Message-ID: <19991204234351.AAJ4094@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:01:44 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Transferring Environment-Related Technologies To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Douglas, >
> 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.
I quite agree its a matter of the terms we think in - may I suggest (since we're using terms to think with ourselves ;-)) we call it _language_? Then, (to test this idea on the terms of your text as an instance),
"Let's say for [our present] sake that in this case the 'product' [of mutual comprehension] really *is* a real benefit for the farmers [_and_ the businessmen]; then, isnt it the [*con]junction, [which] continues to prevent [their realization]?"
> 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.
"To [speak with] the people that they want to [understand] means first [sharing the experience] of those people, and [doing their level best to share their own experience, even if 'those people' can only listen to their stories]. [By] gaining the unexpected understanding doing that will bring, as well as [giving] credibility [to the other party] [both will have] successfully assimilated [and been somewhat assimilated to each other's (_appreciate_ is perhaps the more vernacular term)] 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.
(Here is the crux, for in my experience, there's no 'trick.' All it takes is remembering that one is a human being. Oh, one may *say one is a farmer or a businessman (but the more one tries to define and develop such *terms, the harder it is to get shut of them when they are not shared), but if step one is to share experience, isnt *humanity the experience we all share? Poetically, isnt it the experience of taking that first step? (Psychologically, the 'lost tradition' may be that of admitting the first *misstep, when one fell on one's butt. Sociologically, when one doesnt know the neighbours well enough to share stories of the kids' growing up, who's there to keep them from pretending it never happened? Terrifically ;-), does a 2% growth rate make Homo sap a baldfaced liar?))
> 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.
>
"Language itself may be useless unless implemented [as] a totally organized [lifelong] project, and the local culture may not yet support doing that. (Indeed, not every country permits immigration.) It's in the [citizen's] best interest to help ... people from start to finish, but that's something else [we're] rarely willing to do...."
(I read the "need to do a lot more work than is probably contemplated... because [one] may have only [certain] goals in mind," as being really in your own voice -- and I agree, it's a never ending challenge to be as aware as possible of other values.)
> 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.
In this way, one may acquire a lifetime of experience, during which one recognizes that *conveying that experience is neither an easy or a short ... task. By that time, one starts to _understand the way 'Westerners' go at things as if they need not trust anyone at all, but also to wonder at their surprise that the result is widespread _lack of trust_.
Cheers, kerry
> *********** 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
=======