-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jocelyn Williams Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:34 PM To: ellis.godard@csun.edu; air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] One Laptop Per Child
I'm commenting on the questions posed by Ellis Godard:
Jocelyn Williams Senior Lecturer, Communication Programme Director, Bachelor of International Communication School of Communication Unitec New Zealand Private Bag 92025 Auckland, NEW ZEALAND Ph + 64 (09) 815 4321 ex 8829 Fax + 64 (09) 815 4330 www.unitec.ac.nz
ellis.godard@csun.edu 07/06/2006 10:49:55 >>>
How does diffusing technology across a divide which already exists, enhance rather than diminish it? How does giving them computers inhibit their "technological progress", or have any deliterious effect on their technological standards?
As argued in "Knowledge Gap Hypothesis" literature, the outcome of providing information (or in the case of the Digital Divide, information technologies) to a social system tends to be, ironically, to exacerbate the existing gap (divide) because of the inherent ability of the more (technologically) literate or educated to take up the information and the advantages and broader worldview that goes along with it. I have suggested "the Computer Clubhouse concept (Resnick, Rusk & Cooke,
Hello all, I'm not a frequent contributor to this list but I feel I must weigh in here. I agree with the notion that inequality is, by default, wrong. Stratification, however, is a function of human social organization. Inequality, by contrast, results from the inevitable political struggles of stratification. Those with power try desperately to hold onto power in a variety of ways - why even Dr. Seuss's star-bellied sneeches attempted to "distinguish" (read: Bourdieu) themselves by *removing* their stars. One can imagine that no Western child would be caught *dead* with one of these laptops (too down-market). So what's going on here with this laptop issue? Well I believe it is rather ham-fisted to suggest that it is inequality-driving. Neither technology nor political economy is determinant here. Directional, yes, absolutely, but simply because a child in Senegal receives a $100 laptop does not mean she will experience increased inequality. That said, however, Jocelyn's point is important: all too often "technology transfer" is not at all knowledge transfer, thereby exacerbating the digital divide. Knowledge about technology is critical in regional innovation; it cannot be exploited locally without such knowledge. So my long-winded argument here is to suggest a more nuanced notion of this idea that such laptops result in inequality. Laptops-in-themselves do not create inequality; yet, they have a way of "revealing" (read: Heidegger) the world to that girl in Senegal that will render her experience inferior, unintelligible and likely, unequal. Sam Ladner Ph.D. (c), Sociology, York University Senior Analyst, Critical Mass, Toronto 1998)
articulates the need for "technological fluency * not only knowing how to use technological tools, but also knowing how to construct things of significance with those tools" (p. 2)" ** is one tactic in responding strategically to the issue that merely providing the PCs is no solution to the digital divide at all.
The more critical point implied by Fuchs is "global divide in technological progress and standards
will emerge that separates advanced Western technology users from users of less-advanced technologies in the Third World" - it's not so much that $100 laptops are not doing anything to address the digital divide, but that the concept may generate a new dimension of disadvantage relative to advantage - as long as those without computers are given first world castoffs, for those with the less advanced technologies there will always be a moving target before them, ever out of reach. This is a slightly reframed, shifting gap.
Godard again:
The implication that inequality and stratification are necessarily wrong, much less demonstrably eliminatable, is very very close to absurd.
I don't suppose anyone is arguing that inequality is "eliminatable" necessarily, but the thing is that inequalities related to differential ICT access tend to go along with a whole raft of other problems, often expensive ones, and laptop schemes etc are at least attempting to provide tools for communities with which they may seek a measure of self-determination.
Jocelyn Williams
** http://ci-journal.net/viewarticle.php?id=77&layout=html
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l- aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
The information contained in this message is confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message.