OF SHUTTLES, SHIPS AND THE INTERNET by Peter Yaple

Soon after my arrival in Bahrain I was met by a strange site. Down in the old port area north of downtown Manama, I saw the looming hulk of what I assumed to be a surplus space shuttle rising out of a fleet of ancient dhows. I was never able to discover the exact circumstance of that shuttle, what and why, but it did provide an image to ponder. The longer I have remained, the more I have come to understand that scene as an analogy for my read on Bahrain and perhaps the entire “developing” world—the visual yet, useless dominance of the foreign made, high technology, underpinned by ancient tradition filling the practical needs of society.

This has led me to the question of the use of new technologies, when the groundwork has not been done, and when the adopters are unprepared to use them as they were intended.

Dealing with the Digital Divide

After the chaos of the past two years, there are hopeful signs. The world is refocusing on the root causes of true terror: injustice, inequity, poverty, and all things preventing humankind from achieving its individual and collective potential. These are things that can not be solved quickly by force or power, but only through a long, difficult process of consensus building to cooperatively solve problems.

A principal concern is the ever-widening gulf separating the “haves” from “have-nots” both between and within nations. In the face what might seem more immediate crises such as disease, famine, and illiteracy, another, seemingly more esoteric concern is the gap in access to information, the growing “Digital Divide”.

Why, in a world where approximately one-fifth of its people live on less than one US dollar a day[1], are we worrying about computer access? Like all elements of deep infrastructure, power, water, transportation, health, education, the failure to address development in information acquisition has long-term consequences. Just as nations without supplies of natural resources were crippled in the Industrial Age, nations without access to information will be disadvantaged in the coming age.

Developed (for lack of a better term) nations with dominance in technology, grow exponentially, while nations without such technology slide into ever-increasing backwardness and poverty. Just as the access to money can be leveraged into greater wealth, access to information can be leveraged into greater power—in an Age of Information knowledge is both wealth and power.

To address this issue, the UN is sponsoring an ongoing dialog, its latest public session the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) held in Geneva Switzerland last December. The results of this meeting were mixed, but it did ratify a “cyber constitution”. The stated goal of this document is the use of the Internet and other forms of technology as a tool to bootstrap quality of life for billions of people. This declaration also acknowledges the right of free opinion—to express freely ones thoughts and beliefs on the Net[2].

Underscoring the problems of moving rhetoric into reality, a human rights group that same week reported that in one of the major signatory countries a former government worker was jailed for eight years for posting essays and comments online criticizing official corruption.[3]

Nevertheless it is true that any journey must begin with an idea. "This (the Internet) is a very powerful development tool," says Carlos Fortin, deputy secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development unveiling its 2003 E-Commerce and Development Report. In terms of development the Net not only serves to deliver information on health, economic and educational issues, but more importantly provides an interactive medium for individuals to carry out personal objectives.

Practical examples of this use are continually evolving. A small coffee planter in El Salvador uses the Net to market the crop, bypassing the traditional middlemen[4]. In Cambodia, an outsourcing company is established employing local workers to perform data entry tasks[5]. The company uses the Net for communication and work flow to clients world wide.

Roots of the Problem

The origins of the “Digital Divide” are found in the USA, where early adoption of the Internet led researchers to explore disparities between various ethnic, gender and age groups. More liberal thinkers saw an opportunity to address educational inequality through government intervention. American public education is locally funded; this mirrors and reinforces regional economic difference, not only between locations, but for the people who inhabit them. An example is an inner-city school where funding dependent on the local tax base is necessarily low. It was thought through the Federal funding of schools for computers and Internet links such disparities might be offset.

This concern and associated conclusion has been extended to the world, but without, I suggest, full understanding of either its American experience or the very nature of the change envisioned. The liberal policy which gave birth to these programs sought to empower citizens not only with information but with the critical and analytical skills necessary for a truly democratic way of life. If one questions the liberal roots of this policy, they need only to note how quickly the present administration’s conservative policies have killed all federal funding[6]—the idea of the existence of a “digital divide” has even been abolished. In an echo of Orwell, if we have no words for it, we cannot think it.

It is questionable whether many of those nations rushing to board the global cyber bandwagon have liberal goals in mind. Do they want their citizens equipped with the skills to manage their own fates? Do they want a people free to make life choices from on a vast store of global information rather than a limited stock of traditional, or culturally appropriate wisdom?

If the choice is the former, then they need to prepare. One who knows only poverty is thrown off balance by sudden riches; one living in a closed world with limited possibilities will find to a much wider choice of information disorienting. Historically we have seen this time and time again, where peoples living in relative isolation have been suddenly exposed to larger worlds. Such was the case with many Native American peoples, who overwhelmed by new technologies succumbed not only physically but psychologically. The real question here is can societies with long traditions of closed systems afford to suddenly face the harsh reality of worlds beyond their own unique paradigms?

The reality is that there is no longer a choice; the genie is out of the bottle and the geographic and cultural barriers that have separated humanity are melting away. To withhold access of a people from this cyber world community is to marginalize and fossilize them. Any who think that this technology can be harnessed for sectarian purpose will be sorely disappointed. The Internet is not merely another channel by which to control the world view of their citizenry—just as the mass media has come to be used.

In the rush to connect to the cyber world, to sign the hardware deals, to feel that their nation is fully part of the 21^st Century, full participants in GLOBE INC., national leaders must not forget the software. Software here not in the traditional sense of computer applications as produced by Microsoft and others, but rather the methods of using that hardware, crafted within the context of each and every adopting culture. This cannot be purchase from outside, it can not come as part of a grant or aid package. It must be negotiated within the academic community of the adopting nation. There is a grave danger that mesmerized by economic promise of a quick fix to their educational needs, leaders will fail to see the Internet, more than any other tool since the printing press, embodies the truth of Marshall McLuhan’s dictum that “the medium is the message[7].”

The Internet as a Tool

Tool use is one of the major features that separate humankind from other species. It is our ability to evolve tools rather than genes that have enabled us, for better or worse, to master the planet. Yet just as biology has divided the animal kingdom, dictating survival or extinction, the ability to develop and use new tools may now be deciding the fate of humanity.

For those who doubt the impact of tools on society, they need only look at the years that followed the introduction of the printing press in Western Europe. What was it that was sparked by this technological innovation, namely mass access to information that had been hitherto reserved for a privileged few? While there were other factors that led to the resulting social and cultural upheavals, not the least being increased contact with civilizations of the East, the ability to distribute information to a growing public, radicalized society, making possible the Renaissance, the Reformation, and ultimately, the Age of Reason.

Why was this? I suggest it was because information could no longer be channeled solely from the rulers to the ruled in a hierarchical structure. With the introduction of the printing press a matrix of information exchange was established where individuals of disparate geographic, social, and economic position could exchange ideas.

Today the Internet is the new printing press and its impact arguably even more radical. While the printing press and successor information technologies, have come to a greater extent to be controlled, the Internet, at least for the moment is not. Anyone given a modicum of literacy, computer knowledge, and a small amount of cash can mount a cyber podium from which he or she can express opinions. I come from a society where the good of this is a basic value. Diversity of opinion and the right to express it is fundamental.

Howard Dean, a Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the USA has voiced an excellent American characterization of the Internet: “The Internet does not exist for the unique benefit of any group or economic interest. It is ours as citizens of this country and as inhabitants of this planet[8].”

On its face this statement sounds benign. One could substitute almost any innovation, plane, automobile, electricity for the Internet and make a similar claim. But Dean continues his declaration with these words: “The Internet is encouraging people to speak up, in their own voice, about what matters to them. This empowerment of human voice and conversation is profoundly in-line with the ideals of American democracy.[9]”

Dangers from and to the Net

There is a great irony in all of this when one considers the origins of the Internet—the Department of Defense, USA.[10]—and should serve as a warning as to the multifaceted nature of technology. It knows no political allegiance; it serves no religious belief, there for all humanity, a tool to use for good or for bad.

But it is more than this for like any other powerful tool it has the possibility of not only being used by humanity but taking on a life of its own and reshaping the user. Like the jinn in Aladdin’s lamp, it offers great promise, energy, and empowerment, but it is not controllable or predictable, once released it will not be controlled. To try to control this force is arguably impossible, but even if it were it would only be by destroying it.

George Orwell[11] predicted, and history has born him out, the malign power of mass media. The Net too will mirror all the weaknesses of humankind. The very nature of the Internet requires a democratic public, empowered with those very skills necessary to maintain a democracy and to protect it from demagoguery. Otherwise it too will succumb, to dominance by the “Duckspeakers”[12]. It will lose the “inter” (interaction) and become just a high tech version of traditional mass media—a one-way delivery system of sales pitches and political and religious dogma.

Thus, just as with any other tool, methods for skillful use must be taught. Primary among these are critical and analytical thought along with open-mindedness and curiosity. While these are accepted values in the society in which the Internet was born, they are not necessarily of value in all cultures, and in fact are seen as dangerous in some.

Tools have various degrees of enculturation; some can be more culturally neutral, hammer, screwdriver, while others act as a Trojan horse for the dominant society. If this is in doubt one only need to look at the effect of mass media in building an atomized, global consumer culture.

Educating Bahrain

Recently Bahrain has expressed its desire to increase its investment in cyber education. Dr Majid bin Ali Al Nuami, Minister of Education has wisely called for a program of increased use of Information Technology and the Internet in the public schools. It was most heartening to see the term “self-learning” used for this is truly the key[13].  

But the devil is as usual in the details. I work at a university where almost every office is wired and new, relatively powerful computers occupy almost every desk. Yet at least in my department the principal means of communication is still the time-tested pigeon-hole or phone call. Part of the problem is lack of network speed; the other is a lack of user motivation to implement new technologies. This lack may be defended as cultural preference—yes American’s may be addicted to e-mail. Yet a decade ago few Americans had ever sent e-mail, just as few Bahrainis until recently had used text messaging on their mobiles.

Though there is much discussion, there is of yet no proven methodology for cyber education even in the USA, where almost all schools at the secondary level are Internet-linked. It is known that the establishment of Internet communities breaks down status, time and geographical barriers. Topical interest forms the cyber boundaries yet even these lead from one to another as HTML/XML documents (web pages), provide ready links. Classrooms can serve as the basis for such communities, which in turn can be linked to similar communities across cyber space. Once a student is motivated to explore a topic, there is a reasonable chance that related topics will be pursued. In this the hardware is a given and the challenge is to motivate the curiosity to explore.

We live in quickly changing, ever more technologically dependent society. Changes in the way we live demand changes in the way we educate. Memorization as the principal method of study must be downplayed if not eliminated. It is said that from measurements of cranial capacity the Neanderthal had a greater capacity for memory than our own genetic line, but then look at the fate of the Neanderthal. There is just too much information to store.[14]

Similarly, the teacher can no longer act as the fount of information because there is just too much information to dispense, not to mention that this information is in constant flux. Teachers must become enablers of learning, showing students how and where to access information quickly and efficiently. The use of technology in the classroom as a tool rather than an object of study is the beginning, but it is only the beginning. It is in the experience of tool use to solve real problems that the modern learning process gains its greatest relevance.

To this end the Constructivist approach deserves a long look. Its principles are quite simple according to Barbara Jaworski (currently of the Dept. of Educational Studies, Oxford)

·         Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, not passively received from the environment.

·         Coming to know is a process of adaptation based on and constantly modified by a learner's experience of the world.

“It does not discover an independent, pre-existing world outside the mind of the knower”, she says.[15]

This theory evolved from the work of L.S. Vygotsky and the social-historical school[16] who believe that through an activity as a unit of analysis an understanding of an individual’s mind may be reached. It is in this understanding that an intervention may take place to guide the individual toward his or her own development[17].

This approach recognizes that there is a relationship between tool use and cognitive change. The tool is not merely an enabler but acts as an agent in altering the mechanisms of thought. We have been accustomed to process visual information much more rapidly than our ancestors because of constant exposure to film and television. Similarly high-volume information sources like the Internet can cause a speed –up in the processing of that information. The evolution of language, particularly its written forms will also be speeded up by the speed and range of the Net, leading to further cognitive change.

Such change necessitates accompanying transformation in teaching methods. The teacher can no longer act as the fount of knowledge because there is just too much to dispense, not to mention its state of constant flux. There is also the question of student/teacher relations. The teacher is no longer the principal source of information; the student is increasingly empowered by ready access to what traditionally was in the hands of the teacher. More and more, education must be seen as a cooperative process with teacher and student freely exchanging roles. In an age where information is king, education is a lifetime process, regardless of position or credentials.

A meaningful discussion of teaching methods, only touched on above, requires much more time than can be justified here[18]. It is however in this discussion that the majority of effort towards the establishment of a cyber education program should be made.

It is of interest to juxtapose such consideration of ways (software) with that of means—the direct impact of hardware in the schools. An example of this is the State of Vermont’s gift of laptops to entering middle school students. This was greeted with much nay saying in what is a fiscally conservative state. Dire predictions were made of how the students would trash their computers or use them primarily for game play or worse. Yet the opposite proved true. Equipment was immaculately maintained, and test scores rose dramatically. But one must be cautious in assessing the impact of the tool alone. All too often educators are mesmerized by the pie-in-the-sky promises of manufacturers who often open the door through seemingly generous grants only to be followed up by the sales call.

The principal danger in any new technology adoption is that the technology becomes an end in itself—we learn computers, where we should be using the computers to learn. Again harking back to McLuhan’s dictum, cyber education is not just about learning new things but it also predicated new ways of learning.

If Bahrain really wants to use cyber education to create both a critical citizenry and problem solving work force then before the contracts are signed with the Dells, IBMs, and Microsofts, great efforts must be made by Bahrainis to come up with a plan as to how this technology will be implemented.

At the same time the government needs to work with the private sector, to make sure that the computer and Internet are not school bound tools but are part and parcel of daily life both for students and the citizenry at large. To affect this cost of Internet service should become more aligned to international norms, not to mention the quality of the service offered. The key to Internet adoption is ease of use and access. It is just in this manner that in thoughtful integration of a technology into a society not only the target public benefits but so to the society as a whole.

Rewards for Efforts Made

Yet despite my many cautions I can only applaud the intentions of the Government of Bahrain. Dangers do not mean avoidance, for we live in a world increasingly connected. To ignore the development of skills necessary for participation in this digital culture is to risk a slide down the wrong side of the digital divide.

To return to the words of Carlos Fortin:

… a critical area is the development of human skills at all levels. Basic education and lifetime training are becoming essential characteristics of a competitive workforce in the knowledge-based economy[19].

A nation that fails to empower its people with the Internet and, perhaps more importantly, the skills to use it, will be doing more than depriving them of chat sites, e-mail, gaming, and e-commerce. Borrowing from the science of chaos theory[20], we find that closed systems are doomed to entropy—the gradual winding down or dissipation of energy. All great civilizations thrived during periods of openness only to succumb when borders were closed, trade curtailed, thought controlled.

Fifteenth Century Ming China is the classic example. In 1421 its fleets spanned and charted much of the world. It is possible that they may have landed and even settled in the Americas 70 years before Columbus, whose chart may have been copied from the Chinese originals. Yet these efforts were doomed because with a sudden reversal of policy, one of the world’s greatest civilizations turned turtle, closing its borders to all things foreign—material, mind, spirit.[21]

Barring some major catastrophe, the Internet and its successor matrix technologies will prevent another closure such as that of the Ming. When communication is multi-directional as opposed to from the top down building walls becomes more difficult. And not just because of the hardware, but rather by the way the use of the technology reshapes our minds, allowing us to understand that any problem can be solved given the will and the energy.

No other technology in the history of humankind has made such penetration so quickly. Currently, almost a billion people have access to the Internet. One can only imagine what the future holds, where access is wireless and resources vastly grown. Practical examples such as distance education or even on-line voting are but the tip of the e-iceberg.

But like that tip the hardware, networks, communication lines, the stuff of the Internet, is but the visible part of a system requiring human minds equipped to absorb, process and use its information. Ultimately, the responsibility for this must lie within each individual. Society can provide the infrastructure, but each of us must struggle to put it to its best use. Classrooms filled with gleaming banks of computers, wireless networks and broadband are pointless unless the minds connected are prepared…unless the society to which minds belong is ready.

If Bahrain’s proposed cyber education program is to avoid the space shuttle’s fate, high and dry on the dock with no purpose other than as show, then the real work of preparing the public mind must begin. This is not only the job of education, but all facets of Bahrain’s society. This may be painful, change usually is. But the potential rewards are great, and besides what is the choice? What happened to that shuttle anyway?

N.B. All sources are from Internet in keeping with the spirit of the article.