Communications Technologies and the Ethics of Access Establishing the Global Link
[This appeared in the newsletter Insights in Global Ethics, May, 1993]
The ministry of communications in Prague is located in an oppressive building that, until an uncomfortably short time ago, housed the chief bureaucrats of the Czechoslovakian Communist party. Communications minister Frantisek Hesoun moved into an office there, and during our meeting about the possibilities of collaborative development of new communication technologies, he handed me a copy of his nation’s major planning document.
The irony was striking: In what used to be a bastion of government secrecy, I was casually being shown a document central to the economic structure of the republic. Moreover, the project was being pursued with an unexpected sense of enthusiasm: “I wish I were twenty years younger,” Hesoun said to me. “I could devote more energy to this project, and to yours. They will be very helpful in solving many of the problems we are facing.”
As part of a planning and research project I was meeting with the communication ministers of thirteen European Union nations. My goal: to help developing nations think about collaborative, rather than competitive, communication infrastructures. I had explored these issues in a book I co-authored: Communication Ethics and Global Change. I felt collaborative development of communication systems had an ethical as well as a technological component.
Collaboration, Communications, and Ethics
The problems to which he referred were more than just economic issues. Hesoun recognized that he and other innovative officials were on the cutting edge of a revolution that is both technological and social: a communication revolution with profound economic, social, and ethical impact, particularly in the creation of new opportunities for collaborative progress.
Solving problems through collaborative effort is more than just a strategic method of implementing new communication networks. It is a process with profound ethical import. As one example, consider that access to communication is now recognized as essential to the growth and welfare of societies and individuals. The “right to information,” for example, has been defined as a fundamental human right in the United Nations Charter.
Why is access to communication a basic right? Remember, when we discuss communication, we are not restricting the definition to media such as television programming. Information is the key word. In an information society, access to information equals empowerment. Empowerment through information access can be as basic a matter as a farmer in a developing nation being able to call and find out the current prices for his crops, or as large-scale as an educational satellite video network designed to span the vast territory of India.
A Philosophy of Collaboration
But the very nature of an underdeveloped nation undermines the ability to put information in the hands of people who need it most – which is why collaborative efforts have proved so beneficial. When collaborative technological ventures are managed correctly, everyone wins. One example: with India’s educational network, India and the United States joined forces to produce a system that benefited both parties. India, a huge nation with a scattered population, desperately needed a way to reach people with information on birth control, basic education, and farming. Satellite transmission was the only logical choice, but launching a satellite was beyond the capabilities of India’s technology.
The solution: India and the United States entered into a joint agreement under which NASA would contribute much of the resources necessary to orbit the satellite and establish the network. NASA had use of the satellite for scientific experiments while India was gearing up its educational network. By the time the network was established, India had developed the technology to continue operation of the network on its own.
Almost any nation that is in some way deprived counts improved information technology as part of the solution. That solution, many believe, must be viewed as part of a global effort. It is the only way the have-nots can become haves.
Revising the Competitive Spirit
In the United States, we are accustomed to the competitive view of doing business: “We made it on our own; why can’t they?” It is clear, though, that this is now a global economy, a global market, and no one can do business in an international vacuum. Many members of the global village feel we must reevaluate our thinking about the nature of communications.
Leaders of virtually every nation recognize this trend. In Dublin, for example, there was a science and technology agency that, as part of its mission, attracted new business to Ireland. Tony McDonald, the agency’s telecommunications project director, was candid in his assessment. “If businesses can’t communicate,” McDonald said, “why would they come to Ireland?” The result: Ireland entered into a collaborative venture with European Union nations to develop the type of infrastructure needed to sustain business communication—satellite access, telephone and computer transmission, fax service and video conferencing.
Communications: Planning for the Electronic Tidal Wave
European Union leaders had little doubt about the importance of the communication revolution on an economic and social level. EU members estimated the new media—the web of technologies that includes telephones, laser discs, satellites, mobile phones, fax machines, and computers—would supply 12 percent of the EU’s GNP and employ over 60 percent of its workers.
While the economic impact of advancing communications technology is staggering, the future social impact will be something of an electronic tidal wave. Information technologies are tools—new ways of solving problems. The product manufactured by these tools, the information itself, becomes a new kind of commodity. And ownership of this product brings with it a new kind of economic and political power. Ethical issues arise when information technologies are designed without reference to social responsibility guidelines.
In recent years, central political control has been under attack; Prague, Moscow, the Philippines, and Thailand are prominent examples. Ironically, the communication monopolies that were once instruments of control have been broken by new technologies enabling citizens to interact on local and regional levels: fax machines, beepers, videocassettes, and high-tech telephones.
We remember, for example, the flow of information on mainland China during the Tiananmen Square uprising. The communist government tried mightily to stanch communication from the dissidents, but fax machines made political barriers hopelessly porous. Newsletters, posters, and news reports were able to reach the West; printed documents transmitted literally at the speed of light were powerful tools to stir opinion overseas. Satellite video transmission brought instant video into Western living rooms, and the image of a lone Chinese blocking the path of a tank became a symbol of resistance.
When scholar George Kennan was asked why the power of the people on the streets erupted in Moscow, the first reason he cited was “the communications revolution.” Note he did not say “mass media.” He said “communications revolution.” This term goes way beyond reference to CNN broadcasts. It is more inclusive and addresses deep and significant communication dynamics. Observers have noted that telephones, fax machines, newsletters, and Mikhail Gorbachev’s BBC broadcasts were the tools used to chip away the former Soviet Union.
The point? When large numbers of people are nodes in a communication network, the messages cannot be controlled. This communication pattern empowers groups. Authority, whether legitimate or not, seems to move from the top to the “grass roots.” Pyramid-type organizations of all types are under siege to a large degree because people communicate easily in new and interactive ways. Technology, politics, and economics are now becoming integrated in bold ways to provide multiple electronic highways over which these interactive and powerful messages travel.
Again, the power of these messages raises the ethical issue of access. Analysts use the terms “information-rich” and “information-poor.” As cited earlier, a farmer in a remote area of India needs to know prices in a regional marketplace in order to negotiate the best price for his product. A village telephone is a practical information technology in such a case. Millions of such scenarios around the globe demonstrate the practical need for a new public philosophy of access. This is a subtle component of the dynamics of universal solidarity.
Dynamic communication-driven changes affect the power structure of businesses as well. Management consultant Peter Drucker predicts that business structures will evolve to accommodate the computer-distributed messages. To be effective, the current pyramid structure of the corporation will be recycled into fewer management layers, with many mid-management slots disappearing altogether. The new leader, Drucker maintains, will be like a symphony conductor, coordinating employees grouped around tasks, rather than a general passing down orders to personnel arranged within strict hierarchies.
Communications, Rights, and Reasoning
Given the inevitability of the communications-connected global village, the crucial importance of access, and the change in “top-down” lines of authority, what role will ethical and moral reasoning play? Many observers believe that we must change our thinking about the very nature of our rights and responsibilities in business and society. In particular, we must be willing to share the wealth of information available. International coalitions must link the information-rich and information-poor of the globe. This is more than an ethical consideration; it is a first-level economic imperative, since healthy and well-educated citizens enrich our global environment and our markets.
In addition, we must work to realistically bridge barriers—ethnic, economic, and political. We must ask how we can design incentives for cooperative action, but we must also learn how to communicate through adversarial positions that have been honestly arrived at. Enlightened compromise is the heart of progress. As Mary Parker Follett, an organizational specialist who helped found the Harvard Business School, pointed out, “We should never allow ourselves to be bullied by an ‘either-or.’ There is often the possibility of something better than either of the two given alternatives.”
Finally, it is crucial to keep in mind that communications is not about technology, per se. It is about people. As Sherry Turkle, author of The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit, points out: “We cede to the computer the power of reason, but at the same time, in our defense, our sense of identity becomes increasingly focused on the soul and spirit in the human machine.”
Five Ways to Take a Global View On Communications and Collaboration
1. Recognize that collaborative activity is strategic.
Collaboration in any venture can be highly profitable, even in what might ordinarily be considered a competitive enterprise. The staid Harvard Business Review has seized on this notion: A recent article was titled, “How to Collaborate with Your Competitor and Win.”
2. Recognize that collaborative activity provides benefit to those who most need it.
This is something like combining charity, goodwill, and a healthy dose of the profit motive. The above joint India-U.S. communication satellite venture is an excellent example. There are many opportunities worldwide in both communication and other types of business. When Hedrick Smith, author of Inside Russia, was asked what it would take to rebuild Russia, he didn’t quote a dollar figure. He said growth would come when a web of collaborative relationships is formed among governments, churches, businesses, executive, and colleges.
3. Take the plunge into technology.
Don’t be intimidated by the new communications. Computer linkups and video conferencing, to cite two examples are now standard tools; they take some getting used to but are not dauntingly complex. Such technologies vastly simplify and amplify collaborative activity. Students at Tufts University, for example, learned about international affairs by “meeting” with students from Moscow via satellite link. Scientists now share research results instantly through computer networks.
4. Cultivate awareness that we are, indeed, a global village.
We now realize this because of the impact of communication technologies; we live in a global marketplace with regional economic enclaves. We must all be aware of the global dimensions of economic and political self-interest. Innovation can help establish the basic principle of mutuality by providing the technological highways over which we communicate with one another – multi-lateral forums that enrich not only the marketplace, but also the marketplace of ideas.
5. Be aware that allowing access to communication is a first-priority ethical principle.
Our public policies and private views must be altered to recognize the new reality that balanced access to communication is a basic human right in the emerging global village.