[Reader-list] Guardian Unlimited: Daring to dream

[sanjay ghosh]

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20040903/7a708f94/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
  

Dear Keith,

I'm don't mind keeping our conversation private, but then we can't accuse the 'list' of consumption. As I had mentioned earlier - bits and pieces within a body of text maybe very useful. I think each and every little gesture says something if only we are ready to absorb. From college students to pensioners, there are such diverse creatures on lists, that it's impossible to set limits on what can be useful. I tried my best to put our conversation in some order so that it's easier to follow. I may have assumed (wrongly?) that you were the victim of the same technical blunder (on my part) which threw the conversation out of the list in the first place. 

I believe the tone of one's writing (presentation) betrays an identity therefore I find this idea of anonymity quite ridiculous. Usually it's beyond the scope of 'lists' to have individual mappings of where people come from. Even my parents don't know where I come from. Depending on the complexity of a person it may take years to settle on a vague mapping. And then again people change all the time. Perhaps a list posting can't be compared to an ordinary conversation between two people known to each other. Yet over time you do figure 'oh it's that same loony who forwards from the Guardian!' One can stop there or dig a little deeper but we only recongise people in our own reflection. What you 'read' in a map depends on where all you've been.

A very large number of artifacts from history are without definite authorship but that doesn't diminish their appeal. I believe the 'content' will alway find it's place.

I don't think we are debating, we are simply broadening the scope of the issue. Quite often an argument has to be presented from the wrong end, to let in a larger audience. I can't speak for Rifkin but I think he's done well in presenting an argument which maybe very palatable for a western white audience. It's a practical antidote to the Ukip agenda.  The way you put your argument a large part of the audience will leave before  you're halfway through - which is great disservice to the crucial content of your argument. Perverse as it may sound, I think a bit of outrageousness doesn't harm a set of positive inputs.  

I sincerely believe that the government/social patterns in Scandinavia are worth emulating. UK, France and Germany realise this. In this light I think Europe represents a better pattern than most others in existance. It's would be childish to gulp down Rifkin's conclusions as the holy truth.

Information services are basically secondary activities and India is too chaotic to become a superpower. China in some ways is already one. Yet do you sincerely believe that when the Chinese become a superpower, they'll be any different from older superpowers. Living in India right now, I only see the ghost of an ancient civilisation and I suspect the same of China. It's like the popular image of women's empowerment - women who behave like men. 

Your specific expectations from this list are absurd and restrict the areas of engagement. 

I still feel that the body of our conversation has extremely positive insights, worth sharing with a larger audience.

Regards,
Sanjay

Keith's reply  (sg):

Dear Sanjay,

I was not arguing for keeping our exchange private. I just felt that it was unfortunate, the way it turned out, that interested readers had to reconstruct what passed between us the wrong way round. I would be happy if you posted this last message to the list. Indeed I would prefer it. You have some extremely cogent points to make which ought to be out there. You might want to edit what you have written so far, to take account of the fact that we do seem to have crossed wires somehow -- partly for technical reasons and partly because there is a difference between us that is now coming out. Maybe I don't mind who I estrange with my polemic -- I am not trying to win the hearts and minds of the people, but merely seeking out the odd partner for conversation -- and you seem to seek a more inclusive approach for reasons that I would not impune. The last thing I want is to lay down the law on how members should use the list -- that really would be absurd. I wanted to learn more about your authorial philosphy (and get an anti-Rifkind diatribe off my chest) and I have. I would welcome seeing any version of this letter on the list. Then I will respond in public or, if you prefer, privately. I apologise for sending some signals that offended you. It's probably more a question of style than substance.

All the best,

Keith

CAVEAT (sg): This is a 'late city' edition of a 'conversation' which took place a yesterday, now made public on the 'list' by mutual consent. Please excuse the writers' flowery tone; this was originally a 'private conversation'.




On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 Keith Hart wrote :
>Sanjay,
>
>Thanks for posting our private exchange on the list. I hope readers can make sense of it backwards.
>
>Your use of the word 'irresponsible' struck a chord, since one of my main reasons for sending the original piece was to raise the question of responsibility in publishing on the net. For you are an internet publisher and the issue is whether readers are entitled to know where you are coming from when you send out something that catches your interest.
>
>I only raise this issue because Rifkin's pitch was so outrageous. Subsequently you have told me of your interest in the EU transnational experiment (which is undoubtedly important for the rest of the world as well as for those of us who are part of it) and in the evidence he gave that Europe is now in some respects a bigger economy than the USA. You have also acknowledged that my line offers a rather different angle to his. But I still don;t know if there are grounds for a debate between us and any interested onlookers. Maybe that too is the point -- let's keep it informational and not get upset about anything.
>
>This is a week when the Republicans are trying to bully and con the American people into re-electing them because of fear of terror; when Putin's path to authoritarian rule is challenged by Chechen rebels, while the others (the US, Britain, France and Germany keep quiet because they think he is th ebest man to keep the lid on there. Let's not even discuss the mess in the Middle East. Anyone who travels internationally these days knows how security is being tightened everywhere and immigrants are a universal scapgoat for insecurity. In this highly contemporary scenario, Rifkin tells us that Europe offers the kind face of social democracy, transnational cooperation and ecological concern as an alternative to get-rich-quick America a.k.a. liberal democracy or corporate capitalism running amok. But he is not burning his boats there, since his pitch is that, if Britain can help the Americans and Europeans get into bed, they can rule the world safely together for another hundred years.
>
>I just wonder how such a story plays in Asia. The Chinese government for sure is not backing down in the face of the US-Europe dual hegemony that passes for a world order at present. They have refused to fix the exchange rates so that America is less embarrassed by the balance of trade betwen them and they are accumulating massive dollar deposits as a result. It is worth recalling that offshore banking took off in the form of eurodollar market after Russian and Chinese were seized in New York at the beginning of the Cold War. Revenge is sweet and it may not be far off.
>
>My bet is that India and China will become the superpowers of the 21st century, as befits their strategic economic position, size and ancient civilisation. After half a century of hiding from the world while generating one of the world's most successful diasporas, India is now back in the game. American newspapers make a big deal of outsourcing service jobs through the internet and there is some substance to this. India stands to become the next global centre for information services using English as a common language. All of this is embryonic. But I subscribe to this list to see if young avant-garde Indian intellectuals (and their fellow travellers) show any awareness of the possibilities. That's where I am coming from.
>
>Keith