Page 29 - Culture Technology Communication

14 Charles Ess

explains. Such localization, however, requires not only translation of
documentation and commands into another language: such trans-
formation also extends to interface design (including icons, use of
color and other symbols which vary—sometimes dramatically—in
their meaning in diverse cultures), and to the underlying machine
codes (such as ASCII and Unicode) which must be universal if com-
puters and networks are to successfully communicate with one an-
other (cf. Pargman 1999). On all these levels, the current standards
are predominantly the products of Western, English-speaking com-
puter designers and software writers. Keniston suggests ways of
overcoming these obstacles in the Indian case and thereby points to
how Indian efforts to localize software may be paradigms for other
cultures that seek to be members of the global village while preserv-
ing local languages and cultural values. Soraj Hongladarom’s ac-
count of Thai discussion groups provides a powerful example of
Keniston’s hope for such dual citizenship (i.e., global/local). At the
same time, Hongladarom connects this dual citizenship with signif-
icant theory: he makes use of Michael Walzer’s analysis of “thick”
and “thin” cultures to suggest what might indeed be a model for an
electronic global village which both facilitates the global and pre-
serves the local.
Kenneth Keniston, in “Language, Power, and Software,” takes
up the role of language in the development and diffusion of computer
technologies, specifically with a view towards how the predominant
language of computing—English—reinforces current distribution
patterns of “power, wealth, privilege, and access to desired re-
sources.” The problem of such linguistic imperialism (my term) is es-
pecially clear in efforts to localize software—transforming software
to make it useable by those outside the cultural domains defined by
English. In addition, English-only access to computing technologies
also exacerbates the larger global tension identified by Barber in
terms of “Jihad vs. McWorld.” As Barber makes clear, finding a mid-
dle ground between these two poles is crucial for the survival of
some form of participatory democracy: Keniston emphasizes the
point that such a middle ground is crucial for the survival of local
cultures and languages.
India is an especially compelling case study for examining
these concerns. India is the world’s largest democracy, a nation
that further encompasses a breathtaking diversity of languages,
including eighteen official languages and some three hundred un-
official spoken languages (Herring 1999b). Where English is the
privileged route to power, less than 5% of these populations speak