Editing Technocracy (section)

==Critiques==
Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" exists between a governing body controlled to varying extents by technocrats and members of the general public.<ref name="Obar" /> Technocratic divides are "efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making."<ref name="Obar" /> Technocracy privileges the opinions and viewpoints of technical experts, exalting them into a kind of [[aristocracy]] while marginalizing the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fisher |first1=W.R. |title=Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. |date=1987 |publisher=University of South Carolina Press |location=Columbia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.2190/56FY-V5TH-2U3U-MHQK|title = Technocratic Discourse: A Primer|journal = Journal of Technical Writing and Communication|volume = 30|issue = 3|pages = 223–251|year = 2000|last1 = McKenna|first1 = Bernard J.|last2 = Graham|first2 = Philip|s2cid = 142939905|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41035399}}</ref>

As major multinational technology corporations (e.g., [[FAANG]]) swell [[Market capitalization|market caps]] and customer counts, critiques of technocratic government in the 21st century see its manifestation in [[Politics of the United States|American politics]] not as an "authoritarian nightmare of oppression and violence" but rather as an ''[[éminence grise]]'': a democratic [[cabal]] directed by [[Mark Zuckerberg]] and the entire cohort of "[[Big Tech]]" executives.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Runciman|first=David|date=2018-05-01|title=Why replacing politicians with experts is a reckless idea|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea|access-date=2020-06-13|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Blum|first=Sam|title=How All Our Tech Heroes Turned into Tech Villains|url=https://www.gq.com/story/tech-villain-era|access-date=2020-06-13|website=GQ|date=16 January 2020 |language=en-us}}</ref> In his 1982 ''[[Technology and Culture]]'' journal article, "The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy", John G. Gunnell writes: "...politics is increasingly subject to the influence of technological change", with specific reference to the advent of [[Great Moderation|The Long Boom]] and the genesis of the [[Internet]], following the [[1973–1975 recession]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Gunnell|first=John G.|date=July 1982|title=The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy|journal=Technology and Culture|volume=23|issue=3|pages=392–416|doi=10.2307/3104485|jstor=3104485|pmid=11611029|s2cid=41734855 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |author2=Peter Leyden |author1=Peter Schwartz |date=1997-07-01|title=The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980–2020|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/1997/07/longboom/|access-date=2020-06-13|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> Gunnel goes on to add three levels of analysis that delineate technology's political influence:

# "Political power tends to gravitate towards technological elites".
# "Technology has become autonomous" and thus impenetrable by political structures.
# "Technology (and science) constitute a new legitimizing ideology", as well as triumphing over "[[tribalism]], [[nationalism]], the crusading spirit in religion, bigotry, censorship, racism, persecution, immigration and emigration restrictions, tariffs, and [[chauvinism]]".<ref name=":0" /><ref>Boorstin, Daniel J. ''The Republic of Technology'' (New York, 1978), p. 6, 59.</ref>

In each of the three analytical levels, Gunnell foretells technology's infiltration of political processes and suggests that the entanglement of the two (i.e. technology and politics) will inevitably produce power concentrations around those with advanced technological training, namely the technocrats.<ref name=":0" /> Forty years after the publication of Gunnell's writings, technology and government have become, for better or for worse, increasingly intertwined.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Jeff Bezos Says Tech Shouldn't Turn Against the Federal Government|url=https://www.govtech.com/civic/Jeff-Bezos-Says-Tech-Shouldnt-Turn-Against-the-Federal-Government.html|access-date=2020-06-13|website=www.govtech.com|date=17 October 2018 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-02-23|title=Opinion {{!}} Facebook is looking a lot like a government|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/facebook-is-looking-a-lot-like-a-government/2020/02/23/2977a204-53f1-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html|access-date=2020-06-13|newspaper=Washington Post|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Leetaru|first=Kalev|date=2018-07-20|title=Facebook As The Ultimate Government Surveillance Tool?|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/07/20/facebook-as-the-ultimate-government-surveillance-tool/|access-date=2020-06-13|website=Forbes|language=en}}</ref> [[Facebook]] can be considered a technocratic microcosm, a "technocratic nation-state" with a [[Cyberspace|cyberspatial]] population that surpasses any terrestrial nation.<ref>{{Cite web|last=LaFrance|first=Adrienne|date=2020-01-25|title=Hillary Clinton: Mark Zuckerberg Has 'Authoritarian' Views on Misinformation|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/hillary-clinton-mark-zuckerberg-is-trumpian-and-authoritarian/605485/|access-date=2020-06-13|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US}}</ref> In a broader sense, critics fear that the rise of social media networks (e.g. [[Twitter]], [[YouTube]], [[Instagram]], [[Pinterest]]), coupled with the "decline in mainstream engagement", imperil the "networked young citizen" to inconspicuous coercion and indoctrination by algorithmic mechanisms, and, less insidiously, to the persuasion of particular candidates based predominantly on "Social Media engagement".<ref>Brian D. Loader, Ariadne Vromen & Michael A. Xenos (2014) [https://www.dhi.ac.uk/san/waysofbeing/data/citizenship-robson-loader-2014.pdf The networked young citizen: social media, political participation and civic engagement, Information], Communication & Society, 17:2</ref><ref>Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing democratic activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>{{Cite conference|date=2011|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_3.pdf|title=Human Media Interaction|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=6847|pages=25–35|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_3|last1=Effing|first1=Robin|last2=Van Hillegersberg|first2=Jos|last3=Huibers|first3=Theo|conference=Electronic Participation: Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2011, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29 – September 1, 2011 |editor1=Efthimios Tambouris |editor2= Ann Macintosh|editor3= Hans Bruijn|chapter=Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? |isbn=978-3-642-23332-6|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In a 2022 article published in ''[[Boston Review]]'', political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates "unjust concentrations of power" and that the concept itself is poorly defined.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cole |first1=Matthew |title="What's Wrong with Technocracy"? |url=https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/whats-wrong-with-technocracy/ |journal=Boston Review |date=22 August 2022 |access-date=12 October 2022}}</ref> With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of "smart democracy" which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.