For many rural Tanzanians, coming face to face with pieces of modern technology for the very first time is more than simply learning about its various functionalities. The personal computer, the internet, and various websites are more likely than not, written completely in English, or to a lesser extent, another foreign language, and the prevalence of foreign languages is all the more comprehensive when the subject becomes more technical, such as manuals for troubleshooting software problems, guidelines on network configuration, FAQs on how to use an online system.
This reality does not bode well for the regular Tanzanian, used to communicating in Swahili or one of the local tribal languages. Essentially, the rural Tanzanian learning about a piece of modern technology is not only learning the technology, but s/he is also actually learning the foreign language that is the basis for the technology as the prerequisite. To put more precisely, for the locals here to use the internet successfully, they need to start off by becoming proficient enough in English to understand instructions to the internet, before any attempt at cracking the world of cyberspace effectively.
The need to learn a foreign language only becomes an added reason for many rural Tanzanians to not adopt modern technology. Beyond the fact that these modern technologies have never really been part of their daily lives, the foreign languages that form the backbone of modern technology have never been considered important by the same people. The fact that the technology is expressed in foreign gibberish only serve to reinforce the belief that the said technology is not, and should not be, part of their lives, a completely foreign matter alien to their existence and should remain so for the foreseeable future.
That is not to say that people do not realize the significance of technology in more absolute terms. They might not know the details of "how," but they know that the rich world become rich based on greater mastering of technology, and it is the technology that enabled some nations to become wealthy by exploiting others. They know that, thus, mastering these foreign technologies is the only sure way to develop. But such realization does not offset what is essentially fear toward the foreign nature of modern technologies.
It is a fear stemming from a lack of self-confidence. Before even touching a piece of technology, the visual complexity of it has already aggravated an already present, biased view of one's own incapacity. It is as if the person in question is saying, "look, I know I am incapable of understanding what you are trying to tell me, and today, I am gonna prove to you that I am right." Unfortunately, the presence of a completely foreign language only makes this task of proving incapacity all the easier. As those that hesitantly pick up the technology learn to give up before even getting started, the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure is bound to take place.
In the end, it goes back to the "us" vs "them" narrative so familiar to a socially observant foreigner in this part of the world. It is about "foreignness," this time in the form of modern technologies written in foreign languages, being pushed onto the local populations in the name of "development" and "assistance." All it does is further proving that the foreigner is sophisticated and the local is not. It implies that locals ought to be perpetually dependent on foreigners for intellectual support, with physical products of intellectual efforts written not in their own languages.
At the same time, it is saddening that the linguistic localization of modern technology is making little progress. Much of this cannot be blamed on the foreigner based here, though. After all, it is certainly true that technological development is fundamentally geographically uneven. The most cutting-edge products are developed in the West and are thus written in Western languages. The tiny market size of the said products in places like Tanzania means that there have been little business incentives in the past to translate the same products into local languages in the region to cater to local consumers.
But for those willing to nurture the nascent local market for modern technologies, such linguistic localization will be key. The likes of Google and Facebook have been comparatively successful in "frontier markets" partly because they devoted resources to translate their services in local languages and introduce simplified versions of core products that are more comprehensible for entry-level technology users. Facebook's Free Basic is a good example. But unsurprisingly, catering to small fringe markets are expensive and unprofitable, making it a proposition a few will undertake.
This reality does not bode well for the regular Tanzanian, used to communicating in Swahili or one of the local tribal languages. Essentially, the rural Tanzanian learning about a piece of modern technology is not only learning the technology, but s/he is also actually learning the foreign language that is the basis for the technology as the prerequisite. To put more precisely, for the locals here to use the internet successfully, they need to start off by becoming proficient enough in English to understand instructions to the internet, before any attempt at cracking the world of cyberspace effectively.
The need to learn a foreign language only becomes an added reason for many rural Tanzanians to not adopt modern technology. Beyond the fact that these modern technologies have never really been part of their daily lives, the foreign languages that form the backbone of modern technology have never been considered important by the same people. The fact that the technology is expressed in foreign gibberish only serve to reinforce the belief that the said technology is not, and should not be, part of their lives, a completely foreign matter alien to their existence and should remain so for the foreseeable future.
That is not to say that people do not realize the significance of technology in more absolute terms. They might not know the details of "how," but they know that the rich world become rich based on greater mastering of technology, and it is the technology that enabled some nations to become wealthy by exploiting others. They know that, thus, mastering these foreign technologies is the only sure way to develop. But such realization does not offset what is essentially fear toward the foreign nature of modern technologies.
It is a fear stemming from a lack of self-confidence. Before even touching a piece of technology, the visual complexity of it has already aggravated an already present, biased view of one's own incapacity. It is as if the person in question is saying, "look, I know I am incapable of understanding what you are trying to tell me, and today, I am gonna prove to you that I am right." Unfortunately, the presence of a completely foreign language only makes this task of proving incapacity all the easier. As those that hesitantly pick up the technology learn to give up before even getting started, the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure is bound to take place.
In the end, it goes back to the "us" vs "them" narrative so familiar to a socially observant foreigner in this part of the world. It is about "foreignness," this time in the form of modern technologies written in foreign languages, being pushed onto the local populations in the name of "development" and "assistance." All it does is further proving that the foreigner is sophisticated and the local is not. It implies that locals ought to be perpetually dependent on foreigners for intellectual support, with physical products of intellectual efforts written not in their own languages.
At the same time, it is saddening that the linguistic localization of modern technology is making little progress. Much of this cannot be blamed on the foreigner based here, though. After all, it is certainly true that technological development is fundamentally geographically uneven. The most cutting-edge products are developed in the West and are thus written in Western languages. The tiny market size of the said products in places like Tanzania means that there have been little business incentives in the past to translate the same products into local languages in the region to cater to local consumers.
But for those willing to nurture the nascent local market for modern technologies, such linguistic localization will be key. The likes of Google and Facebook have been comparatively successful in "frontier markets" partly because they devoted resources to translate their services in local languages and introduce simplified versions of core products that are more comprehensible for entry-level technology users. Facebook's Free Basic is a good example. But unsurprisingly, catering to small fringe markets are expensive and unprofitable, making it a proposition a few will undertake.
Comments
Post a Comment