1 Answer | Add Yours
On one hand, I would say that Toffler's statement about the glacial pace of bureaucracy is relevant to the modern setting. Toffler depicts a social setting that advances outside of the driving force of bureaucracy. Government is shown to be a force that can only try to counteract the force of social change. Future shock, or the condition of massive social change, can only be slightly offset by bureaucracy with the presence of counseling programs. Another way that governmental initiatives can be seen would be in trying to enact some feeble regulation over the intensity and magnitude of technological change. Governmental bureaucracy is not shown to be much of anything against the turmoil intrinsic to both the marketplace and the social setting.
I would suggest that Toffler's ideas about what social construction is like in a state of future shock can possess relevance to the turmoil in the modern marketplace. The force of technological change and its ripple effect in the marketplace is a reality in which transience, impermanence, and diversity are almost assumed. With seismic changes through informational technology, these changes in the marketplace and the turmoil that comes along with it are almost understood. At the same time, I think that Toffler's depiction of governmental bureaucracy as being a step off and a step weakened in seeking to gear this change towards good for all is highly applicable. Government can only try to minimally limit the impacts of such change on both a domestic and international scale. In the end, the force of change, the force of future shock, envelops even governmental bureaucracy.
We’ve answered 319,197 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question