Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
Jeff (Axup), thanks for continuing the discussion and opening up many new sub-threads -- I would like to address every one of those, but clearly can't. But let me continue the conversation anyway. Bear with me through the following points which seem unrelated to the issue initially. 1. The idea of 'developing' versus 'developed' nation is a Western, 20th century one. I don't quite care for politics, or ideologies, left, right, center, religious, political, sociological, etc. but this much seems clear to me; ALL nations deemed 'developing' or 'underdeveloped' were those that used to be European colonies -- more specifically, the colonies of six Western European nations: UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Netherlands. Before the 20th century, there was no such dichotomy. 2. 'Underdevelopment' or 'backwardness' was a consequence of these later-labeled 'underdeveloped' nations having been looted of their natural wealth by the Colonial Six (C6) and their fragile, carefully evolved over the centuries social order having been thoroughly destroyed. It is well established that without the wealth looted from the 'backward' nations, modern Western society (through the Industrial Revolution) would never have happened. I also acknowledge that the other factor was the development of modern Western science which was NOT looted from 'underdeveloped' nations. 3. Modern Western values, behaviors, etc. were then established as the 'Gold Standard' by which ALL societies would be judged and evaluated. 2. The terms 'developing' and 'underdeveloped' -- in my not-so-humble-opinion were coined as a way of skirting around any guilt and responsibility associated with the 'underdevelopment' of formerly non-underdeveloped nations. By using the term 'underdeveloped' one creates the impression in readers not acquainted or interested in history that such a situation always existed, and it was left to the Magnanimous and Advanced Person From the West to come develop your nation -- through the device of various innocuous sounding institutions such as the World Bank. BTW, numerous well-intentioned and decent Westerners bought into this (not knowing history) and have dedicated their lives to improving the lot of the less-privileged, without realizing that their efforts are probably being constantly undermined by Western institutions more interested in maintaining the status quo (of disparities) because it is these disparities that allow for the maintenance of the high standards of the West that everybody in the world is asked (implicitly, through media images) to aspire to -- but if they actually did, then such high standards would become unsustainable in every part of the world. Left to themselves, and without external exploitation, all societies will eventually develop and attain some quasi-steady state -- or at least a state of 'sustainable growth/development'. So what does all this have to do with the XO and technological interventions in 'developing'/'underdeveloped' nations, you might ask. First, one needs to change one's understanding of 'underdevelopment' -- where it came from, how it happened, and how it might be avoided in the future. Second, human society has been around for 2 million years or more, and has survived and thrived in the most difficult of circumstance. People of all cultures are resourceful. One must treat them with respect and work WITH them to develop solutions rather than come fresh off the boat, bearing trinkets, determined to solve their most pressing problems in a couple of months and walking away satisfied, without thinking through the consquences, particularly the issue of sustainability. Alternatively, when you introduce an intervention, don't go about proclaiming that it's earth-shattering and will alter society in profound ways forever and that there's nothing nearly so important as it around -- much more modesty is advised. I think the quality of modesty was lacking in the OLPC/XO project at least with regard to how it was promoted. On the other hand, perhaps all marketing demands a lack of modesty -- I quit sales after 5 years, early in my career, and never went back to that line of work. I've already said too much, I think! Regards, murli *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
I just realized that I had sent this message to Jeff alone rather than the group, so here it is again. (As an aside,it looks like the list options have been set so that 'reply' goes to the poster rather than the group. I don't know whether the listmaster intentionally chose this setting -- I can see how reply-to-poster can prevent the occasional embarrassing situation, but it's a bit of pain to consciously have to choose reply-to--all each time.) --- Jeff, nice site; also, now that I know you're a musician, I'm prepared to take back everything I said about music (since I merely appreciate music, but am not a musician)! At any rate ... since we're talking culture here ... almost everybody who speaks of 'modernization' treats the term synonymously with 'Westernization'. I read articles in magazines and newspapers and academic journals where the writer makes approving comments (without realizing how patronizing they sound) about how some society or organization looked 'modern' (always meaning 'Western'). Which becomes the One True Way. The Correct Political Systems, the Correct Social Values, the Correct Form of Attire, the Correct Food, the Correct Language, the Correct Forms of Entertainment, etc. and of course, the Correct Designs is equated to Whatever Is Being Done in The West Right Now. Things that the West no longer does are naturally, No Longer Correct. There is belief in a steady, monotonic improvement from last year to this year and on to the next. This the larger Weltanschauung within which the Designer from MIT operates. So her belief in the technology's worth for just about any social group out there is very strong. After all, everyday, every magazine, newspaper, journal, media source tells her than at least technology-wise, things are getting better and better. So whatever spouts forth from the center of her forehead, must be good. This is not unlike a strong religious belief and fervor. I know friends who are this way, and they are decent and smart people. Very informed too, but nevertheless. Consequently, it is often the Design Beneficiary's fault for not properly accepting and adopting the Gifted Design. Or so is the belief. And even where the Designer appreciates cultural differences, the hope is that One Day They Will Modernize ( i.e., Westernize). And then they can gain the full benefits of The Design. You're absolutely right that technology is implicit in all culture. Many technologists react with disbelief if they are told this. Again, that Weltanschauung thing. There is something called Adaptive Structuration Theory which explains how people Appropriate technologies according to their own culture and social structure regardless of how the technology was intended to be used. The designer sometimes (often?) views this outcome as a failure of her technology and intent. One strategy she uses to prevent such adaptive appropriation is to build in RESTRICTIONS in her design so that it can be used only in one (or a few) specific, anticipated ways. Where the user culture has no option, they might bend to the dictates of the technology, but in others, they may end up rejecting it. Regards, murli *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
On 12/14/07, Jeff Seager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like diversity in theory and in practice, and I believe that cultural diversity is an advantage to all of us. I cannot agree with you more. At the same time, the religious fervor and evangelistic zeal with which ideas are marketed (even in secular contexts -- evangelistic behavior has become embedded in culture) as being the Best/Only solution to problems -- with free-market economics supporting/promoting evangelical behavior (because, you see, you Grow, or Die) makes the sustenance of cultural diversity very hard. The Abiline Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox kicks in. (Very likely, it was this phenomenon which led to that disaster called the Iraq War, but I don't wish to stray into politics here.) Some of that advantage may be forever hidden from us until such time that diversity is no more. Perhaps this technology won't eliminate cultural diversity, but the possibility is something to consider. At worst I think the desire to disseminate such technology is a well-intentioned arrogance, and certainly not the first or the last in human history. Amen to that, Brother Jeff! Well-intentioned arrogance, indeed -- the key cause of many avoidable man-made calamities. -m murli nagasundaram, ph.d. | www.murli.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +91 99 02 69 69 20 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
Murli: But that does not always translate into ideas and actions that 'succeed'. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to the Minister for Culture for Brazil, Gilberto Gil, about the OPLC. He described how a pilot classroom was seeded with the XO and how that injection of technology in to the community went as far as involving the often illiterate parents in to their child's education. He was not able to give a clear answer to the larger issues of product lifecycle/recycling. But on the whole he was hugely positive about the initiative based on the findings from the pilot scheme. Regards -pauric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://gamma.ixda.org/discuss?post=23456 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
I appreciated Murli's questions, and replied to him yesterday when I intended to respond to the list. I've included a slightly edited version of my reply below. I also appreciate Jeff Axup's response, and his point of view that OLPC may be a step in the right direction. I may agree with Jeff, but not without reservations. I have not seen a working model of the laptop, though I applaud the effort to make it affordable and build it around open source software. Is anyone here familiar with the Boxer Rebellion, when China drove away the outsiders who were bringing too much in the way of foreign technology, including the opium trade? After a century of intense Western trade in the southern Chinese seaports, and after repeated and desperate attempts to resolve the problem in other ways, the wisest of those in the crumbling Chinese empire understood that they could not accept new technology without accepting the implications upon which that technology was based. The strict social and moral fabric of China had been disrupted badly by the consequences of foreign trade, and communist rule followed a few years after the death of the last dowager empress, Tzu Hsi (or Cixi, in the pinyin transliteration). The communists brought China into the machine age, which may have prepared the Chinese people for the much more rapid modernization happening today. But at the dawn of the 20th century, it was necessary for China to shun all modernization and take one big collective breath. That function was served by the Boxer Rebellion. Technology is not culture, but culture is implicit in all technology. Besides their overt purpose, technologies are languages by which we transmit our culture. If we buy into this idea that we really are improving the world by exporting computers or any other technology, we may one day have to accept the inevitability that all world cultures must be assimilated into one world culture. Altruism aside, I promise you that somebody is making money on this deal and I suppose that is the real motive force at work in the OLPC program. I like diversity in theory and in practice, and I believe that cultural diversity is an advantage to all of us. Some of that advantage may be forever hidden from us until such time that diversity is no more. Perhaps this technology won't eliminate cultural diversity, but the possibility is something to consider. At worst I think the desire to disseminate such technology is a well-intentioned arrogance, and certainly not the first or the last in human history. Jeff Seager _ i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
I like part of the response here which is a mix of Bruce Nussbaum's and Mark Vanderbeeken's: http://www.experientia.com/blog/what-happens-when-the-100-laptop-actually-gets-used/ I think it is a great example of designing a bridge instead of designing 'a way to cross the river or chasm'. The tool itself is great (arguably), but it doesn't necessarily fit the entire eco-system. Now the other question you've asked is if the separation of developed vs. developing industrial peoples is a viable and important split. This is where Mark's response is so important. He stresses that one of the failings is the top-down approach of the project, which is designing for as he puts it, but what is most important when trying to design outside of your own culture (any axis) is that you be sure to include those you are designing for, and turn the design process into designing with. At Motorola Enterprise Mobility we have made designing with the core premise behind our design process using field research and field validation processes of design research at many iterative steps in the total design process so that we engage those we are designing for, so instead we are designing with. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=23456 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
1. Has anyone here had a chance to play with the OLPC for any extended period? I haven't yet, but one is on the way to me, and I do plan to study/analyze it as much as possible. 2. What do you feel about well-meaning scientists and technologists in 'advanced societies' developing artifacts for the 'less privileged members' of 'third world societies'? We should all be so fortunate to use our skills for the greater good. It is the job of the privileged to raise up the less privileged by whatever means necessary and available. The problem is that it's so difficult to do the right thing and make money at the same time that most people have trouble justifying the time and energy. From what I've heard, the XO designers have done some great things, powering multiple machines from a single source, designing to support proximity-based collaboration, and so on. We all know it's more than possible to design something meaningful and powerful for a culture outside of our own, so I'm not sure I understand your question. You sound skeptical that these well-meaning scientists can do something that has a real impact. -r- *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
Robert, I'm looking forward to your review of the OLPC. From what I have read, it has some really neat interface/interaction innovations. Then the peer networking, low power consumption, and so on. As regards the skepticism. I have spent 60% of my life in India and 40% in the US, and lived in both large cities and small towns (in both countries). I have been involved with startups and had the pleasure of interacting with some really smart people doing bleeding edge technology research. It was all very heady and exciting. Time and experience have mellowed me. Lots of very cool stuff never took off. Some of it was due to foolish business decisions, and some others due to plain lack of vision. But many of those cool technologies that I was dazzled by, seem rather silly, in retrospect. Techies more often than not, mean well, and a significant fraction will admit to a deep-seated need to make a positive impact on the world by helping the less-privileged. But that does not always translate into ideas and actions that 'succeed'. I have encountered too many instances of intended beneficiaries spurning or misusing the 'wonderful gifts' that Benevolent Wizards From Distant Lands have designed and built for them. My limited understanding of the OLPC project is that it was almost entirely designed and built under the aegis of MIT's Totally Cool Media Lab in near-perfect conditions and in an environment overloaded with Very Smart People. Hence my skepticism. Regards, murli *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:15:32, David Malouf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tool itself is great (arguably), but it doesn't necessarily fit the entire eco-system. Dave, this is exactly the sort of thing I worry about. be sure to include those you are designing for, and turn the design process into designing with. Precisely. And I understand this is difficult. It requires an enormous amount of patience on both sides, and especially, perhaps, on the part of the Bearer of Gifts [BoG]. Also, the willingness on the part of BoG to eliminate the one thing she believed was the coolest aspect of her Gift because the Giftee had no use for it. A lot of the time, a big part of BoG's ego is wrapped up in her design, because she came up with some really cool ideas that were incorporated in the design. And when these begin to be eliminated, her sense of ownership begins to ebb, and along with it, her desire to pursue the project. This is when she realizes that she was more interested in Designing And Building Cool Things than in Trying to Address Somebody's Problem. When the Cool Thing is not used the way she hoped it would, she feels a sense of betrayal. This sort of issue comes up not only in design, but in any kind of collaboration across cultures, such as when musicians from different cultural paradigms collaborate. Most the time -- in my experience and opinion -- their collaborative efforts never quite rise above a level of mediocre mish-mash. There is little that is of lasting value. I don't intend to start a flame war with this last extension of my thesis, BTW! At Motorola Enterprise Mobility we have made designing with the core premise behind our design process using field research and field validation processes of design research at many iterative steps in the total design process so that we engage those we are designing for, so instead we are designing with. That's great. Could you share some stories, some examples, Dave. It's good to hear war stories, about things that have worked and things that haven't. Thanks and regards, murli *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] OLPC: BBC article
Hi Murli, As it happens, I'm writing a book chapter on this topic at the moment, so I took interest when I saw this thread. The main point of the chapter will be to point out that designers (and by extension tech firms) do far too little thinking about the sociological and political impact of the technologies they build, and that they should not be afraid to specifically design technologies to encourage certain positive cultural ideals. The examples I'm specifically mentioning will be democracy, education, charity, etc. There are two points I'll try to make succinctly here: 1) Developing nations do need assistance from richer nations 2) That assistance would be better spent on solving underlying problems, than on short-term band-aids When I was doing research into the design of products for travelers/tourists I read papers by authors indicating that local cultures were being ruined by groups of travelers from foreign cultures who were changing the places they visited. While there is some truth to the point that travelers cause change, it is also a fact that cultures are always changing by their very nature. There is no pure culture, and the very emergence of culture is due to millions of people messing around. Cell phones have been rapidly introduced into many third world countries. They chose to adopt them because they are useful, but that surely has been a case of developed nations changing the culture of undeveloped nations. Should the bearer of gifts as you mention not build or distribute this technology simply because they come from a technologically advanced society? Is the undeveloped nation worse-off for the gift? Dvorak has made a somewhat similar argument to yours ( http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/09/1845224from=rss) where he claims that he'd prefer to spend his charity money on rice instead of the OLPC. This seems extremely short-sighted. His rice will feed a small number of people for a short time, but they still will lack proper education and opportunity, and hence will require continued support. While I don't think the OLPC is a silver-bullet, it certainly is a step towards attempting to improve the education and opportunities of disadvantaged children, which is the source of the larger problem in the first place. So the OLPC will probably have it's cultural hiccups, but at least it is a step in the right direction. I have no idea how much participatory design, or action research, or contextual design, (or similar methodology) they used while creating the OLPC, but it is possible that it's not as culturally imperialistic as you seem to think. I personally think that we have a duty as leading creators of new technologies with worldwide impact to think more about instilling values in our products that would make the world better off. Our technologies could teach people for free, enable free-speech, enable efficient collaboration, or facilitate secure voting. All of these technologies that would greatly benefit the world, will probably be created by highly-educated technologists in developed countries, and will certainly change the cultures of the societies they are used in. My main point is that we should design products to specifically to cause/enable these changes, and that we shouldn't be afraid to take the first step. If we continue to avoid initiating changes such as this, undeveloped countries will still be undeveloped for a long time in the future. When we see an admirable project such as OLPC I think we should do more to support the experiment and see where it goes. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, Jeff Jeff Axup, Ph.D. Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting, San Diego Research:Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability E-mail:axup at userdesign.com Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com Designers mine the raw bits of tomorrow. They shape them for the present day. - Bruce Sterling On Dec 13, 2007 9:29 AM, Murli Nagasundaram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:15:32, David Malouf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tool itself is great (arguably), but it doesn't necessarily fit the entire eco-system. Dave, this is exactly the sort of thing I worry about. be sure to include those you are designing for, and turn the design process into designing with. Precisely. And I understand this is difficult. It requires an enormous amount of patience on both sides, and especially, perhaps, on the part of the Bearer of Gifts [BoG]. Also, the willingness on the part of BoG to eliminate the one thing she believed was the coolest aspect of her Gift because the Giftee had no use for it. A lot of the time, a big part of BoG's ego is wrapped up in her design, because she came
