Feb 27 - Cortada

On the wake of the readings on modernity and technology, there have been several discussions as to which extent the computer is a consequence or the cause of change in society (to put it in very simple terms). Whether progress is fostered by the development of a new technology is probably true, now what kinds of forces drive the development of certain technologies is still something that allows for a lot of discussion.

Cortada comes to our help on this topic. He looks to things in a different perspective: that of usefulness of the computer in accomplishing day-to-day tasks. Which makes sense for someone who works for IBM. He points out 2 interesting consequences of the adoption of the computer in higher education institutions: first, the de-humanization of the clerical service (which he says would happen anyway due to the deepening complexity of the service and the number of people using it). Second, the rise in status, in the early 80s, of those people working in such institutions who could operate a computer.

Two points in this week's readings would make me wish to discuss the texts further: one is Cortada's explanation (or depiction) of the American society in the context of technological growth. I would agree with him on most of it IF software -- where the actual functionality of computers come from -- were not completely in the hands of privately owned companies, as well as the operating systems. Also, if OSs were more customizable and modular, and not something that imposes itself over computer users. Whereas the computer has brought significant and positive change to society, software development is still far from being friendly towards social development. Those groups, regions, or countries who are not in the game of software production have a LOT to lose, and part of their already restricted budgets was diverted to IT, therefore, to software development companies.

The other one is his mentioning of IT and faculty not getting along. I would add to that discussion that there is a culture of 'distinction', as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, which would probably explain better the situation of a faculty, who earned a PhD after years of study, having to depend on a IT worker several years younger but who masters something he depends upon but cannot really operate. This situation, to my understanding, remains unchanged. Faculty nowadays are more knowledgeable about computers, but their attitude towards IT people does not seem much different to me. I was an IT guy at a research university for some time, and professors depended upon my work, guidance, and help on several computer-related topics, but nevertheless would express their disdain for what they called "tech people", myself included.

Feb 20 - Ensmenger

In his historical analyses, Ensmenger does a great job at looking to the greater social environment while looking at a particular phenomenon. For instance, his crtitical -- and, for that matter, ironical -- view of the ad in the New Yorker when it describes the job as being of a "new and dynamic field", and he adds: what job doesn't say that?

I especially like the way in which he depicts the need of the computer industry to devise the 'ideal' profile for a computer programmer. My question is: did they know it back then? It's quite straightforward the assumption that one must enjoy (and be able to understand) logical operations. And, as a side activity, those who enjoy mathematical puzzles may very well enjoy composing. But weren't those who replied to that ad about to be tamed by the needs of the computer companies -- IBM included?

The psychometric tools used by them to recruit people are a product of a certain period in the so called modern age, in which it seemed like science would solve all the problems of mankind. Therefore, anything that was 'scientific' per se, which includes a machine to open cans instead of the traditional can opener, was regarded as intrinsically better for whatever task it was supposed to perform. It reminds me of a certain 'battle' in the history of philosophy. Between the XVIII and XIX centuries, two German thinkers had opposing views of reality that complemented each other beautifully, but were radically different in direction. Hegel believed that the the super-structure -- the 'idea' -- was the basis for the construction of reality. Karl Marx believed the opposite: that the infrastructure was the ground for what was called reality. (This is my description of their views, feel free to comment/agree/disagree).

This opposition has fueled many debates in the past 150 years. But far from being a fork on the road of thought, this opposition and the various theories that followed it give us the opportunity to look at various phenomena and see their multiple implications. In the case of Ensmenger's studies, what this makes me think is about the trial and error process of defining the actual role (rather than the profile) of the computer programmer, and the consequences of that. As he mentions at the end of his Chess Player, Music-Lovers, and Mathematicians chapter, the programmer became a somewhat powerful figure in the companies, and his position in the labor relations within a company became a 'threat' to other people, especially those they were supposed to help by writing software. I see here the same conflict of the two philosophers: the computer programmer is the materializer of an idea, or is he the idealizer of a matter? He is to put in computer language what the manager or anyone above him tells that needs to be done. In that sense, the advertised need for a "lively imagination" was no more than a game to be played by others. All the same, he is to have a dialog with the machine and use his imagination and mental ability to guide a command through the transistors of the computer, bypassing its restrictions, dealing with its idiosyncrasies, negotiating with its unmovable structure, and still coming out with a tangible result. That requires even more than a "lively imagination", but rather a sense of transcendency into a meta reality, in this case that of the electrons.

Wouldn't a philosopher be a good computer programmer?

Feb 13 - Blok & Downey reaction

The first article of this book reminded me of a time when I worked for a private high school with nearly 10000 students -- that was before the commercial internet era. They were mostly from the upper middle class families in town. To organize the personal and mailing information for all of them was not simple, since data was not in a database. However, when this process was concluded and everything was in a single file (what was not the smartest thing, technically speaking), several companies in town started to call in and try to buy that file. It was only then that the owners of the school understood that the laborious process of setting up that file had a market value. Over the years, the list was sold both legally and not-legally (i.e., someone 'leaked' that list to a certain company). One day, an individual calls the school management office offering a list of prospective students to whom the school should address their marketing effort. It was purchased by what, at the time, was a price 5 times higher than what they initially charged for their own list when they first sold it. Only to find out that it was exactly the same list, as of 2 years before.

This book gives us the clear feeling that we are in a society driven by information and technology, more than anything else. If in the earlier centuries the natural resources were one of the key elements to determine the wealth of a nation, in the later ones it gradually shifted the process of acquiring and producing information about such resources, as well as developing technologies to better (=faster, more effienciently, etc) process them.

This reading seems to confirm my personal critique of the work of Castells, regarding to the little attention he pays to role of history and culture in terms of technological development. The article from Rosenchaft seems to explore this point from the very beginning, by highlighting the role of the information 'manager' in times when everything was done manually. It would make sense to think that the development of automated systems would be a demand from such reality, and not the other way around -- changes in labour practices being a consequence of the technological advancement. It seems to corroborate Feenberg view "that technology is socially shaped."

Another concept strike me as very important to the understanding information labor's role in society: that of cultural appropriation, and the effects of capitalism and western cultural domination in the information world as both the cause and the consequence of its prominence in the development of communication technologies and the internet. It seems to me that, once again, the 'revolution' came as a result of economically driven efforts to maximize profit, more than a social demand of ways to alleviate the work burden out of the new technology workers.

Feb 6 - Castells

In an interview for the Conversations With History Series of the Institute of International Studies of UC Berkeley, Castells said: "...as much as I think the Internet's an extraordinary instrument for creation, free communication, etc., you can use the Internet to exclude, because you can exclude in terms of the access to the network, the digital divide. But you can also exclude in terms of the culture and education and ability to process all this information that has happened on the net, and then use it for what you want to do, because you don't have the education, the training, the culture to do it, while the elites of the world do. "

It seems like, in his current work, he's concerned with the subtle but decisive boundaries of technology. Although the structures of power have changed, and the governance is not always exerted by fixed and centralized institutions (chapter 5), it seems like there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the the power is retained by the groups who benefit from it -- or would lost the most without it.

Castells' work offers, for me, one of the best approaches in terms of looking into the way society and capital interact. It brings one main question to my mind: in contrast to last week's readings, Castells' seem to have a solid belief in the social shaping of technology. Taking his quote from the first paragraph, however, he seems to believe in the existence of fluid boundaries between the various groups -- or spaces of flow -- that are maintained by those who have more at stake. Are these entities the same as before, but merely adapted to the existence in the informational city?

Although I have flirted with the Network Theory in the past, reading this book has given me a solid contact with it. I especially appreciate the fact that his work is based upon the same principles that guide my approach to questions concerning society, culture, and environment -- namely holism, multiculturalism.

Castells' interview of May 9, 2001 can be found at:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Castells/castells-con0.html