Last Sunday, we had a chance to hear a presentation by Andrei Codrescu, occasional NPR commentator and acerbic wit. Codrescu grew up in totalitarian Romania before making his way to the U.S. at age 19. During his talk he observed that governments that try to control free speech are likely to rot from within faster than they might fall from external forces. The reason is simple. Totalitarian governments aren't capable of coping successfully with change. They can't be flexible. They don't make use of the collective intelligence of their citizens.
Of course we all know that, don't we? Fifty years ago Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher and immigrant to the United States made a related point in his influential book, Open Society and Its Enemies. George Soros, global finance tycoon-cum-philanthropist has followed Popper's teachings through his Open Society Foundation, an increasingly important institution in Eastern Europe.
From Popper's point of view, free speech is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a successful society. He argues persuasively that utopian thinking, by its very nature, tends to suppress trial and error, practical testing, and experimentation.
What's the point?
Recently, at a meeting discussing a difficult and recalcitrant industry issue, a leader of an industry group said we were wasting our time. He knew what the right answer was and he didn't want to be bothered with new ideas. "Let's just finish what we said we were going to do 20 years ago and then we can look at new ideas." Say what?
Shades of "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
Technology changes. Society changes. Thinking changes. Some experiences encourage further efforts along the same path. Other experiences suggest that we'd better take another look and maybe start over. Consistently holding the same goal is to be principled. Consistently insisting on the same means, as if they were the goal, can be very foolish indeed. Codrescu, Popper, and others tell us that confusing means with ends can create a fatal paralysis and inability to cope with change.
Again, what's the point?
SEMCI, i.e., single-entry, multi-company interface, was originally conceived of as the means to improved industry efficiency. Times have changed and now it looks like some kind of agency technology/carrier Web site hybrid solution can provide significantly more efficiency than classic SEMCI. Hybrid interface now appears to be a more practical and quicker solution to the efficiency goal. So why not adopt it, or at least thoroughly discuss it?
SEMCI has been so thoroughly sold as an end in itself, rather than as a potentially discardable means to an end, that many people in the industry are unwilling to speak out on its increasing irrelevance. Our industry is infected with totalitarian, utopian thinking and behavior. Codrescu warns that causes rotting from within. Popper warns that it leads to irrationality. Utopian thinking isn't good for business.
Isn't it time we promote free speech on this and other critical industry topics? Isn't time we embraced practicality over doctrinaire thinking?
Are carriers, agents, vendors, and industry leaders free to say what they really believe about SEMCI and other taboo topics? Right now, I'd say no.
Does that make any sense? I don't think so.
© Copyright 2002 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved