The Mythology of Information Overload

Library Trends, Wntr, 1999 by Tonyia J. Tidline

Myths are found closer to the conservative end of Toelken's (1996) "continuum of folklore types" and their "function in most cultures is to provide dramatic experiential models of protected truths and laws which would otherwise be very abstract" (p. 40). Girling and Toelken permit an interpretation of myth as a process that blends ingredients found in other definitions. Myth explains, reflects history, and shapes current response. It supports shared understanding and emotional expression. Finally, it is a vital mechanism, repeatedly invoked in response to societal change. It is therefore possible to see how, even with the advent of the twenty-first century, myth structures human experience. The following discussions of the force and character of the information society, the nature of information, and the problem of overload suggest that information overload can be thought of as a myth developed in response to an overwhelming social process.

THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

Whether or not the information society is heir to post-industrial society is still a subject of debate. What is essential to most descriptions of the information society is that it involves the engagement of most people in "brain work" rather than physical work, and that this development is accompanied by various social, economic, and political changes (Cawkell, 1987, pp. 1-12). However such changes are described, it is clear that they are keenly felt in proportions that are significant for determining the mythic nature of information overload. Several aspects of the information society illustrate its force as a supernatural occurrence.

There seems to be uncertainty surrounding the origin of the phrase "information society" itself. Duff, Craig, and McNeill (1996), in "A Note on the Origins of the Information Society," report the results of a literature search and analysis that credits Michiko Igarashi of the Japanese journal Hoso Asahi for invention of this phrase in 1964. They base their claim primarily on a series of articles appearing in the journal in the mid-1960s, which linked the phrase "information society" to descriptions of post-industrial society. Although the authors credit the Japanese with originating the term, they acknowledge that, in the early 1960s, American economic analysts were also trying to envision a post-industrial society based on production of information. Duff, Craig, and McNeill (1996) cite American economist Fritz Machlup's (1962) The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States as a primary source of ideas about the "information society" (p. 118).

Cawkell (1986) agrees that most people believe that Machlup initiated thinking about an information society. He also states that Machlup referred to "`The Knowledge Industry,'" and "made rather sensational assertions that `Knowledge Production,' was growing more than twice as fast as the average of other GNP components" (p. 87). Cawkell also references Porat's work as inspiring notions of the information society. Porat claimed that half of the U.S. labor force soon would be engaged in "information processing occupations," which "really launched the Information Society concept in earnest" (p. 87). In addition to Machlup and Porat, Daniel Bell is also credited for seminal thinking about economic aspects of the information society (Cawkell, 1987, p. 4).