<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000066" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="DejaVu Serif"></font>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font face="DejaVu Serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
Two
interesting discussions took place on this list in the last few days,
which are closely connected. The discussion on participation
between Michael and Meryem on one side and Avri on the other, which
unfortunately, or maybe with good reason, took an outsider-insider
spin. The other was on how an 'IG web', within which IGC may also be
situated, is apparently revolutionizing the world in so many
positive ways, particularly revolutionizing means and extent of
participation. (There is certainly some solid substance to this
argument; look at what the remote participation team has achieved at
the
IGF.)<br>
<br>
Also very relevant is the fact that the 'IG web' got
mentioned in terms of the e-enabler initiative of GAID (without at
all going into what such a top-down tool really meant to people
involved in development work). Then there was this discussion on the
'broadband commission report' , which earned some criticism from
Michael, and which I too had earlier criticized for it being
co-chaired by someone who has a strong interest in the outcomes of
the report (with little or no response/ support from the group), but
was cited by Wolfgang, an avid proponent of 'IG web', as a useful
model on how some real outputs can be got while we invest into IG web
model.<br>
<br>
There seems to be a major overall disconnect here. It
appears that there are two sides speaking completely different
things. And generally egroups tend to configure themselves in a
manner that one kind of thing, rather one kind of 'framing' </font><font
face="DejaVu Serif"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(George
Lakoff)</span></font><font face="DejaVu Serif">, becomes much more
acceptable than the other, the reasons for which are much more
complex than just the greater reasonableness of one side's arguments
over those of the other. Those with fundamentally different
views/ 'framing' then withdraw to take on an 'outsider' role,
especially if no mutually discursive (and/ or negotiating) space is
offered/ built, if they do not indeed leave. In any case, new
participation from among those quarters is highly unlikely.<br>
<br>
This
proposed mutually discursive space will consist of questions like;<br>
<br>
How does the IG world, and specifically IGC, deal with the
participation question? Is 'openness' as in 'anyone can participate'
enough? If overdone, can such a model actually reduce participation?
Is effective and real participation always linked with proactive
actions focussed on those that are excluded (which have to be
preceded by identifying exclusions), some kind of protective
discrimination? Does participation need to judged foremost from
outcomes? Does a greater participative-ness lead to, and can only be
evidenced by, democratization of power through the society, the
best proof of which will of course be found at the edges, where there
is the highest marginalisation. So should we not put our
'participative test' lenses to these edges?<br>
<br>
Should evidence of
whether the IG world is more participative than earlier
arrangements not come from asking the question, whether IG at present
is serving, in fact disproportionately serving, the interests of the
marginalised? Micheal seems to very much doubt it. But whether we
agree on the outcomes of the present IG dispensation or not, can we
agree that that this is a good test of participation. <br>
<br>
I think
the 'participation' discussion can not make progress if we remain
struck on process issues, which the IGC, and the IG world in general,
has remained focussed for too long now. It is time to move on. Can we
take the 'proof of the pudding' approach instead?<br>
<br>
Can those
who say that the new age IG models have hugely revolutionized
participation provide any evidence at all that this has led to better
representation, or better serving, of the interests of the
marginalized groups? This to me is the key question. What has
been done in IG till today, ranging from 'framing' issues to actual
outcomes, that can be said to be focussed primarily on the interests
of these groups?<br>
<br>
Participation is not just about giving pat
responses when exclusions are spoken of; why dont you enroll and be
present, and speak up, and make contributions, when there is an open
system giving anyone chance to do so. It is much more structural.
Power is exercised in every apparently open system, and exercised to
a very great extent. The 'apparent' openness may actually make it
more difficult to deal with such exercise of power, which is what
limits meaningful participation. The best way to go forward, in such
a situation, is to discuss the old-fashioned questions of power, best
represented in posers like - what outcomes/ impacts have actually
shown up, whose interests are being served etc. <br>
<br>
Can we, as
IGC, for a change, committedly get down to a self-introspection over
these questions, rather than tom-tomming the great new revolution of
participation, and flows of information and the such, which, I can
assure you, has begun to sound rather repetitive and boring to the
outside progressive CS world. 'Openness' is good only if it is *not*
accompanied by a delusion that with it all or most questions of power
are overcome. Otherwise, openness becomes a convenient cover for
power, making political struggles even more difficult than before.
Very often that is what seems to be happening in many IG related
forums and discussions. <br>
<br>
In my contribution to the proposed
discussion, I contend that the main socio-political phenomenon
underlying what has so approvingly been called as the 'IG web' is a
major coming together of, and the interests of, upper-middle classes
of most countries, across the spectrum of North and South (and thus
too the challenge to this nomenclature). While 'participation' has
indeed increased within this new emergent global class, across
erstwhile geographic and national boundaries, which is the phenomenon
being rejoiced by the celebratory voices here, such 'coming together'
and forming a new transnational upper-middle class has had the
simultaneous effect of even greater distancing of it from the 'lower'
classes within local spaces. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font face="DejaVu Serif">And so while
the upper classes have joined-up globally through the new ICT based
means, discovering and revelling in this new social, cultural and
political phenomenon, lower classes are perhaps, to that extent, even
more marginalised because of ICTs. Worse, the upper class bonhomie,
of borderless engagement and participation, has even taken away the
normative categories of 'participation', need to address
marginalization, democracy, protective discrimination, representation
etc from the lower, marginalized classes. This is a major political
loss for these classes. This is how unbridled championing of
openness, discussed and promoted without analysis of power
relationships, could actually further harm the interests of
marginalized groups. It is this what I see as happening which
underlies the apparent paradoxes with which I begun this
email.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<font face="DejaVu Serif"><br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>