In spring 2009, the Forum on Contemporary Europe (FCE) and the Division on Languages, Civilizations and Literatures (DLCL) delivered the first part of its multi-year research and public policy program on Contemporary History and the Future of Memory.  The program explored how communities that have undergone deep and violent political transformations try to confront their past.

Despite vast geographical, cultural and situational differences, the search for post-conflict justice and reconciliation has become a global phenomenon, resulting in many institutional and expressive responses. Some of these are literary and aesthetic explorations about guilt, commemoration and memorialization deployed for reconciliation and reinvention.  Others, especially in communities where victims and perpetrators live in close proximity, have led to trials, truth commissions, lustration, and institutional reform. This series illuminates these various approaches, seeking to foster new thinking and new strategies for communities seeking to move beyond atrocity.

Part 1: Contemporary History and the Future of Memory

In 2008-2009, this multi-year project on “History and Memory” at FCE and DLCL was launched with two high profile conference and speaker series: “Contemporary History and the Future of Memory” and “Austria and Central Europe Since 1989.”  For the first series on Contemporary History, the Forum, along with four co-sponsors (the Division of Literatures, Civilizations, and Languages, principal co-sponsor; the department of English; The Center for African Studies; Modern Thought and Literature; the Stanford Humanities Center), hosted internationally distinguished senior scholars to deliver lectures, student workshops, and the final symposium with Stanford faculty respondents.

Part 2: History, Memory and Reconciliation

In 2009-2010, we launch part 2 of this project by adding “Reconciliation” to our mission.  We are pleased to welcome the Human Rights Program at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law as co-sponsor of this series.  This series will examine scholarly and institutional efforts to create new national narratives that walk the fine line between before and after, memory and truth, compensation and reconciliation, justice and peace. Some work examines communities ravaged by colonialism and the great harm that colonial and post-colonial economic and social disparities cause.   The extent of external intervention creates discontinuities and dislocation, making it harder for people to claim an historical narrative that feels fully authentic.  Another response is to set up truth-seeking institutions such as truth commissions. Historical examples of truth commissions in South Africa, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Morocco inform more current initiatives in Canada, Cambodia, Colombia, Kenya, and the United States.  While this range of economic, social, political and legal modalities all seek to explain difficult pasts to present communities, it is not yet clear which approach yields greater truth, friendship, reconciliation and community healing.  The FCE series “History, Memory, and Reconciliation” will explore these issues.

The series will have its first event in February 2010. Multiple international scholars are invited.  Publications, speaker details, and pod and video casts will be accessible via the new FSI/FCE, DLCL, and Human Rights Program websites.

Series coordinators:

• Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi
• Helen Stacy
• Saikat Majumdar
• Roland Hsu

Rebecca MacKinnon is Visiting Fellow at Princeton's Center for Information Technology.

Rebecca's presentation explored two key arguments: first, that China should challenge our assumptions about the inherent relationship between the internet and democratization; and second that existing democracies are currently legislating in ways that may jeopardize the empowering potential of the internet.

The emergence of the internet in China has enabled many people to engage in a more varied public discourse than ever before. The government has also begun to actively engage with its Netizens; for example, Wen Jiabao recently instigated an annual live web chat in which he takes questions on a wide range of social and political issues.

But we should not equate this more open discourse with a move towards democracy, for at least two reasons:

The government still largely controls the conversation: While Wen Jiabao may have been happy to engage in online debate, negative commentary by a prominent blogger (pointing out that this engagement is meaningless the absence of political structures) was swiftly removed. By putting the onus on providers such as blog platforms, China is successfully keeping more controversial content from ever appearing online. Attempts to openly criticize the government or to politically organize are still regularly met with arrest and imprisonment. And the government has adopted a much more sophisticated strategy for media coverage in recent years. Recognizing that press blackouts on controversial events are no longer viable in the age of the camera phone, it now allows these to be reported, saturating the public with its approved version of events, whilst squeezing out individual accounts by citizens.

The government is using the internet to argue that does not need democratic structures to engage its people: Far from signally the death of the Communist Party (as Rebecca and her CNN colleagues had predicted in the 90s), the internet may actually be prolonging its survival because it allows the regime to claim it can engage with its people without political structures. Many educated people in China buy into the idea that they can now be heard, and without a commitment to invest time and resources in circumventing censorship, they remain unaware of some of the most serious abuses. The internet may certainly serve a role in promoting deliberation, but China demonstrates that this deliberation can exist in an authoritarian context.

Meanwhile, in existing democracies, efforts to solve issues related to security and protection are causing governments to legislate in ways that move them closer to illiberal models of surveillance and censorship. In South Korea, the government has instigated a law requiring users of certain sites to create accounts that include their national ID number. This makes it extremely easy for authorities to identify authors who previously could have remained anonymous, and has already led to several arrests. In the UK, the Digital Economy Bill, aimed at preventing copyright infringements, will force ISPs to monitor customers' use of their networks and report suspicious activity to copyright groups. Concerns for child safety online have recently led some UK campaign groups to lend support to China's idea to pre-install all new PCs with censorship software.  These examples highlight the need for a renewed debate about the right balance between security and liberty online. As we come to rely on the internet more and more for understanding the world around us, governments need to think holistically about how their policies will shape its use and impact.

Kentaro Toyama is a visiting scholar at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley.  Until 2009, he was assistant managing director of Microsoft Research India, which he co-founded in 2005.

Kentaro identified a number of myths that surround the field of ICT4D and argued that these can confuse our thinking about the proper role for technology in addressing development problems.

Myth 1: Technology x will save the world: The history of writing on technology shows that each new advance tends to be greeted with unbridled enthusiasm about its potential impact. Where once people were convinced television could solve all social and political problems, today we are putting that burden onto mobile phones.

Myth 2: Poor people have no alternatives:  We can often assume that technology is the only way that poor people will be access certain goods. In reality, there are usually non-technological routes to information and services that are free and therefore preferable.

Myth 3: ‘Needs' are more pressing than desires: A high proportion of the income of the very poor goes on what Western observers might view as ‘luxury' items: (music, photos, festivals & weddings) rather than ‘basics' such as healthcare.

Myth 4: ‘Needs' translate into business models: Building a business model around the needs of poor communities is possible, but there are significant barriers. Poor populations are harder to reach, and they may not want to pay for the services you provide, even if their value seems obvious to you.

Myth 5: If you build it, they will come: Spending is not always rational. An eye hospital in India offers extremely high quality cataract operations for free and covers all related costs. 10% of those offered the service will still refuse to have the operation.

Myth 6: ICT undoes the problem of the rich getting richer: In contexts where literacy and social capital are unevenly distributed, technology tends to amplify inequalities rather than reduce them. An email account cannot make you more connected unless you have some existing social network to build on.

Myth 7: Hardware and software are one-time costs: Kentaro estimates that the average One Laptop per Child will in fact cost $250 per child per year to cover breakage, connectivity, power, maintenance and training.

Myth 8: Automated is always cheaper and better: Where labor is cheap and populations are illiterate, automated systems are not necessarily preferable. Greater accuracy may be another reason to favor voice and human mediated systems.

Myth 9: Information is the real bottle-neck:  Those in the ICT4D world are prone to overestimate the significance of information gaps. Even if you connect a farmer to an agricultural expert via a PC, there are a host of other barriers to be overcome before he can actually increase his yields, including: literacy, poor transport links, and a lack of volume buyers for seeds, pesticides etc.

Kentaro contends that when technology makes a difference in development, it is always as much to do with the input of committed and competent individuals and organizations. Despite this, the focus when reporting ICT4D projects quickly slips into extolling the virtues of the technology itself, not the human component. This says much about the seductive quality of technology. Myths about its potential persist because we have a strong desire to see the triumph of clever ideas and ingenuity, and to believe that one time catalytic investments can have such an impact. The reality is always more complex.