The World is "not" Flat
2011-01-27
這本書是Jack Qiu推薦的。在Moodle上有些討論，我很喜歡，轉帖在這裡。
From Daisy Lee：
This book was published in 1999, two years before 911. At that time, Mr. Friedman and other optimistic scholars had sufficient reasons to believe that the development of the Internet could be an impetus for commerce and communication between countries. But after 911, we can see through a serious of terrorist attacks that globalization is probably not a chance of promoting equality and two-way communication, but of helping the old and rising powers around the world compete for the "last virgin land" like Congo and Kenya.
Besides, the function of the Internet, as the backbone of global communication, might be overestimated. Indeed, the Internet has always been regarded as "the free market of ideas". But the actual situation is, even the communication mode on the Internet can hardly be viewed as "equal". Public figures can easily get lots of followers on Twitter and at the same time, what the ordinary people say is always been ignored. In this sense, does the Internet indeed bring a fairer communicating atmosphere?
From Jack Qiu:
Thanks, Daisy. Both of these points -- about 911 and the Internet -- are very good. Looking at the text from 1999, you can see how much global geopolitics have changed since 911 and how much public perceptions of the Internet have also changed in the past few years. Both these show, again, that globalization is not a "natural" or "predetermined" process. It is very dynamic, always responsive to human action regardless of the scale of action, large (as organized actions of terrorist groups) or small (as your personal conduct online).
Back to this book you're reading, I like it better than the "flat" book because it highlights the not-so-flat aspects of globalization as well. "The Olive Tree" is a most powerful metaphor to this end, to symbolize identities and traditions that resist forces of globalization. In that book, Friedman also paid more attention to "losers" of globalization and had some interesting discussion about the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998. His more popular "flat" book is however much less sophisticated in treating these things from history to crises.
From Daisy Lee:
Thanks, Jack.
Friedman ever said that the more people stay in their Lexus, "the more they will want to spend time leaning against their olive trees". It seems incomprehensible, but the metaphor of "olive trees", just as you say, is indeed a symbol of identities and traditional cultures on which people living in the same "nation" (not "state", probably) could dependent when confronting the so-called "McDonaldization" around the world.
From Alice:
Dear Daisy,
Thank you for your Qs.
From my perspective, the internet provides us such a good platform for global communication. It is instant and effective(basically it is functional). However, since people establish a virtual world on the Internet, through chatting tools, BBS etc. begin communicate and fullfill dreams that they cannot realize in the real life. Although as you say that "Public figures can easily get lots of followers" , however, we also notice that in recent years, lots of ordinary people attract much attention by using their ways and become famous people later.
Also different people have different needs and concentrations on the Internet, I may follow my friends, not the big figures. It is a little arbitrary to measure "equal" in that way, I think for "equal", it is not an absolute concept, "too many followers" cannot mean "more equal", ordinary people on the Internet news also receive much attention. We need to develope a good measure for the "equal on the Internet".
Overall, I think on the Internet, there is not absolute "equal", people can free to express ideas, however, some sensitive issues may be prohibited.
From Daisy Lee:
Dear Alice,
Thanks so much for your reply. Your argument on how to measure "equal" is quite persuasive.
The Internet might be included in "the things that are so new we do not even understand them yet". We can see the huge development of World Wide Web in the past two decades (from BBS to blogs, then to Twitter), but who knows what's gonna happen in the next 15 or 20 years?
In 1990s IBM said in the ads that its laptops would not be obsolete "in the next five years". But now few companies dare to guarantee that their products will not be out of date in five months. Time is quite different, isn't it?