Adding o- instead e-

Adding e- to democracy, government, participation and other elements of civil society has brought some benefits, but also helped develop a new sort of digital divide . The new divide is not so much between connected and unconnected, but between the sceptical, puzzled and frankly confused and a perhaps slightly smug band of professionals offering what Clifford Stoll called Silicon Snakeoil 10 years back. I know, I've been guilty of "what you really need to try is..." and enjoying that slight sense of power that comes from brandishing a new set of tools and esoteric terms.
The problem is compounded when e-people say to not-very-e-people "of course, it isn't about the technology ... " but then have difficulty completing the sentence. It suggests there's a magic ingredient we can't tell you about, but if you take the medicine technology it will do you good. You may not like it much, but change is always difficult, isn't it?
At the same time, the new e- tools are important, because as I was arguing earlier , they can help us work collaboratively, can be used to challenge power-holding institutions, and do allow us to work in both groups and networks. That helps develop a culture of openness, do good stuff together, and begin to realise the potential of collective intelligence.
Which led me to the question, what would democracy, government, participation look and feel like if we added o- for open instead of e- for electronic? Pretty good, I believe, but then - would it sell conference seats and kit?
Thanks to Steve, Paul, and Nick for yesterday's conversation that helped gell these ideas.
Update: Graham Lally has picked up the issue in a comment here, and also over at Sphereless 

Comments

[Graham Lally]

In my mind, 'e-' and 'o-' represent two very different things - electronics is a medium or a tool, whereas openness is a target, or a purpose. That is, I think there's a danger of embedding too many *norms* in to the terms we use. E-stuff describes *how* we do stuff, O-stuff sounds like a *what* we should do.

While I agree that we need discussion around the latter much more, currently, than the former, I also think people tend to be "put off" by systems that impose a certain aim. The popularity of the "E-"ness is that it can be taken and used by anyone for their own ends. Hence, you can have e-citizens, but should you have o-citizens?

Personally, I hate the e- prefix anyway. I'll try and coalesce some thoughts some time soon on that..

[David Wilcox]

Graham - I agree e- and o- are two different things. However, I see o- as a style, approach, set of values and so also part of "how" ... while e- is mainly tools but sometimes gets presented as more than that. As usual we need to ask the "why" and "for whom" questions as well.

[Graham Lally]

Do you think there's a danger of turning a drive for "openness" - which certainly needs a debate around it anyway - into a "brand", almost?

Personally, I try to use e- prefixes as little as possible, as I don't think they really serve to help matters (maybe that subective "magic ingredient" you mention). I fear a danger of "branding" values might turn into a situation much like the drive for "team-building" and "innovation" within business. That is, a fake, almost-enforced push for desired values without understanding that they're merely the tip of an iceberg - the *results* of other, more "bottom-up" philosophies and behaviour that are "harder" to examine so... "scientifically".

Kind of thinking out loud, but I'm basically still not convinced that applying labels to everything is the best way to push change through. That goes for e-stuff too ;)

[David Wilcox]

Know what you mean, Graham. I suppose we could try real- new- :-)