They are cultural, philosophical, and political.
Not even John Lennon can overcome the flaws, given their deep cultural basis.
Nicholas Negroponte, co-founder and director of the MIT Media Laboratory, introduced the idea for the $100 laptop in 2005. The laptop would be geared towards children in “developing nations.” Its intent was to help education in those countries. The project’s goal, to be specific, is “To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves.” The technical accomplishments of the laptop project were swift–low power requirements, a physical design that is all enclosed to prevent water or sand or dirt damage, open source software [originally, this has since changed], unique interface, and possibility for solar power and hand-crank powering, and designers were doing well to achieve their lost cost.
As it happens, though, the project hit some snags. These snags, for example, include:
- Issues with actual cost (the $100 laptop is no longer called that, because it costs $200?)
- Political and governmental resistance from countries to whom OLPC seeks to send the laptops. (In two cases, Nigeria and Brazil had been seeking local laptops, not imported, but other countries have presented other kinds of resistance.)
- Businesses, such as Intel, who would like to make their own inexpensive laptop
- Grumblings from consumers of wealthy nations (“we want a cheap laptop too!”)
- Education (what value laptops when you don’t have pencils? or a teacher?)
We discuss One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in my senior engineering class on technology and society (STS 401). At the end of the semester, after discussing technologies as being shaped historically by their political, cultural, economic, and environmental contexts, the students do an analysis of OLPC. To Negroponte and the OLPC Foundation, the above issues were all “snags” that came about along the way. They are all, that is, unanticipated consequences. The premise for my students in their analysis was that while the above “snags” might not have been straightforwardly predictable, they were more properly anticipatable consequences.
The first year I did this exercise, in Fall 2007, I’d say the two classes of 25 each were mostly irritated with OLPC, but considerate of how the project might work more effectively. Some students were full out hacked at MIT, don’t get me wrong, considering the design approach flawed from the start for having been culturally inept. But others were somewhat gung-ho about it. I’d say it was an even split between “let’s try to make this better” and “this is conceptually flawed from the start and should not be promoted.”
This last semester, Fall 2008, for whatever reason, the students were far more frustrated with OLPC and the MIT design strategy. I tried as best as I could to present it the same way both times — which means that while I had been the one to introduce the various ways technologies are shaped by their broader contexts over the course of the semester, I hadn’t said outright to them, “listen, this OLPC sure sucks, so why is that?” But this second go around, the students were more concerned with the OLPC approach. I’m not sure why, but that doesn’t really matter here.
The critique began with Negroponte and OLPC’s stated mission to “to ensure that all school-aged children in the developing world are able to engage effectively with their own personal laptop, networked to the world, so that they, their families and their communities can openly learn and learn about learning.” They questioned the project’s guiding assumption that “more laptop/children = more progress”; they also questioned the assumptions of the project that infrastructure & educational systems would be comparable everywhere, all at once. Mostly, they questioned the tragically common view known as technological determinism — that a given technology will lead to the same outcome, no matter where it is introduced, how it is introduced, or when. The outcomes, on this impoverished view of the relationship between technology and society, are predetermined by the physical technology. (This view also assumes that what one means by “technology” is only the physical hunk of material sitting there, as opposed to including its constitutive organizational, values, and knowledge elements.) In the case of OLPC, the project assumes equal global cultural values & regional attributes. It also assumes common introduction, maintenance, educational (as in learning styles and habits), and image values everywhere in the world. Furthermore, it lives in a historical vacuum assuming that there is no history in the so-called “developing world” for shiny, fancy things from the West dropped in, The-Gods-Must-Be-Crazy style, from the sky.
How could the same laptop have the same meaning and value in, say, Nigeria and Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Alabama, Malawi and Mongolia?
In addition to that basic critique against tech. determinism, the students brought up issues of distribution, control, power (political and electrical), disposal, other life-cycle issues, assumptions of individualism, role of community, and more.
I bring this up here, at the blog, because it’s a good example of good intentions — the MIT Lab wants to educate the world with the premise that education is empowering, and I didn’t find any students who disagreed — executed outside of a meaningful cultural context. I also bring it up as I prepare my syllabus for this Spring’s engineering and environmental ethics course, another annual venture for me (STS 402). Plus, I wanted to share this cartoon, which one team of students brought in for their presentation about the OLPC analysis. It adds another dimension to the critique:
It’s an interesting project, this OLPC. And it’s a good one to analyze from a socio-technical perspective. I don’t assume, or know if, Negroponte is a bad person. In fact I assume otherwise, that he’s a decent guy. But I do know that for technological contributions aimed at “progress” to work requires more than good intentions.
A brief bibliography of and about OLPC:
1. OLPC main homepage
2. News of the project
3. OLPC news — the blog of record about the program
4. [Audio] “Organization Tries to Get Laptops to Third World”
5. [Audio] “Sizing Up a $100 Laptop”
6. [Video] Media coverage about the project
7. Farivar, Cyrus. “Still Waiting for That $100 Laptop? The latest sign that Nicholas Negroponte’s cheapo-computer scheme will never work.” Slate.com. September 24, 2007.
8. Fildes, Jonathan. “‘$100 laptop’ to sell to public.” BBC News Online. September 24, 2007.
9. Markoff, John. “For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate.” New York Times, November 30, 2006.
10. Pogue, David. “$100 Laptop A Bargain At $200” New York Times. October 4, 2007.
11. Pogue, David. “Laptop With a Mission Widens Its Audience.” New York Times. October 4, 2007.
12. Stecklow, Steve. “The $100 Laptop Moves Closer to Reality.” The Wall Street Journal.
November 14, 2005.
13. Nichols, Scott. “One Laptop Per Child Opens Windows,” PC World, October 24, 2008.
14. One Velicraptor Per Child