The sympathetic meeting of minds in ICT4D efforts

Being a communicator and debating knowledge is probably a central (and mostly subconscious) concern of most skills and traits. Sadly though, it seems that the skill of interpersonal communication or facilitating the “sympathetic meeting of minds” is only briefly fondled by most formal programmes; often only as an “add-on” or an “optional extra”. Most of us will agree that it is extremely difficult to quantify the value of the unsystematic nature of interpersonal communication skills. In intercultural endeavours, the sympathetic meeting of minds is even more complicated as we try to not only understand meaning but also the underlying cultural context and value systems from which meaning emanates. In this blog I hope to alert my readers to the potential role of intercultural communication on Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) efforts. I also hope to stimulate debate on the issues of intercultural communication.

I recently had the opportunity to train teachers in basic ICTs in a rural South African community and what a different set of variables it was for my Western, goal-orientated mind! In this untouched community, where there is no mobile connectivity to get excited about, and where one’s social status is not determined at all by what you do, earn or have, a completely different view of reality exists. Coming from a background of teaching and knowing the importance of relating new knowledge to existing experience, I was constantly confronted with trying to find similarities in this “new” social system in order for me to firstly, make sense of the environment and people, and secondly, try and make myself clear during the training sessions.

I had to constantly ask myself whether what I assume is the same as what “they” assume. At some stage I felt helpless for not having the same frame of reference and for not understanding the way they understand. Every time I talk or teach, I have to question, not only the clarity of what I say, but also how I say it, as well as the preconceived ideas I assume they have about what I want so say. It really opened my eyes to the different worlds of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity and especially the systems by which people value themselves and what they do. My interactions with the community, laughing at their jokes (which I mostly gathered through their body language) and my feeble efforts to gain their trust were constantly challenged by my consistent misunderstandings of their different cultural world. Was it not for some of my “cultural interpreting” colleagues, I would have probably unknowingly offended and lost the very people I tried to collaborate with in this “meeting of minds”. In doing my ICT-related development work, I was challenged by a uniquely different social reality.

I’ve read many books and articles to help me make sense of my confusion. Four articles really made me think about what we do and about our underlying views of reality and in a sense helped me to understand intercultural ICT4D efforts. I will briefly explain the essence of these articles, but I urge you, the reader, to take up the challenge and read it for yourself. In doing so I also urge you to put aside your preconceived ideas about development, sustainability, growth, politics, history, Marxism, communism, Africa, capitalism, democracy, colonialism, human rights or whatever other possible value system that might potentially block out the enlightenment of objective knowledge about reality. Open a clean mental slate and allow your mind to be stretched.

East meets West: How the brain unites us all by Ed Yong (from www.newscientist.com). Talking about the realities of our cultural differences, Ed Yong shows that regardless of our cultural heritage, language or where we grow up, our minds seem to work in similar ways. Our cultural background does, however, affect the way we relate during thinking, how we see causality, how we wield logic and so on. Let me quote something from Yong: “… it seems that the cultural context in which we grow up simply gives us more practice in thinking about the world in a particular way.” “Everyone can think both ways [analytical and holistic] but on average, people tend to do more of one than the other,” says Oyserman in Yong. My conclusion from this article is that if you understand the workings of the human mind, you will probably be more successful in facilitating the “meeting of minds”. If you add to that understanding of the human soul, you will probably by able to successfully facilitate the “sympathetic” meeting of minds. We might then just be able to facilitate an agreement on the meaning of development themes such as sustainability, growth, progress, poverty, ICTs and so forth.
The ideological significance of Afrocentricity in intercultural communication by Molefi Asante (from www.jstor.org/pss/2784027). Although, after reading this paper about 10 times, I’m still trying to make sense of what Asante says, I’ve come to realise how important it is for me to understand Afrocentricity during ICT4D efforts in rural Southern Africa. Asante explains Afrocentricity as the frame of reference in which African social phenomena should be viewed and for understanding the perspectives of the African community. He says that “while the European seeks to conquer nature, to subdue it, the Asian flees from the illusions of the world, and the African finds coexistence with nature and a harmonious relationship with all the elements of the universe”. Eurocentrism is associated with Western culture and generally implies a critical view of concerns and values of non-Europeans. My observation is that it is this view that often subconsciously manifests in supercilious ICT4D efforts and policy. My contention here is that it is often those who have established their value system on having plenty who also decide on the value systems the impoverished should aspire to. It makes me wonder who defined poverty in the first place!
Why politicians dare not limit economic growth by Tim Jackson (from newscientist.com). Tim Jackson basically alerts his readers to the fact that governments cannot relentlessly continue to pursue economic growth and also address global warming. It’s going to be either an economic meltdown or global warming that is going to end our civilisation as we think we know it. One cannot other than realise that our only survival is to pursue negative economic growth. In my mind it seems that we will have to go back and learn from so-called underdeveloped or rather “unsophisticated” communities about survival and civilisation. Just check out the graph and see how it speaks a million words … and don’t tell me the problem is overpopulation. I made three babies myself and it wasn’t a mistake. The values I teach them might be the difference!
Discourses on Innovation and Development in Information Systems in Developing Countries’ Research by Chrisanthi Avgerou (a keynote speech at the 2009 IFIP conference, 26-28 May). Scrutinising ICT4D research, Avgerou foregrounds two general criticisms of ICT rollouts in developing countries. The first general criticism basically say that, yes, ICT is good and necessary for development, but you cannot just transfer and diffuse it in developing communities. ICTs should be socially constructed and embedded by the communities that will use them. The second general criticism questions the intentions and assumptions of international ICT4D policies and agencies. This criticism is questioning whether ICT might not have a negative impact on developing communities, thus worsening the digital divide and increasing poverty. My contention is that one should think whether the one-size-fits-all approach to ICTs is the right way to go. The second criticism also seems to align well with the argument above economic growth and global warming!

At this stage you probably have more questions than answers! Now let me conclude this discourse by presenting even more questions that will hopefully reiterate the assumptions challenged by these authors:

What is meant by socio-economic development? Does it mean social and economic development? Does it mean social development in order to develop economically? What is meant by development? What is meant by sustainability? Who decides on the meaning of these terms? Do ICTs ensure economic growth?

Who decides on the fate of the underdeveloped? Who determines the values that the underdeveloped should aspire to? Who established millennium development goals? Do the developed collaborate with the underdeveloped to establish the socio-economic outcomes that underdeveloped communities should aspire to? Who needs who? Has the developed consulted with the underdeveloped with regards to the meaning of development, sustainability and the underlying value systems? Who needs who?

What made the developed become developed in the first place? Was it a mad scramble of gathering and protecting one’s own and bodily comfort or did they follow the rules for development as it is typically reflected in the policy of international bodies and governments? Does salvation lie in the acquisition of more? What did the developed do when they were still underdeveloped? Is poverty synonymous with underdevelopment? What is poverty? Is progress equal to civilisation? Is a simplistic lifestyle synonymous with underdevelopment? Who wrote the laws of social psychology? Was it the developed or the underdeveloped? Do Europeans still view progress synonymous to civilisation? What do Africans see as civilisation? What are the right answers to these questions? Who will know if you have the right answer?

And global warming? Are the implications of global warming not the answer to many of these questions? What is the biggest contributor to global warming? Is it economic growth? Should we not limit economic growth? Is it over-development? Should we not limit or re-evaluate development? Who contributes mostly to global warming, the developed or the under-developed? Why do politicians not limit economic growth? Who are making the decisions?

I once read that the process of knowledge discovery is more valuable than the knowledge itself. So, may we continue to challenge the process of knowledge discovery and may we learn to think about what we think and do. We might just be lucky and finally be able to understand the relentless human psyche.