In a message dated 7/28/97 8:09:10 AM, Bill Bartlett wrote:

>How can anyone say that such technologies are neither inherently democratic
>or oppressive?

Bill makes many good points regarding the comments Chomsky made about
technology and the internet. I read the same interview and noticed that
Chomsky had many positive things to say about the internet with some
reasonable reservations about the character of internet interactions.

With respect to the inherent oppressive or democratic nature of the
technology, I would think about comparing:

-energy technologies like solar VS. centralized power plants
-bicycles VS. automobiles
-the internet VS. television and other uni-directional mass media
-printing press VS. church monks
-local organic farming technologies VS. chemical/machine dependent
agri-business

        I tend to automatically think that some technologies are inherently more
democratic than others to the extent that they avoid centralization. But is
this really the case. Many democratic social movements promote certain forms
of technology and demonize others. Is it because some technologies are
inherently more democratic? Cotton plantations used organic farming methods
and slavery. Was the cotton gin an emacipitory technology? Or was it part of
the wave of technologies that destroyed the family farm and culminated
in tomatoes that taste like baseballs?
        The printing press lead to the spread of literacy, and it lead to the
decline of oral traditions. It also helped establish a rather arrogant
attitude that says,"If it isn't written in a book, it's hardly worth
knowing," "All the news that's fit to print," etc....
        There are a lot of people organizing around transportation issues. A lot
them feel that bikes are just wonderful, democratic, etc.... Witness this
slogan from Holland:
        "Government must help eliminate cars so that bicycles can eliminate
        government."

        Cute. I like bicycles and hate automobiles. Does that make my character more
democratic? Should we organize a campaign to ship bicycles to all heads of
state of particularly repressive societies? Is the problem with China simply
that a few heavy smokers in the ruling party couldn't pedal up hill and have
taken to riding in automobiles?

        With respect to the internet, I found that it simply allows more, easier,
and faster access to a broader range of information --  information which
often falls outside that spectrum of "acceptable discourse" -- than I was
previously able to obtain or impart. As a secondary school teacher, it has
been a very useful tool in helping me shape the lessons I teach my students.
It has also allowed me to communicate with a larger number of people than I
could have without it.
        Chomsky points out that a lot of the internet communication is of a somewhat
degraded nature with a few pearls buried within. This is true, but one has to
contrast this to what has existed before the internet , and as an alternative
to it, -- a lot of degraded communication with almost no pearls buried
within, and with no ability to alter that. (Consider Chomsky's own inability
to get a letter published in the NYT's vs. a considerable amount of his work
currently available on line.)
        As a communication tool, I think the internet has more democratic utility
than other mass media. In fact it is self-evidently so. However, it by no
means "levels the playing field" as some have claimed. Maybe, it evens out
the field a little more, as did the printing press. Given that the technology
is still very young, it will be interesting to see what develops. It will
also be interesting to continue participating in its development.
        Chomsky's main points are that it doesn't substitute for face to face
community organizing around important social issues, it could in many cases
serve to atomize people in the way that television isolates many people in
their homes, and it can use up a lot of time that might be better used
elsewhere. I agree with him, but so far I've had some positive experiences.
(I've also wasted more than a few hours, but that's not new.)
        Do computers and the internet promote more democracy? Or do they redefine
and reshape an oligarchy and its work force? Who has access and what do they
do with it? I've heard some Marxist ideas about the social character of the
factory leading to a socialist consciousness in the working class. Does
anyone still care to argue that?
        Maybe it is best not to ascribe characteristics of human consciousness to
technology? Democracy has to be carefully taught to people, perhaps only
through practicing it. No significant social movement towards greater
democracy has taken place without a lot of education beforehand. The
anarchist tradition that Chomsky belongs to emphasizes social revolution, and
such a transformation could probably take place in any society regardless of
its technological base. Politically, technology is neutral. Is there is good
use of technology, and bad  use of technology?  Maybe that's the better
question.

Hmmm, forgive me. It's the summer heat,
John Korber