Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961003163416.1952B-100000@abc.ksu.ksu.edu> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 17:32:44 -0500 From: kerry miller <mailto:astingsh@KSU.EDU> Subject: Re: ideas of "appropriate technology" still respected? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Gene:I applaud your willingness to venture again into the fray! As William Walker pointed out, "Lets stop blaming the technology for what people do with it," and one of the things that has been done with it is to homogenize the context in which any disussion can occur. What you seem to me to be asking is not so much, Is there a place for appropriate technology, as Is there anyone still able to talk about appropriateness at all?
You wrote: > [1] Improve the lot of people in third world countries by giving
> them technology they can easily understand and work with and repair, on
> their own. E.g. a hand-operated loom is a big improvement over no loom at all.
> [2] Start with small-scale projects producing goods and services for
> a local market.
Let's think about people, not 'third world countries,' to start with. Right there, the field of discourse is skewed to the large-scale, the political, the 'everybody-knows' end of the spectrum. Is *your* or *my* lot improoved by technology which we can understand and repair? I say, yes. Do I have small scale projects? You bet (and I wager you have too - what about SQN for Windows? ;-).
In this perpective, the question whether
> the
> basic corruption and rich-take-all nature of human society all over this
> planet means that most of the profits of a successful large project will end
> up in the hands of a small class of wealthy people, with little going to the
> lower classes
(for which there is in fact considerable evidence) is not as important as whether 'little people' have more or less control over their lives. And there is the nub, because one of the major effects of the totalized 'hegemonic' discourse is what I choose to call illusionment: people become convinced that they have less control. The place for *appropriateness* then has to be grounded in *disillusionment* - give people the chance to discover for themselves what they can control, and they can walk away from Nikes and TVs and global competitiveness and so on: they discover that their (our) own size is beautiful.
>
> And then we have the immediate, special problem of computer
> technology, especially since the advent of the Internet/WWW, which wasn't
> even a question in Schumacher's day. Does this very inexpensive computing
> and communications device mean more to a small third world village than
> production machinery, small plants, etc.? After all, for about $150/month,
> we can lease to that small village the PC and the Internet connection, plus
> a lot of software. But how does the village profit from this?
>
Purely by coincidence, of course, we are conversing by means of the Internet... One of the 'dismal' statistics that is frequently reported is that fewer and fewer people get their news from newspapers, or even TV. The way I like to interpret this is, more and more poeple are getting *informed* by their own selections of net-connection: is this not the most incredibly appropriate, empowering, versatile tool for disillusioning oneself that could have been conceived? (I don't deny that there are still plenty of illusions remaining but I havent found many here who still believe everything they read...)
In short, I agree wholeheartedly with the implication that communications may mean more to a small village than any number of turn-key projects laid on by others. And, just by-the-bye, when they get their solar-panelled, satellite-dished computer set up, I bet it'll be DIY technology they'll be looking for, be it hand looms or papermaking or literacy-teaching. It will for certain sure be things on that level which will be most explicable and demonstrable - although it is easy to forsee the great rush which will ensue, as the commercialists go for ever-larger 'expert systems' to build your own airport control system, or cantilevered highway bridge.
> Your comments, please. I admit at this point to confusion, and
> surprise at the passions aroused by what I thought was a simple question of
> developmental economics. Thanks,
>
> Gene O'Regon, Stephanie Mora, Caroline Nachman <mailto:gene@sqn.com>
> || Free software organizes, indexes your research notes.
> || Open "http://sqn.com" or email "mailto:sqn35net@sqn.com". Enjoy!
>
"Intelligent minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, simple minds discuss people."
kerry miller mailto:astingsh@ksu.edu