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.