[Second in a series] – 1 2 3 4

Charles Ess warns that the use Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in cultural revitalization efforts can bring with it a “computer-mediated colonialism” or an emphasis on the Western cultural values embedded within the technology used which can overshadow the values and communicative preferences of indigenous peoples (Ess, 1). These embedded cultural memes are of great concern since they represent the history of cultural hegemony exacted upon indigenous populations that has led to the current state of language attrition. The use of ICT to sustain cultural identity “generates wide-ranging discussions concerning cultural values, modes of representation and teaching, and contrasts between Native and non-Native ideologies” (Moore, 119). The list below presents a sampling of ways that various ICT can negatively impact indigenous values and ways of knowing.

Connectivity (Internet access) on isolated communities
Promotes economic opportunity and access to information, but invites outsider values and creates opportunity for cultural exploitation
Digital archiving on social memory
Memory is stored outside of the body – no longer “indigenous.” Becomes static, not part of a dynamic social process
Videography on oral tradition
Orality no longer hearth-based or ceremonial, but situated in “tech centers” or institutional settings
Global positioning systems (GPS) on resource mapping
Helps to preserve sacred places and community resources, but also creates a virtual de facto “reservation” by setting boundaries around otherwise fluid territories
CyberTracker3 on traditional hunting
Aids in tracking animal and plant resources, but creates a reliance on non-traditional technological devices which require costly infrastructure
Radio broadcasting on language customs
Ties distant communities together, aids in areas ranging from health care to agriculture, but creates language situations that fundamentally change the nature of local communication structure
Computers on education practice
Can “level the playing field” in economics, education, etc., but places emphasis on Western modes of learning which devalue indigenous methods

Successful cultural revitalization efforts share a common approach that can help to assuage community concerns about “computer-mediated colonialism.” This approach involves establishing binding guidelines or a comprehensive ideology that sets the stage for the undeniable changes that the infusion of ICT will bring to the community. The efforts of the Tagish-Tlingit peoples of Canada and the Nyoongar peoples of Western Australia illustrate how a strong language or cultural ideology can create a healthy awareness of potential problems and provide ways to counteract or minimize the potentially harmful cultural effects of adopting ICT.

The Tagish-Tlingit established four main guidelines that “can be considered ideologies in the sense that they provide a coherent agenda for changing the existing social order to achieve language revitalization” (Moore, 133). The language ideology emphasizes community control over the development of ICT language resources by:

(1)recognizing the elders as cultural and linguistic authorities,
(2)training younger community members to document the language,
(3)making use of the potlatch and associated traditions as a prestigious model of language use and cultural representation, and
(4)making all language resources available to the local community in multiple modalities, free of charge (Moore, 124).

These guidelines constitute an act of resistance against the culturally destructive practices and policies of the teachers and leaders of the residential schools who devalued the Native languages when the Tagish-Tlingit Elders were young. The Elders, who form the backbone of the committee that created the ideology, “see themselves turning the tables by reinstating traditional practices” (Moore, 122). In this way, their rejection of Western values constructively negotiates their use of ICT by placing primacy on the cultural needs of the Tagish-Tlingit peoples. For example, although they are using cameras, audio recording devices, and computer technology – with their embedded Western memes – to digitally capture the essence of their culture, the Tagish-Tlingit have chosen to employ young people for this process. Traditionally, young people served as message runners between distant moeities. Thus, as in the past, young people serve as ambassadors, effectively making “elders out of the young people” in accordance with traditional modes of social interaction (Moore, 129).

The Nyoongar peoples of Western Australia developed an e-learning platform for Nyoongar students that is built on a similar set of guidelines. The principles they adopted recognize the students’ capacity to construct their own knowledge and call for authentic learning activities that respond to the students’ cultural and learning needs. Learning environments are student-centered, collaborative and interactive shifting the locus of control away from the teacher (Dyson and Underwood, 73). Although these principles are not unique to the Nyoongar (and may well describe some American learning environments, for example), the importance of these ideas coming from the Nyoongar themselves, as opposed to an outside organization, cannot be overstated. Along with their pedagogical ideology, the Nyoongar project also demonstrates the successful implementation of culture-specific design principles that showcase traditional motifs and use Aboriginal English terms to name various sections of the online component such as “Yarning Place” for the class discussion forum (Dyson and Underwood, 73). Unlike the Tagish-Tlingit program, the Nyoongar are not necessarily acting in direct resistance to Western influence, but their decisions clearly indicate a desire to place operational emphasis on Nyoongar traditional culture – a key factor in that project’s success.

In general, many of the concerns addressed above can be allayed if the indigenous communities being served by revitalization efforts have authority and governance over the management of the project. Often indigenous people have little control over the information presented through projects hosted by government or academic institutions, such as how their community is portrayed on web sites.  Proper governance of these projects “needs to explicitly acknowledge Indigenous people as the beneficiaries of the site rather than the object of discussion, and to recognize collective ownership and collective privacy in determining how information will be accessed, used or interpreted” (Dyson and Underwood, 67). This will ensure that the project reflects the interests of the community and positions the project for long-term success by increasing community-wide by-in of the process. Authority and governance is important because, as Krauss (in Fishman, 56) notes, “You cannot from the outside inculcate into people the will to revive or maintain their languages. This has to come from them, from themselves.”