The Internet Path to Freedom: Ending Information Isolation
The University of Texas Plan II engineers asked me to speak to them Thursday night. The Plan II undergraduate honors program is “humanities and liberal arts oriented.” The engineers and science majors in the program thus have to juggle engineering and science requirements as well as meet Plan II requirements. (A couple of semester ago one of my engineer students was taking 20 hours. 17 hours of engineering courses plus my three hours seminar. That’s a tough schedule but often typical.)
I addressed the upside and downside of technological compression — the planet “shrunk” in figurative terms by communications and transportation. I mentioned the demand for Internet connections I had encountered in rural East Africa. One Anglican priest in northwestern Uganda said the Internet would provide the library students in his town needed for a better education. I gave a number of other examples. Isolated communities in the Third World suddenly have intellectual and economic access– access to libraries, access to advertising their local wares, etc.
That’s one reason I’m linking to this Jonathan Rauch column.
One of the subheads provides a summary:
Intellectual isolation is a widespread Arab phenomenon, not just an Iraqi one. Some of the statistics are startling.
Rauch interviewed (by email) a Shia scholar who uses the pseudonym H. Ali Kamil who:
… is collaborating not with foreign agencies but with foreign ideas. He has made Arabic translations of all or parts of more than two dozen articles and nine books and booklets. “None,” he says, “were previously translated, to my knowledge, for the simple reason that they are all on liberalism and democracy, which unfortunately have little audience and advocators in the Middle East, where almost all publishing houses and press outlets are governmental — i.e., anti-liberal.”
Kamil’s work is anonymous out of fear, not modesty. Translating Frederic Bastiat’s The Law, he says, took 20 days of intense labor. “I am proud of that, especially when I knew that the book has never been translated before. This is one of the works my heart is aching for not having my name in its front page.”
Rauch notes that the UN says in the Arab world (284 million people) a book that sells five thousand copies is a best seller.
Other grafs (I have to quote this at length):
The Internet, in contrast, makes possible worldwide, instant distribution, at a nearly negligible cost. MisbahAlHurriyya.org relies heavily on volunteers and donated Web services; its budget, says Palmer, is in the five figures. Thanks to e-mail, conferring and passing manuscripts between Washington, Baghdad, and Amman — a logistical nightmare in the days of mail and fax — is a cinch. The site, entirely in Arabic, advertises on the popular Arabic Web sites Albawaba.com and Aljazeera.net. The whole enterprise was impossible a decade ago.
Firmly establishing liberal ideas took centuries in the West, and may yet take decades in the Arab world. Authoritarian and sectarian and tribalist notions are easier to explain than liberal ones, and it is inherently harder to build trust in mercurial markets and flowing democratic coalitions than in charismatic leaders, visionary clerics, and esteemed elders. The liberal world’s intellectual underpinnings are as difficult to grasp as its cultural reach is difficult to escape. Thus the disjunction within which Baathism, Islamism, and Arab tribalism have festered.
Yet few who are genuinely intellectually curious can read J.S. Mill or Adam Smith and come away entirely unchanged. The suffocating Arab duopoly of state-controlled media and Islamist pulpits is cracking — only a little bit so far, but keep watching. In the Arab world, the Enlightenment is going online.
The phenomenon of intellectual isolation –perhaps information isolation is more apt– isn’t unique to the Arab world. But Rauch’s essay certainly defines the problem. Read the whole thing.
This can be a double-edged sword; widespread publication of the danish cartoons is a demonstratin of that. I’ve sometimes thought that since the US is a idea-based country we could offer some limited form of extra-territorial “citizenship”. Being an American isn’t about who your great-great-great grandparents were, but whether you believe in the American ideas, broadly defined. So if you believe in the ideas, why limit the citizenship to a physical location? Obviously you wouldn’t want the quasi-citizens voting, but there are other things you could grant them. Suppose that the local US embassies offer a test on American ideas–mastery of English, knowledge of the Federalist papers, US constitution, US system of government, etc. In exchange for passing the test the taker gets enhanced access to the US; they go to the front of the line on visa applications, student visas, enhanced consideration for immigration, etc. Perhaps the local US embassy takes greater interest in the human rights status of quasi-citizens. This would create a lot of incentives for learning more about America than just MTV and action movies, and be slyly subversive. The Federalist Papers would become an instant international best seller. Who knows, it might even trickle down to US universities.
Comment by Ernst Blofeld — 3/4/2006 @ 9:14 pm
What a great article. Thanks for linking it, and thanks also for helping Plan II students. P2 is an excellent undergraduate program. What about a program through the DOD, State or a privately funded resource that would make the great books of Western Civilization available in abbreviated Arabic versions - such as in pamphlets or even comic book size? They could be printed easily on something as basic as a copy machine and handed out in bulk to schools, government offices, and newspapers. Include information about the Arabic website for those who want to read the entire book and have access to the Internet. Just like in the American Revolution, everyone doesn’t have to understand all the issues to embrace democracy. Sometimes all it takes is sharing and understanding the basic idea in a logical and brief manner. As Tom Paine would say, it’s just Common Sense.
Comment by DRJ — 3/4/2006 @ 9:23 pm
After 9/11 I read several books on Islam and the history of Muslim countries. This post bears out much of what I learned. I thought that understanding would help draw down the rage and anger, but it doesn’t seem to have taken place on the Arab side. All our efforts seem to accomplish is to create more of a sense of backwardness, followed by more resentment and rage. I’m beginning to wonder if these people aren’t unsuitable for polite company. The incident at UNC illustrates the problem. The attacker was an alumnus who, presumably, had not been intellectually isolated, but whose pride was piqued by the western reaction to the cartoon riots. Being LDS, I understand the frustration of seeing your faith ridiculed, but I’ve never thought of trying to kill anybody over it. The Christian religion teaches that believers will be persecuted and pronounces them blessed when they suffer for the sake of their faith. Somewhere along the line, that didn’t get communicated to some Muslims. Until there’s a way to detect which are part of the religion of peace and which are liable to launch a jihad at the drop of a hat, what can we do? Hugh Hewitt argues that we can’t go ahead with the ports deal because it would make it easier for critical information to be leaked to terrorists. To me, that sounds like we can’t trust anybody with olive skin. I don’t see any way to be open and accepting with people who are capable of turning on us over a batch of cartoons, but I don’t think it’s fair to all of those who are loyal to the nations they live in. We distrust our own apprehensions, but the more we do so, and the more incidents like this keep piling up, the more likely it is that Arabs and Muslims and those who only look Arabic or Muslim will suffer. The tack being taken by the Democrats to capitalize on this issue politically is playing with fire, and could undo all of our hard work in Iraq and around the world. That is ultimately why I don’t think we can afford to begin treating Arab countries who have signaled friendship as pariahs or friends whom we wouldn’t let our sisters date. If that happens, we’d better find an alternative to oil pretty quick, because it’s going to be harder to do business with OPEC.
Comment by AST — 3/4/2006 @ 10:03 pm
We in the spoiled West forget that premodern times (maybe the 1930’s) North America lived in similar intellectual isolation–but not just intellectual–we just plain did not know how the world worked for millions and millions of other people who had totally differing experiences than we had. Ignorance was widespread, as was superstition and fear of the unknown. A few in the major cities got by with a more-or-less informed press, the movies began to make and inroad, and the West’s love for each generation of parents to make endless sacrifices so their kids could be educated beyond themselves. This is what helped to bring forth the spirit of “can-do” and self sought learning and the wonderful attitude that I’m just as good as anyone else, but not better than anyone else either. The egletarian principle. It cannot be totally imposed from the outside, but the world of the inter-net and television makes it possible to motivate the individual each in their own milieu, and gradually he/she finds the tools to break out of the cocoon and become the potential butterfly they are meant to become.
Comment by marlowe anderson — 3/4/2006 @ 10:10 pm
[…] ve.com/2006/03/04/1549/” rel=”bookmark” title=”Permanent Link: “> Austin Bay writes this strategic piece on information isolation. He cites this Jonathan Rauch column that tells of the amaz […]
Pingback by Swanky Conservative » Blog Archive » — 3/4/2006 @ 10:21 pm
Um, shouldn’t “Other key grafs” be different from the first quote? ED NOTE: Yes indeed. Corrected. Thank you.
Comment by TedN — 3/4/2006 @ 10:31 pm
In Arabic, ‘Internet’ Means ‘Freedom’ HT Austin Bay via Instapundit A great piece and a must read on how we can win the War of Information. ***** SOCIAL STUDIES In Arabic, ‘Internet’ Means ‘Freed…
Trackback by Rocket's Brain Trust — 3/5/2006 @ 12:28 am
It’s easy to understand why democracy is a hard sell. In democracy there is a large incentive for candidates to lie about their opponents and lie to so many different special interest groups about what their policy will be if elected. Tribalism is at least honest.
Comment by mutiny — 3/5/2006 @ 12:43 am
The first book they need is Locke’s Letter On Toleration, then Milton’s Areopagitica. Some of us these days might benefit from rereading them ourselves, actually.
Comment by Brian — 3/5/2006 @ 8:54 am
I’ve sometimes thought that since the US is a idea-based country we could offer some limited form of extra-territorial “citizenship . So if you believe in the ideas, why limit the citizenship to a physical location? Oh that’s a great idea. Since extra-territorial “citizens” are to be treated the same as old-school US citizens, let’s require the extra-territorials to pay US federal income taxes. All American citizens should be treated the same way, don’t you agree?
Comment by David Davenport — 3/5/2006 @ 9:51 am
We in the spoiled West forget that premodern times (maybe the 1930’s) North America lived in similar intellectual isolation Yes indeed. Prior to the year 1930, most of the USA existed in a benighted condition very similar to Araby. ED NOTE: Unfortunately, 1860 may be a more accurate date. The American Civil War was a “modernizing” experience. Telegraphs and trains connected the US. Post- Civil War literacy rates in the US trended upward — I recall reading (years ago) about the McGuffy Reader’s role in this. Maybe someone can find a link to a graph showing US literacy rates from 1840 to, say, 1915 (?). There would also be the question of “functional literacy” versus “genuine literacy.” There are huge social differences that make the “America 1930s, Arabia 2000″ analogy even more brittle– and may make the American 1860 analogy brittle as well. American society has been “hooked” on technological inquiry if not “intellectual” inquiry (tech inquiry is certainly intellectual). Bernard Lewis points out that Ottoman Turkey (which controlled most of the Middle East) lacked a tradition of intellectual inquiry. What argues for a 1930s date for “ending isolaton” in the US? In the 1930s radio blooms and Hollywood booms– a “more instant” form of media appears and its penetration of the society increases by several quanta. But radio and movies hit Middle Eastern lands in the 1950s– the countries, however, lack the political protections of the 1st Amendment. The Internet is a tougher nut for the autocrats. They could always interfere with BBC broadcasts, and BBC broadcasts were limited to what the BBC put out. But the Internet is interactive and users can choose. Not sure benighted is the best word– isolated strikes me as more appropriate. Interesting question and interesting points– thanks for the comments.
Comment by David Davenport — 3/5/2006 @ 10:11 am
Great post! Might have missed Rauch’s essay without it. Rauch has some truly startling statistics and is on target with his conclusion that “the Enlightenment is going online” in the Arab world. You could call this process the Socio-Political Time Compression factor of the internet; and it could become a decisive factor in the information war against terrorist ideologies. Perhaps the State Department should view this as a cost-effective way of preparing the info-battlefield for a small fraction of that supplemental request.
Comment by Gene — 3/5/2006 @ 12:27 pm
Unfortunately, 1860 may be a more accurate date. If that’s the case and USA 1860 = Muslim world 2006, when and how will the slave holding parts of the Muslim world free their slaves? I’d suggest that a more apt date and analogy is: Muslim world = Europe 500 years ago, before the Reformation … also before the Thirty year’s War, the French Revolution, the Nazi era, and numerous other Euro-American historical events and eras. Islam has a lot of catching up to do.
Comment by David Davenport — 3/5/2006 @ 1:08 pm
There’s an interesting article here on the history of American literacy. It seems to pinpoint the early 1800’s as a critical time, and in part to attribute US improved literacy rates on increased books and newspapers. As I read it, it is making a synergistic point that as more people began to read and write, more books and newspapers were written to meet demand. The article also points to the development of the public school system and the role of the military - including as far back as the Continental Army during the American Revolution - in promoting literacy. Because of the obligcation to study and follow the Qu’ran, Muslims were historically literate but their societies did not experience the technological advances seen in Western civilization. For instance, its my recollection there is a virtual absence of patents in/from Arab nations compared with other areas of the world. There are other interesting comparisons here.
Comment by DRJ — 3/5/2006 @ 1:25 pm
Blofeld’s ideas resonate with me. For most of my adult life, i.e., 60 years, I have believed that knowledge of and commitment to the values represented in the Constitution should be the principal criterion for citizenship. The nationality and ethnicity of one’s ancestors should be irrelevant. A second requirement would be that the RATE of immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation. That is, we should try to minimize the formation of ethnic or racial ghettos. As an admirer of Hayek, (who emphasized the importance of government-actions applying to all citizens)I also like Davenport’s elaboration of Blofeld’s quasi-citizenship idea. We would move closer to the 18th century ideal of no taxation without representation, no representation without taxation.
Comment by fred — 3/5/2006 @ 1:28 pm
This is not a criticism of Ernst Blofield’s idea. I agree that what makes us American is not ethnicity but committment to democratic ideals. But bringing in only immigrants who display the requisite intellectual rigor scares me. What if we end up with a disproportionate influx of revisionists like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill?
Comment by DRJ — 3/5/2006 @ 3:35 pm
Let me strengthen the idea that Internet access in the Middle East is a double-edged sword, at least for the next few decades. Not too long after 9/11 I remember reading the Arab News a good story (image that) about the nature of the 9/11 attackers and their relationship to modernity. The author described his hypothesis in terms of Alvin Toffler’s cultural “waves” (First Wave: aggrarian; Second Wave: industrial; Third Wave: informational). The problem, the author claimed, was that the attackers did not lack for modernity but they had it in spades but may not have been culturally mature enough to handle it. The author mentioned that the attackers parents, only decades ago, may have been nomadic Bedouins with the requist culture which that might entail. Suddenly these children are going to college in Germany and are exposed to the greater world of ideas, networks of people, technology and economy. What does the newly-exposed student do? Or, to use Toffler’s terminology, what happens when a First Waver meets the Third Wave world? The answer, proposed the author, is that the estranged First Waver interprets all of their new-found intellectual capital using First Wave paradigms. In a way it’s like giving a loaded gun to a baby. Not a bad point, that which the author made. In fact this is the same concern raised by Toffler himself on several occasions. Do we keep First Wavers from the Third Wave world? I don’t think so, but I would caution that the immediate effect of the intellectual exchange may not be pleasant (as we have already seen).
Comment by Nicole Tedesco — 3/5/2006 @ 4:27 pm
Links and Minifeatures 03 05 Sunday Carnival of Insanities Recommended: American Thinker
Trackback by Searchlight Crusade — 3/5/2006 @ 7:26 pm
I remember reading that Israel publishes 10,000 books a year while Egypt, with 10 times the population, publishes 500 per annum. Books might give people ideas. The government will tell people everything they need to know.
Comment by TallDave — 3/5/2006 @ 9:20 pm
There sounds very nice, quite uplifting, tres bien pensant, and all. But there is another side to the premise that the essence of Americanism is subscribing to democratic ideals. Here is the other side: if our set of democratic ideas is the proper way to live, why not liberate other territories and peoples from undemocratic backwardness? For example, why not export Americanism to heretofore Mexican-ruled Tejas in the 1830’s, or to Cuba and the P. Islands in the 1890’s, or to the Middle East in the 2000-oughts? Umm, what did they call it back in the 19th century? Manifest Destiny, I think it was. “Being an American isn’t about who your great-great-great grandparents were, but whether you believe in the American ideas, broadly defined OK, since those idiot redskins back then didn’t agree to American ideas about private property and land ownership, the Indians weren’t really Americans, were they? As to “extra-territorial citizenship”: That’s the way Anglo Americans living in undemocratic Mexican-ruled Tejas in the 1820’s and ’30’s thought of themselves. They were Americans living extra — that is, outside — America, at least temporarily outside America. Y’all are all glad that the Anglo Americans whipped the Mexicans in the 1830’s and brought American democratic propositions to Texas, aren’t ch’all? I mean, Americanism is not a matter of ancestry and where one is born. The essence of Americanism is abstract ideas and propositions. Since our ideals are the right ideals, why not make the rest of the world fit for Americanism?
Comment by David Davenport — 3/5/2006 @ 10:15 pm
It appears David Davenport believes that Americans are really just Yankee imperialists and his prime evidence for that thesis is … Texas in the 1830’s. Sam Houston would find that thesis ironic. It took 10 years of Texan begging before the US admitted Texas to the Union. That doesn’t sound like imperial America to me.
Comment by DRJ — 3/6/2006 @ 9:10 am
The Internet requires LITERACY. How many Arabs can read? How many have access to TV? TV will trump the Internet. TV content can be all Arabic-generated. No translation necessary.
Comment by FredW — 3/6/2006 @ 12:09 pm