has caused us much trouble down through the years despite all the elegant justification we whipped up for it. The only reason we got the word in the first place was that Schumacher got so much flak over his.original phrase, "intermediate technology," that he decided to change it to admit the possibility of both small and largescale technology (where "appropriate") into his philosophical framework. Since Schumacher was willingto alter his rhetoric, I think we should be willing to change ours too. My -second reservation about the phrase has to do wit~ the word • "technology." For our purposes, the word has turned out to be a bumµier. In contemporary civilization, "technology" is something that belongs to the technologists, the credentialized elite with a vested interest in the mystification of science. Ordinary people can't have any "technology" unless it is provided for them by the technologists, unless the tool bears the elite's seal of approval. I remember once talking about this to a member in good standing ofthe science policy fraternity. Although he was quasi-sympathetic to the cause of appropri.ate technology,.he said to me, "Byron, I don't care a whit that these ideas came from Gandhi or Tolstoy or whomever. What I care about is seeing the cost/benefit analyses and engineering studies on these things." To me it matters a great deal that these ideas were handed down through time by great leaders, artists and radical org~nizers. Scientists may not know it, but the vision of what the human community could be if we shared more and cooperated better is as old as humanity itself. What we have been calling "appropriate technology" is only the latest upd~te on.this ancient ideal, rendered in our time perhaps more practical and achievable than ever before through the realization that our technological prowess might be used to reinforce community values rather than disrupt them. Armed with this vision and this practical possibility, I don't see why we have to wait around for the mandarins of science to lay their approving hands on "appropriate technology.)' In truth, who needs them? They can't help very much, but they 'can hurt a lot. So let them keep their grubby little word "technology." We can do better than that. We can steal the march on them. -.I propose a new description for our program) philosophy/vision. I propose that it be called community-based innovation. That's it. RAIN Pages Three words.·Community. Based. Innovation. Why do I propose this? Let's start with the word "community:" Now this is one of our words, one that the technologists will never get their hands on -no matter how hard they try. (Yes, I know some A.T. people have used "community technology" to describe their work and the phrase used to attract me. But still it uses that dreadful word "technology" and knowing what we know now I think rules it out.) Now let me skip to the word "innovation." Innovation is a.hot word in America. It conjures up images of progress and well-being. American know-how at work. Yankee ingenuity. Better mousetraps and all that. But the word doesn't possess the drawbacks that atflict the word "technology." True, the technologists would love to control the word and actually they try hard to, but they always fail for one simple reason.' Innovation, of course, can mean social as well as technologkal change. And all we ever meant by "appropri- -ate technology" was 90% social innovation and 10% hardware! Now social innovations, as luck would have it, are much harder to come by than technical ones. This is why th~ technologists shy away from politics and social change and why they crowd around to play t~e numbers game. Numbers are ever so much more manageable than people. But COll}munity organizers, almost by definition, _ are social innovators. It is our expertise. So we are the ones who deserve to wield tp.e inilo~ation rhetoric, not the technologists. This brings me to the word"-based". Community-based innovation. I put this word in simply to emphasize.that new innovations should grow out of the community; its needs, values, culture, aspirations, locale, ecology and unique asssets and liabilities. It's okay with me, of course, if people want to produce i_nnovations for innovation's sake; in the name of intellectual freedom, I would not suppress it. But what we need now is community-based innovation. Let's seek itby shedding that outworn phrase, ''appropriate technology." In the process, I think, we'll get not only a new measure of protective coloration which will allow our work to go forward safely beneath the contempt of the technologists, but our movement will get a new lease on life as well. Byron Kennard is a community organizer. Most recently, hr served as chair of Earth Day '80. • brary, they are glad to xerox and send information at cost. - PNWRC not only conducts research for community groups and others, but attempts to demystify research by teaching others the methods they employ and by imparting an enthusiasm for discovery. They recently published a full length study on Zirconium Hazards and Nuclear Profits ($4.95 plus $.65 postage) . -MR - tudes of New York architects toward passive solar design, and the maneuvers of Consolidated Edison to protect New Yorkers frnm "the evils of cogene,ration." We heartily congratulate A. C.'s staff on their recent decision to move the magazine "up from glossy to recyclable." Write Co-op Directory, 1980, pp. 143, $5.00 (non-profits, co-ops and "living . lightly" individuals; $10.00 professionals, businesses, libraries) from: The Cooperative Association • P.O. Box4218 Albuquerque, NM 87196 Alternate Cu"ents, bi-monthly, $6~00/ yr. from: 156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 404 New York, NY 10010 Aimed principally at New York City residents, this lively approp~iate technology magazine is loaded with ideas and inspiration for transforming urban communities everywhere. Recent A. C. articles have focused on the installation of a 40-kilowatt wind generator in the South Bronx, the operations of fuel co-ops and consortiums for apartment dwellers, the changing attithem for an introductory copy (free), - JF _ The Directory of Directories, edited by James M. Ethridge, 1980, 722 pp., $56.00 from: Gale Research Company Book Tower Detroit, MI 48226 This remarkable volume lists, describes, and thoroughly indexes more than 5000 directories of all kinds. It may just be the next best thing to Rain book when it comes. to uncovering mountains of fascinating information·about organizations, agencies, individuals and companies involved in every conceivable activity . .If your library doesn't already have a copy, talk to them about getting one. -JF Published yearly, the 8th edition of the Cooperative Directory lists over 4,500 coops throughout North America. The directory is chock full of useful information and easy to use-once you deciphfr their ~oding system. Entries are listed state by state, with information on each organization's ownership model (collective, member-operated or board run), identity (food, book, housing co-op . . .), volume of sales, and age. There are several chapters devoted to resources·(technical and financial), infor'" mation (educational centers and newsletters), and regional contacts. Interspersed between the listings are ads for various coo~s and illustrations. The directory is a • must for cooperatives, and its sliding-scale price makes it accessible to individuals on a tight budget as well. - LS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz