Message-ID: <8866.991205@acnet.net> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:47:29 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: Transferring Environment-Related Technologies To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Hi Kerry,Saturday, December 04, 1999, you wrote:
KM> I quite agree its a matter of the terms we think in - may I KM> suggest (since we're using terms to think with ourselves ;-)) we KM> call it _language_? Then, (to test this idea on the terms of your KM> text as an instance),
KM> "Let's say for [our present] sake that in this case the 'product' KM> [of mutual comprehension] really *is* a real benefit for the farmers KM> [_and_ the businessmen]; then, isnt it the [*con]junction, [which] KM> continues to prevent [their realization]?"
The language it takes is the language that's spelled out more by actions than words themselves, which after all are only pointers. When a frame of reference is lacking due to an absence of clearly appropriate precedents, it may be necessary to provide graphic examples, either by associating with a local person who is willing or by supporting the creation of the antecedent at ones own cost.
>> 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.
KM> "To [speak with] the people that they want to [understand] means first KM> [sharing the experience] of those people, and [doing their level best to KM> share their own experience, even if 'those people' can only listen to their KM> stories].
This is my point. Stories are cheap. Those people need to see it for themselves and b able to apply the results to their own possibilities and circumstances.
KM> [By] gaining the unexpected understanding doing that will bring, KM> as well as [giving] credibility [to the other party] [both will KM> have] successfully assimilated [and been somewhat assimilated to KM> each other's (_appreciate_ is perhaps the more vernacular term)] KM> culture."
I don't think that language springs from linguistics but rather from the physical reality of the people involved. This is why Eskimos have and use an extensive vocabulary where snow is concerned, Bedouins regarding camels and certain South Pacific islanders re duangs. Without the shared experience (and probably the *need*), the words are left dancing in the wind. They neither sink in nor take root.
>> Only then can they transcend it and in doing so, help the local people
>> to do the same.
>>
...>> >> 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.
KM> (Here is the crux, for in my experience, there's no 'trick.' All KM> it takes is remembering that one is a human being.
All might be a little too strong a word here.
KM> Oh, one may KM> *say one is a farmer or a businessman (but the more one tries to KM> define and develop such *terms, the harder it is to get shut of KM> them when they are not shared), but if step one is to share KM> experience, isnt *humanity the experience we all share?
I would not underestimate the importance of what you describe but I believe this is never-the-less only a good start. There is got to be a convergence of goals and this has to be felt by the local group.
KM> Poetically, isnt it the experience of taking that first step? KM> (Psychologically, the 'lost tradition' may be that of admitting KM> the first *misstep, when one fell on one's butt.
That is honest and human but my experience has served to emphasize a need for performing organizational tasks that are difficult to achieve alone. Often you must integrate with the local powers that be and this can be complicated, due to vested interests and the degree of control exercised by by those who *don't* have the quality you describe, but rather feel their power threatened by that which they poorly understand.
KM> Sociologically, when one doesnt know the neighbours well enough to KM> share stories of the kids' growing up, who's there to keep them KM> from pretending it never happened? Terrifically ;-), does a 2% KM> 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.
KM> "Language itself may be useless unless implemented [as] a totally KM> organized [lifelong] project, and the local culture may not yet KM> support doing that. (Indeed, not every country permits KM> immigration.)
Even so, there would be no denying it, at a gut level that had been well demonstrated (even if the emperors' new clothes and those in his court were off chasing other horizons).
KM> It's in the [citizen's] best interest to help ... KM> people from start to finish, but that's something else [we're] KM> rarely willing to do...."
Learning anything requires a beginning and an end, or the concept can not be assimilated.
KM> (I read the "need to do a lot more work than is probably contemplated... KM> because [one] may have only [certain] goals in mind," as being really in KM> your own voice -- and I agree, it's a never ending challenge to be as KM> 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.
KM> In this way, one may acquire a lifetime of experience, during KM> which one recognizes that *conveying that experience is neither an KM> easy or a short ... task. By that time, one starts to _understand KM> the way 'Westerners' go at things as if they need not trust anyone KM> at all, but also to wonder at their surprise that the result is KM> widespread _lack of trust_.
We have a very discrete society that doesn't teach a whole lot about sharing. Also, there's very little that's left (or recognized) in terms of absolute (rather than relative) value.
But there's still a lot that can and should be done. I hope we're getting somewhere with this. What we're each saying is at least complementary.
Douglas Hinds
>> *********** 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
KM> =======