Message-ID: <1323.991204@acnet.net> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:33:34 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: Transferring Environment-Related Technologies To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Hi Kerry,Friday, December 03, 1999, 2:19:24 PM, you wrote:
KM> Isnt it is this disjunction between 'farmer' and 'businessman' KM> (more than 'lost traditions') which needs to be understood? In KM> other words, why isnt 'development' more nearly an equal trade in KM> psycho- social -- not to mention economic -- terms?
It seems to me that we *do* have a disjunction here between the players involved. The traditions lost were traded off for something that may well be valuable in itself (although that doesn't obviate the loss), but it also may well be incomplete or poorly adapted to the farmers own needs and/or perceived goals.
However, let's say for discussions sake that in this case the product really *is* capable of providing a real benefit for the farmers involved; and yet the gap, the disjunction, continues to prevent it's implementation.
This is a very common and even ancient problem, and the solution lies in an area that's distinct from the environmental, technical or economic aspects; and one that's not receiving the attention it deserves. In order for the "equal trade in psycho-social -- not to mention economic -- terms to happen, those holding the technology and wanting to promote it's use need to think in those terms themselves.
They need to get close to the people that they want to bring into their fold, and that means first getting into the fold of those people, and gaining both the unexpected understanding doing that will bring, as well as the credibility that doing this will imbue them with, if they've successfully assimilated the local culture.
Only then can they transcend it and in doing so, help the local people to do the same.
In short: The problem with the disjunction is exactly that - the disjunction; and not much conscious effort is being made to think in these terms and cross that gap, on the part of those desiring to promote their technology. They want to promote it form their own vantage point and expect others to come to them. It's a vicious circle (or orbit) that remains too far from the farmers existing center of gravity,for them to be able to identify with it..
What you suggest *is* the answer all right, but the trick is actually doing it. From my experience, it takes a well defined methodology with well developed policies. The technology itself may be useless unless implemented within the framework of a totally organized project, and the local culture may not yet support doing that. It's in the promoter's best interest to help these people from start to finish, but that's something else they're rarely willing to do. There's a real need to do a lot more work than is probably contemplated, because of the distance we've discussed and because the promoter may have only his own goals in mind.
Even if he's aware of these issues, there are a lot of other players that should be involved, if any real degree of security for all concerned is going to be provided for.
By the time you're done, you may have to perform the role of a venture capital firm in terms of management, even though you're not providing the capital, and procuring the trust that's required to get to that point is neither an easy nor a short term task.
Douglas Hinds CeDeCoR, A.C.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
KM> Douglas,
>> Why should farmers whose lives are grounded in a substantial and
>> palpable (if technologically austere) physical reality, accept
>> concepts and goals unrelated to their paradigm, simply because foreign
>> businessmen who themselves have lost their own traditions and become
>> abstracted by the promotion of discrete processes more related to
>> their own aspirations and incomplete preconceptions, have failed to
>> give importance to these farmers perceptions?
KM> Equally interesting is the question why exponents of a substantial KM> and technologically affluent physical reality should suppose that KM> concepts and goals should be accepted simply because they are KM> related to *their* paradigm. Isnt it is this disjunction between KM> 'farmer' and 'businessman' (more than 'lost traditions') which KM> needs to be understood? In other words, why isnt 'development' KM> more nearly an equal trade in psycho- social -- not to mention KM> economic -- terms?
KM> kerry