Keith Hart, best known for his work on "informal economy", defining the vitality of the urban entreprenuerial spirit he encountered as a young anthropologist in Ghana in the early 1970s has just posted an essay called The Digital Revolution and me. While enthusiasts should certainly read the whole, here are a few snippets that I found thoughtful observations that relate to the explorations on this blog.
We are living through the first stages of a world revolution as profound, in my view, as the invention of agriculture. It is a machine revolution, of course: the convergence of telephones, television and computers in a digital system whose most visible symbol is the internet. It is a social revolution, the formation of a world society with means of communication adequate at last to expressing universal ideas. It is a financial revolution, the detachment of the virtual money circuit from production, linked to the West’s loss of control over the world economy. It is an existential revolution, transforming what it means to be human and how each of us relates to the rest of humanity. It is therefore also a revolution in anthropology that will make everything we have done so far seem like the prehistory of our discipline.
The Economist recently put forth an argument strongly reminiscent of Theodore Levitt's 1983 HBR classic "The globalization of markets" (PDF) where he first framed the concept that global consumer preferences were converging, thus companies could develop, launch and market the same product across the globe - “Different cultural preferences, national tastes and standards, and business institutions are vestiges of the past." We know where that argument went however, so lets take a closer look at the venerable Economist's thesis. A few key snippets:
A few years ago such questions provoked academic controversy. Not everybody agrees with Ms Ito’s argument that techno logy is always socially constructed. James Katz, a professor of communication at Rutgers University in New Jersey, argues that there is an Apparatgeist (German for “spirit of the machine”). For personal communication technologies, he argues, people react in pretty much the same way, a few national variations notwithstanding. “Regardless of culture,” he suggests, “when people interact with personal communication technologies, they tend to standardise infrastructure and gravitate towards consistent tastes and universal features.”
and even more reminiscent of Levitt's words:
In the long run most national differences will disappear, predicts Scott Campbell of the University of Michigan, author of several papers on mobile-phone usage. But he expects some persistence of variations that go back to economics. In poorer countries subscribers will handle their mobile phones differently simply because they lack money. Nearly all airtime in Africa is pre-paid. Practices such as “beeping” are likely to continue for quite a while: when callers lack credit, they hang up after just one ring, a signal that they want to be called back.
Only a few countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, still need special cultural attention when designing a phone (which is why some models in India double as torches).
Twitter launched two new initiatives in two very important countries for communications this week: a deal with Bharti Airtel to enable Twitter via SMS in India, and a new mobile version of the service in Japan. Both countries already have active Twitter users, but each brings something different to the global communications picture.
Comments [0]
Comments [0]