The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Model of Disparity Between the Developed & Developing Worlds (Barbu, 1998)

local, regional, ethnic, cultural, political, and ideological borders will require sociocultural change: change in the way we think, the attitudes we possess, and the behaviors we manifest.
L. Ripley Smith



INTRODUCTION

The German scientist Wernher von Braun once believed that in the future
(subject to his time in the WWII era) '...the planet itself would eventually replace the nation-state as the primary unit of reference and analysis' (Lambeth, 3). Marshall McLuhan's vision of a global village, where the media shares a common consciousness, also shared von Braun's dream of absolute cooperation (Lambeth, 3). The point is that in a world of such difference, it is easier to cooperate than it is to fight over the differences, as von Braun would say since he saw the rise and fall of Hitler. Global communication scholar Hamid Mowlana stated while referring to Ibn Khaldun, a great Islamic scholar and social philosopher, that '...the individual human being cannot secure all the things necessary for his livelihood without cooperation from someone else'(1). It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the possibilities, as well as the realities, of a global system of communication. Since this is a rather broad approach, I will focus on the disparities between the haves and the have-nots: using technology to progress the dissemination of information on a global scale has led to a disparity between developed and developing nations. From this framework of analysis I will use Africa (in general, not focusing on any specific nations) as a model to compare the disparity of the two worlds, as well as to show alternatives to western models of communication.

I

The current position of society, on a global scale, is but a notch in the timeline of our civilization. According to scholar Hamid Mowlana, the current information revolution is the third major stage of influence in recent history. Mowlana states that 'Historically, we can identify three major technological breakthroughs that have had profound impact in political, social, and economic aspects of human civilization. These three revolutions--agricultural (1000 bc to the 1800's), the industrial (1800's until 1950), and the information (1960 to the present)--are now being discussed as the major stages in technological history...information is emerging as the dominant power factor in the information or post-industrial age'(175). Information, as an entity, can not only grow, but it can evolve (Mowlana, 175). So the question is, who decides what information goes where?
In most cases, those that have, do, and those who have not, follow. In the case of the transferal of information across cultural and national boundaries, it is he (she, it) who has the resources (technology) to do so. Today, the so-called western nations have the majority of the world's technology, and therefore have the control over the information being sent. Howard Frederick defines (UNESCO) the world's economic systems as either developed (the western 25% of the population) or developing (the rest of the population)(48-49). Also, references to the first world is the same as the developed nations, the third world is the same as the developing nations, and there is even a second world (not used in this paper) that refers to the former Soviet empire (Frederick, 49). Mowlana states that 'Because the control over the means of international communication is expensive and subject to economies of scale, there is little room for smaller countries to inject themselves into the increasing global communications market. Today, the world's seven richest nations--the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan--control not only the bulk of the world's wealth, but also the bulk of its future'(19). And on top of all that, being one of the big seven is no guarantee of cultural survival, as Mowlana states that 'France and Canada fear that their own cultures will be overtaken by the American cult of commercialism'(19).
What is it exactly that is being pushed by the western entities that is feared by other nations? Considering that ideologies, religions, and politics vary from region to region and from culture to culture, why is the media suddenly such a dangerous weapon? Again, Mowlana states that '...this so called globalization of the mass media combined with the globalization of the economy has resulted in the production and the distribution of television, video, and other cultural industry products that have led not only to the homogeneity of the products but also to the reproduction of violent programs across national boundaries just because they are simply inexpensive and have the ability to cross cultural barriers'(19). Mowlana believes that it is violence being sold vis-a-vis media from the west that is a threat to developing nations, and since the re-runs are cheaper than making original domestic productions, they are economically viable for many foreign programmers. But is this a realistic threat? According to Morgan and Shanahan (from Pingree and Hawkins, 1981), in the study of Australian youth it has been found that 'In Australia...exposure to U.S. programs (especially crime and adventure) was significantly related to students' scores on mean world and violence in society indices concerning conceptions of Australia, but not of the U.S.'(176). According to this study, it is the U.S. that has been desensitized to its own violent media. Don Taylor states that according to Gerbner, the more time a person spends in a medium (like television), the more likely they are to be influenced by it (1998). In another study found in Morgan and Shanahan, the overall perception of the U.S. had been altered in the eyes of Israeli youth: Weimann's (1984) study of 461 high school and college students in Israel found that heavy viewers had an idealized, rosier image of life in the U.S., in terms of wealth, standard of living, and material possessions' (176).
With the west in the lead regarding the dissemination of information, the transferal of ideology is also an easy transaction via the media and other forms of technology. The viewpoints of the western producers of media material are subsequently presented to anyone within viewing range. Steven H. Chaffee of Stanford speaks of the imbalance of the dominant culture penetrating that of another culture when he states from Lee (1980) and Schiller (1976) that 'In the case of communication from the U.S. to a developing nation, one of the most durable theories has been the critical formulation often called media imperialism or cultural imperialism via the mass media. American media products, the argument runs, undermine the indigenous culture of a less developed society. Ritchard M'Bayo of Bowie State University defines media imperialism as 'the process by which modern communication media have operated to create, maintain, and expand systems of domination and dependence on a world scale''(83-84, from Fejes 1982). And M'Bayo defines cultural imperialism as '...the condition whereby traditional and local cultures in many parts of the world are being battered out of existence by the indiscriminate dumping of slick commercial and media products, mainly from the U.S. (84, from Tunstall 1981). In importing western television signals, to take one popular variant of this thesis, a country is also importing western value systems and encouraging its young people to envy and seek to join the alien culture they are viewing'(37-38). Not only is culture being modified, but also so is the ways in which certain people organize their existence; the use of the concept of time. In the west we are monochronic, which means that our lives are linear, and we tend to do things at certain times. We are punctual, even to a point of holding someone responsible for events (or their duration) outside of their control. Some other cultures in the world are polychronic, or having the ability to do many things in the same frame of time. If someone is late (we'll just have to let this western term stand to aid in this example) to a meeting in a polychronic society, no-one will think twice about it--since the person is capable of multiple tasks in this time frame, it could be assumed that they were occupied by another need. Raymond Gozzi, Jr., of Bradley University, states an example of polychronic time being influenced by monochronic time: '...media may undermine high-context cultures by imposing a new sense of time...Even if it is the case of an entire village gathering around the one television for an evening or weekly broadcast, a monochronic time has been imposed on the entire community'(61). Just like Don Taylor (1998) stated in his lecture how the early train schedules converted early America into an industrial powerhouse, and subsequently made schedule synonymous with time, so has the television broadcast schedule influenced foreign viewers as to what time their shows are on.
Edward Hall pioneered the field of intercultural communication studies, and one of his hallmark theories (no pun intended) is that of high and low context types of communication. High context has a large degree of implied, or shared meaning, while low context tends to be drawn out and literal in meaning. Examples of high context culture would be African, Asian, and Latino, while examples of low context tend to fall in the western world. No one way is better than the other is, but the two are very different (as there are also degrees to both, however, the scope of this paper only allows the briefest of explanations). Since the two contexts are merely different, and not one being superior to the other, it is my belief that it is wrong to assume one context over another. After all, we are diverse. George Porter (1998) defines diversity as '...the inherent differences amongst all forms and levels of life and cultural differences that must be respected and nourished for a healthy and sustainable human society'. But assuming cultural context is exactly what is being done by western media, indirectly, whenever a foreign market is being sold western programming. Gozzi states that 'Often the results of mass media research conducted in the U.S. or Europe are applied without major modification to third world countries. Yet the differing cultural context can crucially influence the effects media may produce (55)...because context is becoming relativized, and because people are paying less attention to each other due to mass media intrusions into the high context culture, then communication styles will become more low context in nature (60)...as context weakens, the communication styles will become more low context in nature, relying more on the explicit, coded portion of the message' (61). Hence, the end result is that western influence penetrates and permeates foreign indigenous culture via the media and offers to substitute itself regarding the way time is utilized, the way speech is both presented and received, and basically how the dominant culture sees the world.
But how is it that this great expansion of information came to be? If merging culture is a bad thing, especially when one dominates the other(s), then why do it? Is it merely a capitalistic venture to expand and exploit? One of (if not the) pioneers of the information merger concept is Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan coined the term global village, and his vision of a world that is benevolent and cooperative serves to inspire even the most ardent warmonger. But was McLuhan overly optimistic? Mowlana states that '...the unprecedented expansion of worldwide communication capabilities resulting from advances in communication technologies has not yet created the global village these capabilities were expected to create'(146). Although the intention may have been there, the reality of an all-encompassing benevolent society may not be attainable. McLuhan's dream of worldwide information transferal without boundary was a great idea, but he may have overlooked the profit motive of the west. Mowlana states that '...it has been hypothesized that such educational and cultural flow of information may contribute to the development of a common ground of shared interests between nations, on which cooperative effort can be built'(146). But what led to this dream turning into exploitation of a new market?
One explanation is that of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the attitude that one's interests and point of view is superior to that of anyone else's. Taylor (1998) defines ethnocentrism as being a universal bias, however, western bias tends to be greater. Hence we have the notion of a (western) pop (for popular) culture. Arthur Asa Berger of San Francisco State says that 'The very notion of popular culture depends upon the existence of something else, that is, unpopular or elite culture'(11). Hence, by separating cultural aspects into popular and unpopular, a bias is created. Berger goes on to state (from de Saussure, 1996, p.117) '...concepts are purely differential and defined not by their positive content but negatively by their relations with the other terms of the system'(11). The assignment of a value (familiar to you) as being universal is another arrogant assumption. Thomas W. Cooper of Emerson college states that 'Throughout the scholarly literature dealing with universals is the underlying assumption that the phenomenon in question (the universals) pervades, transcends, or includes all elements within its universe'(230). Cooper defines universal as phenomenon or quality currently extending to an entire selected universe of elements (231). What does this all mean? The assumption of a universal implies that your own perspective is correct, which implies ethnocentrism. The use of ethnocentrism in the media is called cultural imperialism, and an indirect method of implementation of cultural imperialism is called 'coca-colonization'. Berger states that 'This thesis is known as cultural imperialism or, in its American manifestation, coca-colonization. Some critics, who tend to be Marxists or critical theorists, believe that American media will destroy regional and local cultures and lead to ideological domination by American bourgeois values and to a loss of cultural identity by people in other cultures...coca-colonization will lead to cultural homogenization'(14-15). Coca-colonization is like finding people in remote parts of the world using cultural products not indigenous to them, and preferring the alien product over their own. It also means that (as an example) American cultural products are found in remote regions of the world and have had a significant impact on the indigenous culture(s). Cultural homogenization is the phenomenon of (as an example) American cultural product penetrating and permeating huge areas of the planet and converting the indigenous cultural practices into that of westernized cultural practice. An example of cultural homogenization by the U.S. is to that of its neighbor, Mexico. In the December 6, 1998 edition of the Sacramento Bee, Cuba's Fidel Castro stated that 'Mexicans (have) traded in their historic heroes for Mickey Mouse...Mexicans would sooner be able to say who Mickey Mouse was than name the father of their country'. Castro was commenting on the cultural dominance of the U.S. entertainment industry, and for reasons too various to cover in the scope of this paper, we will use economic factors as a possible basis for a host country to allow so much western cultural products into their mainstream. Again, Berger states that 'Programs from American and western European countries are much cheaper for third-world countries to buy than to produce, and some critics are worried that American and western European cultural, social, and political values and ideologies will drive out supposedly less hardy and more fragile native or traditional cultural values'(14). Therefore, it has been established that the cultural products of the west are threatening other cultural structures. But the question still remains; how?



II

The influence of western media and culture over the rest of the world has been impacted greatly through the use of continually advancing technology. According to the World Forum for Alternatives Manifesto (1998), 'Modernity, conveyed by capitalism and ideologized by neoliberalism, has destroyed or profoundly corrupted existing cultures'. But when did this start to happen? Hamid Mowlana states that 'In the 1940's and especially in the 1950's and 1960's, the term development became synonymous with growth, modernization, change, democracy, productivity, industrialization, and other related western historical and evolutionary changes'(185). So, as the U.S. became the industrial powerhouse, the (western) thought of the day was to be just like the U.S. Mowlana goes on to say that (according to McClelland) '...the need for achievement, which (is) equated with entrepreneurial activity, is key to economic growth not only in western capitalist countries but also in economies controlled and fostered largely by the state' (191). Among McClelland's achievements would be (acc. To Mowlana, 191) technological advance. But what happens when one region has the technology (the west), while everyone else is without it or behind in the development?
The term disparity implies that an imbalance exists. In the case of the imbalance in technology between the western nations and the developing nations, the result is a monopoly of ideology being used by those who develop and have, and ultimately consumed by those who have not. Nwosu & Onumechili state that according to Siebert, et al. (1956),'...mass media systems always take the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which they operate' (432). Mowlana believes that this technological disparity is the result of three factors: the first is the tradition of communication research involving classical media such as newspapers, radio, etc., the second are the interests of economists, and technology and education experts who have looked at the situation from their own perspectives, and the third being the new technologies (satellites, PC's, etc.)--all of which have not provided sufficient time to investigate different (or international) dimensions and ramifications of these media (see p.90). We have developed the technological systems with a western perspective and have made them available for western applications (linear time, low context, etc.) without giving a Rat's ass as to how these media will affect non-western peoples. Mukasa believes that the western telecommunications structure is unjust because it caters to the few, is biased toward a minority of countries, and neglects developing countries regarding participation in planning, administration, and programming (259). Also, Taylor (1998) states that (regarding Africa in this example) 'Widespread illiteracy limits access to media, therefore, media tends to cater to those who can utilize it'. Other than development of media, there is also the distribution of it.
As was stated earlier, it is cheaper to buy U.S. media products than it is to produce them locally, so indigenous buyers of western media and technology are threatened by 'The onrushing wave of video, cassette, and tape technology'(Mowlana, 101). Mowlana further states that 'With pornographic films a fact of life on the video circuit, and with political messages taped through cassette and related technologies, censorship threatens to become certainly different and somewhat irrelevant'(101). Distribution of media can also take place vis-a-vis individuals. Mowlana states that 'When individuals move from one location to another, they transfer not only their physical bodies, but also a whole host of previous experiences, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, motivations, and goals'(132). This also applies to students studying abroad: 'Much emphasis has been placed on the effects of a foreign culture of a student, but little research has explored the student's impact on his or her own culture as well as on the country and culture he or she is visiting'(Mowlana, 154). This works both ways, but getting back to the issue of disparity, the U.S. has taken advantage of a global brain drain from other parts of the world; with more of the educated people leaving their native lands and living in the U.S., there is less development available for those nations of which they have left, furthering the chasm of disparity in the U.S.'s favor. Mowlana states that 'The hidden subsidy of the rich by the poor has been occurring since the end of WWII...India is the world's largest exporter of medical professionals...a gov't. investment loss est. at million in 1976, the U.S. saved for every trained student imported from India...profits from foreign workers between 1961 and 1972 were billion for the U.S.'(154).
The use of technology as a bridge to connect all of the world's people together started with McLuhan (in recent times), but University of Minnesota scholar L. Ripley Smith has also given the matter some attention. Smith states that according to Gudykunst and Kim (1984), technological connectedness is a condition that '...exists in which the earth's societies have been forced to construct a superculture to accommodate the interaction of diverse worldviews in an emerging global society'(203). Smith goes on to state that 'Media affect social arrangements, symbols, and meanings with their pervasiveness, tying societal systems together' (207). Like the benevolent concept of the global village, Smith calls this the '...global network, which finds its outworkings in local networks. The global network's structure is created by social relationships consisting of sharing information and ideas with a common purpose'(204). But there is also a down side to this point of view, for 'Transplanting rich technologies to the cities of the south is of little help to the mainly poor rural majorities there. Success in establishing appropriate technologies that enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty is achieved only by collaborating with local people in identifying their priorities and their resources' (Pacific World, 1993). Technological connectedness sounds more like the U.S.S. Enterprise from Star Trek than it does the global market of today, which is dictated by the profit motive, since on the Enterprise there is universal communication capability.
The dissemination of information on a global scale is highly disparate, but there are also other factors. Regarding computers and the internet, Mowlana states that '...more than 80% of all (internet) users are computer-literate, middle-class males under the age of 40. Access may be unlimited in theory, but it is restricted by the cost of technology and the steep learning curve for computer neophytes...(computer) purchases were confined to middle- and upper-class families. If electronic communication is the future, what will become of the vast majority of people who can only stand by and watch the worldwide exchange of electrons?'(104). The chasm between the haves and the have nots starts with the elite's, and then moves outward like a ripple in a pond from a stone thrown in its center, gradually weakening until it finally dies out somewhere away from its origin. Mowlana queries; 'But is a world split between an elite minority of information-empowered people interacting electronically and a majority mired in information poverty in anyone's best interest? Do we really want to choose between a successful but soulless electronic existence and disenfranchisement?'(105). To answer Mowlana may not be that simple, however, it is my (humble) opinion that the powers in the west that stand to benefit from so many people being in the information dark age will continue to stay on top and maintain the disparity so long as they can capitalize from it. From the Human Development Report (1996) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), it is stated that '...globalization benefits only a few, makes many worse off, and generates tremendous inequities...the world has become more economically polarized, and if present trends continue, disparities between industrial and developing nations will move from inequitable to inhuman'(Antrobus, 1998). Who are these powers in the west anyway? Some of them are refereed to as TNC's, which stands for Trans-National Corporations. TNC's are corporations that have a western ideology (profit motive) with more than one (usually several) global location. Many times, TNC's have evaded national restriction by simply shifting the focus of their operation(s) to another country. Thus, the TNC is not just a company from the west that can exploit profit elsewhere, they are multi-national organizations that can remain fluid (by being in many places around the world at once). Mowlana states that '...transnational corporations can change the cultural ecology in a country through increased media ownership and penetration of foreign advertising' (97). Mukasa states that 'TNC's do not see themselves under obligation to assist in national development efforts and the only rationality that will persuade the TNC's to invest in rural areas is profitability'(269). Therefore, unless they stand to make a buck off of the underdeveloped, they'll have nothing to do with them.
Technology in general is not proportionate to the global population. Mowlana states that '...the growth of technology is not necessarily increasing the access of all peoples to information, nationally or internationally. On the contrary, there is a disparity between the poor and the rich'(219). In fact, the U.S. leads the way in '...the field of communication and computer technology, and American producers of equipment and software dominate the world market. Currently, the U.S. is responsible for the majority of worldwide transmission and processing of data' (Mowlana, 107). On a more global scale, '...98% of the scientific and technological research at present is being undertaken in the advanced industrial states--drawn on their own experience. Only 1% of the research is directed at the special problems of the developing countries'(Mowlana, 108). Thus, not only are the richer countries not sharing with the poorer countries, but they are ignoring them as well.
When tech support finally does reach the poor nation, often it is incompatible with need, antiquated, or it is a leftover from the west. This puts the poor nation in a perpetual state of dependency. M'Bayo defines dependency theory as '...link(ing) the past with the present...the condition of dependency is viewed not only as an outcome of, but also as the effect upon the developing countries, of the imperialistic expansion of the advanced capitalistic states. The condition which lead to a country becoming a dependent state, begins with the expansion of an advanced capitalist state'(78-79). Mowlana states that '...third world countries find themselves in dependency relationships, suggesting that the information that is transferred to the third world is often ill suited to the resources, needs and climates of the developed world' (108). Hence, the disparity between rich and poor is emphasized, and even dangled in front of the poor (whom wish to catch up to the rich) like a carrot in front of a starving horse, and when technological relief does come to them, it is so unfit for their need that they are still left hungry. Disparity does exist. Mukasa states that (regarding Africa) '...villagers have a pressing need to communicate with people outside their own environment in order to perform work-related duties...in urban areas' (260). Mukasa goes on to say that the venture could even be profitable to whoever takes the initiative to improve the current system: '...if more public telephones are installed in rural areas they will be fully utilized and will provide revenue'(260). This situation exists because '...the average telephone density in developing countries per 100 people is 3.9 compared to 44.2 in developed countries'(Mukasa, 260). How does a system get to be so inadequate? If I knew, I would be in Africa myself. However, Nwosu & Onumechili offer an explanation (from Opubor): 'Everybody thinks that doing communication research is research on radio, television, and newspapers--an orthodoxy that says that communication research is research on western media type'(445). With that in mind, I now offer some alternative research using an African model.







III

I have decided to use Africa as a model of the technological disparity between the first and the third worlds. My motivation for using Africa is based in both my personal interest in Africa and its culture, and also because the disparity is great. Also, I plan to introduce African alternative forms of mass media and its relevance to communication.
According to Arnold S. de Beer, et al., '...26 of the 34 least developed countries in the world are in Africa'(209). Of the world's poorest countries, African nations are among the leaders (see graph on page 23). As far as an economic standard can judge, Africa is pretty low in rank on a global scale. But what if the paradigm was not western? What if most African's didn't think twice about the western standard? Would they be as anxious to conform to western models as we in the west are anxious to conform them to our way of doing things? For the most part, 'Studies in African development have shown that indigenous knowledge and resources have a strong impact on various dimensions of society' (Awa, 243). Awa believes that there is an alternative to the western paradigm
Nwosu, Taylor, and Onwumechili state that '...(1988) has identified three patterns of communication in Africa as a basis for understanding Africa's core values. These patterns include verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and traditional media...Clearly, the first two...are primarily interpersonal modes of communication and they fall within what Ugboajah (1985) calls 'oramedia'. Oramedia, or folk media, are largely maintained through the symbolizing codes of oral tradition since Africa is predominantly an oral-aural society' (403). Also, Awa states that indigenous media (acc. To Msimuku & Idoye, 1982) '...remain the most important communication channels in Africa, especially in rural areas where the vast majority of the population depend on the oral tradition'(247). Hence, most Africans utilize traditional (to western users) as well as indigenous forms of conveying information. Unlike western media, which carries messages to mass audiences, African traditional media (oral/aural) carries mass-communicated messages to homogenous groups in face to face settings (Nwosu, et al., 405). Awa states that '...with folk media, the audience participates in creating the cultural value of performance, and therefore feels a sense of involvement. By contrast, with the mass media, messages are designed unilaterally by a professional group and presented to an audience assumed to be passive but ready to be entertained'(247). Oral tradition did exist before text, since we had to learn language before we could assign symbols to those words. Oral transmission occurs commonly between parent and spouse, parent and child, or a specific person that was entrusted with the duty. Awa states that 'The transmission of indigenous knowledge has been more oral than written...a particular member of a village or area was responsible for the transfer of knowledge and beliefs'(239). I can't imagine being without my computer--it is my own personal pseudo-cultural belief, so I can appreciate when Awa says that 'Traditional communication systems are an integral part of indigenous culture' (241). But can there be a hybrid of the two styles? From Valbuena (1991), Awa states that '...traditional media can be combined with mass media not only to expand outreach to audience, but also to preserve these media and enrich their repertoire' (246).
So, why has Africa remained so un-western after all of the colonial years? Why is there resistance to modernization? Cheryl Renee Gooch of Alabama State University states that '...only limited progress in contemporary African development can be made without a holistic understanding of the inherent value of indigenous cultures, languages, and social structures'(90). The western nations have no idea what is best for Africa, since most of their R&D is based in and geared toward the application in western markets. Gooch's holistic approach would encompass non-western parameters that are specific for Africa. Similarly, CSU, Bakersfield scholar A. Odasuo Alali states that 'It is widely acknowledged that development activities must directly relate with a country's economic objectives'(296). The economy in Africa is not the same as it is in most western nations. I am not about to discuss the agrarian societies in African culture versus the capitalism in the west (since that would be another paper, not to mention that I am ignorant of the topic), but the two are very dissimilar, and Alali was right in asserting that the economic system has a great influence over technology. Nwosu and Onwumechili state that '...it is not the degree of sophistication of the technology that makes a medium for development effective for development, but the relevance of the technology to the specific needs of the people'(440), and that '...for a communication strategy to be effective in national development, it must have the potential for meeting clear and immediate needs, and must take account of local conditions' (439).
When technology is implemented into the poorer nations, the net effect is often detrimental because the technology is designed to serve those interests that are already established (Mukasa, 261). M'Bayo states that 'The technology, when transferred, is usually installed in an unadapted form and may not be appropriate for local needs'(80). Nwosu & Onumechili state that '...more than 70% of Africans reside in the rural areas where access to newspapers, radio, or television is often problematic, and where electricity may not exist to operate television sets, indigenous media become critically important for national development'(441).
The ever-present western ethnocentric perspective has thus far not allowed the Afrocentric perspective to be seen by many. We in the west print viewpoints in our papers, state our opinions on radio and television, and live in ignorance, believing that our way is the only way. In fact, it was in a college textbook that Arnold S. de Beer, et al., stated that (regarding the Korean economic model) 'This remarkable achievement on the economic front is a shining example of what countries in the developing world can achieve. The opportunities for Africa glimmer on the horizon'(264). Again, the African system was being compared to the predominant western model of how to evolve, and this viewpoint is (as of 1998) still being taught on college campuses.
Disparity does exist in the world, and technology plays a major role. Ideological differences are also part of the problem, especially when the dominant culture tries to roll right over the other cultures. As Nwosu & Onumechili state (from Nyerere, 1973), '...development brings freedom, provided it is development of the people'(436). For a system to work, it has to have the people who are going to use it involved. M'Bayo states that '...a crucial step for African nations in their attempt to break the circle of technological dependence is to begin to develop their own technological capacity'(83). With that in mind, M'Bayo believes that with a local technology system, Africans can begin to build a system that is right for them, a desire to increase development may result, and the cycle of technological dependence could be broken (83).

CONCLUSION

In closing, it is my hope that through better appreciation for the communication systems of other cultures can we finally bring McLuhan's dream of a global village to fruition. Once the west sees Africa and the rest of the developing nations as partner in a global venture, and not merely another market to exploit, can we successfully unite an all-world system.
This paper serves as a brief survey, a heuristic guideline to begin working toward the goal of global communication compatibility.