The OLPC, which I have been a harsh critic of, is one of those many things. Still, he is a nice guy and yes, he does mean well.

Chris, I certainly recognize (and indeed tried to acknowledge) that digital communication technology can serve as a handy tool in a whole bunch of contexts. I think what I question is the whole narrow definition, within the sort of “digital divide” discourse, of what “being connected” means — namely, the presumption that communications networks didn’t exist before, or don’t exist outside of, the colonial/imperial systems under which people in the majority world live(d). It’s sort of like the presumption that a community in which people make zero in monetary income (the whole “Dollar a day/money in people’s pockets” development strategy) is a poor community; or the notion that a community that contributes very little to the GDP is necessarily “not productive”; or — and this is especially relevant for our thinking as librarians — the idea that a community with a lack of books is “information poor.”

Before we throw laptops or paycheques at problems, it’s important to understand what the problem is and check the assumptions that underlie the ways in and criteria by which we measure it. I agree that “Being connected may mean finding a partner in the next village, town or country, or across the globe, to work together on solving a problem.” But one of the fundamental misunderstandings of “Western” development work has been that the poverty and misery inflicted upon the majority world are related to a lack of resources — that aid campaigns that “feed the world” or chuck grains of rice at folks are going to help because they don’t leave folks to their own resources. The great scientist and seed activist Vandana Shiva makes these points far more cogently in the speech of hers to which I linked (see the 2nd last paragraphy of my post for the hyperlinked phrase “whether “development” is best defined in terms of material and monetary accumulation.”)

I do appreciate, Chris, that your post at least points to need to recognize that local creativity and know-how. But I think we need to look beyond the idea that a lack of resources is the problem or necessarily even a large part of the solution. Being connected to the internet may help find folks who can help with a particular problem, but we do need to ask ourselves this: “Are the problems in the majority world *really* related to a lack of community or shared understanding or resourcefulness? Or is there something else going on?”

Ultimately, yes, we need to be global in our outlook — but we also need to be historical as well as critically self-reflexive. On the latter point, we need to hold out that fundamentally held assumptions about wealth and technology might not hold out to be the case.

It’s good that we’re talking. I like that. And total props to Appropedia.org folks for chiming in …

Dave

internet
+ laptops
+ information resources (esp Wikipedia)
+ info, how-tos and a community of practice in appropriate technology (esp Appropedia.org)
+ local know-how and creativity

…added together, offer a lot to the world in general, and especially those without our advantages in education, connectedness, and the ability to solve any problem with our paycheck.

That’s especially who are currently isolated and dependent entirely on their own resources. Being connected may mean finding a partner in the next village, town or country, or across the globe, to work together on solving a problem.

Thanks also for the reference to Appropedia.org (the “majority world” reference, for your readers). As you can imagine, we’re pretty keenly aware of the limited connection we have (at least so far) with the majority world. We are aggressively working to improve that situation through addition of languages spoken in the majority world, and will also be working toward better support for cell phone access.

Curt