
- The question mark is on purpose – even though it sounds like a statement. In the end, these are issues of balance rather than black and white rights and wrongs. Then again, maybe I’m biased as I see myself as a technocrat individual
- Technocracy is an actual term for a nation governed by technocrats – I didn’t know this when I wrote it (although I did guess )
I was reading twitter, as you do, when the following tweet popped up:
Believe most people would agree that "politics" is broken and incorporating objectivity into policy via data is a worthy goal. Not Morozov.
— Renee DiResta (@noUpside) July 21, 2014
Objectivity in policy making, more data, rant about politics – how could I disagree! I am an economist, I’m cynical about political parties, I attempt data analysis, and strongly support attempts at objectivity – surely our fine tweeter was talking to my soul.
And yes, data and descriptive analysis to create “knowledge” is undeniably important to the concept of informing policy making.
But I think alarm bells appear whenever politics is termed broken and objectivity is touted as a “solution”. Especially when the critique involved appears to be pointing at someone who tends to say that we can’t just look at ways of breaking down institutions without understanding their purpose – and the ways they actually aid in coordination and welfare. Note: I don’t know if he said something silly today or some such, I just looked on google search and wikipedia – just as a pointer