Taran Ramersad writes: <<when people feel they must resort to violence, it is usually because they do not believe that they are being heard.>>
Those who are resorting to violence in Iraq and Israel--and the US--have been heard, and clearly. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that when people resort to violence it is because they are not satisfied with being heard: they want to prevail. If this is so, we might conclude that the success of telecenters requires at least a minimum commitment to the conversations that characterize democracy: where all sides of critical issues can speak and be heard without fear. If the prevailing culture is one of fear, where a regular response to disagreement is violence, then telecenters can become part of the problem, part of that culture of violence. If that is so, then we as practitioners won't automatically assume that 1000 telecenters in any culture anywhere will produce positive results. Our obligations becomes to consider the ecology of the culture, the existing divides, and existing commitment to democratic dialog, before we prescribe telecenters. The medical analogy is useful, I think. Diagnosis precedes prescription. And not all patients thrive on the medicine. The telecenter that enriches one community that lead to a deepening of discord and violence in the next one. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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.
