Message-ID: <19991209202257.AAG27609@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:23:02 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Douglas,certainty!
It looked for a moment that we had found agreement on the idea that language is in fact a technology like any other; that 'transferring' it cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the law' of what is reality, or practical, or 'sensible'; that not only the *committment of the parties of the first and second parts but the *presence of a third is involved. (Did you 'say' so? No, but consider, not even how long this conversation would have lasted 'backchannel,' but whether it would have even begun if it were not for this mailing list. It's popular to say that one's being here 'makes a statement' -- but isnt that to say, the being of the list makes one's statement possible?)
But there are claims on your attention far beyond my poor powers to add or detract ;-) -- even last week's message from Turlough has priority over the *present exchange in your mind. Since it's obvious that we arent going to get to 'constructive' discussion on *that topic without some more scaffolding, perhaps this 'side issue' of attention and distraction will serve:
People claim to be puzzled when a ringing telephone takes priority over a client sitting in front of one's desk, but isnt it because one *already (_a priori_) knows what to expect from the typical call and how to respond to it, while the 'bandwidth' of a face-to-face person is very much greater --one has to be ready for anything (even getting 'turned around,' tho if you can clarify what you mean in this case, it would be very helpful).
In other words, if we imagine communicative interactions as ranging over a spectrum -- from the human (not only literal hands-on but winking and semaphores and go-betweens) though the various 'media' (phone messages and voice/ video mail and 'chits' - memoranda) to the ultimate 'Tis!-'Taint! of pure binary code, the question is -- in accord with the "specific purpose" for which, as both you and I understand it, this list was created -- where does "international development" fall?
There are exponents for almost every view -- from the 'inevitability' argument that *anything is developmental ('Build it and they shall come') to the 'get real' position that says, essentially, 'What works for me, is what works. Period.' -- but the *priorities of late have not favoured those who would say that it's the wrong question.
Eh? Sorry, did I turn something around? Let me put it straight:
Communicative interaction is one spectrum; development is another, and it is *at least* as useful to ask where communication fits developmentally as vice versa. Sadly, its usefulness comes from the fact that it is rarely asked -- because isnt the answer glaringly obvious? It's right up there at the head of the line, where it is considered part of 'personal development' (and personal dev is usually considered part of *child dev, but that's a slightly different story), and stretches a little way into 'cultural development.' The further one goes towards the rarified, streamlined specialties of 'economic development,' the more one is assumed to have mastered the broadband applications. Yet, when one 'impertinently' asks whether the 'concrete' developers *have that mastery, what happens?
Datum: > What are you? This is a sterile exercise. I only am in involved in
> integral projects (and don't even ask me to define that, because you
> *aren't* interested. I find your tack unfounded and parasitic).
Datum: > I have no idea of what
> your reality is or if you have one. In fact, I have began to doubt
> that, and you are confirming that doubt.
Datum: > If you continue to harass me, I will have
> to refer this to the list's administrator. If you really have any
> specific questions relating to concrete, real life issues that you
> yourself are involved in and that haven't already been answered, by
> all means let's hear them. Otherwise, I'd prefer to drop it right now. I'd
> rather you took it off list. I see nothing appropriate to DEVEL-L in your
> content.
Datum: > What's concrete is your cute, snide, slick remark that's meant to
> demean yet fails to cover neither the underlying fallacy nor the
> personal inadequacy...
This is only a sample, of course, which 'proves' nothing except that language can be considered in a technological light. (Can you imagine trying to prove it without concrete, real-life, experiential examples? Impossible.)
Specifically, how do these points plot (on either spectrum)? Are they egalitarian ('interactive,' open-channel) or are they autocratic ('top-down,' closed-channel)? Do they 'send the message' of "I'm listening" or of "I'm the judge"?
Everyone here -- (by definition) in this list, as (more subtly) in a farming village -- speaks (I should say *can speak) for his or her own interests. In whose real life is it, then, that one *assumes power* to speak for all the rest, transgressing the claim of equality? Does one need to look any further than those ugly occasions when some foreigner comes to town and (in the *name of progress) starts 'throwing his weight around,' declaring what is right and wrong (or interesting or unfounded or a favour), and that 'you' are thus-and-so if you dont feel the same mandate?
Do you know what Im talking about?
Cheers, kerry
The common is what is open to all, what can be seen and heard by all. To see is to let in with open eyes what is open to view, i.e. what is lit up and revealed to all. The dead (the completely private ones) neither see nor hear; they are closed. No light (fire) shines in them; no speech sounds in them. And yet, even they participate in the kosmos. -- Heraclitus, Fragment 26
"... the trick is actually doing it. From my experience, it takes a well defined methodology with well developed policies. [Language] itself may be useless unless implemented within the framework of a totally organized project, and the [readers] 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." -- D.M.H., 4/12/99