>Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT) >From: Phil Agre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Technology and Social Change: The Effects on Family and Community >Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html >X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/1940 >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 15:12:08 -0700 >From: Jan English-Lueck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Technology and Social Change: The Effects on Family and Community > > >COSSA Congressional Seminar >June 19, 1998 >Dr. J.A. English-Lueck >Associate Professor of Anthropology >San Jose State University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Introduction > > My section of this seminar, the effects of technology on >family and community, can only be understood in the details of daily >life. Technology is binding the world of work and the world of home >in ways that redefine what is means to be in each. Some changes are >dramatic, others are subtle, but the changes are experienced in the >mundane activities of everyday life. To begin this presentation I >will tell you a story. This story may not reflect your own lives, but >I imagine some details will have a familiar ring to them. > > John is a middle-aged product development manager at a high >tech company in Silicon Valley. He bemoans the fact that he no longer >has the kind of personnel support he had even 10 years ago. While >he shares an administrative assistant with several other managers, >he is now expected to handle his own communications, create his own >presentations and manage his own time and financial budget. After >all, he now has a PC to improve his productivity, and interactive >on-line calenders to manage his time. The nature of his work >means that he is in constant contact with engineers, the general >managers above him, and his counterparts in different sites in his >international company. He has more contact, and more in common, >with his counterpart in Taiwan than the person in the next cubicle. >He tries very hard not to take too much work home with him, preferring >to work late on site, but the international nature of his work means >he is on the phone at midnight and at dawn. He is grateful for >E-mail and voice mail since they can fit his schedule. Realistically, >he thinks about work problems constantly, in his garden, and in his >car. He talks about his work all the time with his wife and volunteers >to install network servers at his daughter's school on Net Day. > > Meanwhile, his administrative assistant, Sharon, >complains that her work load is overwhelming, even to the point where >she is expected to move furniture and take out trash. She is expected >to learn new programs and upgrades on her own time. Both John and >Sharon now take work and worry home. Sharon checks her E-mail and >voice mail in the predawn hours before her children wake to prepare >for any tasks that may need to be addressed immediately. She carries >a pager and a cell phone so that she can stay in contact with her >teenaged children after they come home from school. All of them feel >much safer for the presence of these devices. They can now stay out >longer and be more independent since they are "in contact." The only >time they have been physically together in several weeks is for the >anthropologist's visit to their home for an interview. > > This vignette is drawn from a host of interviews and >observations done over the past seven years in a series of studies >dubbed "the Silicon Valley Cultures Project." I have been part >of a team of anthropologists, along with Charles Darrah and James >M. Freeman, that have been studying technology and community in >Silicon Valley. While the larger issues addressed by my colleagues >here today also interest us, our particular emphasis has been on the >study of technology in daily life. We have treated Silicon Valley as >a laboratory for technological saturation, where talk about technology >surfaces easily at work, at home and in the community and can be >therefore captured by eager social scientists. Silicon Valley is also >a place with a well defined regional identity, in which discussions >of reinventing community are common fare. We have sampled the >intersection of technology and community in a variety of ways. In >1995 we worked with the Institute for the Future who combined a large >scale statistical survey with an intensive ethnographic study of >"infomated households." These are households with a critical mass >of at least five information devices, including some combination of >VCRs, CDs, laser discs, fax machines, answering machines, voice mail >services, computers, and cellular phones. How did these devices enter >and flow through peoples lives? What impact did they have? This study >highlighted an unexpected connection. Infomated households revolved >around work, both paid work and an endless series of tasks that formed >a greater environment of work ranging from gainful work to voluntary >activities and "working on ones family." This project led to 450 >detailed interviews with people on work/home/community interface in >Silicon Valley, soon to be partially funded by the National Science >Foundation. We entered a variety of work spaces, at "work" and >at home to view how people managed the intersection between these >domains. Meanwhile, we also conducted related studies, collected >hundreds of stories on how people decided to purchase devices and how >they managed interactions across different cultures and generations. >We also interviewed more than fifty community leaders about their >visions of the future of community in the Silicon Valley region. >Finally, using this research as a base, we are about to launch an >intensive observation-based study of families and work in Silicon >Valley sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, investigating even >more deeply the issues highlighted here today. > > Please note that I am not separating information technologies >from the institutions that act as conduits for the entrance of those >devices into the home. Technology is not context free. Devices >brought home from work organizations and schools are accompanied >by styles of use and assumed purposes that follow that fax or that >Mac into the household. As the boundaries and distinctions blur, >we abandoned the idea of sharply separating the domains but instead >we traced the flow of technology through peoples lives. It is in >the context of this research that I comment on family, community and >technology. > >Technology and Family > > As mentioned earlier, one of the most strikingly obvious >impacts of information technology is the shift in the work-home >relationship. We encountered people that said they never took work >home, yet the computer had its own room and engineering magazines >littered every flat surface. We had to question our assumption >that we knew what "work" was. Work was not a single coherent >entity, but a collection of different things. People talked of their >"work" -- ongoing career preparation, finances, parenting. But they >distinguished that from their "work-work," that is, paid work for a >particular organization. A large proportion of supposedly free time >was spent thinking about "work-work" while in the shower, eating, >or driving. As is discussed elsewhere in this seminar, information >technologies have been instrumental in redefining the scope of work. > > We asked people what made them a family? Repeatedly the >answer was "we do things together." To these interviewees, the family >is not a natural unit that simply exists, but one defined by action. >Families watch TV, camp, travel, eat and talk together. The devices >that facilitate that action or talk -- phones, networked computers, >pagers, answering machines -- take on a serious purpose for these >people. Paging your children to let them know you are concerned >that they arrived home safely from school demonstrates parental >responsibility. Sharing an evening of movies or technology talk >provides an opportunity for doing something together. > > The interactions between information saturated work and >networked families are governed by complex rules. As one interviewee >noted: > > At the time, there was a lot of hard copy paperwork at my job. >I thought it would be real convenient to have a fax modem. . . I also >hoped that the computer would save me time, and get me ahead at work. >I mean, I don't work at home because it is so great. I would rather >do other things. But I saw, or hoped, that working at home would >allow me to get even more done and give me an advantage at work. And >then I thought that if I need an occasional afternoon off, it would be >okay because I would be ahead. Of course, that was naive. Everybody >works at home and now it is a standard. Working at home doesn't let >me get ahead, it stops me from falling behind. > > The colonization of home time by work is only the most >obvious impact. As we talked to people at work and home we discovered >that only certain kinds of work come home. Because the information >saturated work environment is infinitely interruptible, activities >that require concentration -- especially writing, reading and >reflecting -- get shipped home where it is vainly hoped that >uninterrupted time can be cultivated. People respond to this >relocation in a variety of ways. Some have clearly scheduled >"Mommy is working now" times. Others try to manage post bedtime >shifts. Many resist, trying to create boundaries by manipulating the >technologies. The interactions can be subtle. For example, a highly >placed city official tries to separate work and home by creating a >barrier of physical distance, a common strategy. She commutes several >hours a day to be able to maintain an affordable, distinct home life. >During that commute she uses her cell phone to begin and end her >management day. Her action has led to a "voice mail organization" >at city hall in which E-mail contact is reduced. While this is >convenient for her, it limits the telecommuting strategies other >people in the organization might have used to manage their work-home >juggling. Her family driven choices ripple through the organization >and back into her colleagues' family lives. > > The penetration of work uses of information technology into >the home leads to an access dilemma. "I want instant access to you >but I want to minimize your access to me." This strategy increasingly >leads to the use of home as an environment in which interruptions can >be carefully managed, even between family members. Note the tone in >this comment, "I get stressed when David doesn't have his (cell) phone >on. You know, we have them for a reason, and I'll be trying to call >him and I find out that he has the damn thing turned off." Often even >non-use of devices is carefully managed -- by turning off the phone, >avoiding using cell phones in the car, or checking for E-mail or voice >mail at only certain hours. > > Changes in work relations and management styles have also >altered the way families talk about themselves. Families increasingly >view themselves as management problems to be solved, just as they >would be at work, with technology. Pagers, cell phones and answering >machines, and now palm pilots, are used in tandem to coordinate >complex household schedules. Work, school and recreational activities >demand transportation, sequencing and division of labor. One software >engineer, turned at-home mom, remarked that she was now prepared to >go into project management after a few years of managing two small >children and an occasionally telecommuting spouse. She had each >day carefully orchestrated. She had her days at the cooperative day >care center in which she coordinated the daily treats and food lessons >with diverse other mothers using databases of recipes. Armed with >databases of parenting articles, she acted as informal expert among >her peers. Christena Nippert-Eng noted in her book on Home and Work, >that people used their calenders as a way of marking the home/work >domains. My interviewees now talk of using their upgraded palm >pilots to fully integrate home/work divisions of labor -- beaming >their spousal schedules to each other. The perceived safety net of >technology also allows planning to become ever more "just-in-time." >Message machines and pagers allow plans to be created, shifted and >coordinated in the space of a single afternoon. > > The families we studied use information technologies to "work" >on themselves. They use the telecommunications devices to coordinate >activities ranging from after school baseball to weddings. They >create networks of connectedness by making and sending videotapes >and E-mailing distant relatives. Family histories are recorded and >distributed. Cell phones and pagers create a sense of street safety, >although realistically most of our interviewees actually used them >more often for traffic management than emergency pleas for help. One >woman used the LCD information on her husband's pager to discover an >infidelity that led to a sudden restructuring of the family. These >uses are not trivial, but ones that shape people's social reality. > > Information technologies simultaneously perpetuate and alter >family roles. Not too surprisingly some gender stereotypes were >invoked as family members adopted "expert roles" within the households >we studied. "Techno-experts," often associated with high technology >work, were most often 30-49 year old men who could talk about >technology with great facility. In contrast, their spouses, who >often deemed themselves inexpert, were interested in the using, not >discussing, the technology. Note the following exchange: > > It's always the same pattern. Colleen would ask me a >question, `How do I do something?' . . . Something that is really >difficult for someone who really understands computers to talk about >without giving some background. . . But she goes into the mode. >`Just tell me what I need to know to get through this in the next >ten minutes.' (Colleen responds)`I'll say just tell me what to do.' >Then he says,'(she lowers her voice) `Well, you have to understand >blah, blah, blah."' As another woman put it, "It is a man thing. >Women just let men do it." However, in that supposedly "inexpert" >role these people, mostly women, do manage to interconnect various >telecommunications devices into a network of practical connectivity. > > People also use technology to subvert old roles. One >septuagenarian viewed her skill with multiple programs and Internet >environments as a sign that she was "empowered" and distinct from more >Luddite age-mates. Another aging mother found her role as family >center being eroded by her children's constant E-mail contact. She >was now superfluous as the siblings talked directly to each other and >not through her. With information devices distant kin can interact >more often than immediate family. Parental and gender roles can be >both controlled and challenged using the devices. Rules are created >to control family roles: "You must wear your pager," "You must >carry your cell phone,""You must not use the computer during dinner." >These rules are subject to resistance. Exploring the nature of >that defiance would reveal much about the workings of family and >technology. > >Technology and Community > > The high technology industry has also added a global dimension >to the workings of community. In the nineteenth and early twentieth >centuries the Central Californian economy revolved around fruit >orchards, worked by an immigrant population that hailed from Portugal, >Italy, Japan, China and Western Europe. Contemporary Silicon Valley >high tech employs a culturally diverse work force. For example at Sun >Microsystems a single thirty-five person work team might be comprised >of engineers from Bangladesh, Canada, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, >Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and the United States. >This region has a complex pattern of immigration, spanning the last >century, made more intricate by the influx of "new immigrants," >largely Asian, educated and functionally transnational. This makes >any discussion of technology and family, or technology and community >more complex. People from around the world are bringing different >ideas of what constitutes family, work, and community. Devices do >different things to different types of families. In our ethnographic >study of Infomated household the same devices might have strikingly >different impacts in different types of families. Common use of VCRs, >karaoke systems and telecommunications devices pulled together already >close Vietnamese families while allowing other kinds of families >to fly farther and farther apart. In one Hispanic family each new >information technology was placed in a carefully orchestrated system >of devices that encouraged tightly-knit extended family and community >interactions. The same devices -- camcorders, computers, home >entertainment systems -- fragmented other families into smaller and >smaller interest groups. In one Chinese family, an adult son was >brought into parental orbit in order to teach his mother new computer >skills. In another family, those same computer skills might place the >adult child firmly in a corporate world beyond the reach of family as >his life is consumed by work. The role of culturally generated family >obligations and expectations on differential device uses begs to be >researched. > > Just as technology has changed the way people talk about >family issues, technology saturation has also influenced the way >Silicon Valley folk talk about their community. Joint Venture >Silicon Valley, a community partnership between government and >business responded to the early nineties' recession by proposing >that the region boldly "reinvent" itself. Using the language of >engineering, entrepreneurship and design, community issues -- such >as housing, transportation, education and recreation -- are recast >as "value-added" factors to be used to recruit new businesses and >workers. These instrumental features can be improved, preferably by >adding more technology. > > One of the most striking examples of this perspective came >from the Smart Valley Initiative within Joint Ventures. Smart >Valley is an organization that began during the economic downturn of >1992, implementing, in the words of a Smart Valley Board member, "a >high-speed, fully capable, broad band infrastructure -- so every home, >every office will have access to high speed communications." Another >engineer member added "that the industry that was responsible for >creating this technology felt they had a responsibility to get our >local society to use it more effectively." This group has transformed >marketing into a mission, using the language of a social movement. >Articulating the mission an interviewee said: > > We want to facilitate the construction of a pervasive, >high speed communications system and information services that will >benefit all sectors of the community -- education, health care, local >government, business and the home. The infrastructure we implement >will help transform the way we work, live and learn. Smart Valley >formally dissolved this year after having accomplished their major >goals. These included supporting several initiatives promoting >community use of technology. For example, the Smart Valley >Telecommuting Project sought to enhance the capacity of companies to >support their employees who work at least partially in their homes. >Their rationale was simple: > > With Silicon Valley businesses seeking innovative ways to >maintain their competitive edge, recruit and retain key individuals >and enhance the quality of life for all their employees, solutions >such as telecommuting takes on a much greater role than that of a >"nice concept." The Smart Valley Telecommuting initiative is moving >telecommuting from this "concept" to a recognized business strategy >that provides benefits to Valley businesses, their employees, [and] >to the region as a whole. > > Another initiative, the Smart Valley Schools Internet project, >created a series of Net Days in which volunteer expertise was coupled >with corporate donations to link K-12 schools to the Internet, thereby >enhancing what was widely considered by interviewees to be a pitiful >state in education. In their own words, the networking of schools >would "integrate technology as a tool to enhance the learning process >and in the process teach students to live and work productively with >technology. The efficient utilization of information technology >will help our schools and students achieve world-class education >standards." These approaches have in common a particular assumption, >that technology will solve problems in such a way that the both >industry and community can benefit. > > Silicon Valley is reviving an old notion, reinventing the >company town. The classic portraits of a company town describe >a single company, maybe a mining or logging company, often >geographically isolated, that owns the land, housing, service >facilities, and public utilities and dominates the business life of >the community even though other private enterprises may exist. Company >towns are administered communities, not exclusively representative of >the residents' interests, but the company's need to succeed in a given >industry. Joint Venture Silicon Valley has successfully redefined the >concept of a company town. Using lobbying, government partnerships >and "innovative initiatives," companies have reached out to redesign >the governance, schools, utilities and even health care facilities of >the community to make it "a better place for business." > >Assumptions revisited > > In the process of doing these projects we often stumbled over >assumptions we discovered to be misleading. These premises often go >unquestioned, because they reflect the everyday way we think about >technology and family, but they keep us from gaining important >insights into the interplay of technology, family and community. > > First, we discovered that people don't just own or use >individual devices, but ecosystems of technologies at home. Pagers, >faxes, cell phones, telephone answering systems and computers are >used together to serve the goals of individuals and families. Second, >family use of technology is not trivial, but underpins important >cultural work done by families. Families frame playing computer games >as gaining "computer literacy" and providing a common activity for >"being a family." Third, contrary to prevailing mythology, especially >common in Silicon Valley, families and communities are not transformed >into wholly new things by technologies. Instead the technologies >allow families to put old behaviors and relations into new contexts. >The old family game of control and resistence to control is being >played out on E-mail, but the game remains. Fourth, technology does >not just play a economic role in defining families and communities, >but also a metaphorical, symbolic one. As information technology >allows households and communities to become places of production, it >also changes the way such social institutions think of themselves. >Families and communities, like upgraded software can be "refreshed" or >"reinvented." Families can then become a kind of product. Finally, >the pivotal assumption that work is done at a workplace and family >life is lived at home is much too simplistic. Many forces, not >the least of which is the technical ability to work from home, have >blurred the domains. If time at the workplace does not really reflect >the time spent working, how does that effect family leaves or the >length of a work week? > > The forces that shape community and family include many >factors, not just information technologies. Yet we need to know how >the many devices entering people's lives are actually used by real >people. They are creating culture as they make decisions about what >constitutes work, family and community. I am part of the culture, >as you may well be. You have been given a handout, an inventory of >digital devices that we use when making observations about household >technology. Feel free to take the inventory home and consider how >you use the technologies. What roles do these devices play in your >own life? How do they sustain or change your relationships? How >will the sum of these small impacts change the way we live? It is not >homework, you need not return the inventory to me, but use it as our >interviewee do, to reflect on the changes we rarely question. >
