James J O

	*More Radical Democratization.*
	Knowledge and Authority, part two. Another writer reflecting sensibilities similar to those of Lanham is James J. O’Donnel. In Avatars of the Word: From Papyrus to Cyberspace, O’Donnel writes: "The notion that reality itself can be reduced to a single model universally shared is at best a useful fiction, at worst a hallucination that will turn out to have been dependent on the written word for its ubiquity and power." O’Donnel’s "written word" here refers to print bound volumes stored in libraries. He sees the library as the traditional embodiment of positivist knowledge, and center of access to that knowledge. Here he finds the entire concept outmoded in an electronic future: "The idea that the totality of our culture can in some way be incorporated in a library is what will disappear." O’Donnel further suggests that in the future, thanks to computers and electronic publishing, an expanded (indeed potentially infinite) community of publishers will eliminate the exclusivity and power of large, traditional publishing houses and libraries as "gatekeepers on a limited set of narrow information pathways from authors to readers." In the future, he says there will be "as many publishers as readers," and that "…young scholars will no longer speak with such misplaced reverence and awe of the publishing process."
	Visions such as Lanham’s and O’Donnel’s have problematic implications for the future of independent publishing. The postmodern electronic environment they describe would seem to be uniquely hospitable to the small press; everyone could publish and everyone’s publications would be valued. But as I suggested in the last section, the problem is, could such a world ever arise? How much of this is likely, or even possible?
	The kind of postmodern theory outlined above certainly seems to be ignoring existing material, political and socioeconomic conditions. Presumably, this can be explained away by the confident prediction that all of these conditions will be significantly altered in the postmodern future. The fact is, it is never explained at all. (A unique and fascinating critique of these "futuristic utopian" proclamations comes courtesy of Ken Sanes at his insightful website, Transparency.) If we are to accept the theoretical disintegration of centralized knowledge and the power associated with this centralization in a future world of electronic communication, we need to ask how this might happen. What are the political relationships that need to change, and how might they change as a result of technology? In the next part of this section, we see a serious, specific attempt to address this question.	Transparency
	Continue this section. View site map.