Working
the Internet with a Social Vision
A Collective
Document by the Mistica1
Virtual Community for the Olistica project2
August 2002
Final Document
BACKGROUND
This
document has been written in a collective
way (see the chapter entitled "process") to serve as a point of
reference to various activities related to the Mistica3
and Olistica projects, which are both coordinated by FUNREDES, the Networks and
Development Foundation4.
More
specifically, it is meant to be a medium for an alternative way of assessing the social impact of ICT in Latin
America and the Caribbean. This assessment will be inspired by the
"Isticometrics" principles5,
which establish that indicators need to be developed through cooperative processes. In this way, it
is possible to link the priority developments as established by communities,
and to elaborate the indicators in agreement with the social relevance of the
phenomena to which they are tied. This relevance cannot indeed be left to the
preconceptions held by elites or dominant protagonists. The perspective lies in
the objective that societies, activists, and especially the people who ought to
enjoy their benefits, participate in the formulation process of public policies.
Using a kind of
vocabulary which can be understood by people who are not experts in the field,
this document hence tries to shape the vision of the Internet as a tool for
social development. Since 1999, a group
of people (scholars as well as
grassroots activists) have been conceptualizing this vision through virtual
fora. The completion of this document should go beyond the mentioned projects,
and it may represent a contribution from our region to the international,
on-going debate on Information Society.
ANTECEDENTS
The Mistica
project has already produced two collective documents, on the same topic,
although from different approaches:
Doc-SAM: the "Letter
to Emilio or the Oneiric Relation of the Saman� Meeting"6
(5/99) focuses, in both pedagogical and multimedia ways, on the description of
participative democracy processes and on the spirit which has resulted from it
among the Mistica community. This document is extensive and easy to read; it is
useful to those who wish to join the Mistica VC (virtual community) or to
understand the dynamics of the project.
Doc-CV: "ICT
in Latin America and the Caribbean in the Globalization Context"7
(4/99) focuses on the vision the Mistica VC has of the connection between ICT
and society. This document is comparatively long and has been written by and
for specialists of the field. In a way, the present document updates the
Doc-CV, while trying to make it accessible to a larger audience.
We shall
add to this list a document that has not been written collectively, and is not
part of the achievements of the Mistica project; however, it has resulted from
extensive consultations, and to a great extent it reflects the debates within
the Mistica VC:
"Internet, What For? Thinking about ITC for
the Development of LAC"8, (3/01) by
Ricardo G�mez and Juliana Mart�nez. It is a large and pedagogical document,
intended for a non-specialist as well as specialist audience.
Moreover,
there exists other regional documents with a similar perspective, which come
directly or indirectly from collective reflection in other frameworks:
"Letter to Aunt Ofelia: Seven Proposals for
Equitable Development with the Use of NICT"99 (4/02) by
Ricardo G�mez and Benjam�n Casadiego: it stems from a collective creative
session that took place during the workshop on Experiences Sharing on Social
Appropriation of NICT for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,
organized by ITDG10
, in Cajamarca, Peru (3/02).
"Telecentres, What For? Lessons on Community
Telecentres in Latin America and the Caribbean"11 (9/02) by
Ricardo G�mez, Karin Delgadillo and Klaus Stroll: this stems from the
experience of the project Somos@Telecentros12.
These
various documents, including the present one, represent an original and regional production by Latin America and the Caribbean on
issues related to the Information Society.
PROCESS
The process of
elaborating the present document in a collective way was formalized by Kemly Camacho, from the Accesso Foundation13,
as follows:
- she wrote an
initial proposal which tried to gather the consensual contents of the debates
which had been going on in the last months within the Mistica Virtual Community
(VC);
- this initial
proposal was submitted to discussion within the coordination group of the
Olistica project14;
- a second
version15
was produced, integrating the comments of the coordination group;
- following
this, the document was submitted to discussion16
within the Mistica VC, with a discussion agenda running on for several weeks;
- finally, the
comments which had been gathered were integrated into that document, in order
to produce the last but one version;
- this version,
then, was reviewed by the coordination group and was finalized by the person in
charge of the project, Daniel Pimienta, before being handed in to the VC, in
order to enable the members to determinate whether their comments had been
properly integrated, and to issue the final document.
The text which
has been produced through this process reflects, in a generally consensual way,
and in broad outline, the views of the Mistica participants; however, it must
be clear that the document has not been formally endorsed by each of the
Mistica VC members.
The final
comments, which broaden the perspectives of this document, are gathered in the
thread of messages that begins with:
http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/emec/produccion/memoria6/1326.html
INTRODUCTION
The Mistica
Virtual Community, composed of men and women from Latin America and the
Caribbean, has developed for some time17
a reflection on topics such as digital divide, the information and knowledge
society, and the social impact of the Internet. Under the general heading of
"A Social Vision of the Internet", we have developed a collective
reflection, as well as initiated and promoted various actions. These actions
aim at improving our understanding of the consequences and impact of this
technology when it is part of our societies, and at promoting a social
appropriation of the Internet. We, who make these proposals, share principles,
the gist of which will now be presented.
1 THE INTERNET18
IS A SOCIAL MATTER, NOT ONLY A
TECHNICAL OR A COMMERCIAL ONE.
We do not see the network of networks only as a technological platform.
Rather, we consider it as a new space of interaction between human beings,
which we have created for our own benefit.
This place is
changing through the very interaction we are developing. Hence we consider that
the technology must be seen, analyzed, managed, studied and used from a social
point of view, trying to understand the new types of relations that are being
created within the place, the new social processes that are being generated,
the cultural evolutions that occur, the new worldviews that are being built,
the new economic relations that are being established.
The Internet
should not be understood only as the network of networks, from a technological
point of view, i.e. as interconnected computers. The Internet should rather be
seen as the network of human networks that are related to each other, where
computers are nothing more than the mediating19
technological platform.
Clealy, since
the network of human networks rests on a technological platform of interrelated
computers, it works with novel and particular characteristics. Because the
relations are mediated through the technological platform, both form and
contents of communication are altered.
On the other
hand, we hold that it is important not to consider the Internet only as a tool
whose goal would be to implement new forms of commercial exchanges �which is
what now defines the priorities of the private sector, what impels and supports
it. The Internet should rather be used to boost structures as well as
economical, political and social relations which offer alternatives to
traditional patterns. Should it be driven only by the market, the Internet
would reproduce and increase existing social inequalities.
Civil society is
to play a crucial part in the defining the new types of relations and social
constructions that ought to be developed from the integration of information
and communication technologies. This is not only a stake for governments and
private companies.
2. AN IMPULSE
TOWARD EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES OF ACCESS,
SENSIBLE USE, AND THE SOCIAL APPROPRIATION OF THE
INTERNET.
In order to analyze processes, carry on projects
and elaborate proposals related to the technology, we use the following
categories: equal opportunities of access, sensible use, and social appropriation
of the Internet. We believe that it is important to simultaneously
consider those three aspects in order to achieve socially positive results as
the Internet continues to be incorporated into our countries.
We understand equal opportunities of access as the
opportunity for everyone to have access to the benefits of the Internet. Here
we include both the access to the very technology and the development of
technical and methodological capacities enabling people to make effective use
of the whole potential that is thus made available. The obstacles to equal
opportunities of access are not merely technical and financial, they are also
educational, linguistic and cultural.
In this respect,
we are also concerned with the search for alternative connections and free or
inexpensive training, as well as for politicies, decisionmaking and governance
of the Internet. We are interested in getting involved in the definition of the
policies related to domains, costs of space in the Internet and legal matters
that have to do with technology, in such a way that our visions and interests
would be taken into account.
We see a
difference between the mere use and the sensible
use of the technological tool. We prompt actions which promote a type of
use that relates the needs of the various social groups to the search for
alternative solutions, aiming to fulfil these needs through the use of the
Internet.
We emphasize the
social appropriation of the Internet,
so that the tool will acquire meaning in the daily life of social groups and
become a tool allowing new knowledge to be generated. This will make it
possible for people to transform the concrete framework of their lives.
3. OUR ULTIMATE
GOAL IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF
SOCIETIES.
We, who study,
investigate, evaluate and prompt actions related to the Internet with a social
vision, explicitly claim that we mean to
use the technology as a tool aiming at the transformation of societies. We
then want to discover and promote ways in order to contribute to building novel
societies led by common values, such as fairer relations, resulting in less
discrimination and more equal opportunities.
Also, from each
of our specificities, we emphasize our commitment to promoting actions that
will bring all Internet-related opportunities to the least privileged groups in
our societies.
4. WE THINK THE
INTERNET OFFERS OPPORTUNITIES, BUT WE
DO NOT MAGNIFY THE TECHNOLOGICAL TOOL.
We do not believe that the Internet by itself can
produce changes that will transform the social and economic conditions of the
less privileged groups in our societies and in the world. We do not contemplate
a straightforward process; we do not believe in an automatic relation or in one
of cause and effect between the Internet and social development.
In order to take
advantage of the Internet as a tool for social development, some processes
should exist, that would permit the communities, organizations and countries to
make the technology their own, in such a way that it would become a meaningful part
of their daily lives. In other words, the Internet does mean something about
the opportunity to improve living conditions, that it can be something close
and relevant to the transformation of existing social, economic, and political
relations.
We insist on changing the meaning of the actions
related to the Internet. At present they give priority to the installation of
connections and equipment, and then wonder what use they can be put to. We call
for a previous cooperative reflection, in order to determine what the main
problems and needs are, how the Internet can contribute to solving problems and
fulfilling needs, and then determine if, how and where, equipment and
connections should be installed.
The Internet is
an open frame, which we can still take advantage of �whether we are
organizations, communities, individuals or countries, as long as we aim at
improving the conditions of living of the less-favored people.
However, we are
also aware of the fact that everything depends on the actions which are to be
soon undertaken, and that the possibilities to take advantage of the Internet
for social transformation, may either shrink or expand.
In this respect,
the Internet must respond to a strategy of communication and information that
will be adopted by us, who desire an improvement of the societies in which we
live.
5. THE
"DIGITAL DIVIDE" CONCEPT SHOULD BE APPROACHED IN A COLLECTIVE , NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL
WAY.
The so-called
digital divide originates in the social divide. First of all, we consider that
the digital divide does not exist in itself, but that it is a consequence of
social divides. That is to say, the pre-existing social, economic, political,
differences, as well as the distribution of power and resources, do create
it.
The digital divide is not to be confronted only
with interconnected computers. In order to face the digital divide we need not
only to make use of computers, but also to develop the necessary capacities
among the groups so that they can take advantage of the technological tool in
order to strengthen political, social and economic development. This means,
besides being able to access connected computers, to improve one�s personal
self-esteem, one�s community organization, one�s educational level, one�s
capacities of interaction with other people and groups, one�s level of
empowerment in order to make proposals, among other things. To reduce the
digital divide means that the groups we work with have the capacity to take
advantage of the technology in order to improve their own living and
environmental conditions.
In sum, the digital divide should not be measured
only in terms of infrastructure (for instance, the number of on-line computers
in a given place). We shall evaluate the capacity that we have built in
relation with the information process as well as with the relations that
currently exist on the Internet regarding the beneficial knowledge that is
likely to improve our living conditions and our mutual support relations.
Confronting the digital divide is not an individual
matter, but a collective one. For this reason, we do not agree with those who
present the way of facing the digital divide from an individual point of view.
The digital divide is generally evaluated in terms of the ratio between a given
population and the number of connected computers. We want to promote the idea
of a more collective option. In this way we hold that the benefits coming from
the Internet do not originate in the very connection, but in the effects
generated by the connection. That is to say, we will be able to speak of a
reduction of the digital divide if the benefits of the tool reach a whole
community, even if this community has a small number of connected computers or
even no computer at all. When we talk about facing the digital divide, we speak
of communities, organizations or families who benefit from the Internet
although they are not directly connected, we do not speak of a one-to-one
relation, from the individual to the machine.
For instance, in a given community, a group of
youngsters can access the Internet from their school (not from their community)
and thus discover, through the tool, a new way of purifying the river water
into drinkable water. They discuss it with adults, adapt the information to
community conditions, carry out a similar project which is relevant to local
needs and to their own worldview, and eventually manage to produce drinkable
water from the river. If this serves as an example and is followed by similar
actions, then the benefits of the Internet will be brought to the whole
community. We will speak of actions that permit to reduce the digital divide in
the community, in spite of the very fact that only a group of youngsters have
access to the Internet and that there does not exist any computer with Internet
access within the community.
We hold that the
digital divide should be evaluated in terms of the benefits of the Internet
that reach (or do not reach) the populations; we also hold that this is not
merely achieved through a technical connection. The processes are obviously
made easier whenever connections are available in the community, but a mere
connection definitely does not make a difference.
Consequently, we
encourage actions that reduce the digital divide by bringing the benefits of
the Internet to the populations from a community point of view, and not only
actions that aim at connecting every individual to the Internet. We hold that
efforts and resources available to reduce the digital divide should not focus
on hardware, but in processes at the community, organization and nation levels;
these processes should bring the benefits of the technology to the main part of
the population.
6.
SOCIAL DIVIDES IN OUR SOCIETIES
ARE REFLECTED ON THE INTERNET; WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AND
DEFENDING THE EXISTING OPEN PLACES.
Obviously, differences do exist on the Internet.
We do not all have the same opportunities to access what is available on the
network, the same opportunities to disseminate what we produce, nor do we have
the same technological resources and equipments to take advantage of the tool.
These differences are related to technology costs and knowledge.
We are concerned
about this trend, even though we believe that many open spaces still exist. We
work to prompt actions which reduce the danger that the Internet might become a
tool handled mainly by the economic resources of the people who participate in
it.
We seek to have
those to whom our societies grant fewer opportunities be listened to, find in
the tool both a space to speak with their own voices, to interact and to
organize with other people, and a place where they will find such information
as will help them to find solutions and to fulfil needs.
7.
THE INTERNET CAN BOOST HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES THAT ALREADY EXIST
The Internet is above all a tool which is able to
create and to reinforce human networks. Its use makes it possible to create a
new social network that we need to understand and to make our own.
The Internet is
a tool that can facilitate, improve, and ease the processes that are occurring
in the countries, communities, organizations and regions, which aim at
improving the living conditions of the bulk of the population.
Consequently, we
prompt actions that tend to integrate the Internet into current social
practices and organizational initiatives, improve the living conditions of the
less privileged, and promote the development of extensive cooperative
processes.
8.
THE INTERNET PROVIDES INFORMATION ,
NOT KNOWLEDGE.
We hold that the Internet is an endless source of
information, but that is does not provide us with knowledge. We ourselves do
produce knowledge, in individual or collective forms, through assimilating
information, reflecting on it, adaptating it to our own experiences, needs,
contexts, and worldviews, discussing it with other people, either face to face
or in a virtual way.
Generating
knowledge implies that a "thinking process" should be developed. The
essence of this is definitely human. The Internet helps us throughout the
process and makes it easier, because it allows us to find similar experiences,
lessons learned, new ideas about similar issues, because it brings us
contributions, because we thus expand our visions, or because we discuss
extensively with individuals and groups from many parts of the world. However, the process through which knowledge is
generated does take place outside the Internet.
We hold that it
is necessary to overcome the myth according to which information is knowledge,
and its consequences according to which the very fact of being connected to the
Internet allows to have more knowledge.
9.
GENERATING NEW KNOWLEDGE IS AN ENGINE
FOR A CHANGE THE INTERNET CAN BOOST, BUT IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD HOW TO SWITCH ON
THE IGNITION.
Generating knowledge
through the use of the Internet as an information and communication tool, is
not a simple process. It requires discovering new abilities, new capacities,
variations in the work processes, as well as new educational profiles that will
make it possible for us to better take advantage of the tool in order to
generate knowledge. If we do not carry
out these kinds of reflections, and do not implement changes, we face the risk
of having a great deal of information at hand, but of being paralyzed by the unmanageable
quantity of data.
Building
knowledge that offers new solutions to needs, improves the ways things are
done, and presents alternatives, will be the driving force behind the
transformation of our societies. However, learning how to do this is not a
spontaneous process. We therefore try to initiate research and studies that
emphasize both discovering these new ways, and promoting the concept in
international agencies, local and national governments, organizations and
communities.
Discovering these
new ways of doing things, should be done in connection with social activists,
so as to allow the building process to take into account various worldviews,
and to stimulate the process through which the Internet as a technological tool
is appropriated.
The point is that the Internet sould become a
useful tool so that the socially less privileged can generate new knowledge
that will allow them to improve their living conditions and transform the
societies in which they live.
10.
THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET IS IN THE CHANGE
THAT IT GENERATES.
Similarly, when
we talk about the impact of the Internet we try to understand how the Internet
has transformed the daily lives of individuals in their personal affairs, their
jobs, in their social relationships, at the level of the general organization
or of the citizen.
When we talk about valuing the impact we try to
understand to what extent the Internet is transforming the realities we live,
as components of social entities, both at the group and at the personal levels. We do not
emphasize such realities as the number of computers, connection speed, the
quantity of messages, etc. These figures may allow us to understand the context
in which we live. However we try to go beyond appearance to get to the substance,
to what will remain of this transformation.
11. IT
MATTERS TO US THAT THE USE OF ITC SHOULD LEAD TO SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS THAT
BRING POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGES FOR OUR
REGION
We want to
make sure that a new information and knowledge is being built. We are careful
not to be repeating a slogan. We believe that all societies have had their own
ways of generating knowledge and that this has to do with the cultural
context.
We carefully observe the ways in which social,
political and economic structures are being currently altered, in order to make
sure that the existing structures are not strenghtened and that the evolution
is a substantial one.
Moreover, we do
not consider that the Internet is currently the only factor which makes
societies evolve. We adopt a critical and integral look, through which we can
analyze the numerous factors and dynamics that constantly participate in their
evolutions.
12. WE
CAN ALSO LIVE WITHOUT THE INTERNET.
We hold that the
Internet can also have negative effects in social, organizational, and personal
life. What circulates through the medium often has more to do with quantity
than with quality. The Internet may generate work overload, saturation,
limitation in personal contacts, feelings of immediacy, diminished
opportunities for reading, thinking and enjoyment.
Also, it is
perfectly possible to live without the Internet in spite of all the contextual
pressures, that incite individuals, organizations and institutions to be
connected. Be that as it may, this decision has to be taken with full knowledge
of the facts, that is to say, after having had a chance to know the dynamics
implied by the Internet.
13.
REFLECTIONS ON THE SOCIAL APPROPRIATION
OF THE INTERNET IN OUR ACTIONS AND PROJECTS.
In this framework,
we would like to summarize our position, and to propose a series of questions,
in order to analyze the various proposals and actions that are developing in
relation to the introduction of the Internet into our countries and
communities.
1. On equal opportunity of access
a. Is priority
given to the least favored groups?
b. Is technical
and methodological training integrated as part of the connectivity?
c. Is access
given to all Internet resources so that people can choose what suits them? Or
is access restricted to certain services?
d. Do the
processes through which Internet access is provided (whether already under
development or to be developed) promote collective access to the technological
tool? In what sense do these proposals and actions promote the reduction of the
digital divide in terms of connected communities, organizations, and families?
2. On sensible use
a. In what way
do the developing (or to be developed) uses of the Internet make it possible to
build less discriminatory relations, that promote equal opportunities?
b. In what way
do the developing (or to be developed) uses of the Internet promote the
transformation of existing economic, political and social relations?
c. To what
extent do the uses of the Internet that are promoted take part in existing
social practices and do not represent enforced or undesirable changes?
d. To what
extent do the uses of the Internet that are promoted strengthen the
participative processes among the groups we work with?
3. On social appropriation
a. In what way
do the current (or to be developed) actions encourage the beneficiary
populations to give the Internet a proper, autochthonous and genuine meaning,
that respond to their daily lives?
b. To what
extent do the current (or to be developed) actions encourage the people among
whom projects are carried out to participate in the definition and the managing
of what is going to be achieved through the use of the Internet?
c. To what
extent do the actions that are being initiated through the Internet support
communitary, organizational and national processes which promote an evolution
toward fairer, more equal and more sustainable societies?
d. To what
extent do the actions that are being initiated promote processes that allow to
bring the benefits of the Internet to the less privileged, especially to the
ones who do not have access to the tool?
4. On generating new knowledge
a. To what
extent do the uses of the Internet that are being initiated solve concrete
needs of the people whom we work with?
b. To what
extent do the uses of the Internet that are being initiated contribute to the
search for alternatives to the problems identified by the groups we work with?
c. To what
extent do the uses of the actions that are being initiated, contribute to
improving the conditions of the less favored?
d. To what
extent do the uses of the Internet that are being initiated allow to expand the
available information within communities so that people may take decisions with
more appropriate criteria?
e. To what
extent are actions initiated in order to improve the ways relevant information
is selected, organized, and interpreted in relation with the daily life of the
groups we work with?
f. In what way
do promoted actions prompt structural changes among peoples and organizations,
so that they can develop innovating processes which allow to integrate the
benefits of the Internet into their daily lives?
5. On the defense of protected spaces on the
Internet and the dissemination
a. How do the
actions that are promoted boost the production of local contents?
b. What level of
participation do the people with whom we work have in the development of local
contents?
c. To what
extent do actions which are promoted allow to disseminate and promote local
contents?
d. In what way
is the Internet promoted as a space of expression for the less favored and for
popular cultures?
6. On the social change produced by the Internet
a. In what way
do the actions which are promoted for the development of the Internet prompt
elements such as development of personal and collective self-esteem, community
organization, improvement of educational standards, capacities of interaction
between people, empowerment, or development of the capacity to make proposals
from the people with whom the work is done?
b. In what way
are actions for the development of the Internet transforming the daily lives of
the peoples, from an individual, occupational, interpersonal or citizen
viewpoint?
c. What level of
probability is there that the transformations produced by the actions that are
carried out, have a follow-up in the future?
Footnotes
http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/emec/participantes/
2 http://funredes.org/olistica
5 http://funredes.org/olistica/documentos/doc2/isticometros.html
6 http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/ciberoteca/tematica/esp_doc_sam2_1.html
7 http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/ciberoteca/tematica/esp_doc_cv.html
8 http://www.acceso.or.cr/PPPP/
9 http://www.idrc.ca/pan/ricardo/publications/Ofelia.htm
11 http://www.idrc.ca/pan/ricardo/publications/tcparaque.pdf
12 http://www.tele-centros.org/
14 http://www.funredes.org/olistica/socios/
15 http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/ciberoteca/tematica/esp_doc_olist.html
16 http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/emec/produccion/
17 Since Feb.
1999, when discussions in the Mistica VC were launched.
18
"Internet" is a communication protocol (TCP-IP), which allows
computers to communicate with each other. "The Internet" is a network
which allows people to communicate and inform themselves through the use of
computers and protocols. For this reason we prefer using the phrase "the
Internet," which refers to human networks, above the technological
stratum.
19 And quite
often, due to limitations in the interface, "immediating"� (in the
sense of making superficial).