Charles Leadbeater is an online evangelist. The former Financial Times journalist has moved away from politics into a world of social entrepreneurs, amateur activists and grassroots campaigners who are exploiting digital technologies to develop solutions to problems that lie outside the interests of commercial and state institutions. He believes that online tools can be used to organize and galvanize. He produced a call-to-arms in We-think: The Power of Mass Creativity, a book that documents the rise of amateur activism in a time of information revolution. His research with digital activists who work with people in some of the world’s most impoverished places shows how the Web can galvanize support from around the globe — using new applications, devices and social networks — and what needs to be in place for this to happen.
Aleks Krotoski: What exactly does a social entrepreneur do?
Charles Leadbeater: Social entrepreneurs act to attack big social challenges that have been left unaddressed by the private sector, because there’s not much money to be made or left by government because it overlooks them or doesn’t have the resources or interest to tackle them, or fails to create new ways of tackling issues such as providing clean water, inoculating babies, providing education and childcare, or collecting refuse.
Krotoski: What aspect of digital technologies facilitates social entrepreneurship?
Leadbeater: It’s watching a video of Edmund Phelps accept the Nobel prize in economics, thinking: ‘I didn’t understand that,’ looking him up, e-mailing him and having a conversation with a Nobel laureate an hour later. That’s staggering.
It’s also the simple associative link: In three clicks you can start somewhere and end up somewhere you never dreamed of, with information, perspective or insight that you’d never have found. One of the joys of the Internet is finding and reading something you think is wonderful that you’d never have found without it.
Krotoski: How often are digital tools such as the Web used by social entrepreneurs?
Leadbeater: The number using digital technology is low compared with non-digital technology. In the developing world, people often use quite basic technology. Many of the most imaginative schemes are using what we’d count as old tech. But you have to hope that in 10 years, when digital technology is all pervasive and meets both the huge need in the developing world and a body of social entrepreneurs, we will witness some flowering of social innovation to, for instance, provide education in new ways, to mobilize people to critical action in new ways, or allow poor people access to markets.
Krotoski: What needs to be in place — socially, technologically or commercially — to ensure that this future occurs?
Leadbeater: Technologically, you have to have capability and openness. If you create open technology that people can use, adapt and play with, it builds capability and they teach themselves. But if you’ve got closed systems, where all the end-user can do is to use it to download stuff, that doesn’t build capability. The significance of open systems is that they allow people to learn how to use them and to adapt them for their own uses. That is a really important connection. We’re seeing people able to mobilize forms of knowledge and take action, finding other people without needing high-cost professional networks.
One example is an HIV/AIDS activist network in Africa called Mothers to Mothers. It’s HIV-positive mothers advising other HIV-positive mothers about how to take anti-retroviral drugs and how to cope with the stigma of HIV and AIDS. In a way that will allow them to live a more normal life. It’s not terribly technology-enabled — it’s organized using mobile phones and networks — but it’s completely peer-to-peer: It’s mothers advising mothers.
It’s just one example, but it demonstrates how technology is facilitating the power of the lateral connection. The important knowledge won’t come from the professionals, but from other mothers who have had a similar experience or share a similar vantage point. That’s becoming more possible. We can get things done together — get knowledge, get advice in ways that in the past relied on very big, formal, often professional systems.
Commercially, companies will have to have an understanding of how you allow people to share stuff and make money from it. Only a small number of people will make money by completely controlling everything. Even Apple has allowed a limited amount of sharing, but I don’t think it gets the open Web. Google is an open world, but with a monstrous manipulation of advertising around search. Google will have to share revenue with content creators for the open ecology to continue to work.
Krotoski: How will the developing world create its own amateur activist culture?
Leadbeater: It’s all about access — the right tools, the right institutions, the right culture. Ten-year-olds are alike wherever you go; they just gobble this stuff up. I went to a school in a village three hours outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, 20km down a mud track. The parents of half of the kids in the school were illiterate, but I watched the kids make videos for YouTube. It’s waiting to explode, but if it arrives pre-packaged or tied up or fenced off, then you won’t get that.
Krotoski: The author Andrew Keen argues that amateur practices are detrimental to society.
Leadbeater: They could be if they become the only way to do things, completely replacing professional knowledge in places where professional knowledge is needed. But what Keen does is to paint an overly romantic picture of a nostalgic past.
You can go online now and find really thoughtful, in-depth, considered, well-informed communities around virtually any issue. If it’s your issue, there are now new ways of mobilizing knowledge that weren’t there before. There are real bodies of significant knowledge on the Web that are valuable that we haven’t done nearly enough with.
Krotoski: How can we ensure that the participants in this culture aren’t exploited by commercial organizations or governments?
Leadbeater: There’s a basic trade-off that’s still important. The first precondition for survival is to be seen to do stuff well. But this raises an issue that demands an activist consumer culture. People may be prepared to buy services from Apple and Amazon if they feel these companies do a good job, but we need to ensure that we can speak up when our content is used by other people for their profit. An activist amateur culture will constantly challenge and say, “This is mine, you’re not doing that with it.”
The second precondition is that we’ll need more effective forms of regulation to understand the Web. Regulating a television company and regulating Facebook are completely different challenges and Facebook may be our most important intermediary of information in 10 years.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under