From our readings, it did seem as though Paul Otlet was a kind of a tragic hero who was well ahead of his time, but ultimately shunned by his own government. I wondered if this is an aspect that intrigued and inspired Google to take Otlet into the folds of their history: Google as this idea that was not just well ahead of its own time, but also one that shouldn’t be curtailed or limited by the presumably narrow visions of national governments.
That there was exactly one whole century between Otlet and La Fontaine’s dream in 1895 to index and classify the world’s information and Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s initiative to start Google in 1995 seems to have given Google significant leverage: a whole century worth of a great history of (transnational) informational management.
That Otlet predates Vannevar Bush also makes historical sense for Google to position itself in relation to Otlet rather than Bush. But I also can’t help but wonder if the fact that Otlet wasn’t American also helped Google project itself as an idea/machine/company whose vision and history goes beyond its American origins, thereby enabling Google to position itself as certainly a trans-American, if not altogether transnational, entity. A strategic coupling that would perhaps give Google better access and entry to not just cultural institutions in Europe, but potentially also to the rest of the world.
[Of course Vannevar Bush’s direct involvement in the building of the atomic bombs in World War II made his postwar essay on the need to consolidate all information for the purposes of a peaceful, programmable future all the more ironic. Incorporating Bush into Google’s history and lineage would have been a ticking time bomb.]
Excellent. Thanks, Kenneth. Otlet was committed to using information and professionalization to promote internationalism — so it seems fitting that Google would want to align itself with his legacy, presenting itself as our new global organizer of the world’s knowledge!