Tim Unwin's Blog, page 10

Reflections on Buenos Aires

The invitation to give a Keynote Address at the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ (IFLA) excellent President’s meeting last month, provided me with a wonderful opportunity to spend a little bit of time exploring the fascinating city of Buenos Aires.  I had never been there before, and I left with many contradictory memories in my mind.  I hope that the pictures and reflections below capture something of these.

Click to view slideshow.

My lasting memory, is of the diversity yet uniformity of the city.  Laid out on its grid plan from the 19th century, blocks are dominated mostly by 6-10 storey grey buildings, in various states of dilapidation, with a wide range of different commercial uses on the ground floor.  There seemed to be little attempt at commercial zoning; shoe shops were next to ones selling fruit and vegetables on one side and mobile phones on the other.

It is hard for people living in Europe or North America to appreciate that in the early 20th century Argentina was among the 10 richest countries in the world in terms of per capita income; it was richer than either France or Germany, and had outgrown Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income.  This huge wealth is still visible in the moumental buildings spread widely apart across the city: the theatres, mansions, and buildings of state.  Yet its subsequent economic decline and political turmoil also remains all too visible.

The city’s large size, and the dispersed character of its monuments, made me feel that it had little obvious centre.  Yes, people point to the Obelisco at the crossing between Av. 9 de Julho and Av. Corrientes as its centre; others emphasise the importance of the Plaza de Mayo and the Av. de Mayo leading west towards the Congreso de la Nación Argentina from the Casa Rosada.  However, for me it still lacks a central throbbing heart.  New growth and development is scattered apparently haphazardly through the city, in parts of Palermo or to the east by the old harbour.

It is also amazingly ethnically and culturally diverse; hugely European, yet little like Europe.  Somehow there remains the sense of an indigenous undercurrent from before the Spanish conquests of the 16th century, but this has been almost completely obliterated by the waves of European settlements; mainly Spanish, Italians, and Germans.  By the early 20th centry it is estimated that just under a third of the population had been born overseas.  This European identity of the 19th and early 20th centuries remains very visible in the built landscape and in the culture of the city.  The grand opera house, the Teatro Colon, is reputed to be one of the five best concert venues in the world in terms of acoustics.  Nearby are other theatres, such as the impressive Teatro Nacional Cervantes; the Teatro Gran Splendid to the north-west opened in 1919, and a century later the bookshop that now fills its balconies has been described by National Geographic as the most beautiful in the world.

This European culture is embedded in its music; it helped me understand why the cultural evening generously laid on for us included, surprisingly for me, classical ballet and music, alongside the challenging songs of Nacha Guevara, and the stunning beauty and passion of the tango.

And the wealth of a growing middle class is increasingly visible in the plush shopping malls of the Galerias Pacifico or in the old railway arches of Distrito Arcos in Palermo; gated communities nearby enable the rich to watch out over the city, in which poor beggars sleep on the streets underneath any shelter they can find.

I have never been anywhere in the world where there have been so many people calling out “Cambio”, “Cambio”, wanting to change your money on the streets; scarcely surprising when it is so difficult to change it legally elsewhere, and the cashpoint machines charge almost 20% for transactions!

Many people like the old cemetery at Recoleta; I found it depressing, and an omnipresent reminder of the faded past of the city.  But the white brightness of the adjacent Iglesia Nuestra Señora del Pilar next door was a reminder of the vital present, and the neighbouring Centro Cultural Recoleta a vibrant, colour-filled explosion of life.  The lively market nearby provided me with the opportunity to purchase a much-wanted multi-coloured gaucho belt.

Thanks to all those in Buenos Aires, for this wonderful opportunity; and I haven’t even started on the huge steaks and the delicious Malbec wines…

 

Participating in IFLA’s President’s Meeting and Ministerial Forum, Buenos Aires, 22-23 May 2019

[image error]

Ministers and Secretaries of Culture Forum

It was a real privilege to have been invited to participate in the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Forum of Ministers and Secretaries of Culture of Latin America and the Caribbean on 22nd May, and to give a keynote address at its 2019 President’s meeting which was on the theme of Motors of change: libraries and sustainable development on 23rd May, both in Buenos Aires.  These meetings provided a valuable opportunity for those actively involved in the role of libraries in contributing to the development of Latin American and Caribbean countries to share ideas and experiences, and agree on ways through which their work can be further enhanced.

The Forum of Ministers and Secretaries of Culture was held in the very impressive Congress of the Argentine Nation, and provided an excellent opportunity for senior

[image error]

IFLA President and Secretary General

government officials from across the region to share presentations and discuss the theme of Libraries, Access to Information and the Sustainable Development Goals.  Welcoming participants, IFLA President Glòria Pérez-Salmerón reminded them of the theme of her presidency – Motors of Change – and underlined the difference that libraries can make, for so many people, in so many ways.  IFLA Secretary-General Gerald Leitner stressed to the ministers of the power they had in their hands, and made the case for ensuring that they – and libraries – are included fully in national development plans.  A key outcome of the meeting was the signing of the Buenos Aires Declaration which affirmed participating governments’ commitment to the UN 2030 Agenda, and to the power of libraries and access to information to achieve it.  The meeting also saw the launch of the second edition of the Development and Access to Information Report produced by IFLA and the Technology and Social Change Group (TASCHA) at the University of Washington, focusing especially on SDG4 (education), SDG8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG10 (inequalities), SDG13 (climate chage) and SDG16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), and edited by Stephen Wyber and Maria Garrido.

In the evening, there was a Cultural Gala in the Public Hall of the Library of the National Congress, which consisted of three main elements:

Nacha Guevara

A dance performance in two parts by the Arte Ballet Compañía: the Don Quijote suite, and Tiempos de Tango, with ideation, choreography and direction by María Fernanda Blanco.
Music played by the Chamber Orchestra of the Honorable Argentine Chamber of Deputies with a repertoire dedicated to the Argentine composer Astor Piazzolla, featuruing especially the saxophone soloist Jorge Retamoza.
A wonderful closing sequence of songs by the famous Argentine artist Nacha Guevara.

The 2019 President’s Meeting on 23rd May built on the themes of the Development and Access to Information Report, and began with a session of welcoming speeches by IFLA President Glòria Pérez-Salmerón, IFLA Secretary-General Gerald Leitner, Alejandro Lorenzo César Santa (General Coordinating Director, Library of the National Congress), and Rene Mauricio Valdes (United Nations Resident Coordinator, Argentina).  This was followed by my keynote  on Libraries and Sustainable Development: challenges of inequality in a digital world (.pdf of slide deck), which:

[image error] Challenged those who believe that the SDGs will deliver on their aspirations;
Highlighted the role of digital technologies in leading to increasing inequalities;
Explored issues around power, knowledge and content;
Advocated for the important role that libraries can serve as open places and communal resource centres; and
Concluded by encouraging participants to have the will to make a difference.

In the afternoon, there were three sets of discussions and presentations by the authors of the Development and Access to Information Report and others on the following themes:

A Library Response to Global Challenges: What Can Libraries Contribute to International Efforts to Tackle the Issues that Affect the Planet?
Driving Development at a Local Level: Libraries Making a Difference to People’s Lives
Improving Decision-Making and Accountability: Libraries as Pillars of Democracy and Good Governance

[image error]

Our great tango teachers!

These two days of lively and interesting discussion provided a wealth of ideas for all those participating from governments and libraries to implement on return to their own countries.  It was also a very valuable opportunity to build a network of people working at the interface between libaries and international development, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean.  Very many thanks are due to the hard work and hospitality of colleagues from IFLA and our Argentian hosts.  One of my lasting memories will definitely be learning to dance the tango – for which many thanks to our brilliant teachers!

 

The Champagne stained glass window in Reims cathedral

Over many years I have gathered together a wide range of imagery about grape growing and wine making, but although I have visited Reims cathedral on several occasions, I have never before had a camera with the right lens to take close up pictures of the famous stained glass window representing wine growing in the Champagne region.    Last weekend was different, and a leisurely afternoon provided the opportunity to share the imagery below.

Click to view slideshow.

The window in the south transept was completed in 1954 following the removal of earlier glass in the 18th century, and damage to the cathedral in the 1914-18 war.  Funding came from  the Champagne Houses, winegrowers, overseas agents and others who wanted to help restore the cathedral.  The imagery shows many of the stages in making Champagne, but does so in the style of medieval glass.  It provides a fascinating insight into Champagne production as it was in the middle of the 20th century.

TEQtogether workshop at WSIS 2019: changing men’s attitudes and behaviours to women and technology

[image error]Members of TEQtogether, working with colleagues in the UNESCO Chair in ICT4D, were delighted to have convened a workshop on 11th April at WSIS 2019 in Geneva on Changing men’s attitudes and behaviours to women and technology.  This represents part of Royal Holloway, University of London’s commitment to the global EQUALS partnership designed to increase gender digital equality.  The session began with three short opening presentations:

An overview of the work of TEQtogether

informing men about how their actions impact digital gender inequality (see  Resources and Other Initiatives pages);
Identifying actions that men can take to enhance gender equality in the tech workplace (see  Guidance Notes)
Recommending actions that men can take to reduce digital violence against women
Encouraging reverse mentoring through which women mentor men at all levels in tech organisations.


An introduction to TEQtogether’s Guidance Notes by Paul Spiesberger (ict4d.at), focusing especially on guiding for when running a computer programing workshop
An overview of work on the use of mobiles for sexual harassment by Bushra Hassan (International Islamic University, Islamabad).

The main part of the workshop then built on these presentations to discuss what needs to be done to change men’s and boys’ attitudes and behaviours towards women and girls in technology.  The co-created mindmap developed during the workshop is illustrated below (link to detailed .pdf file of the mindmap).The four most important issues identified that require attention were:

Education (especially gender sensitivity materials and unconscious bias)
Family roles (especially in early life)
The resocialization of men
Tech industry and employment

A second tier of issues focused on:

Cultural change – takes time
Diversity and inclusion
Awareness raising
Role models (both men and women)
Virtual reality (so that men can experience the difficulties faced by women)
Legislation
Practical women’s empowerment.

TEQtogether is committed to take forward actions that will make a difference to all of the above, through its guidance notes and future workshops.

Digital technologies and accessibility: from rhetoric to reality – at WSIS 2019

[image error]It was great to be part of the UNESCO Chair in ICT4D team working with our colleagues at the Inter-Islamic Network on Information Technology (INIT) to convene and host the first session on Accessibility Day (8th April) at this year’s tenth anniversary WSIS Annual Forum held in Geneva.  The theme was “Digital technologies and accessibility: from rhetoric to reality”, and our session began with three short opening presentations:

Monica Halil Lövblad (Head, Accessible Books Consortium) on The Marrakesh Treaty and the Accessible Books Consortium
Alex Jones (Head of Emerging Futures and Technology, DFID) on DFID’s activities at the interface between “digital” and “accessibility”
Akber Gardezi (Inter-Islamic Network on IT) on ICT accessibility: data, good practices and gaps

Building on these inspiring presentations, participants then turned their attention to discussing what still needs to be done to turn rhetoric into reality with respect to the empowerment of people with disabilities through ICTs.  This was captured in the mind map below (link to a detailed and expandable .pdf file of the mind map):

This discussion highlighted the continuing need for work in ten main areas:

Holistic approaches
Enabling voices of people with disabilities
Policies and legislation
Partnerships
Leadership
Differentiation between universal inclusion and assistive technologies
Training, awareness and capacity building
Building appropriate technologies
Finances
Delivering commitments

Working together, we can all contribute to the empowerment of people with disabilities (details of some of the UNESCO Chair in ICT4D’s activities and resources supporting people with disabilities).

Looking forward to another special set of sessions on accessibillity at next year’s WSIS 2020!  Thanks to Gitanjali and her team for all the great work that they did in delivering this year’s conference!

Birds of south-east Australia

A short visit to Victoria and South Australia provided a wonderful reminder of the richness and diversity of Australia’s wildlife, and especially the birds.   Many are very elusive, and walking quietly through the landscape, far away from cars, trains and aeroplanes, it is lovely hearing all of their calls and seeing the flashes of colour as the flit through the vegetation.  Travelling light, I did not have my large lens with me, but I hope that the pictures below capture something of this richness and diversity.

Click to view slideshow.

Servants of the poor – WSIS TalkX

[image error]It was a great honour to have been invited – a few hours beforehand – to give one of the inaugural WSIS TalkX presentations last Thursday evening as WSIS 2019 drew towards its close.  Seven of us had been asked if we would like to talk about our lives in technology for around 5 minutes. I opted to go last – just before the closing cocktail party.  Several colleagues had to leave before the end to get to other commitments and so they spoke first; I knew I would be remaining to enjoy the wine.  Before me there were some amazing, inspirational speakers: Stephenie Rodriguez, Joel Radvanyi, Gloria Kimbwala, Ayanna T Samuels, Sebastian Behaghel and Ted Chen…

With little time to prepare it was difficult to know quite what to say.  We had been asked to tell our own stories, and so I chose five images as five “scenes” around which to tell my tale.  Posting the images on social media, I had hoped that people might be able to see them as I spoke…

[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]

 

In reality, I’m not sure that many people actually saw the pictures, and I know many were rather confused when I began and introduced myself in the persona of one of my aliases.  I had, though, been introduced by the Master of Ceremonies as someone learning from the life of Hassan-i Sabbah…

[image error]

To see and hear what I had to say, click on the image above (or here).  Fully to understand it, though, you would need to listen to the other six talks, because I tried hard to link it to what the speakers had to say – especially, for example, about the best university in the world, and the SDGs!

The basic message is simple – if we really believe in empowering the poor and the marginalised through digital technologies we must become their servants…

Brexit and the failure of British politicians

[image error]From the beginning, Brexit was more about the internal politics of British political parties than it was about serving the interests of the British people.  As we approach the endgame, this farce continues.  Some MPs, such as Chuka Umunna (Independent Group, formerly Labour), David Lammy (Labour), and Caroline Lucas (Green) have indeed stood up for the people, and for what is right, but sadly they are a small minority.  The chaos of last week’s votes in the House of Commons,  and the pathetic spectacle of Prime Minister May still trying to get MPs to support “her deal” after two defeats already by calling for an “honourable compromise“, only serve to reinforce the failure of the UK’s current political system.  Our system of so-called democracy is unfit for purpose, and it is time that it was replaced.

[image error]I have often been asked by friends from oversease how we could possibly have arrived at such a situation, where 12 days before we are due to leave the EU, we have no idea of what will actually happen.    I have written extensively about the half-truths upon which the original referendum was based, the voice of the 700,000 who marched on 20th October 2018 in London, and the need to use use powerful arguments that combine emotion and logic if we are indeed to convince people about the benefits of remaining.  I have tweeted ad nauseam (much to the chagrin of some of my friends) about Brexit, and likewise shared my increasingly frustrated opinions on Facebook.  As we rapidly approach the abyss of Brexit, let me just briefly share some of the most important failures that our Parliament (and by that I mean both Corbyn and May as leaders, as well as politicians on all sides who have failed to serve the interests of the people) have made.

The 2016 referendum was advisory – and yet Parliament chose to see it as being definitive.  A wise leader would have listened to the advice of the people, and then gone back to discuss what options there might be for a new deal in Europe before simply saying we would leave the EU.  A wise leader would have led the people to do what is right, and in the interests of the country as a whole.
In any case, the majority of British people did not vote to leave the EU.  Yes, 52% of those who voted did indeed state they wanted to leave, yet this only represented 27% of the total British population.  We should never have had a referendum that would permit such a tiny majority of those who voted in favour of leaving to determine the future.
The leave campaign was corrupt and based on lies , and yet there have been long delays in bringing those involved to justice.  In October 2018 Open Democracy reported that “Police (are) still not invesitgating Leave campaigns, citing ‘political sensitivies'”.  The full extent of illegal funding, penalties for the blatant untruths promulgated during the campaign, breach of data laws, and dubious use of social media still remain unknown.
Most MPs voted to remain in the 2016 referendum, including Theresa May, and yet they are now persisting in supporting some kind of Brexit.  They knew what was right in 2016, and yet they have changed their minds in order to try to survive as elected politicians.  Surely, we elect our MPs to do what is right for the country?  If they believe deep down we should remain, then they should make this happen.
Theresa May has been unbelievably hypocritical in not supporting a second referendum.  She wanted to remain in the EU, and yet for two years has been championing “her deal” to leave, claiming that “the people have spoken” and another referendum would “damage social cohesion by undermining faith in our democracy“.  If she can change her mind, surely the people sbould also be allowed to change their minds?  In the name of democracy, May is being undemocratic.
Theresa May and her lead negotiating team  failed to understand the European Union and its leadership.  I have huge admiration for many of the UK civil servants who tried to deal with the complete failure of our politicians to understand the “European position”, but sadly they are not in able to tell the truth of what has been happening.  It was therefore great to read the former UK ambassador to the EU, Ivan Rogers’ comments that May’s strategy was bound to fail because she did not understand the EU!
Theresa May’s arrogance.  Over and over again, May sought to dictate to the EU, telling the Union’s leaders what to do.  As a Daily Telegraph headline in September 2018 read, “Defiant Theresa May tells EU ‘show us some respect'”.  This arrogance is simply unbelievable, and I have great admiration for those in the EU who did not respond in a like for like manner, but instead still sought to negotiate on a consensus basis.
The Labour leadership is as much to blame as the Tories for the situation in which we find ourselves.  It has long been clear that Jeremy Corbyn has seen the EU as mainly serving the interests of the rich rather than poor.  He thus suspects that the EU would resist the radical changes that he would like to make were he to be elected.  Moreover, he has consistently argued that he would prefer to have a General Election, rather than a second referendum. His recent willingness even to consider another referendum appears only to have been driven by the dramatic loss of members of the party, and polls showing that his stance over Brexit is largely to blame.  It is quite remarkable that despite the appalling performance of the Conservative goverment, most recent polls suggest that Labour remains behind in the polls.  If, as seems likely, we do indeed leave the European Union, Corbyn will be as guilty as May for the long-term damage that will be done.
May’s attenpted bribery of MPs to support “her” deal.  In an effort to persuade MPs to support “her deal”,  May was accused of trying to bribe Labour MPs by announcing a £1.6 billion fund targeting Leave-voting constituencies; she has also been accused of trying to bribe DUP MPs to support her, both in the 2017 elections and also over the latest Brexit deals.  Such behaviour is unsurprising for May, but is clearly unscrupulous and lacking in moral rectitiude.  Apart from anything else, with the decliing UK economy it is very unclear how she will have the resources to pay her bribes.
Leaving it until the last minute.  May has sought to delay and delay, so that those who wanted a no-deal Brexit would have no choice but to vote for “her deal”.  However, this has already had a devastating effect on the British economy, and means that we are quite unprepared for what might happen in 12 days time.  The EU should call her bluff and not permit any extension.

[image error]I live in hope that we may somehow remain.  My European friends, and apparently most wise European politicians do not want us to leave.  However, remarkably, despite all of the evidence, many people in the UK still wish to leave the EU.  That having been said, almost every poll in the UK since the summer of 2017 has indicated that a majority of people would now vote to remain in the EU.  If most MPs originally voted to remain, and most people now want to remain, how can it be that our Parliament will not enable us to do so?  They, and our parliamentary dmocracy are failing the people of Britain.

Why the notion of a Fourth Industrial Revolution is so problematic

Watching a video last Wednesday at UNESCO’s Mobile Learning Week produced by Huawaei on the Fourth Industrial Revolution reminded me of everything that is problematic and wrong with the notion: it was heroic, it was glitzy, women were almost invisible, and above all it implied that technology was, and still is, fundamentally changing the world.  It annoyed and frustrated me because it was so flawed, and it made me think back to when Klaus Schwab first gave me a copy of his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2016.  I read it, appreciated its superficially beguiling style, found much of it interesting, but realised that the argument was fundamentally flawed (for an excellent review, see Steven Poole’s 2017 review in The Guardian).  Naïvely,  I thought it was just another World Economic Forum publication that would fade away into insignificance on my bookshelves.  How wrong I was!  Together with the equally problematic notion of Frontier Technologies (see my short critique), it has become a twin-edged sword held high by global corporations and the UN alike to describe and justify the contemporary world, and their attempts to change it for the better.  Whilst I have frequently challenged the notion and construction of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, I have never yet put togther my thoughts about it in a brief, easy to read format. Huawei’s video has provoked this response built around five fundamental problems.

Problem 1: a belief that technology has changed, and is changing the world

All so-called industrial revolutions are based on the fundamentally incorrect assumption that technology is changing the world.  With respect to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab thus claims that “The premise of this book is that technology and digitization will revolutionalize everything, making the overused and often ill-used adage “this time is different” apt.  Simply put, major technological innovations are on the brink of fueling momentous change throughout the world – inevitably so” (Schwab, 2016, section 1.2; see also Schwab, 2015).  The entire edifice of the Fourth Industriual Revolution is built on this myth.  However, technology itself does not change anything.  Technology is designed by people for particular purposes that serve very specific interests.  It is these that change the world, and not the technology.  The reductionist,  instrumental and deterministic views inherent within most notions of a Fourth Industrial Revolution are thus highly problematic.

In the popular mind, each so-called industrial revolution is named after a particular technology: the first associated with mechanisation, water,  steam power and railways in the late-18th and early-19th centuries; the second, mass production and assembly lines enabled by electricity in the late-19th and early-20th centuries; the third, computers and automation from the 1960s; and the fourth, often termed cyber-physical systems, based on the interconnectivity between  physical, biological and digital spheres, from the beginning of the 21st century.  However, all of these technologies were created by people to achieve certain objectives, usually to make money, become famous, or simply to overcome challenges.  It is the same today.  It is not the technologies that are changing the world, but rather the vision, ingenuity and rapaciousness of those who design, build and sell them.  Humans still have choices.  They can design technologies in the interests of the rich and powerful to make them yet richer and more powerful, or they can seek to craft technologies that empower and serve the interests of the poor and marginalised.  Those developing technologies associated with so-called “smart cities” can thus be seen as marginalising those living in rural areas and in what might disparagingly be called “stupid villages”.

Problem 2: a revolutionary view of history

Academics (especially historians and geographers) have long argued as to whether human society changes in an evolutionary or a revolutionary way.  There have thus been numerous debates as to how many agricultural revolutions there were that preceded or were associated with the so-called (first) industrial revolution (Overton, 1996). Much of this evidence suggests that whilst “revolutions” are nice, simple ideas to capture the essence of change, in reality they build on developments that have evolved over many years, and it is only when these come together and are reconfigured in new ways, to serve specific interests, that fundamental changes really occur.

For example, the Internet was initially used almost exclusively by academics, with the first e-mail systems being developed in the 1970s, and the World Wide Web in the 1980s, largely in an academic context.  It was only when the commercial potential of these technologies was fully realised in the latter half of the 1990s that use of the Web really began to expand rapidly.  In this context, most things associated with the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution actually seem to be extensions of ideas that existed very much earlier.  The notion of integrated physical-biological systems is, for example, not something dramatically new in the 21st century, but rather has its genesis in the notion of cybernetic organisms, or cyborgs, at least as early as the 1960s.

More importantly, the main drivers of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution go back many centuries, and each previous “revolution” was merely an evolving process to find new ways of configuring them.  If there was any fundamental “revolutionary” change, it occurred in the rise of individualism and the Enlightenment during the 17th century in Europe.  Even this had many precursors.  Fully to understand the digital economies of the 21st century, we need to appreciate the shift in balance from communal to individual interests some four centuries previously.  Once it was appreciated that individual investment in the means of production could generate greater productivity and profit, and institutions were set in place to enable this (such as land enclosure, patent law and copyright), then the scene was set for “money bent upon acretion of money”, or capital (Marx, 1867), to become the overaching driver of an increasingly global economic system in the centuries that followed.  The interests underlying the so called Fourth Industrial Revolution are largely the same as those driving the economic, social and political systems of the previous 400 years: market expansion and a reduction of labour costs through the use of technology.  It is these interests, rather than the technologies themeselves that are of most importance.

Problem 3: an élite view of history

The notion of industrial revolutions is also largely an expression of an élite view of history. It is about, and written by, the élites who shape them and enable them.  It is about the owners of the factories rather than the labourers, it is about innovative geniuses rather than the peasants labouring to produce food for them, and it is about the wise politicians who see the potential of these technologies to transform the world in their own image.  Certainly, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is premised on an assumption that global corporations and brilliant innovative minds are driving the technological revolution that will change the world for what they see as being the better.  It is also no coincidence that the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution was established in the USA, and that most of its proponents seem to be drawn from US élites (see for example the World Economic Forum’s video What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution?).  The notion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution clearly serves the interests of USAn élite politicans, academics and business leaders far more than it does the poor and marginalised living in remote rural areas of South Asia, or the slums of Africa.

Counter to such views are those of academics and practitioners who argue that history should be as much about the poor and underprivileged as it is about their political,  military or industrial leaders.  The poor have left few historical records about their lives, and yet they vastly outnumber the few élite people who have ruled and controlled them.  Traditional history has been the history of the literate, designed to reinforce their positions of power, and this remains true of accounts of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  In 2017, Oxfam reported that eight people thus owned the same wealth as the poorest half of humanity; five of these people made most of their wealth directly from the technology sector.  In an increasingly unequal world, the way to create greater equality cannot be through the use of the technologies that have created those inequalities in the first place.  Rather, to change the global balance of power, there needs to be a history that focuses on the lives of the poorest and most marginalised, rather than one that glorifies élites in the interests of maintaining their hold over power.

Problem 4: male heroes of the revolution

One of the most striking and shocking features of the Huawei video that prompted this critique was that almost all of the people illustrated as the heroes of the industrial revolutions were men.  Most historical accounts of industrial revolutions likewise focus on male innovators and industrialists, and yet women played a very significant part in shaping the outcomes of these tecchnological changes, not least in their roles as workers and as mothers.  Not only are accounts of industrial revolutions élite histories, they are mainly also male histories.  It is thus scarcely surprising that men continue to dominate the rhetoric and imagery of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, despite the efforts of those who have sought to reveal the important role that women such as Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper or Radia Perlman played in the origins of digital technologies (see techradar, 2018).

The perspective of a masculine revolutionary view of societal change presents significant challenges for those of us working to involve more women and girls in science and technology (see for example TEQtogether).  Much more needs to be done to highlight the roles of women in history, especially hsotories of technology, and to encourage girls to appreciate the roles these women have played in the past and thus the potential they have to change the future (see for example, the Women’s History Review and the Journal of Women’s History).  Otherwise, the masculine domination of the digital technology sector will continue to reproduce itself in ways that reproduce the gender inequalities and oppression that persist today.

Problem 5: the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a self-fulfilling prophecy

Finally, the idea of a heroic, male industrial revolution has been promoted in large part as a self fulfilling prophecy.  Schwab’s book and its offspring are not so much a historical account of the past, but rather a programme for the future, in which technology will be used to make the world a better place.  This is hugely problematic, because these technologies have actually been used to create significant inedqualiites in the world, and they are are continuing to do so at an ever faster rate.

The problem is that although the espoused aspirations to do good of those acclaiming the Fourth Industrial Revolution  may indeed be praiseworthy, they are starting at the wrong place.   The interests of those shaping these technologies are not primarily in changing the basis of our society into a fairer and more equal way of living together, but rather they are in competing to ensure their dominance and wealth as far as possible into the future.  The idea of a Fourth Industrial Revolution seeks to legitimise such behaviour at all levels from that of states such as the USA, to senior leaders and investors in  technology companies, to young entrepreneurs eager to make their first million.  Almost all are driven primarily by their interests in money bent on the accretion of money; some are beguiled by the prestige of potential status as a hero of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  In some cultures such behaviour is indeed seen as being good, but in others there are greater goods.  The Fourth Industrial Revolution is in large part a conspiracy to shape the world ever more closely in the imagination of a small, rich, male and powerful élite.

Is it not time to reflect once more on the true meanings of a revolutionary idea, and to help empower some of the world’s poorest and most marginalised people to create a world that is better in their own eyes rather than in ours.

 

[For a wider discussion of revolution, see Unwin, Tim, A revolutionary idea, in: Unwin, Tim (ed.) A European Geography, Pearson, 1998.  As ever, please also note that a short post cannot include everything, so remember to read this in the broader context of my other writing, and especiually Reclaiming ICT4D (OUP, 2017).  For my thoughts on the other edge of the two-edged sword, do read my much shorter “Why the notion of ‘frontier technologies’ is so problematic…“]

 

Crocuses at RHS Wisley

One of the fascinating things about gardening – or indeed farming – is that every year is different.  Crops come into harvest at varying times; grapes are ready for picking far sooner in some years than in others!  2019 has been an especially good year for crocuses, even in our small garden.  However, they are nothing compared with the incredibly beautiful and impressive swathes of crocuses at the Royal Horticultural Society‘s garden just nearby at Wisley.  A hot February day showed them off at their very best.  I hope the photos below capture something of their splendour.

Click to view slideshow.