Computer Programmers and "Black Magic"

This week the 810 readings were all written by Nathan Ensmenger and all about the history of computer programmers from the 1940s to present.

I hadn't realized that the earliest forms of programming created a separation between a planner and coder, and that the coding aspect was considered menial labor. Ensmenger says that the transistion from coder to programmer was partially the result of the coders needing to rework the planner's work in order to make computer software run.

He uses this theme as a launching pad to discuss the idea of programmers as practitioners of 'black magic.' According to Ensmenger programmers were seen as highly creative individuals (at least in the late 50s and early 60s) who were irreplaceable. They practiced a black magic by doing a job that no one else could do. Cool shit.

Later, as the shortage of decent programmers was recognized, managers tried to 'dumb down' the profession and create ways in which they could train anyone to program (easier computer languages, training sessions, etc.), essentially taking the 'black magic' out of the profession. Ensmenger states that this tactic didn't work, and that the organizations that did this ended up with a lot of sub par programmers.

Which leads into the next major motif of Ensmenger's papers. What makes a good programmer? Apparently, extensive psychological testing and recruitment efforts have been made by industry to obtain good programmers in the past. Again, according to Ensmenger this has had less than efficient results. Although I haven't read all of his (Ensmenger's) work, it appears that there was never really a good solution for hiring or recruitment of programmers.

Finally, in an effort I'm leery of, Ensmenger tries to create a niche for technicians and programmers existing in limbo between white and blue collar workers. He advocates looking at these professionals with a different lens than other workers in order to provide another lens for industry in general. In order for me to buy this, I need more reasons why programmers are more individualistic than any other niche of worker, what exactly qualifies as a programmer, and how we are to look at this programmer niche historically.

All good readings, and very interesting. The 'black magic' bit and psychological testing aspects of the readings made them fun to read.

Uncovering Labour in Information Revolutions, 1750-2000

The readings for class this week covered less abstract topics and looked at four case studies about "information labor." The following is a short recap.

Hands and Minds: Clerical Work in the First ‘Information Society’ Eve Rosenhaft
German clerical workers from the 19th century go bonkers when their workload skyrockets. Divorce, mental illness, and arthritis make this an interesting read.

Compressing Time and Constraining Space: The Contradictory Effects of ICT and Containerisation on International Shipping Labour Helen Sampson and Bin Wu
Sailors go bonkers when ICTs alter industrial shipping by decreasing shore leave and providing a window an outside world that they can't take part in.

‘Computers in the Wild’: Guilds and Next Generation Unionism in the Information Revolution Chris Benner
Chris Benner compares Silicon valley 'guilds' to medieval guilds, professional associations, and unionism and attempts to show that the new guilds are a result of an increasingly volatile work environment in a network world.

Emerging Sources of Labor on the Internet: The Case of America Online Volunteers Hector Postigo
AOL volunteers go postal when the company tries to reorganize its business. AOL takes away many of the benefits that it gives volunteers and expects things to just be 'OK' (like the soda of yore). Lawsuits ensue.

There was also an introduction by Aad Block and a conclusion by former information laborer (and instructor of LIS 810) Greg Downey which provided a theoretical framework and some suggestions for future research. My main problem with the reading for this week is the ambiguous definition of information labor. In all the cases presented we see hidden labor problems, but why is this labor necessarily information labor? The idea of information labor is so general case that it could be taken to mean anything that involves human communication (information). I feel like someone hung up a piece of Velcro, labeled it as information, and started tossing garbage at it; Anything that sticks qualifies as information labor.

Other than that minor complaint, the material was a fun read. Maybe it's the nerd in me, but I liked the comparison of the new tech guilds with old medieval craft guilds. The other readings were equally nerd friendly, and should make for interesting discussion in class.

Reading Stalder's Castells

After gritting my teeth through the first five chapters of the book, it became clear that chapter six is the payoff chapter. Chapters one through five read like a gigantic catalog and present Castells's ideas in autonomous modules. After the short background section it seemed like Stalder just started naming off ideas that Castell's has thought up, and that he was leaving out the connecting themes.

In essence, he describes a compendium of 'nodes.' We start off reading about what Castell's believes is happening in distinct social spheres, move on to his ideas about social movements, and then later to his thoughts of space and time. In the way that the 'nodes' are presented, they come off as distinct identities that aren't described as interactive, and we are left with a handful of chess pieces with no rules or playing space.

So in retrospect, chapter six is the 'aha' chapter. Stalder finally tells us how to play the game with the pieces that he has given us, and presents Castells's major theory of networks. In a way, the arrangement of the text helps to understand Castells's network theory. Because the theory depends on modules that may drop in or out of the theory at any time, yet depends on each module for its overall presence at any moment in time, the presentation of the nodes before the connecting theme was a useful way to write the book.

At the same time, I feel like this is a weakness in the theory. Stalder also speaks about this in the book. If a phenomena cannot be adequately explained by Castell's Network Theory, it can too easily be explained away as another autonomous 'node.' Still, I have to throw out mad props to a guy (Castells) who essentially says (pg. 34-38) if my theory don't work for you, don't use it: It's only as good as the insight that it provides to the user.

Micro/Meso/Macro Analysis in Modernity and Technology

I started to think about the theme of micro/meso/macro level analysis and the relation to modernity theory, technology studies, and Heidegger's ideas of Dasein and resoluteness.

It seems to me that often the micro level and technological disturbances of modernity theory are caused by dasein that have achieved a greater level of resoluteness. That is, those that have realized that a piece of their reality is ungrounded and that there is no reason for it to be the way that it is. Actors that have realized that certain technologies can be radically rethought have altered the Dasein of our existence by working along the frays of intelligibility.

Likewise, the reverse could be true. Modernity theory could be explained as the appropriation of Dasein by theorists exerting control over the whole of existence. That is, the categorizations, correlations, and causalities that have been described as harbingers of the modern age are just the work of dasein who have become resolute enough to describe a previously unfounded depiction of reality and re-align the entirety of the collective Dasein.

So are we seeing incommesurability between those dasein that work at the edge of ungroundedness in theory and those in technology?

I'd be interested in talking about this in class, as I don't think a blog post is the best platform for this idea.

Modernity and Technology: Initial thoughts on its entirety

The editors did eventually cover my initial questions: Namely, why are we created niches for studying modernity and technology, and why is it important to unite these two fields?

Arie Rip probably states it most simply: This type of analysis provides a window into the human condition and let us 'see' something that we didn't perceive before. In addition, these insights can provide fodder for the bootstrapping mechanisms of hermeneutics that were described in chapter three and was also advocated as a way to enhance our understanding of reality.*

I still don't know if I am entirely convinced of the theoretical trajectories of technology studies provided in this book. It seems as if part of the problem with merging the two fields is created via the definitions in which technology is understood. Several authors mentioned in the book have taken stances that advocate that a more 'cyborg' oriented vision of humanity and technology may be useful for understanding technology. This may be interpreted as positing the idea that technologies should be looked at as vital components of humans and modern infrastructures, not as extensions of them. Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century takes a more integrated look at technology, as does Heidegger's writing in general. Perhaps by viewing technology as a given, an author could open a window that more effectively joins modernity and technology theories. I would have liked to see the book explore this definition of technology and reality to a greater degree.

* I realize that statement is a circular argument, but I'm not sure I care at this point. Additionally, hermeneutics admits to being a circular activity. Here's a bit of reasoning that I could refute, but won't.

Why are we studying modernity and technology in
tandem? To understand our
reality.

Then how do we enhance our understanding of reality? By
bootstrapping from existing understandings of reality.

So we already
understand reality? Yes, in some way we
already understand reality.

So why do we want to understand reality when we already have
an
understanding of reality?

I guess it may be a question of why do we care to have these windows into the human condition.

Modernity and Technology, pgs. 1-73

Chapter One describes what will be later covered in the entire book. Written by Misa, it mentions a few important theorists that will later be discussed and outlines the chapters from other contributing writers. Misa lays out four proposals that are worth recounting (pgs. 5-15).

1. The concepts of "technology" and "modernity" have a tangled past.
2. Technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity.
3. Modernization theory missed what was modern about technology.
4. Post-modernism no less and no more than modernism is tangled up with technology (His phrasing, not mine).

At this point the reader should know what's about to be crammed down his or her respective maw, and also the ideological starting points of Misa and company.

Chapter Two outlines how the authors define modernity theory and technology studies. Good thing, because the introduction failed to do so. Without blowing the chapter for other readers, this is my take. Brey, the author of this chapter, makes an attempt to validate how modernity theories and technology theories operating on both the macro and micro level should augment each other and lead researchers to a more middling understanding of reality. My questions: Why do we care about a middling ground between technology studies and modernity? It seems that if a theorist would like to merge theory there are many other spheres to choose from besides these two. I'm not discrediting the relevance of Brey's project, I just want to know why.

Second question: The ways in which modernity and technology are defined can be recursively deconstructed until they mean almost nothing. I would have liked a more thorough explanation of why Brey feels the definitional boundaries that he sets for himself are important for his project. Is he just standing on the shoulders of other theorists that have set these boundaries for him? If so, why does he respect their opinions?

Overall, the second chapter sets a nice backdrop for the continued invention of the book. The definitions provided were essential for my reading, and there was a good discussion of historical thought in both modernity and technology studies.