Message-ID: <0.258939fa.25741074@aol.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:23:00 EST From: mailto:AXEOXALA@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Language, Tech. transfer, & Devt. To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
In a message dated 11/28/99 6:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, mailto:cbelshaw@DIRECT.CA writes:<< I can see where president Konare is coming from. However it is neither historically nor contemporarily true. >>
It is historically and contemporarily true that education in Africa has been for many decades under the enforcement of colonial language. This is from where the President is coming, which doesn't at all seem to be what you see.
"the Malian president Konare made the following statement in the context of remarks concerning the introduction of instruction in the various national languages of the country (French is the official language of government and until now the exclusive language of formal public education [excepting a some pilot experiments]):
"... dans la longue histoire de l'humanité, jamais aucun peuple n'a réussi domestiquer la science et le progrès dans la langue d'autrui." [in the long history of humanity, never has any people succeeded in domesticating science and progress in the language of others] "
In a message dated 11/28/99 1:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, mailto:osborndo@PILOT.MSU.EDU writes:
<< I'd be interested in reactions and experience from people on this list. Can technology be "domesticated" without first being rephrased in the mother tongue? Is any development "sustainable" without at some point being discussed in terms that all the people in a community would understand (i.e., a necessary but I would hasten to add, not a sufficient condition)? >>
the community to understand. Is there a question of whether most Malian people who would be involved in "sustainable development" in this sense, would be able to speak French fluently? The bracketed statement indicates that French is the official language of the government and formal public education. There is no lack of French understanding, but a lack of the use of Fulani, Bambara, etc. in education.
That word "sustainable" is tossed around so much, and it seems the meanings vary depending upon the perspective of the speaker. In this context, my perspective indicates that any valuable "sustainability" requires that the people reclaim ownership of their development as representative of themselves, not some outside "civilizing" force which imposes both form and function of progress.
I can imagine it to be a difficult concept for some people to grasp, not having had such experience, but there is an issue of using one's own indigenous language as compared to a colonial/by force language of a dominating group that impacts on the concept of "domesticating progress." I suppose that the fact of it being a difficult concept for some to grasp, is directly related to the mentality that initiated the suppression of the indigenous language from the start.
In a message dated 11/28/99 1:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, mailto:osborndo@PILOT.MSU.EDU writes:
<< In other words, what is necessary beyond people talking - and even talking in action - in their own languages to make for such "domestication"? - Freierian-style adult literacy in maternal languages? - school curricula in those languages? - active production of materials in those languages by development projects? - documentation of indigenous knowledge in the languages in which the IK evolved (& then storage "in situ")? - language "localization" of ICTs? - all of the above or some combination? - what priorities? >>
The simple fact that there is the "standard" that the colonial/foreign language is fit for a certain level of thought (academic, intellectual), while the local language is not fit for more than rudimentary communication, "basic" emotional communication with family, local friends, reflects something opposite to the goals of development, progress. When you have to leave behind your culture to "progress" that is a problem. It is a substantive problem in Africa and puts a divide between the "elite", the "educated" and the uneducated, the family, the grassroots community. To only address the issue in terms that disregard this point, however intellectually compelling, is insufficent and again a product unrelated to the nexus of the people concerned (discussed, to be developed).
What would be the hesitation of the production of materials in the indigenous languages? Upon what basis is it curious that what is done typically in quite a few other countries, to produce materials for distribution among those people in their local languages, would be radical in Africa? What paradigm of thinking towards such indigenous consideration, concept of progress, does such an action challenge?
Is it that such an act, because many of the foreign development specialists may not be necessarily fluent in the local language(s), would move "development" more into the hands of local people? Would the perception of the knowledge change? Would this make the foreign specialists less dominate, both by having to cede to those who had knowledge of the local languages (thereby changing the standard of progressive information from foreign to local?). If the knowledge were in the local language, would the foreign specialist no longer "personify" knowledge?
Isn't this a reversal of the process instituted by colonial education?
What is necessary is that difference in perception that "progress" is foreign and indigenous, local, "own" represents stagnation, backwardness, something to be left behind.
In a message dated 11/28/99 6:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, mailto:cbelshaw@DIRECT.CA writes:
<< In this context, the President's remarks can be read as uninformed and unhelpful -- as are the remaks of other politicians to the effect that science myust speak in everyday language. >>
What actually represents lack of information is the assumption that the remarks are simply about "everyday" language vs. "scientific" language. The Presidents' remarks are both informed and helpful to the constituency they discuss helping and informing. Lack of information about the substance of issues within Africa, not just the exterior academics, contributes mightily to dimissal, often manifested as extreme arrogance, at the expressions of African people on those issues.
My response is not at all intended to launch another barrage of ridiculous responses from indignant development "specialists" (Magistrates), outraged at the idea that despite their inability to believe certain issues exist, such concerns are indeed very serious for "developing" people. However, clearing out my email box before I go away, I came across these emails which, though very well-presented as academic and critical text, seem to miss entirely what I would have deemed an obvious understanding of the situation the Malian President addressed.
nicole