Taran Rampersad wrote:
My point, Taran, is that images such as these do not recognise that the world is "rooted so deeply in traditions of geopolitical economics." It is unrealistic because it portrays ICT as "cutting through those traditions". It portrays "geopolitical economics" as irrelevant and drives to discuss the 'digital' divide in these terms as "blind stabs", as you say. All that matters is technology, and access to it. All that matters is that it could be done with "*present* technology" and all the all kinds of reasons why it cannot melt into Negroponte-ian bits. It does not provoke questions about the ('traditional') inequalities that underly the 'digital' divide. It does not present realistic ways in which ICT can contribute to easing them. What it does provoke, as one list subscriber pointed out to me off-list, is a flattering perception of ICT designed to arouse the desire to consume - goodness, not to change anything! - among its viewers. Not a very surprising message for an advertisement from a telephone company, but one representative, I believe, of the epitome, of messages about ICT especially vis a vis the 'digital' divide, and therefore dangerous in the context of realistic discussion (or inspiration) on the role ICT can play in social/political/economic change.I don't see what was portrayed in
the advertisement as unrealistic - I see it as what could be with the
*present* technology and yet is not available because of all sorts of
things. That gets us into a WSIS discussion, perhaps even a focal WGIG
discussion. But all these acronyms serve as different blind stabs at a
solution that many of us see, but cannot enact in a world rooted so
deeply in traditions of geopolitical economics. An advertisement that
portrays a cutting through those traditions to the very core - THAT is
worthwhile.
An interesting sidenote that is somewhat interesting to consider: WhenSomething similar happened in Spain last year following the Madrid bombings. The government of the time, with an election eminent and their ratings buoyed through their strong stance against ETA (the Basque paramilitary group), were adamant to the public that ETA were behind the bombings. It was only from outside sources - the internet, satellite TV, telephone - that people learnt that Al-Qaeda cells were responsible and that their government had lied to them for their own gain. I don't see the point of your argument here alongside mine. These things happen regardless of technology. (Or in the case of Gandhi and this advertisement, they do not.) If you don't look at the politics you won't understand why.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, the Japanese did not know. They
heard rumours which were unconfirmed. They found out from the
announcement of the United States... how perfectly odd. Imagine someone
in another country telling you that part of your country, for all
intents and purposes, ceased to exist...
I drew a line between the two, Taran. The point in my reply to both were similar. What I responded to in the Wiki thread was your statement (a slip, I've no doubt, I can't believe you meant it - literally at least - as it came out):Presenting every new thing as a sapling that only needs encouragement
to blosom and sprout change for the better - as Taran did in his
alegorical reply to my post on that matter - is to treat all things
equally and thus anihilate the portential of everything. The way we
imagine technology needs to be [based on] realistic,
socially-grounded terms and we [need to] imagine realistic, socially-grounded
needs, less as technological deficits on the part of those who are
exploited and impoverished. Advertisments such as these do not help
matters and they abound.
Actually, I think you missed the point of the alegorical reply. Some things fail, some things do not fail - how that annihalates the potential of everything escapes me, as I am certain that the point I was making was that everything has potential and that dismissing that potential simply because something is new is not only annihalating the potential of the object of discussion - it's a annihalation of the potential of the original structure, and is therefore self defeating.
How you mixed the two subjects of the advertisement and the Wikis is
quite interesting, and again I wonder what part of the conversation I am
missing. There was never a line drawn between the two aside from the
fact that I responded to both threads, as did you.
"the era preceding Wikis lacked said influence"
... all 2 million years of them, Taran? I'm picking on this point not just to be a smart arse but to highlight what I believe Alfref meant by, "Every new idea is seen by some as a solution."
Please note my inclusion of Alfred's sentiment. Describing the relationship of the technological to the societal as "some things fail, some things do not fail" diminishes the role that technology plays in human society just as it diminishes human society as relevant to understanding the use/purpose of any technology. This is what I meant when I said, "To treat all things equally and thus annihilate the potential of everything," just as Alfred wrote, "Every new idea is seen by some as a solution." You are not missing any part of the conversation, however, you do seem to think that I am "dismissing [the potential of something] simply because something is new." That is not the case. I am talking about the ways in which we imagine technology - dangerous ways, if we are to seriously discuss the meaning of what it is to be in a divided world or to think of ways in which to use technology to lessen those divides.
Public awareness helps matters, by the way. And advertising is a vectorTaran, I was born in the rural area, I work in the "ghetto", this advertisement is irrelevant to both and a distraction from the real needs of those places and the real people who live their real lives there. It is a fiction, its a presentation dangerous and counterproductive. What it sells is an ideal that neither presents the reality of exclusion nor inequality nor realistic solutions to them. This is what is wrong about the advertisement and what I sensed in the snippet I quoted from your reply to the Wiki thread.
for public awareness; but do not believe me. Leave your office, hop a
public transportation bus if you can and go tour the other side of the
digital divide - the ghetto of the city, or the rural area. Ask them
about 'Digital Divide', and they will probably give you a blank look -
but show them an advertisement such as the one featuring Gandhi, or show
them to an internet connection and allow them to affect their own world
through technology in tangible ways... people may say 'I want to do that'.
I hope this clarifies matters, Oliver Moran
Digital Media Centre Dublin Institute of Technology Ireland.
--
This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT Information Services MailScanner Service, and is believed to be clean.
http://www.dit.ie
_______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
