[The following is based on part of a presentation I gave
last year at the 20th Winter Chaos Conference in Montpelier, VT on March
23, 2012.]
So, after settling back into the
U.S. in 1972, I was pursuing the conclusion I had arrived at shortly before
ending my three year stay in Brazil, namely that information was the analytical
key to understanding the military dictatorship.
But, that conclusion now had a new twist. I had become intrigued by the possibility
that information defined as negative entropy, the cornerstone of Claude
Shannon’s information theory, had a political resonance. Viewed strictly as a tool for electrical
engineers, information theory provided no justification for drawing any
conclusions about politics. One
electrical engineer who had studied with Shannon
at MIT confirmed for me what I had read about Shannon ,
that he entertained no applications of information theory beyond the purely
technical realm for which he had designed the theory. It became clear to me that the safest way for
me to make any claims about the political relevance of negative entropy would
be in terms of analogy and metaphor.
Indeed this was the course recommended to me by Dave Burrell, CSC, an
old friend and philosopher at Notre Dame.
I would spend the better part of
the 1970s exploring the prospect of what might be called political information
theory, partly through a Masters program at Stanford but largely through
independent study. The insertion of
politics, with a little metaphorical license, into the conceptual core of
information theory raised some incisive, challenging questions. Norbert Wiener wrote "Just as entropy is
a measure of disorganization, the information carried by a set of messages is a
measure of organization.” The political
questions became: Is it possible then to view entropy as a measure of political
disorganization and if so how? Is political
information carried by a set of messages is a measure of political organization?
Or might it be possible to build on Warren
Weaver’s observation in the essay accompanying Shannon’s landmark 1948 publication
that “Information is…a measure of one’s freedom of choice in selecting a
message”? Could information be used as a
measure of one’s political freedom of choice in selecting a message?
One approach I took was to suggest
that electoral choice in political systems was analogous to choice in
information theory. I proposed a
relationship between political organization and the ability to exercise choice
and between political disorganization and the inability to exercise choice.
The analogy can be constructed with
some commonsensical principles of information theory evident. Consider the difference between the single
possible outcome of a two-headed coin toss and the two possible outcomes of a
regular coin toss. Because the choice presented by the two headed coin is a
foregone conclusion, it really poses no choice at all. A two-headed toss provides no news, no
information. The result of a regular
coin toss, on the other hand, to the extent it is unpredictable, makes
news. It provides information.
Plugging the number of possible
outcomes into Shannon ’s mathematical measure
of information, the logarithm for the two headed toss, log (1) to any power,
always equals 0. The logarithm for the regular coin, log (2) to any power,
always has some value greater than zero.
Or, viewing information as a measure of organization, the regular toss,
because it presents us with some choice, measures some organization. The absence of choice posed by the single
possible outcome, on the other hand, measures zero organization.
A dictatorship like Brazil ’s
offered abundant examples of the denial of choice, whether in terms of banning elections
or in the many ways it suppressed free political expression. Take the
situation of the Brazilian electorate during the 21year reign of the military
dictatorship. There were six presidents
during that time, all Army generals, all dictated by the Armed Forces, none of
whom ever had to face voters in an election. It was as if the military Joints Chiefs of
Staff in the United States suspended elections and took it upon themselves the
power to appoint the president. For
Brazilian voters, it was in other words, a no-choice choice – just like a
series of two-headed coin tosses. By
analogy, we can say that the imposed choice reflected a state of political
disorganization whereas the national elections that have been held since 1985
in the country reflect some state of political organization. This certainly makes sense if we think concretely
about the organization of Brazil ’s
electorate. A national electorate which
has no choice to make, nothing to do for 21 years, clearly lacks organization.
It is incapacitated. An electorate, on
the other hand, which has elections to participate in and actually votes in
those elections, clearly, by comparison, possesses some qualities of
organization. The analogy applies
equally as well to more particular sectors of Brazilian society during that were
at the time similarly “disorganized” and to various degrees politically
incapacitated by the dictatorship – the mass media which often had to face
police censors in editorial rooms, artists whose songs or works in other media
were banned, students whose organizations were made illegal, labor activists
whose organizing activities were criminalized and so forth.
I further argued that information theory
offered a way to reinterpret the classical distinction between democratic
tolerance of dissent and dictatorial intolerance of dissent (McCullough, 1977). A probability boundary clearly distinguishes
political systems that tolerate dissent from those that don’t. On one side of the boundary, where there is
effective legal protection of dissent, political communication is less
predictable and therefore, by analogy, measures more political
organization. On the other side of the
boundary, where systemic measures against dissent tend to succeed, political
communication becomes more predictable and therefore, by analogy, measures less
political organization.
This brings me back to my opening speculation about a tie with
thermodynamics. When we recall that
Shannon’s measure of information is mathematically identical to the one used by
physicists to measure entropy, it is a short hop, skip and a jump to start
speculating about something like political thermodynamics. By analogy, a dictatorial system is not just
less organized, it is more entropic – like a closed thermodynamic system. And, by analogy, a democratic system is not
just more organized, it is less entropic -- like an open thermodynamic system. If
open and closed political systems are characterized by climates favoring,
respectively, the improbable and the probable, if such systems may also be
distinguished in terms of organization and disorganization, it seemed
reasonable to draw the analogy to open and closed thermodynamic systems. In an
independent studies paper I did for the Stanford Institute for Communication
Research in 1975, I even proposed a nickname for political thermodynamics. It was “polimix”. Rhyming
with “politics”, it combined “poli”, the first syllable of politics, and
“mics”, the last syllable of “thermodynamics” to suggest a mix of the different
fields.
References
McCullough,
Michael F., “Teilhard and the Information Revolution”, The Teilhard Review,
February 1977
No comments:
Post a Comment