Michel & Taran, Thank you both for replying. You raise several points, and I'll respond as best I can. However my point was not to presume to provide answers or solutions, but to open the space for discussion, and hoping that (together) we will build strategy and take action. What I offer below are responses that are clouded by my own biases, but are intended as clarifications to establish a more open discussion, not to impose an opinion.
(Sorry for the long delay in posting my response, I wanted to give it adequate thought, but I am afraid I'm not certain of that) We have had these discussions before. More Talk? Or Real Steps? Certainly people have engaged in discussion on Justice and other noble topics for quite some time: at prestigious conferences, with ambitious agendae, and much effort to bring together diverse parties. What was the value of these "democratic debates"? (To hit upon the phrase Michel has raised) Do we want more of these "democratic debates"? I suppose the question is whether we just want to engage in discourse so that it looks like we're doing something, i.e. going through a ritual, or to sound as though we are sensitive and concerned or ideologically sound ... or whether we want to engage in discourse under a pragmatic frame (in sense of Dewey et al.) . i.e. as being grounded in real questions before us, and in relation to determining a course of action, a strategy that will be undertaken because we have the will to pursue that aim. What of the product of these prior debates? What of the expertise? Again, I will turn to (John) Dewey, and suggest that real and pragmatic discourse, replicated in many settings and very much duplicative of past efforts, is of great moral value for humankind. We'll learn more from these prior debates if we challenge and test their conclusions in practice and in ongoing contemporary discourse. I am therefore less inclined to privilege prior debates over current ones, or the discourse of elites over others. I don't concern myself with the critique that "all that is important on this subject has been said". It's a bigger question. we all need to engage in these topics and connect them with our lives, and we need the freedom to feel that these topcis are open and tosome extent unresolved. They are unresolved, because in practice we bump into injustice and exploitation in many forms. Having "conceptually" resolved thse problems is not a true resolution. A plurality of Divides or a question of Justice? I'm not raising the question of the digitial divide. The generality of the question of Justice was deliberate, because the question is initiated under different circumstances and from diverse perspectives, and with different emphases. My very general phrasing explicitly named "Social" and "Economic" Justice, but also was explicit in tying questions of justice to many aspects of our life, without claim ti an exhaustive or limited domain. So, this begins with the question of Justice, and I don't think that's the same thing as arguing about divides. So, when Michel writes: "rather than arguing about the 'divides' should not we focus on their cause, that is exploitation..." (etc.) that is very much what I am suggesting The Digital and other Divides are probably best understood as symptomatic of other injustices. I very much wish us to draw our attention to these deeper injustices and the manner in which they are allowed to continue, and for us to consider the steps that can be taken to limit them on the way to eliminating them (to the greatest extent possible). Language & Justice, Funded Initiatives v. Voluntary Participation in a (Global) Discourse The limitation that you have pointed out, regarding language... i.e. English, is in fact a constraint, but I don't take that as a justice issue, per se. Initiating the question in English, as I did, is a reflection of my own limitation. It does not follow that the perspective is limited to the United States or to the English-speaking world. I consider my take on the matter to be global, but I think global questions can be as much a screen as anything else distracting us from cruelties and injustices inflicted upon those in closest proximity to us... through indifferent neglect or contact and exchange, in our communities, neighborhoods and even our homes. This is not a "funded" initative. I propose advancing an unfunded discourse as more than a virtue of necessity. If we prefer a funded initiative we are replicating certain hierarchies and will tend to enforce a closure of the field to a limited few. My invitation is to an open discourse. Let it unfold as best it can. I propose that we'll accomplish much more when working first with the resources of "free" speech. Here freedom of speech expresses an individual will ready to voluntarily engage on formally equal terms. Therefore, the aim of opening a space with out resources other than the energy and will of those ready to contribute their own energy into the discussion is itself a political statement of sorts. Yes. We are the privileged in that we are the ones already online. But don't let that distract us from the issue. The bigger issue is whether we can engage in this effort without it being a funded matter. I am not proposing one discourse. I am not proposing one locus for that discourse to take place, but I did give it a home in a space I felt to be neutral and welcoming. I have no ownership in the DDN other than being a participant. ------------------ Michel menou writes: Since the first online Global Knowledge conference, not to mention earlier discussions, all what we know about these issues, at least among the happy few who were connected, has been said. Yet we miss a place where all that expertise can be easily accessed in a consolidated form. Thus my concern that may be these endless revolving discussions are indeed leading nowhere but provide a fine excuse of "democratic debate" about "difficult issues" that justifies the continuation of their practices by the dominant players. In other words is the discussion of the divide, the way it has gone so far not contributing to the perpetuation of the latter? Another practical question: is the discussion you wish to start US centric or "global". If global, how can people whose command of English is not "up to the standard", especially in their own view, participate? Cordially Michel _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
