The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy

American technocracy and Chinese response: Theories and practices of Chinese expert politics in the period of the Nanjing Government, 1927–1949

“…(Chen Zhen(He is a famous author in that time) [14], p. 21). 24 Qian Changzhao (钱昌照) (1899e1988), ever studying on the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Oxford University, was in that time vice-minister of education of Nanjing Government. making of the government.…”

“…In the winter of 1931, Qiang Changzhao, 24 who had studied in Great Britain, submitted a proposal to Chiang Kai-shek. He wanted to establish a national defense planning department to engage prominent people from various circles, and experts in various disciplines to investigate the state of natural and industrial resources and to participate in government decision-making.…”

“…After the Technocracy Movement, technocracy did not disappear in America but was further developed through the writings of Walt Whitman Rostow [57], John Kenneth Galbraith [21], Zigniew Brezinski [9], Daniel Boorstin [8], Daniel Bell [6], Alvin Toffler [76], etc., and was gradually distributed into more and more countries, deeply affecting modern political activities all over the world. Because of its long history and broad scope, technocracy has spawned a myriad of sub-types with divergent features that it cannot be formulated with precision [24,10]. However, all technocracy sub-types advocate 1) technological governance e the ruling of society in terms of scientific principles, technical measures and quantitative methods, and 2) expert politics e scientists and other technological experts should replace politicians and be given political power to manage society.…”

The Disappearance of Adulthood

“…There is a long tradition, particularly within the US, of turning to 'technology' and scientific rationality as a social and political panacea. Indeed, some have suggested that the very nature of modern democracy gives rise to the kind of polity in which both economic elites, because they represent the most influential elements within society, and technical/scientific elites, because they possess knowledge that serves society's needs, provide the requisite political authority in the absence of a meaningful 'public will' (Gunnell 1982). Because of the nature of pluralist politics, and because much of the new technology has a commercial component, it is not surprising, therefore, that many see the field of education broadly as one that can benefit from these technological/commercial advances.…”

Internal ministerial advisory bodies: An attempt to transform governing in the Slovak Republic

“…Technocracy, in its expression of a political pathology, has frequently been likened to a priesthood with access to highly specialised knowledge (Mannheim, 1936(Mannheim, [1997; cf. Gunnell, 1982;Wallace, 1996). Venturing somewhat into the territory of an anthropology of governing, we painted the analysts also as chaste ascetics, purifying themselves of worldly interests and composing a brotherhood of mystics, holding the keys to the interpretation of arcane econometric models, the sole language able to express the ultimate 27 An analysis focused more on the 'micro level' aspects of practice, including its participants and sites, would perhaps be able to offer further insights on translations and coordination between these two types of accounts, particularly on the micro-processes of production and negotiation of 'officialdom' across various practices.…”