It was my understanding that a “totally administered society” was a negative outcome for society, at least in the eyes of a critical theorists. This is because this type of society is one that provides people with a fabricated sense of desire and need that is continually unable to be fulfilled through material gains (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010). In order to have a “totally administered society”, it would require those who are unwilling or unable to see how they are being controlled to be greater than those who do or have a hand in the controlling. This would mean that education might hinder the control over society by bringing enlightenment and encouraging free thought. On another note though, with education being standardized, especially so early on, it would be easier to control society and conform to these unnecessary needs. Society also has suggested that a higher education is required of us to be successful members of society, which plays into forming a “totally administered society”, but there are numerous accounts of people being smart and successful without one.
I would consider the internet a potential source for both liberation and domination. It is liberating in that it provides the freedom to explore and be anything while it can be dominating over people’s lives. The latter is more so the case because the internet allows for easy worldwide human connections, but people are so drawn to the ease and anonymity; they forget the people right in front of them. The internet is just another source for the bureaucracy to get to you to play into their suggestive advertisements, whether you realize it or not, and stifle your individual freedom (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010). The internet can be addicting and therefore dominating over our lives, but the internet along with numerous other scientific-technological advancements have “become the god of modern society”, and those who do not accept and use them are considered odd (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 86).