<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="EXPIRES" CONTENT="0">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="EXPIRESABSOLUTE" CONTENT="Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:00:00 GMT">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="PRAGMA" CONTENT="NO-CACHE">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CACHE-CONTROL" CONTENT="PRIVATE">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CACHE-CONTROL" CONTENT="NO-CACHE">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Happy New Year and all that Jazz<BR>
<BR>
Knowing Nicholas personally, I suggest you ask rather than offer opinion.<BR>
Who was it that said "War is borne out of ignorance"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Tony Fish<BR>
Mobile Web 2.0<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
|From: idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net [<A HREF="mailto:idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net">mailto:idc-bounces@mailman.thing.net</A>] On<BR>
|Behalf Of mlahey@artic.edu<BR>
|Sent: 01 January 2008 12:27<BR>
|To: idc@mailman.thing.net<BR>
|Subject: Re: [iDC] One Laptop Per Child - MIT/Negroponte Initiative<BR>
|<BR>
|I'd have to agree that magazines like the Economist and Forbes aren't really the<BR>
|most reliable source for describing how culture works...more often they are<BR>
|hyping how they would like culture to work.<BR>
|<BR>
|Splitting hairs, and then splicing them together with other hairs:<BR>
|<BR>
|Fatima: your strong condemnation is jolting. Yet I would have to agree that<BR>
|technology is almost never neutral. The QUERTY keyboard on which we type a bit<BR>
|more slowly is based on the Roman alphabet, no? Having done both, I can testify<BR>
|there is a huge difference between being an English speaker trying to learn<BR>
|Chinese and an English speaker trying to learn German. Sticking to your own<BR>
|alphabet is LOTS easier. I don't think Chinese adapted intuitively to the<BR>
|QUERTY. There's an extra steepness to the learning curve in such cases.<BR>
|Virtual reality, 3d environments...those were first developed for military<BR>
|training applications. Obviously if children playing games derived from the<BR>
|original technology are able to use them as military training applications<BR>
|(Columbine), this technology has not been able to wrest itself into<BR>
|neutrality.<BR>
|<BR>
|Our social interaction has a particular structure, even if we are not aware of<BR>
|it. Our cultural expression has a particular structure. Other cultures are<BR>
|other, as the German saying goes. For example anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod<BR>
|describes that Bedouins both male and female rarely tell anyone directly what<BR>
|they are feeling, but indirectly let the social group in on their private<BR>
|thoughts by singing Qawwali, a traditional sort of blues composition (and<BR>
|likely the direct ancestor of our modern blues form).<BR>
|<BR>
|How do you call up your best friend and sing them a Qawwali when the whole meme<BR>
|depends on it seeming as if you just happen to be singing that song? For that<BR>
|matter, the entire germination of original live music (I'm not talking about<BR>
|sound waves generated by a computer in this case) is destroyed by a remote<BR>
|socialization culture, and by an industrial culture, and by the consumer<BR>
|culture. In Cuba I saw the first time in my life people just spending time on<BR>
|the corner messing around with guitars. Or people sitting in a garden messing<BR>
|around with poetry as if it's just a normal thing to do, a pretty game to play.<BR>
| Well, they got nothing to buy even if they had money to buy it with so they<BR>
|spend time together. Have you walked down an American street recently and seen<BR>
|a group of 15 people teaching each other guitar tricks? I didn't think so. At<BR>
|best some younger and radical people have started organizing "workshops" which<BR>
|morph into the social free exchange arenas. Go Portland (get off the drugs,<BR>
|though).<BR>
|<BR>
|What can happen from the OLPC program is that people can start waking up to the<BR>
|fact that what is happening to them is wrong. It's wrong for their culture to<BR>
|start coming apart at the seams so that people in our culture can make<BR>
|themselves important. It's wrong that the traditions which provided a social<BR>
|ecosystem of checks and balances are so brutally quickly destroyed, so the<BR>
|system goes haywire and they start abusing each other as bad as we abuse them.<BR>
|(destroying the traditional knowledge of a people creates a vulnerability that<BR>
|we are practiced at exploiting) They can start communicating about it and<BR>
|organizing a resistance. That's the best that can be hoped from such a<BR>
|program.<BR>
|<BR>
|The abuses of the program are likely to happen as often as the benefits similar<BR>
|to what Steve describes. Yet resistance takes most often the form of<BR>
|appropriation he described in his Grandmother's story. And that is the other<BR>
|hair. My favorite Arjun Appadurai, "Modernity at Large" is largely concerned<BR>
|with these empowering re-implementations of colonialist memes, both<BR>
|technological and cultural. I would like to point out that globalization has<BR>
|been going on as long as humankind has existed and there is no halting waves of<BR>
|change, no closing any border.<BR>
|<BR>
|There was once a bitter feud in physical anthropology between archaeologists who<BR>
|were studying the Iroquois and the archaeologists studying the Algonquians.<BR>
|They had agreed on boundaries between the two language groups when suddenly in<BR>
|the middle of those boundaries pot shards were discovered which were dissimilar<BR>
|to both groups. Some argued that it was a new Algonquian tribe, others that it<BR>
|proved the existence of a new Iroquois tribe. Some declared it must be a new<BR>
|tribe altogether. The academic papers grew quite scathing. Yet in the end the<BR>
|simple answer was not obvious - and yes, I blame their culture for their<BR>
|blindness. The Iroquois and Algonquians shared pottery techniques, and the<BR>
|shards proved to have characteristics of both tribes. They created something<BR>
|together. Holy crap. Imagine that. So in the end I think that Steve is also<BR>
|right and that we have the power to "reprogram" technologies and cultures so<BR>
|that they serve us in any way we want if we can be tough and persistent and<BR>
|demanding - in Otherwords, if we can put a force into it equal and opposite to<BR>
|the force of colonialism.<BR>
|<BR>
|M<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|Quoting Brad Borevitz <brad@onetwothree.net>:<BR>
|<BR>
|> quoting from a puff piece in a rag with questionable journalistic standards<BR>
|> ... and that quote from some marketing exec whose assertion is that ³womenıs<BR>
|> influence² is somehow almost twice what some industry association estimates<BR>
|> ... ugh ...<BR>
|><BR>
|> but the biggest problem here is the facile equation of consumption with<BR>
|> power. if these assertions can make any sense at all, they have to do so<BR>
|> deep inside the bankrupt ideological fortress of consumer capitalism.<BR>
|><BR>
|> i believe it was mark bartlet in that thread without a subject who<BR>
|> complained about the uncritical techno-boosterism that plagues this list.<BR>
|> some of the stuff in this thread is a prime example (especially from steve).<BR>
|><BR>
|> at base, what fatima and sam are arguing is that technology is not neutral;<BR>
|> it seems like this has to be the starting point for a critical discussion of<BR>
|> its social and political impacts. technology can never be neutral since it<BR>
|> comes from, is produced by, is designed in and for the benefit of those who<BR>
|> own the means of production and distribution. and secondarily, it is<BR>
|> consumed and used within social and political situations that mark access<BR>
|> and use by existing structures, tendencies and limitations. these are<BR>
|> givens.<BR>
|><BR>
|> but within these givens, as theorists like de Ceretau help us to understand,<BR>
|> people have a great deal of latitude in bending things to their own purposes<BR>
|> ‹ of intervening tactically within the strategic givens of a power structure<BR>
|> that is other to them.<BR>
|><BR>
|> all of these facets have to be considered to understand or anticipate the<BR>
|> possible impact that the OLPC could have. there are good reasons to be<BR>
|> skeptical about the kinds of claims that have been made for the project. and<BR>
|> at the same time, i donıt think it makes sense to dismiss the possibility<BR>
|> that there might be unforeseen possibilities that actual use especially by<BR>
|> those with the least power might bring. but that is not the same as<BR>
|> embracing the clearly simplistic and ideologically suspect discourse of<BR>
|> ³empowerment.²<BR>
|><BR>
|> and stupidest of all, is a the idea of empowerment through consumption <BR>
|> consumption is what enslaves us. and shopping has been a rather traditional<BR>
|> occupation for women in the gendered division of labor. it is hardly<BR>
|> revolutionary for women to be relegated to that role for home electronics as<BR>
|> well. as electronics become more and more associated with the domestic<BR>
|> realm, its rather consistent with normative alignments of interest.<BR>
|><BR>
|> b<BR>
|><BR>
|> On 12/31/07 9:07 AM, "Steve Borsch" <steve@iconnectdots.com> wrote:<BR>
|><BR>
|> > Quote: "Women now influence 90% of consumer electronics purchases, from<BR>
|> the<BR>
|> > type and look of the big-screen TV to the color of the iPod speakers for<BR>
|> the<BR>
|> > living room, Best Buy says. The Consumer Electronics Association estimates<BR>
|> > their influence is less, but still significant and growing. It says women<BR>
|> > influence 57% of purchases, or $80 billion of the $140 billion spent on<BR>
|> > consumer electronics this year."<BR>
|> ><BR>
|> > Hmmm....perhaps you should reframe your perspective to the reality of the<BR>
|> > power of women with respect to the consumption of technology. If all this<BR>
|> tech<BR>
|> > is male-created and by its very nature exclusionary of women, are you<BR>
|> implying<BR>
|> > that women are a bunch of sheep uninvolved in tech design, unable to<BR>
|> create<BR>
|> > their own technology and so powerless as to subordinate themselves to men<BR>
|> and<BR>
|> > are going ahead and buying the technology anyway? It seems to me by the<BR>
|> > numbers in the quote above that *women* are the dominant force driving the<BR>
|> > consumption of technology and therefore perhaps technology is more<BR>
|> feminine<BR>
|> > than masculine? I'm seeing that tech is being increasingly designed to<BR>
|> > celebrate the feminine and cater to women (though all the flipper,<BR>
|> flappers<BR>
|> > and dweebezarbs built into most technology -- exceptions being what Apple,<BR>
|> > Bose and even the software in the OLPC provide -- are far too geeky and<BR>
|> geared<BR>
|> > for the technoweenie males that love to fiddle with features).<BR>
|> ><BR>
|> > Here's the article URL:<BR>
|> ><BR>
|><BR>
|<A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-20-best-buy-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-20-best-buy-usat_x.htm</A><BR>
|><BR>
|><BR>
|><BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|<BR>
|_______________________________________________<BR>
|iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<BR>
|iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>
|<A HREF="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</A><BR>
|<BR>
|List Archive:<BR>
|<A HREF="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</A><BR>
|<BR>
|iDC Photo Stream:<BR>
|<A HREF="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</A><BR>
|<BR>
|RSS feed:<BR>
|<A HREF="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</A><BR>
|<BR>
|iDC Chat on Facebook:<BR>
|<A HREF="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</A><BR>
|<BR>
|Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<BR>
|---<BR>
|[This E-mail was scanned for viruses]<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
<!--4056564C745B-->
<br><br><img src="http://733882.signature1.mailinfo.com/confirm2.6/00020208/0A024D05/0400074C/0017110201.jpg" border="0" nosend="1"><!--4056564C745B//-->
</BODY>
</HTML>