Cultural Changes Through Technology: Some Thoughts.

This is an expanded version of what I posted on the Digital Divide Network list in response to a question regarding the issue of cultural change as technology is adapted into a society

Rapid technological change, I believe, is a cultural change by definition - because culture is not separate from people, and people produce technology (though we do have technology being created by technology now through evolutionary algorithms). Any rapid change in a culture comes at a cost, and that cost is based on a value of the change as perceived by the culture. If the value is too low for the cost, people of a culture do not accept the change. If the value is high and the cost is low, people accept the change. Marketing of hardware and software revolves around changing culture with every evolution of Moore's Law. This is not too different from Friedman's, 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' - in fact, it may be derivative of that and many other things. In Mexico, the Olive Tree - or identity - is important, and the Lexus (technology change) may not be seen as important. But the two aren't as distinct as academic discussion can allow for. The two terms exist so that people can think about them in an encompassing way, but too often we talk about dominance between the two when the real trick is balance.

So now, when we speak of technological change in a culture, we are talking about many different kinds of changes. First, there is the effect of the technology itself. Second, there is the technology's original culture. Third, there are derivative changes in culture - as time progresses, more changes occur because of previous changes. In time, the changes become part of a future culture.

So yes - giving laptops to everyone might have a negative cultural impact - and it surprises me that I could come to that statement - but I have to also redirect to the point of value and cost. If in Mexico, as an example, the culture sees a value that outweighs the cost - the change can still be 'good' or 'bad' depending on where one is standing and where you are relative to a stream of light. But the changes do have to occur. Good and bad are subjective, but if we are intent in building technological bridges in a world where every country is promising it's citizens that the specific country will be a 'developed nation' - well, I'm sure that the real problem is not technological, but rather seeking a culture's identity while trying to implement the technology.

Cultural change is inevitable, and technology change has to be managed by the culture that is implementing it - not the culture that insists that it 'knows the right way'. India has seen an upsurge in problems with it's technological changes. Some say some of those those changes are good, some say that they are bad - but isn't a culture's primary job that of regularizing the changes within the culture itself? Do we measure progress in how many dual income families there are? How does one measure the progress of a culture - the change?

Indeed, the only progress measurement I know of is a weird thing called 'survival'. But that doesn't mean that all aspects of the culture survive. Greece didn't have coffee before the Ottoman empire, but how many Greeks consider coffee a part of their culture?

Interesting thing to consider. Change can be a nasty bad thing, or it can be a good thing. The answer, really, lies with the younger generations because whatever changes occur to the culture of their parents, it's their future culture we're discussing. And oddly enough, it's not ours. What a strange world.

Even as I write this - and you read this - there is cultural change taking place somewhere. Maybe you're getting more used to using a computer (I know I still am). Maybe your grandmother is having a knee replacement. Maybe your new car has GPS built in so you don't get lost, and you don't eventually end up annoying gas station attendants and getting bad directions. All of these things add up into changes in culture - and while most of technology is marketed - it affects culture just as much as a different perspective on a religious text. Like the picture above, digital watches revolutionized culture in many respects (consult Gleick's 'Faster', or any book by Douglas Adams).

Culture isn't static. It's dynamic. And while one person can help change a culture, it takes the entire society of that culture to change it. And as the changes become faster, we can expect pros and cons of technology at an increased frequency.

Image at top is one of mine, and can be viewed here.