Comment

Comment by Ms.Dalla Mae Isaac Matlock on May 1, 2012 at 8:10pm

Digital Revolution and the Power to Shape and Transform Society

The question: “Does the digital revolution have an intrinsic and autonomous power to shape and transform society?” connotes that a digital revolution already exists. Some media practitioners, however, are of the view that the digital revolution may be more of an evolution rather than a revolution.

If an evolution is a change that takes place over a period of time; and a revolution is a fundamental and radical change that takes place suddenly; the two phenomena are both processes of change. The difference in the two processes is in the time-span during which the change takes place and the magnitude of the change that takes place. So, has the digital technological era happened suddenly or is it a mutation from prior technological eras, taking place over a period of time?

Digital evolution and revolution are certainly interesting dimensions for further discussion. My task is not to question whether the digital revolution exists but  rather examine the extent to which it has intrinsic power; autonomous power and the extent to which it shapes and transforms society.

Digital Revolution, what is it?

Google has multiple links that attempt to answer this question. One link defines ‘digital’ as a language that computers can understand; a language in which words, sounds and images are stored and retrieved in such a way that a computer can understand them. Computers, it would seem, do not ‘understand’ Ateso, Swahili, English or German. When inputed into a digital device, human languages are converted to digital language, thus digital language shapes the way in which humans interface with computers.

Some links have ‘hardcore’ technological language that I choose to ignore. Being a sociologist, I am most comfortable with the ‘softer’ language of culture and literature as opposed to ‘hardcore’ language, such as statistical formulae, for instance.

What is ‘revolutionary’ about the digital language? Or to use some synonyms of the word ‘revolutionary,’ what is radical, ground-breaking, world-shattering, innovative, new, that qualifies the description “digital revolution”? For starters, the digital language allows machines to function like humans by mimicking human intelligence; ‘understanding’ a question and offering possible answers to the question and possessing ‘recall capabilities’ which allow them to go through their ‘memory’ – and select answers.

A computer’s ‘memory’ is quantified in terms of its information storage capacity which is calculated in terms of bytes (one byte is used to hold one character of text). According to Richard Dawkins, the computer on which he wrote his famous and world-shattering book “The Blind Watchmaker” about 26 years ago had a memory of only 64 kilobytes. Dawkins’ book continues to generate controversy to date, with Christians insisting that God created man and Dawkins debunking the Christian belief in creation and suggesting that humans evolved, through random natural selection. 

My computer has random access memory (RAM) of two gigabytes. Two gigabytes are equivalent to 2,097,152 kilobytes – 32,768 times more storage capacity than Dawkins machine on which he wrote “The Blind Watchmaker.” That a machine has ‘intelligence’ - the ability to store billions of bytes, is innovative. It is amazing that the size of computers is getting smaller. The first portal computer, Osborne 1, weighed 24 pounds as compared to a modern day ipad which weighs only 1.35 pounds; whilst the amount of information stored, retrieved and shared on computers gets larger.

According to the BBC News, for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, after 244 years, has decided to stop publishing its famous and weighty 32-volume print edition and to focus on digital expansion, because of competition from websites such as Wikipedia. The speed at which the digital machines are now able to process and share information across many traditional divides (geographical boundaries, age boundaries) in fact, is different and new.

Technical intrinsic power of the digital revolution

Digital technology (machines and soft ware) have intrinsic power, but to some extent only. To the extent that the technical knowledge, the theoretical knowledge or what Aristotle defined as “certain knowledge,” specifically the design of the gadgets (hardware) and the software (operating systems) have an in-built potential power to transform society.

These days, for example, it is not uncommon for Africa’s elites to maintain social networks with relatives and friends digitally. Indeed, at the touch of a button grandma is up-dated on the growth of her grandchild, with elaborate photos, sometimes sent to her daily. In some cases, that is as much participation that grandma will have in nurturing her grandchild. Digital technology has changed our socialisation processes. There is no need for frequent physical visits with grandma. We can have virtual ones through the internet.

The children of the digital era are ‘dot.com’ children who neither speak Ateso nor any other Ugandan or East African language. The language of the ‘dot-com’ children would have earned them serious punishment during colonial Africa, when the likes of Ngugi wa Thiong’o attended school. The ‘dot.com’ child shortens English words and uses numbers with English letters to form words. The word ‘for’ may be reduced to just ‘4’ or the words ‘see’ and ‘sea’ to ‘C’ or the words ‘to’ and ‘too’ to ‘2’, or the word ‘you’ to just ‘U’, for example. A text message from a ‘dot.com’ child might read: “Luk 4wad 2 c u.” The colonial teachers of English in Africa must be turning in their graves.

Shortening words and spelling words as they sound is done in order to fit the message within one text message and in order not to type much. Words have taken on a whole new meaning with the advent of digital technology - apple, orange, mango, are now digital service providers in addition to being fruits. This is transformative, ‘OMG’ as the ‘face-bookers’ would message or perhaps ‘LOL.’ If you do not understand what ‘OMG’ and ‘LOL’ stands for, certainly your knowledge of the digital migration debate is insufficient. In fact, you might be like one of the Uganda members of parliament who represents a constituency in my district who when  asked  me what an email address is.

However, some Ugandans have heard of digital technology - one of Uganda’s most famous sportsmen, Moses Goloola of Uganda’s kickboxing fame (the only Ugandan kick boxer that I know) came to fame partly due to his wordplays using components of digital media. He is reported to have said that he is so powerful that he is the only man on earth who can tear pages out of face book and put his clothes to dry on an MTN line!

Not only has digital technology changed the way in which we use words, our social practices have changed too. The only reason a son used to visit his mother was to take  money to her, but now he does not have to. He saves money on fuel and at the touch of a button his mother can receive money through mobile money. The concept of friend has taken on a whole new meaning, with some having as many as a thousand facebook friends that they have never met. Forget those days when the living room was the place for a family to spend time together. These days, the family will be physically together in the living room - mum on her ipad polishing her speech, dad on his laptop finishing off some work that he brought home, and Junior’s ears plugged in with earphones from his iphone as he is busy texting with his facebook friends. To get Junior’s attention, mum sends him a Google text message: “Junior it is bedtime.”

Digital revolution is not autonomous

For the most part, the gadgets (computers, phones of all description, etc.) require other  innovations, for example, electricity, in order for them to function; meaning that in-built within digital technology is dependence on electricity. I surmise, therefore, that the extent to which digital technology has the power to transform society is dependent on that society’s already existing capacity to provide electricity, for use for its own people to power up digital machines.

I once was unable to complete and email my speech for example, because the area in which I live in Kampala, Uganda, had no electricity, due to load-shedding. I had go all the way to Mombasa to use electricity that is generated in my homeland, Uganda, and sold to Kenya, while we in Uganda have insufficient access.

Digital technology, furthermore, neither has intrinsic power nor autonomous power to transform society, especially in the area of knowledge that Aristotle described as ethical knowledge or perhaps moral judgement. The decision, for example, of who will have access to electricity and who will not is beyond the powers of digital machines. Richard Dawkins in the “Blind Watch Maker” aptly described computers as “complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood.”

As is the case with all other machines, computers are mechanical - they process and retrieve information mechanically, without passion. It is the user’s passion that is contained in the words that a computer stores, retrieves and shares; the passion is not of the computer, but that of the human beings who input the words into the computer. The use of digital technology is not ethically or morally neutral – the information that is fed into the machines is of man and it is man who selectively inputs this information into the machines. It is HIStory.

Chinua Achebe is quoted in the New African Magazine (March 2012) aptly describing man as “a story-making animal. He rarely passes up an opportunity to accompany his works and his experiences with matching stories. The heavy task of dispossessing others calls for such a story... Let us imagine that someone has come along to take my land from me. We could not expect him to say he is doing it because of his greed, or because he is stronger than I.”  Digital machines and search engines will mechanically store whatever story from whomever, with no capacity to discern facts from falsehoods and will efficiently share them widely.

A case in point is the Invisible Children’s youtube video Kony 2012. While I have not watched it, I have read a lot about it and because I am in principle against making Kony a celebrity. I was selective to read only those opinions that criticised or debunked Kony 2012. I mention Kony 2012 in my speech so that it can also go as viral as Kony 2012. I hope it gets widely read because it will likely be one of the links that the search engines shall provide in response to any searches on Kony and/or invisible child.

The primary power to transform society still remains within the human beings who use machines; set up the websites; manage websites; and legislate the use of digital technology. For example, if you are going to influence society, knowing the keywords to include in your story that will make your story to likely be noticed by a search engine is important.

However, allegedly, whenever one does a search on the internet, the results that they will get are dependent on their previous searches and the geographical location from where they have initiated the search, isolating us in our own ‘internet bubbles.’ Eli Praiser argues this point convincingly in his article published in the Guardian Weekly (24.06.11), titled: “in our own little internet  bubbles: the personalisation of search engines traps us in a self-reinforcing world-view.”

Apparently, these days when one conducts a search using Google, the results that one shall be fed are what Google has determined that one wants to hear/read.  So, according to Praiser’s analysis, if you are a white supremacist, such as Behring Breivik, Google will nourish your extreme views by showing you search results of sites/information that would be appreciated by white supremacists. Thus reducing the opportunities that a white supremacist will encounter an alternative view, and so in the bliss of ignorance it is no wonder Breivik believes his actions to murder and terrorise his fellow Norwegians to have been ‘necessary’!

Come to think of it, we do not hear much about Breivik anymore, because apparently, unlike the United States of America and the Invisible Children, Norway decided that they were not going to allow a murderer and terrorist such as Breivik to attain celebrity status. He was denied open court proceedings.

Digital machines facilitate us to transform society, but it is us who retain the power to do so and to determine how to do so. Digital technology helps us to “carry the debate beyond the meeting room,”  as  James Shikwati puts it in the introduction of the book: Reclaiming Africa, which he edited.

Where the power is located

I am persuaded that a genuine reclamation of Africa will only happen when we actively engage in and succeed in moving the cultural centre to Africa, to borrow the wisdom of Ngugi wa Thiong’o contained in his book: Moving the centre – the struggle for cultural freedoms. Different people in the world have their different cultural centres and digital technology is facilitating the interaction of the different cultural centres.

In her keynote address during the 10th IREN Eastern Africa Media Training, Her Excellency, Margit Hellwig-Boette, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany did not sugar-coat her words when she informed the participants of the workshop that German business people, generally, do not have a cultural affinity to Africa; what the German business people want is to make money in Africa and they will only invest in Africa if they are certain that their businesses will profit from it. Her Excellency, clearly and as it should be, launched her interaction with East Africans from the German cultural centre.

The question is: How are we as East Africans interacting with other cultural centres? Are we originating from our own centre to interact with others or are we originating from the centres of other cultures to interact with East African culture? The digital revolution provides us with the tools to position ourselves in such a way as to engage with other cultures from the centre of East African culture, with dignity and self-determination.

We need to heed the call of the founding participants in the African Resource Bank meeting, a powerful forum that is annually hosted by IREN, that as Africans we must operate within a paradigm of “I am only interested in what I can do, not what people think I cannot do.” It is us, humans, who have the intrinsic and autonomous power to utilise and shape the digital revolution and therefore to transform society and not vice versa.

By Norah Owaraga,