So, the world is flat, huh?
I finally got around to reading The World is Flat a few weeks ago, and about a third of the way into it commented to an American friend living here in Shanghai that the book really isn’t as big a deal as I thought it was supposed to be. I mean, there are some good things in there, but it is all just… well, obvious stuff. My friend said he’d felt the same thing when he started reading it (and did not bother to finish), but he also observed that we probably feel this way because we are living right in the middle of the flattened world that is being described in the book. And for me, he said, it might be all the more pronounced because I moved over to this part of the world before all of this flattening really took place, and so saw it all first hand. I quickly realized how right he was.
In thinking about what my friend said, and in continuing to read the book, I couldn’t help but remember some of the trips I’ve made back to the US over the years. When being connected was really getting to be big, and was becoming an expectation wherever we went in Singapore and other Asian cities, I remember feeling quite frustrated when I visited my parents in the US. Getting a good, reliable wireless connection was sometimes pretty tough. Network coverage was not nearly as good as it was in Asia, and it cost more. That was a big surprise to me at the time, as I had come to expect such good service in Asia. But then, it fit the same pattern I’d observed in cell phone technology and other hi-tech electronics. Asian culture seemed to develop technology with a different set of values than their American counterparts, and the clumsiness of the American devices (with the notable exception of Apple products) always surprised me when compared with the standards expected in Asia.
All of that gets a nod in The World is Flat, though it is not really at the center of the discussion, nor what captured my attention when hearing all the hype surrounding the book. What actually enticed me to buy (and eventually read) the book was the focus on China and India, and the bits about blogging and other technologies that Friedman says “flattened” the world (or, as we might say, leveled the playing field of the global marketplace). Anything about China, of course, captures my attention, and I was intrigued by the hype that this book had garnered amongst many of my friends.
Most of what I read there was fairly mundane for me — perhaps because I didn’t read it when it was new, and perhaps just because I was living in the middle of it all. But I did also feel, in reading it, that there is a tendency in the book to view China and India and similar developing economies through rose colored glasses. Does that mean the future doesn’t look as bright from here on the ground? Well, not exactly. I do think the future is promising for these and other nations that take a similar approach to developing their economies, and I think Friedman is right to call those living in the US to look to the situation and respond appropriately. But there are a few spots in which I think he buys a little too much into the propaganda of equality and democracy that is just not quite accurate.
A clear example comes in the book’s presentation of Google’s role as a flattener in the world. Does Google serve to make information available to anyone anywhere, as it claims is its mission? Well, yes… kind of. But on the other hand, we’ve seen Google act in such a way as to censor content in certain very large portions of the globe in ways that it does not in other parts. A Google search of a specific place in China, for instance, brings up very different results for searches conducted within the borders of the Middle Kingdom and those conducted outside her borders. I’ve always seen this as a sellout, and am not sure how possible it would be to make me feel otherwise about it. Sure, I understand it, and can accept the decision of the company to act in any way they want. But I don’t think I have to be naive enough to think that they really do what they say the do when they claim to offer free access to all information to anyone who wants it. That is untrue. It is a decision the company made, and not due to some technical glitch or what have you. Even Google’s world is only so flat, when you get right down to it.
Having said that, I do grant that the overall argument of the book is accurate. The opportunities are being taken advantage of in developing nations, while many in the US sit complacently by. The ability to leapfrog ahead in the world of technology has served those countries well, and they are capitalizing on it in amazing ways. The equalizers are there in a way they never have been before. But, there are still plenty of obstacles in place. I think the book does show a level of awareness of those, especially when commenting on the freedoms allowed on the individual level in the US as one of the strengths it has to offer in this flattened world. Even so, I think it glosses over some of the issues that continue to make for a landscape that is a little more textured than might be indicated by the notion of a “flat” world. It is not yet an equal playing field, and it remains to be seen whether or not it will become so in a complete fashion.
It sounds like you have a very intelligent and incredibly good looking American friend.
)
Yeah, I think you’d like him.
Interesting post, Shelly. I think I might pick up this book when I get a chance.
I had one note on Google, and this is in regard to their modification of search results in areas such as China. I think the real problem is that Google must comply with censorship requirements imposed by the Chinese government, restrictions about which you’ve undoubtedly more knowledge than I, and the critical decision to make is whether the consequences of ignoring those requirements (ie, the blocking of all Google searches and services to users in China) would be worth the loss. By using their current practices, Google is at least able to provide some service to the area, and from my relatively uneducated perspective on the specifics of this matter, I would think legislation/policy change on the part of the Chinese government would be the real answer to this problem. Google would, no doubt, modify its own practices if restrictions were eased.
As for the broadband situation in the USA, I am following the drafting of the National Broadband Act that promises to provide common broadband access to the entire country and improve the infrastructure and networking required to expand internet access around the country. I believe there are also provisions included to protect network neutrality and deny corporations like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon among others to institute tiered and controlled access to the tubes. This is essential for us.
Anyway, that’s all for another time.
I’ve ordered a copy of your book, by the way, and I’m excited for its arrival. I’m thinking I’ll probably get it next week some time. I’m also going to try and wrangle up a little advertisement for you on SJ.
Thanks again for all your hard work. I hope the book is a smash!
Thanks for chiming in, EM. I know I can always count on you to have a good perspective on these types of current issues that require thought if we are to tackle them appropriately. As for reading this book, I think you’ll be like me, feeling that it might be something rather too obvious, and that the ideas in the book are already rather dated (it is, after all, about 5 years old). On the other hand, as the friend I mentioned in the post commented, there are a lot of people for whom the ideas are still novel, people who haven’t yet caught up with the world in which we move — a world that is undoubtedly flat compared to the one that exists in the minds of these people. (And yes, this sounds rather snooty, especially coming from someone who just finally broke down and got on Facebook in the past couple of weeks, and is hoping to avoid Twitter just a little longer.) I have already recommended the book to some friends who seem to be stuck in the old paradigm, and I think it will do them a lot of good to read The World is Flat.
On Google, I guess I should say that I actually have no problem with them choosing to censor their content according to the regulations of the countries they want to enter. That I get. I don’t like (though I do get), nor do I buy into, the idea that they make this compromise in order to bring more information to more people in the long run. I am a cynic, I suppose, but I think they are after the huge market that is available here, and they are doing what is necessary to reach it (including streaming music for free access to users in China, which I understand they don’t do anywhere else). Will Google’s compromise ultimately lead to relaxing of governmental policies in the countries (i.e., markets) where these compromises are made? I don’t know. One can hope. But I suppose I am not sold on the idea that this is the motivating factor behind the compromises. Either way, it seems to me that The World is Flat promotes an idealistic view of Google’s role in providing free access to information, and I only mean to criticize the representation, as I really do get the idea of compromise, slow changes, etc. I just am not sure the Sino-Google Agreement (if you’ll allow me to call it that) is quite the thing it is seen to be in the book, and elsewhere that I’ve read of it. Is it a positive step? I think it is potentially so, but I don’t think the direction it is going to go is yet fully determined. It is still very early in the game to know.
The current legislation going on concerning broadband access in the US is actually something that this book anticipates (I think it was not yet begun when the book was written). I liked how the book handled this topic, as it seemed to want to remind Americans that the privileged position the US has enjoyed in the global marketplace is far from guaranteed in the future. It points to the slowness of the US to provide broadband access and infrastructure that would allow everyone in the nation to perform better in the flattened world. I think a good deal of progress has been made in this area since the book’s publication, but it was kind of interesting to read about it and reflect back on my own experiences just a few years ago traveling between Asia and the US.
Thanks for setting up the link on SJ to my book. I’ll look forward to hearing your feedback. It will be good to start hearing from readers what they think of it, and hopefully that will help me improve my work as I continue to try to hammer out the next one.
[...] have to come to a point where the two entities would find that they are in conflict. I have said before that I don’t like Google’s approach to its relationship with China, and so the position [...]