I am just returning from a Manufacturing Technology Conference in Accra, Ghana. It was my first time in West Africa, and needless to say, I was looking forward to this trip. Apart from dealing with and taking part in discussions on technology-based issues in West Africa, my pre-occupation was with cultural observation. Of course I did not want to appear obtrusive, so I made silent observations, and asked questions from time to time. While I won’t discuss any more juicy details of my trip, I cannot be expected to fully understand Ghanaians in one week. But at least at a superficial level, we St. Lucians appear to have much in common with them. Like them, we are kind-hearted and friendly towards visitors, love to have fun, xenophilic, religious (spiritual), have similar rhythms in our walk and our speech, and of course, much more.There were other commonalties that I found intriguing. One of the first things that struck me was the level of impatience. During the conference, one Nigerian participant noted that "African people are too impatient". On the leg from Amsterdam to Kano, on KLM, I found myself in a mad rush for the plane although seats were being called by row numbers, and that every one with a ticket obviously had a seat on the plane. Also, when the plane landed, few waited for it to stop. We all (yes, including me - if you can’t beat them...) jumped out our seats, grab our bags pushing and shoving, and dashed for immigration. The airport was hectic, particularly outside. There appeared to lack a system of order. Cars and taxis were piled up on each other. The police, pedestrians, drivers, and passengers were all arguing and shouting at each other. There were many people hustling a dollar, and in my opinion, the vexations, frustrations, the impatience, an the lack of order were all tied into state of the economy. These observations exemplified the bi-directional nature of the influence culture and economics. For I know, my people were not born that way.
On the roads, no one waited their turn. They overtook in no-overtaking zones in busy congested traffic. Motorcycles squeezed their way through. Reminds you of some place we know both know? People were jammed into mini-vans. Many of the vans are painted with an array of bright colors bearing titles like "In God we Trust", "My Good Brother", "Jesus Will Save You", and "Who the Cap Fits, Let Them Wear It". The rhythm of the people, women with items on their heads with gently swinging arms maintaining a balance, was a sight to behold. Oh, and by the way, customer service was much like you would receive in St. Lucia. Let us just say I felt a lot more at home in Accra, than in London, New York, or Toronto.
I have offered these few observations as a way of suggesting that we in St. Lucia have much in common with our brothers and sisters on the continent, and that in some ways, we can learn a great deal from examining how technology with profound cultural implications have played out on the continent, and what we might expect if we adopt similar technologies. Our government might do well to talk with African countries. For we reflect in many ways, a microcosm of the African quest for development.
During the conference, failure to achieve effective technology transfer in African countries was a highly important, sensitive, and emotionally charged. The scientists and engineers (most of them continental Africans living and working in the USA ) felt that African countries had done a lousy job of integrating new technologies in manufacturing and production, as well as in other areas such as medicine, agriculture, education, and so on. The new technologies being referred to are technologies largely being developed in the WestMany of the scientists felt that Africa in order to propel itself into the 21st century, it must adopt those technologies that have been proven to be successful in the West. Needless to say, such a supposition is very naive. Fortunately, there were several participants living and working in Ghana or Nigeria, who illuminated the difficulties with adopting and implementing these technologies.
While limiting factors such as capital, climatology, geography, human resources, were purported as being very important, two crucial factors appeared to dominate the discussion: 1) political interferance; and 2) cultural incongruence of the technologies. It was implied over and over again, that there are misfits between the cultural bases of the technologies and the culture of the people who should use these technologies. What appears extremely illusive, is the nature of the incongruence between the implied and existing cultures. Further, it is no clear what adaptive approaches need to be undertaken.
Should Africans become more like "Westerners", or should the technologies be modified to fit the environment? While the latter appears to be the obvious choice, it is more easily said than done. For one, the Africans my not necessarily possess the resources to make the products in the first place, or they simply do not have the influence to force western manufacturers to design culturally appropriate products. Secondly, Africans are not necessarily sure how the technologies should be modified. To do that, one must first possess a profound knowledge of oneself. I contend that most of us do not understand our cultural selves. Thirdly, the initial (value-based) assumptions underlying a product design constrains the available latitude for redesigning the technologies. So in most cases, we have to take it or leave it.
As I listened attentively to the debate and discussion, I began to reflect on my own country, and the number of times I have hear politicians, and "learned" individuals say that: "we need to keep pace with technology", "computers is the way to go", "Informatics is it" with little or no regard to the underlying philosophies, assumptions, and value-systems. We are often told that science is "unbiased". Nonsense! Not only is science biased by the implied assumptions which came from a value system, its application can also be biased. Two excellent examples were put forward during the discussions. It was said that in the early textile industry in Nigeria, Europeans tried to introduced a broad loom that would allow the artisans to make larger bands of cloth at a faster rate. There were hints of increased productivity and efficiency. Of course, Europeans would now have a market for their broad looms. The broad loom was soon discarded because of a lost of flexibility. The traditional loom allowed the artisans to make smaller strips of cloth which could then be artistically combined into a large variety of patterns. Hence it was flexibility more than speed that was valued by the Africans. Flexibility allowed different ethnic groups to create designs specific to their group. The broad loom assumed that the artisans would be interested in maximizing production and profit.
I was given another interesting example. I was told, that the older generation in Ghana, in using coal for cooking, would perform certain rituals. There would be libations to the ancestors and the coal dust had spiritual significance. What do you think happened with the advent of liquid propane gas (LPG)? How do you perform a libation with LPG? Needless to say, a complete ritual was destroyed. Now tell me again, who owns Shell, Texaco, and Mobil?
I am quite nervous, that we in St. Lucia never stop to think about this crucial dimension of technology transfer, and how it will inevitably play out. Culture does not seem to be that important to us. We talk of a Caribbean culture and that carnival is the epitome of it. I say that’s crap. It is a conspiracy to conceal the multiplicity of ethnicities in the Caribbean, and that we truly would not know how to govern if culture were to play an explicit role in the structure of governance in the Caribbean. The Chinese in Caribbean do not respond to stimuli the same way Africans do. Neither does the Arabs, and neither does the East Indians. Who knows, perhaps we are better off not addressing the issue at all. But the "One Caribbean" ideal is simply mythical!
Cultural neutrality can be dangerous, when it comes to technology adoption. We are in grave danger of leaving our future children with an insurmountable debt. I say debt, because governments of developing countries like ours, are muscled (subtly coerced) by G7 countries into thinking that they need all kinds of technologies to allow them to develop. The G7 countries use what I call the 2-R principle: reciprocity and reproach. China and Japan will want open access to St. Lucia as a market in exchange for the computer GIS got, and for the extension to the Fisheries Complex. In this way, Chinese and Japanese workers are assured of jobs as well as the economic stability of their countries. Mean while, the St. Lucian economy continues to flounder. It is amazing how the weak has resources to maintain the strength of the strong, but cannot strengthen themselves.
Countries in the "developing world" such as Africa and the Caribbean need to develop a cultural sensitivity barometer for projects or technologies being sold to them. For all technologies have are based on a set of assumptions and objectives, and these assumptions and objectives are both value-laden in accordance with the cultural system of the architects of the technology. What happens if cultural safeguarding is not done? Culture norms, instead of evolving, changes in quantum amounts that inevitably create difficulty in understanding where the people and consequently the country is heading. This makes governing a country difficult and often invites autocratic dictatorial styles of government. Surely, few of us understand either past or contemporary culture, and even fewer still, are equipped with the tools and "know-how" to forecast the implications of dramatic cultural shifts.
When I hear individuals in St. Lucia say that in order to compete in today’s global village, we must adopt and implement advanced technologies. There are a couple of problems with such a statement. 1) We are using precisely the language of the people who dictate global economic agendas. This obviously serves their purpose; 2) we are accepting a prevailing notion that competition is the only mode of existence (that is a highly value-laden notion); and 3) because the inherent propaganda machine is orchestrated by so-called industrialized countries, we can only obtain these technologies from them - after all, we ought to be emulating them.
In summary, it must be clear that I am not advocating that we shun technology, I am simply saying that we cannot afford to adopt technology without a profound understanding of the cultural implications. For in many cases, cultural shifts are irreversible. Wherever possible, technology should be indigenous and consistent with cultural norms. I note that Western education systems have separated culture and "classical science". So where do we begin? Putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Our scientist and innovators must fully understand culture, society, politics, and history, and develop a holistic way of looking at assessing, evaluating, and implementing new technology.
