In reading both perspectives, I came away thinking that both authors were right in terms of how they presented their views.
In my reality, I think that the world is much more spiky than flat and even in the small microcosm that is my day-to-day work and home life; the world is definitely spiky. Hierarchies are by their very nature spiky.
Processes and policies and bureaucracies are all spikes in a spiky world to me. There is very little flatness to be found.
I believe that Richard Florida’s
assertion that location matters, is absolutely on point. If you look at the tech world globally,
activity and areas of importance are absolutely concentrated in a few
locations. Take a look at just a few of the
Fortune 1000 companies that exist in the Silicon Valley of California: Apple, Adobe, Cisco, eBay, Facebook, Google,
Pixar, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Intuit, Nvidia, Oracle, Symantec and Western
Digital.
These are but a few of
thousands of companies that are located in the Silicon Valley. I would daresay that there is not another
cluster of such tech magnitude anywhere else on this earth.
I think that it is easier to aspire to be a software programmer in Silicon Valley if you physically live in the United States. For someone who is poor with access to few resources in India, China, Mexico, Africa or another like country; being a software programmer may not be an option. I realize that this is a perception of mine and it is possible that my perception does not mirror reality.To believe wholeheartedly in the flat world perspective; it would mean that not long ago, if you were a poor individual in a third-world country; it would have meant that you couldn't have aspired to make the next great software system. I think that it is easier to aspire to be a software programmer in Silicon Valley if you physically live in the United States. For someone who is poor with access to few resources in India, China, Mexico, Africa or another like country; being a software programmer may not be an option. I realize that this is a perception of mine and it is possible that my perception does not mirror reality.
To believe wholeheartedly in the flat world perspective; it would mean that not long ago, if you were a poor individual in a third-world country; it would have meant that you couldn't have aspired to make the next great operating system.
Friedman’s idea of having ubiquitous connectivity via broadband, cellphones, and so on—that ‘flattens’ the world, this flatness can achieve much the same effect as proximity in the spiky view and that poor individual in a third world country should be able to achieve their aspirations no matter where they are located. With this, I disagree.
I believe that until there is a global network that truly connects all areas and peoples and all areas and peoples have the same access to this network; the world just cannot be flat; and in all honesty, I believe as I stated earlier that both perspectives are correct. There are indeed areas of the world that are flat and those areas that are spiky – which then brings me back around to the world being spiky.
To believe the world is flat, I think the entire world has to be flat; whereas if any part of the flat world has a spike – then the world as a whole is spiky.
Good post. I think the Spiky-ish moniker is great. In many ways the world is flat and in others spiky. I understand you perspective on the lower halves of the populations from the third world countries. However, we, one of the richest countries in the world is way behind in high speed internet access for its populations. Also, with mass production, the price of Internet accessible items are low and can be obtained by many. Additionally, the system of education in China and India, in many aspects, is far greater than ours and that is why we have seen a boom in off-shoring and outsourcing. Our media would have us to believe India is poor and half naked people ride around on motorcycles and beg and scrap for food and money. However, many companies have moved their call center operations to India in an effort to save money and take advantage of cheaper labor. Just like Africa on many maps is one of the smallest continents in the world, but in reality it is one of the largest in the world. Additionally, it is one of the most beautiful places in the world that has many resources that are desired by the rest of the world. We have to resist the natural reaction to think that all inhabited places in these countries are poor and are left out of the globalization race.
ReplyDeleteI have been to many areas of Asia where the third world population is definitely currency and material-poor but have a much richer and fulfilling life than their 'civilized' and 'advanced' first world counterparts.
DeleteIf you take a look at the Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) at UN Data (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=WDI&f=Indicator_Code%3ASI.POV.NAHC); there is data on global poverty rates.
In 2010, I believe that India's population for all of its recent progress still had 96.9% or 1,179 million still living with less than $5 a day which might effectively hinder those in that demographic from joining in the globalization race.
I am intrigued by the concept of access versus talent. You bring up a wonderful point about how geographical location and economic status still matters in the sense of raw access to these amazing technology wonders. So while the advent of the technological age has removed some of the physical barriers to progress and collaboration, it may have erected new barriers that are more bureaucratic, economic, and generally more frustrating than raw distance itself.
ReplyDeleteI like to believe personally that one can do whatever they set their mind to and that we can achieve anything that we truly want to achieve through hard work, effort, dedication and talent. I do not believe though, that there has ever been in instance where the world has been flat since the end of the 17th century (and even then it wasn't 'really' flat) in any area of progress. Truly 'new' technological innovations start out way out of reach of most people then start to trickle down over decades to the masses - and even then; it's not uniform.
DeleteI do not disagree...but I also do not think it is quite this cut and dry. Silicon Valley certainly is a "happening place." Yet, one of the most successful web products to date is Tumblr, a blogging platform developed by David Karb, a 27 year old. He began coding at age 11 in New York City, dropped out of high school and moved to Tokyo for 5 months, then came back and formed his own company. Silicon Valley has tried to entice him to move there, but he likes NYC. He also hired a Richmond VA firm to run his customer service division...which is where I met him. Yahoo last year bought Tumblr for $1.1 billion, with Karb remaining as CEO.
ReplyDeleteSo I see Karb as more of a flattener example than a spiky example...if that makes sense.
I am a big fan of Tumblr and David Karb is awesome. Karb is defintely an example of a 'flattener' and one certainly doesn't need to be in the Silcon Valley to succeed; but the problem with the flat vs spiky argument is that flat is infinitely harder to prove and to illustrate. Real life isn't so cut and dry and I have many life experiences that I can draw on to illustrate that for sure. I do find it interesting - and predictable - that Tumblr was bought by one of the Silicon Valley giants though. (^_^)
DeleteTouche'
DeletePatrick,
ReplyDeleteInnovation certainly does not need a geographic location to succeed. However, when the tools are there, then comes the channel to bring the ideas forward. Friedman (2007) stressed that we all must learn to teach ourselves and to never lose our curiosity or ability to innovate. Is this not how we should embrace the education practices of today? Some of the best lessons I have ever been taught in class involved the practice of exploration. We were told to take a virtual field trip which involved learning about earthquakes. The instructor then had us explore materials in order to build an earthquake safe structure. Through creative exploration, my classmates and I built an earthquake safe bridge.It was exciting and we were all engaged in the project. The science and principles of physics are still embedded in my background knowledge. Do you think today's educators are utilizing technology in such a way that students have the opportunity to innovate?
Miss Hydrangea Bloom
Joel or is it Miss H. Bloom?
ReplyDeleteI am very much a believer in curiosity, imagination, in exploration and in hands-on learning and experience. I embrace my own curiosity and it has led me into all sorts of exploration from cooking to law enforcement to massage therapy to real estate and to education.
I am pragmatist by nature. Innovation ideas can happen anywhere, and from anyone. It is one of the main reasons that I chose an Ed.D over a Ph.D.
Unfortunately - and I can only speak from my very limited experience - many administrators want to implement the new, sexy technology of the minute (like the iPad) for the sake of saying that they implemented an iPad initiative or program. A tool without a purpose is not very effective.
I teach K-12 teachers/educators in a master's program on how to use technology in the classroom and I will tell you that 99% of my students come into class without a clue about how to use technology in the most basic manner; much less using technology to innovate.
Thanks,
Pat
Pat
Hi Chad,
DeleteIt is Miss Hydrangea Bloom. Yes, a tool without a purpose can often times remain idle-unless the audience has other intended purposes for using the tool. Did your students learn in a fast manner? Students tend to soar when they have a purpose, tools, and the motivation to complete a lesson and project. In my own professional opinion, the quality of one's teachers is the most important factor in a student's education.
Pat,
ReplyDeleteI too think this is an area that is muddled. I do think comparatively the world is flatter. Now is it flatter everywhere, most certainly not. However, is is flatter than 30, 50, or 75 years ago; most certainly yes it is. Again, this is as a whole. As you say, access will continue to be a problem as the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' increases.