August 27: Technology and Culture

The slippery slope argument has never been one I'm fond of. It is too easy to say "but if we allow liquor to be legal/women to vote/gays to marry, then the entire fabric of our society will rot away and next thing you know society we'll sanction women presidents and/or marriage to goats." I believe that life doesn't actually work that way -- one step and, boom! you lose control. In reality we all pretty much know the line when we come to it, and over time that line will legitimately fluctuate. Female presidents now are officially acceptable (in theory, not that the U.S. has had one); marriage to goats -- never.

This kind of argument invariably gets raised in cross cultural encounters: how can one embrace the good in another culture without losing your own identity? If a poorer nation seeks Western standards of living will they invariably lose their own traditions? Will working at a Western pace destroy villages and families?

This morning at the symposium we had a discussion about leveraging technology to increase cultural communication, and it was interesting to see -- in a group that relies on the Internet to create bonds -- that many people were vocal about fears that I.T. itself could too easily create a society devoid of human contact, arts and music, old traditions, anything but the drive to seal onesself off into a cubby earning money, seeking a certain sterilized version of life.

It brings up issues that U.S. citizens have wrestled with for much of the last century or so: is it hubris to press your values and culture onto another? Or is it hubris to deny them access to better health care, more food, better education because you have decided they are better off without your attempting to change their way of life? In India, Bangalore especially, as the technological boom has revolutionized the city, the question becomes -- for some -- is the new wealth destined to create a new middle class divorced from traditional Indian culture?

It's in my nature to reject this kind of argument in general. For one thing I fall on the side of thinking it's presumptuous to judge the correctness of how another person seeks to climb out of poverty, when you're sitting in a position of wealth and can't possibly relate.

But more importantly, I just don't believe in the slippery slope. The fact that Bangalore sports a Pizza Hut notwhithstanding, there is just too much here that is unique. This is not a place doomed for homogeonization.

My feelings were emphasized when we visited a temple to Shiva later in the day. This was a statue of the god, five stories tall, carved out of ivory-colored soapstone. Shiva is the god who destroys evil, so he wears snakes around his neck and wrist. Shiva is also said to tbe the source of the river Ganges, so a giant water fountain sprayed out of the top of his head. replenshing a pool at his feet. Sitting in front of Shiva were various cross-legged practicioners praying. And there were signs hanging around offering bits of advice, such as: "Work as if everything depends on you; pray as if everything depends on Lord Shiva."

But here's the thing about this temple. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, since it was an impressive place, but my first reaction was that it reminded me of Space Mountain. It was just so much larger-than-life that it kind of deserved to have a roller coaster inside. I figured, however, that such caricatures appear in places like Disney World specifically because they're based on real historical treasures, so I asked how old the temple was.

"Two years," came the answer.

Yeah, trust me, Bangalore is not in danger of losing its personality.