[Air-l] One Laptop Per Child

[Sam Ladner]

Hello all,

I'm not a frequent contributor to this list but I feel I must weigh in
here.

I agree with the notion that inequality is, by default, wrong.
Stratification, however, is a function of human social organization.
Inequality, by contrast, results from the inevitable political struggles
of stratification. Those with power try desperately to hold onto power
in a variety of ways - why even Dr. Seuss's star-bellied sneeches
attempted to "distinguish" (read: Bourdieu) themselves by *removing*
their stars. One can imagine that no Western child would be caught
*dead* with one of these laptops (too down-market).

So what's going on here with this laptop issue? Well I believe it is
rather ham-fisted to suggest that it is inequality-driving. Neither
technology nor political economy is determinant here. Directional, yes,
absolutely, but simply because a child in Senegal receives a $100 laptop
does not mean she will experience increased inequality.

That said, however, Jocelyn's point is important: all too often
"technology transfer" is not at all knowledge transfer, thereby
exacerbating the digital divide. Knowledge about technology is critical
in regional innovation; it cannot be exploited locally without such
knowledge.

So my long-winded argument here is to suggest a more nuanced notion of
this idea that such laptops result in inequality. Laptops-in-themselves
do not create inequality; yet, they have a way of "revealing" (read:
Heidegger) the world to that girl in Senegal that will render her
experience inferior, unintelligible and likely, unequal.  

Sam Ladner
Ph.D. (c), Sociology, York University
Senior Analyst, Critical Mass, Toronto 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On
> Behalf Of Jocelyn Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:34 PM
> To: ellis.godard at csun.edu; air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] One Laptop Per Child
> 
> I'm commenting on the questions posed by Ellis Godard:
> 
> Jocelyn Williams
> Senior Lecturer, Communication
> Programme Director, Bachelor of International Communication
> School of Communication
> Unitec New Zealand
> Private Bag 92025
> Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
> Ph + 64 (09) 815 4321 ex 8829
> Fax + 64 (09) 815 4330
> www.unitec.ac.nz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> ellis.godard at csun.edu 07/06/2006 10:49:55 >>>
> 
> How does diffusing technology across a divide which already exists,
enhance
> rather than diminish it? How does giving them computers inhibit their
> "technological progress", or have any deliterious effect on their
> technological standards?
> 
> As argued in "Knowledge Gap Hypothesis" literature, the outcome of
providing
> information (or in the case of the Digital Divide, information
technologies) to a social
> system tends to be, ironically, to exacerbate the existing gap
(divide) because of
> the inherent ability of the more (technologically) literate or
educated to take up the
> information and the advantages and broader worldview that goes along
with it. I
> have suggested "the Computer Clubhouse concept (Resnick, Rusk & Cooke,
1998)
> articulates the need for "technological fluency * not only knowing how
to use
> technological tools, but also knowing how to construct things of
significance with
> those tools" (p. 2)" **  is one tactic in responding strategically to
the issue that
> merely providing the PCs is no solution to the digital divide at all.
> 
> The more critical point implied by Fuchs is "global divide in
technological progress
> and standards
> > will emerge that separates advanced Western technology users
> > from users of less-advanced technologies in the Third World" - it's
not so much
> that $100 laptops are not doing anything to address the digital
divide, but that the
> concept may generate a new dimension of disadvantage relative to
advantage - as
> long as those without computers are given first world castoffs, for
those with the
> less advanced technologies there will always be a moving target before
them, ever
> out of reach.  This is a slightly reframed, shifting gap.
> 
> Godard again:
> 
> The implication that inequality and stratification are necessarily
wrong,
> much less demonstrably eliminatable, is very very close to absurd.
> 
> I don't suppose anyone is arguing that inequality is "eliminatable"
necessarily, but
> the thing is that inequalities related to differential ICT access tend
to go along with
> a whole raft of other problems, often expensive ones, and laptop
schemes etc are
> at least attempting to provide tools for communities with which they
may seek a
> measure of self-determination.
> 
> Jocelyn Williams
> 
> ** http://ci-journal.net/viewarticle.php?id=77&layout=html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-
> aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/

The information contained in this message is confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message.