CHAPTER 6: THE THIRD LEG OF EFFICIENCY:

COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL REFLECTION

In the preceding chapter we were able to identify the optimal

process or procedure of arriving at decisions as the praxis progression of
seven stages -- or as the case may be, of the four stages leading to
approval. Explicitly or implicitly we were also able to identify many
suboptimal states where in one way or another the progression was
arrested or made imperfect or incomplete. But we were able to do so only
in the context of a single individual engaging in reflection and related
action.

However, we must recall that this study is not about individuals ; it

is about social systems including more than one individual. In this
situation the reflection stage and even the action stage can assume a wide
variety of forms, some more and some less desirable: we are seeking to
identify, if we can, the optimal variety. The key ingredient of such search
for optimum or optima is the form of communication among members of
society for the various purposes of "social reflection."

Two examples will both illustrate better what is at stake and form
a certain extreme case of anti-optimality or greatest undesirability. The
first is the case of a dictator, who while living in a society of many
members can practice his praxis progression on his own -- as the typical
individual of the preceding chapter -- his only problem of communication
being how to communicate and enforce his decisions on the other
members of society. His praxis progression may be complete or
incomplete, efficient or inefficient, but practiced by a dictator the social
participation will always be most imperfect, if not evil, on account of the
first two structural laws of participation.

The other extreme case is a society which does not communicate at

all, where everyone takes his/her decisions individually, and whenever the
ensuing actions are in conflict the parties or individuals involved fight it
out in one way or the other. We may refer to this as the law of the jungle.

28
 At the other end of the spectrum we find the ideal form of what
can be identified as optimal social reflection based on social
communication of the highest and most democratic type. Such
communication, practiced in an atmosphere of truth, justice and mutual
respect among participants, is based not only on the exchange of
information of various kinds but also on what we may call social
reflection. This process we may refer to as DIALOGUE. Through
dialogue we not only transmit and share knowledge and information: we
also create knowledge and information which could not have been
attained otherwise. We do so through the interaction of individual
consciousneses of the participants within a certain framework of
dialogical harmony.

We can now complete the unfinished work of the preceding

chapter by saying that the optimal social process practiced in an optimal
society is a praxis progression where social reflection and action is based
on and resides in dialogue.

But of course this simple statement is exceedingly difficult to

translate into tangible reality and practice. A good portion of the later
chapters and parts of this study are devoted to this difficult task without
ever hoping to provide all the answers. The greatest obstacles to true
dialogue are the difficulty of finding and creating the necessary
preconditions of dialogue. The difficulties are both of a technical nature
[how to dialogue among large numbers?] and psychological. Coming
from market competition ruled by the dollar, we find ourselves closer to
the law of the jungle than to the conditions of dialogue. Even in a typical
family we find often more of jungle and dictatorship than of true dialogue.

I will leave it to the reader assisted by professional political

scientists to evaluate how close to dialogue and to social praxis progession
are the western political systems. But in general the situation is quite
dismal on all accounts. Information transmission and creation of
knowledge is much closer to bullying of opportune and often untrue
pieces of information serving primarily the election of candidates. The
candidates themselves are like little dictators with one-sided flow of
information buttressed by advertising skills in place of Goebbels, and piles
of dollars instead of guns and concentration camps. Instead of shooting to
kill they use media to kill true social life which is the pulse of social
reflection and action.

29
 The ushering in of high electronic communication may at first give
us hope that we can come closer to true dialogue. But the unfortunate
divisions between the "electronic haves" and "have-nots," the "noise" of
infinite and humanly unmanageable volumes of information, punctuated
by pornography and the like -- and above all, the ever-present
unidimensionality and power of the dollar make us doubt positive
outcomes of such hopes [save perhaps the more peaceful bliss of the have-
nots -- the blessed poor?]

The ever increasing noise and one-sidedness of television and

other cybernetic advertising in fact, in my opinion, leads to a total
dehumanisation and destruction of the possibility of human dialogue as an
instrument of participation and social reflection. A full analysis and
substantiation of my claim would be too difficult at this stage of our
analysis. However the situation can be likened to billions of little
dictatorial acts of the advertisers towards millions of individuals in
thousands of instances which are forced, unsolicited, on the audiences. In
other terms these instances can be thought of as mini-rapes of human
consciousness with some compensation in the form of the minimal
programs offered. Alas, these programmes are diminishing all the time in
volume and quality, while the violent acts are increasing in volume and
efficacy of deception techniques.

30