Notes from the editors:
-Green highlights as well as comments need the attention of the author; yellow highlights require attention from the Handbook editors; Be sure that your file – when you open it - also shows the comments!
-This is an interesting chapter; we propose only some minor comments/changes. Please review these comments/changes and revise your chapter accordingly.
-We need high quality figures/pictures of at least 300 dpi and preferable higher. Figure 2 has not enough quality.
-We did not yet check the references (complete/APA); we might come back to you when necessary.
Chapter V. The relationship of technology, culture and demography
Loriene Roy, Professor,
School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin
Hsin-liang Chen, Assistant Professor,
School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri
Antony Cherian, Doctoral Student,
The School of Information at the University of Texas at Austin
Teanau Tuiono (Ngai Takoto, Ngapuhi, Atiu), New Zealand
Loriene Roy, Professor, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, is enrolled on the White Earth Reservation and a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Hsin-liang Chen is an assistant professor in the School of Information Science and Information Technologies at The University of Missouri. His research interests are instructional technology, multimedia design, image retrieval, human-computer interaction, user studies and information literacy. Antony Cherian is a doctoral student in the School of Information at the University of Texas at Austin.Teanau Tuiono is a writer living in New Zealand. He is Maori and of the Ngai Takoto, Ngapuhi, and Atiu tribes.
The relationship of technology, culture and demography
Abstract
This chapter discusses the role of information technology and its application in the lives of indigenous peoples. We explore the role of technology as an agent of cultural preservation, the influence of IT on cultural erosion, and its implications on social inclusion and exclusion. We discuss briefly how indigenous peoples have engaged with technology in the past, followed by an introduction to issues of sovereignty. Intellectual and cultural property rights also figure prominently in this discussion.
Key words: community mapping, cultural protocol, culturally based curriculum, intellectual/cultural property rights, language revitalization, Native peoples
Introduction
Technology has both contributed to the loss of indigenous culture and empowered indigenous peoples to create their own culturally relevant content. We present examples and issues related to the application of IT to cultural preservation initiatives including cultural mapping, the role of cultural heritage institutes in digital repatriation. We close by considering how to balance local control with access to intellectual content in a manner that is respectful of cultural protocol.
1.Historic information on incorporation of technology by indigenous peoples
Indigenous world view is a way of living that balances individual desires and societal needs, present concern and future impact. Today, indigenous peoples are striving to retain their indigenous world view while accommodating and employing IT.
Jojola (1998) observes that in discussions on the impact of technology on community, "mainstream society has relegated Native communities to the background" (p.5). This illustrates the way indigenous peoples have been excluded over time. Some aspects of this treatment reflect racist stereotypes about Native peoples. Even those who claim to hold indigenous cultures in respect may prefer to relegate tribal peoples in a cherished romanticized past. Maintaining this illusion necessitates that tribal communities remain in sheltered, primitive conditions. Tribal cultures sought out and adopted new technologies at various rates throughout history. Some of these technologies fed intertribal competition. Those who had access to key trade routes had first choice of new products such as cookware, sewing implements, and decorative items such as beads. These communities then absorbed these technologies and gave them their own stamp. Today, indigenous peoples adapt IT to serve their needs.
This discussion brings up questions essential to understanding the relationship between technology and culture. What is culture? How is culture lived? What does it mean to be an indigenous person? How is technology impacting indigenous cultures now? How will it impact indigenous culture in the future? Amidst these questions, Nakata (2002) posits that:
One thing is certain in all of this. Indigenous knowledge is increasingly discussed by all as a commodity, something of value, something that can be value-added, something that can be exchanged, traded, appropriated, preserved, something that can be excavated and mined. (p. 283)
It is in this terrain of counter forces, of technology as aide and visionary tool and technology as the next generation of colonizer, that we next discuss the concept of tribal sovereignty.
1.1Indigenous peoples as members of sovereign nations
While tribal governments deal most directly with local and state governments, their status as self-governing sovereign nations is not well understood. Howe (1998) offers a definition of tribal sovereignty that encompasses four aspects: (a) spatial or a geographic connection to the land, (b) social or personal identity, (c) spirituality, including morality and ethics; and (d) experiential, including involvement in ceremony and cultural observances. This view of sovereignty supports the notion of indigenous world view. The limits of tribal sovereignty, however, are still are subject to federal policies that exclude tribal nations from the political independence accorded to other nations (Pritzker, 1999).
The international standing of indigenous peoples is even less understood even though "it is at the international level and within the United Nations that the best hope for long-term protection of indigenous peoples may lie" (Quesenberry, 1999, p. 103). And it is at the international level that indigenous peoples are starting to be recognized.
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 [add year] was a two-phase United Nations (UN) sponsored event about information and communication. The idea of culturally appropriate ITs was endorsed by the indigenous caucus at WSIS. There, indigenous peoples discussed obstacles and shared ideas for overcoming them. Some challenges to achieving worldwide indigenous participation in a technology-based future included “lack of basic community infrastructure, limited access to modern technologies and the urgent need for gender and age-sensitive capacity building" (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2003, p. 1).
1.2Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights
Just as tribal sovereignty expresses the determination of indigenous communities across the globe to govern themselves, so too these communities have asserted their intellectual and cultural property rights to protect community ownership of their traditional knowledge. Hansen and VanFleet (2003) define traditional knowledge as “the information that people in a given community, based on experience and adaptation to a local culture and environment, have developed over time, and continue to develop" (p. 3).
Numerous declarations of indigenous peoples’ rights have placed cultural and intellectual property rights alongside the sovereignty as a fundamental liberty. The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for example, statesthat “Indigenous Peoples of the world have the right to self determination and in exercising that right must be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property” (Commission on Human Rights, 1993, p. 1).
Article 31 of the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2006. The specificity of the UN Declaration owes itself to repeated exploitations of traditional knowledge by governments, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, anthropologists and other academics, to name only a few. The UN declaration also addresses two distinct but related motivations for protection of cultural intellectual property: the right to control the dissemination of traditional knowledge and the right to develop and profit from products of traditional knowledge. Many indigenous communities have specific rules governing what information may be shared and under what circumstances. Researchers, tourists and entrepreneurs alike have flaunted these conventions when recording or disseminating cultural
knowledge. At the same time information—given freely or stolen—has generated and continues
to generate great wealth for these same external entities while the indigenous communities that
generated the information receive little or no benefit. Furthermore, the ease of access, the speed
of dissemination, the increasing number of users, and the growing sums of money also raise the
stakes indigenous communities risk to lose.
Although many have raised objections to indigenous communities’ efforts to protect and preserve traditional knowledge, citing the many possible scientific and technological advancements the free flow of information, indigenous communities have not been advocating a monopoly on their cultural production, only that the “first [emphasis ours] beneficiaries of indigenous knowledge . . . must be the direct indigenous descendants of such knowledge” (Commission on Human Rights, 1993, p.1). Ironically, much of the argument for restricting the flow of indigenous cultural information rests on the belief that if nothing is done to protect traditional knowledge, there will be no new traditional knowledge to share—without a check on the flow of traditional knowledge out of indigenous communities, the communities may not be able to sustain themselves.
2. What are the relations between IT and indigenous cultures?
This section traces some of the problematic issues balancing arguments against using IT with the opportunity of IT in supporting indigenous cultures.
2.1Does IT erode indigenous culture?
Indigenous communities need to engage in intensive discussions about the potential impact of IT on their cultures. There is great concern, especially among elders, about the impact of technology on children. Concerns about the impact of IT on youth also extends to the possible ways IT can affect brain development and learning styles:
People whose minds have been strongly influenced by interaction with artificial intelligence can end up wanting and expecting everything to happen right away, and they can have trouble understanding patterns of information that unfold slowly or goals that need to be pursued long term. (Goes in Center, 2001, p. 124)
Elders are concerned that IT can alter verbal communication and memory constructs: "Technology doesn't help you build your memory skills the way that our people learned songs and dances and learned about the culture…" (Enote and Scott, 2005, p. 136). Technology imposes another format of storytelling that "may undermine traditional storytelling and visual modes" (Leuthold, 1999, p. 195). Technology that erodes culture also can erode safety by coming between people and the land:
Looking back at my earliest childhood, there was hardly anyone getting lost, but as the years went by, people kind of started using the snow machines and kind of moved away from using the dog sleds, the dog teams, and we had more incidents of people getting lost. (Enote and Scott, 2005, p. 135)
Technology can also disrupt traditional modes of learning. "Because the actual biological, cultural, and social backgrounds of netizens are indeterminate or easily falsified on the Internet, the respected position elders and wisdom keepers should be accorded is often usurped by unscrupulous imposters" (Howe, 1998, p. 23). Along with shifts in education, communication patterns are demonstrated in a fear of over-dependence on technology and its use as a poor substitute for experience and interpersonal contact: "Indians need, perhaps far more than non-Indians, to step outside of technology and away from the machines, to remember who we are and what are the natures of our relationships to this world and to each other" (Two Horses, 1998, p.42).
As we mentioned earlier, tribal communities fear not only of the ingress of danger through technology but of the egress of culture from the community to the larger world. Cultural protocol limits some knowledge even within communities. Tribal knowledge may be framed by gender. Children's education may also be timed and structured to come about in conjunction with ceremony. Open access to such information may serve to undermine traditional ways of passing on knowledge.
Others warn Native people that technology is a new form of assimilation. Delgado explained that Native peoples might associate IT with other instruments of cultural appropriation, describing technology as
a product of the corporate western mind; we do not know that the sacred was part of the thought process that produced these objects. For some Native people, this concept, being surrounded by the non-sacred, goes against the very tenets of Native life and thought. (Christal, 2003, p. 80)
In Kamira's view, technology means Maori are even more vulnerable "in areas of further colonization, legally unprotected ownership of knowledge and information, unsupported views about collective guardianship of data, and a high risk of compromising the integrity of knowledge and its distribution" (Kamira, 2003, p. 466). She observes that IT can be a contemporary expression of colonization. Native peoples are especially concerned with image capture and use. Given how they have been presented visually in the past, "it seems inevitable that many Indians will object to the way outsiders portray them and will desire more control over the visual depiction of their culture" (Leuthold, 1999, p. 194). Finally, not all individuals can easily participate in technology. Their use is predicated upon literacy and, in many cases, physical accessibility.
2.2Can IT efforts support indigenous culture?
Jojola (1998) suggests that in using technology to expand their potential, Native communities could also have an advantage over majority communities, "primarily because they do not talk about community, they live it" (p.6). Others stress the need for Native peoples to participate in the creation and use of digital technology: "if Indians are to be full participants in the modern world, then they must stake out a place in cyberspace" (Howe, 1998, p. 26). With proper planning, IT can assist indigenous communities. Indigenous communities can unlock this potential when they interpret and apply technologies in ways that support cultural perspectives.
Another argument for the use of IT at the local community level is the sense of confidence and accomplishment achieved by those who learn to use new technologies. Some posit that local video production can bring strength and "foster cultural and political autonomy … Indigenous media both document traditional forms of symbolic participation—powwows, naming ceremonies, feasts—and emerge as new participatory forms in their own right" (Leuthold, 1999, p. 213). Tribal use of technology does not need to result in cultural erosion: "We can make contributions to science and to the general well-being of the earth, while at the same time strengthening and validating our own systems of culture (information management), just as our ancestors used to do" (Goes in Center, 2001, p. 125).
2.2.1Community mapping projects
The Native view of homeland transcends generations and time. As Howe explains, "The social dimension of tribalism relates land and identity to the concept of 'peoplehood', a unique tribal identity differentiated from other tribes and from individual Indian persons" (Howe, 1998, p. 22). Traditionally, tribal communities delineated homeland territories through stories, family histories, and ceremony. Over time, large scale mapping efforts were imposed on indigenous communities as part of colonizing processes. These efforts often ignored traditional knowledge because they were aimed at depriving Native peoples of their lands and resources. Mapping in and of itself was a representation of cultural loss. This section identifies some specific projects employing cultural mapping techniques.
Tribal communities are now employing multiple simultaneous processes to gather and triangulate data to arrive at a new cartography that brings about a community-centered discussion of geography. Indigenous mapping initiatives include broad representation from tribal officials, school-age children and educators to scientists, artists, photographers, and attorneys. "Such maps are generated in the course of conversations within communities and travel over the territory. They show local names, traditional resources, seasonal movements and activities, and special places" (Poole, 2003, p. 13). A key feature of cultural mapping initiatives is incorporation of Native language, especially in renaming geographic places. A Kootenai tribal member emphasized this primacy of language, noting that "Without the language, who cares about the maps ?" (Enote and Scott, 2005, p. 172)
Poole (2003) describes community mapping technologies: "each is an opportunistic and pragmatic combination of high and low technologies and involves community members to varying degrees" (p. 14). Such approaches include technologies, such as Global Positional Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) along with oral history methodology, archival study, audio and video recording, and three dimensional modeling as strategies for mapping their lands using science to acknowledge traditional land use as steps to protect the land and preserve and demarcate it's indigenous history.
The process results in a variety of products, both tangible and intangible. Intangible products included deep discussion, cross-community connections, intra-community coalition building, and reflection of identity and tribal history. In Australia, for example, tangibles are "galleries, craft industries, distinctive landmarks, local events and industries" while intangibles include "memories, personal histories, attitudes, and values" (Clark, Sutherland and Young, 1995, cited by Young, 2004, p. 5[J1]).
Early cultural mapping collaborations took place in various locations around the world –Africa, Central America, Indonesia, and South America. The Tumucumaque Mapping Project (2001), in Suriname and was critical in preventing the loss of rainforest land (Amazon Conservation Team, One project involved four indigenous communities from 2000 through 2004. These included the Kashunamuit community from ChevakVillage in Alaska, the Santa Clara Pueblo of New Mexico, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Montana, and the Native Hawaiian people in the village of Häÿena on Kaua'i. Each community designed new maps instilled with a strong sense of community ownership of the process and the land. For the Cup'ik Eskimo community of Chevak, cultural mapping was a way to document the tradition of subsistence living, especially fishing. Mapping in Hawaii led to documenting the history of a public park, the LimahuliGarden and Preserve, as a step toward restoring ponds, taro cultivation, and the development of a learning center. Cultural mapping to the people of Santa Clara and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation became part of the effort to recover tribal lands. Their activities led to the first International Forum on Indigenous Mapping in 2004.
Other regional efforts at remapping focused on reverting to original place names. In the end, "The challenge now is having these maps accepted as legitimate outside indigenous communities" (Enote and Scott, 2005, p. 13).
2.2.2. IT and use in indigenous language recovery