Oliver Moran wrote:
> 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".
Forgive me, but I believe a little more 'unrealism' might be the key.
'Bridging the Digital Divide', per se, is also unrealistic.
> 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.
Funny, I didn't get that. Had they not had Gandhi speaking in Western
settings, I would have agreed with you.
> 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.
No, it's not surprising at all. But I still don't understand what has
you irked. Business is a fact of life. That business is communicating a
vision of what 'could be' is something I applaud - these things we speak
of, technology and use of technology - cost money. Sure, the Italian
company will make money on the advertisement. I have no problem with
that, because if people become disillusioned with the service they
receive they should 'vote with their feet'.
Further, by communicating such a vision, the bar has been raised for
competition. That should mean lower rates and greater access. It also
means more money going into R&D, and all sorts of other things. The fact
that the people in the main office of the business are probably flying
around in private jets is a completely separate matter.
> Something 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.
I'm not arguing with you at all. I am presenting a perspective and
trying to understand your own. Politics in the Digital Divide? Why
certainly. Monkeys practice politics. Really. The point I was making was
that the communication was not available reliably when it came to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Your point about Spain is actually very similar.
That politics mars the ability to communicate reliably is no surprise,
and is another hindrance that must be addressed. And that can only be
addressed through more communication *above* the government level - at
the level of the people (in a democracy).
> 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):
>
>> "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."
>>
Again, you took the quote out of context. The era preceding Wikis lacked
the influence of Wikis. That is VERY clear. If this is a point of
contention, please let me know - I'll repost the relevant quote within
context. Or you could look back in the archives.
> 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.
We celebrate the stone axe, but the failures leading up to the stone axe
were the innovative steps necessary to get there. To omit those steps,
or think that they can be omitted, is something that is simply wrong.
The modern aircraft is the result of experimentation. We do not have to
repeat what we did wrong because we learned from it (hopefully). I don't
buy into an elitist path to technology; history doesn't either.
> 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.
Yes, yes, we can do bad things with technology. We do it all the time.
Though it is tempting at times, I have stayed away from becoming a
Luddite because of it. I'm not afraid of technology, I am afraid of
mankind's use of technology. And yet, focusing on the good aspects of
what can be done with technology does not seem to be enough for
yourself, and perhaps Alfred. You've told me that you think the
advertisement including Gandhi wasn't good, and you presented a
perspective which I simply do not subscribe to. I respect that.
Yet let me ask you this: How would you have the advertisment done? What
would you have done to make it better?
>> Public awareness helps matters, by the way. And advertising is a vector
>> 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'.
>>
>>
> Taran, 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.
No, in fact, it shows no exclusion, no inequality - but it DOES show
realistic solutions. It shows what could be. We're all involved here
because of what could be. Bitching and moaning about the status quo
won't get anyone anywhere unless they can communicate a better vision.
Can you communicate a better vision?
>
> I hope this clarifies matters,
It doesn't clarify your perspective to me at all. In fact, your
perspective disturbs me in that it's very grounded in the reality, but
seems to lack a vision, imagination.... Please communicate your vision
to me so that I am less disturbed (hopefully).
--
Taran Rampersad
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net
"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
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.
