Wojtek Sokolowski
Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:13:18 -0400
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:12:03 -0400
>To: Arthur Wilke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Planned obsolescence, computers, & academia
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Arthur,
>
>I was away for several dayas, so I could not respond to your message
immediately. YOur posting about the role of technology and work
rationalization in the academia reminds me of a discussion I had with one of
my colleagues about differences between European and American academe. In
essence, I was arguing that this difference lies in what I call product vs.
process orientation. As the American culture is completely taken over by
commodity fetishism, the academic life of this country reflects that
orientation. It seem to me that most of academic efforts in America focus
on manufacturing or rather _mentufacturing_ a product -- a speech or
lecture, a paper, a book, a report, while the process of production -- i.e.
the discussion of ideas -- is usually viewed as unproductive "soldiering",
or worse yet, as something that may produce enemies and thus hamper ones
"social capital" and thus an opportunity to get a job or sell the
professional commodity. Of course, the European academic and "high" culture
seem to be (or at least were until recently) more oriented toward the
"process," debates, discussions etc. that do not necessarily lead to a
"product". Stated differently, for Europeans the process is the main product
of the academia.
>
>It is easy to see that this product orientation lends itself to the notion
of efficiency, labour saving technologies, and management which, in turn,
gives the legitimacy to the management of academic labour. Ironically, this
is not something imposed on the acdemia from outside, like the Taylorism was
on the labour at the beginning of this century. As Richard Rubenstein
obsrved in his essay _The Cunning of History_, modern bureaucracy has the
capacity of organizing people for their own destruction. That comment, made
in reference to the Holocaust, is of course valid for the entire modernity.
The "manual" workers participated first in "time-motion" studies and later
in creating TQM manuals that were later used by the management to eliminate
skilled "manual" labour. The acedmics are not any smarter -- they create
the institutional culture which leads to the deskilling of mental labaour.
The fetishisation of technology in academic departments is but one aspect of
it. The focus on efficiency in teaching and research is another.
>
>Nowadays, even the job announcements (I'm on the job market so I read a lot
of that crap) explicitly call for "evidence of teachning efficiency." What
that means is that teachning is no longer a process of teacher-student
interaction but _mentafacturing_ a product -- just as repairman is expected
to fix a product and bring it up to the specifications, a teacher is
expected to fix a person and bring it up to specifications (e.g. the
required GPA level). The process of learning and the student simply do not
count -- it is the teaching worker alone who is responsible for the quality
of the outcome.
>
>Of course, the myriad of courses offered by management gurus of various
caliber and designed to "help" people in their careers focus without
exception in instilling this product orientation (cf. emphasis on making
targets, scheduling deadlines etc. to achieve greater "productivity.") This
is the product of bastardized rationality.
>
>Much can be said about the correspondence between knowledge and power.
Suffice it to say, however, that the knowledge produced in universities is
the blue print for the hierarchy of authority -- the more abstract being
associated with greater power (cf. group presentations where the general and
abstract issues are presented by chairmen, directors, and distinguished
professors, while the empirical and technical details are left for research
assistants). This is the rational organization of production, including the
production of knowledge.
>
>Of course, it is the "cunning of history" that academicians, the producers
of that bastardized rationality of efficiency, are now falling the prey to
it. For that reason, Im looking with certain amusement as academicians are
now horrified by the prospect of loosing that sacred cow -- the tenure
system. And I am asking "where have you been when the skilled manual labour
was disposed of in the name of efficiency?" Most of the distinguished
professors (with a few noble exception) jumped on the bandwagon of
efficiency, they either mentufactured new labour saving technologies or
embraced and preached the new technology mantra and the 21st century
brouhaha. It is them, the academicians that produced the
"herrenwissenschaft" -- the knowledge of the masters that is now being used
to control the labour. The rationalizers are now being rationalized, the
deskillers are being themselves deskilled, as the PhDs are now becoming
temporary labour in teachning and research factories called "universities."
>
>wojtek sokolowski
>
>
>
>At 08:24 AM 4/3/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>4/3/97
>>
>>Wojtek:
>>
>>To add to your list of concerns, one of the things that I observe
>>is that "new technology" isn't something that is always used.
>>Rather, its acquisition is a part of the old stratification system:
>>esteem. It is a strange type of esteem. The "keep up with the
>>Jones'" mentality is there, but there really isn't an appreciative
>>audience. Rather, comparative levels of assessment and
>>self-referential standards apply. This modal psychologism
>>is interesting since it has even captured the souls of people
>>who call themselves sociologists.
>>
>>This self-referential activity, the stuff of identity politics, is
>>very likely symptomatic of the kind of social relationships
>>that we find our selves thrown into, relationships manifesting
>>alienation, anomie and ennui. That overproduction has
>>dis-eased people's cognitive and emotional functioning
>>(at least in what you term the "scribbling class") is disturbing.
>>And while your 'no new computers" mantra is reminiscent
>>of Luddite (with whom I have affinity) resistance, I anticipate
>>that what we are seeing is the enlightenment vision being
>>now put into a recombinant form with the speeding up of
>>variations. So while the cultural studies gang and other
>>academic cults talk about various voices on the margin, it
>>is increasingly likely that their own work and the published
>>work will be conveyed via the "evolving"(?) generations of
>>technology. {This is not to say that cultural studies efforts
>>are not helpful in identifying the forms, combinations and
>>permutations of the 'popular," just that this isn't, as Todd
>>Gitlin recently wrote in Dissent, a substitute for politics.}
>>
>>Another insidious thing about the new computer technology
>>is that what began as a populist technology, the personal
>>computer, one in which there was a lot of common, shared
>>knowledge, with the growth of the hardware and the the
>>programming, we have reinstituted a bureaucracy over
>>the PC. So now there are workshops on using one's soft-
>>ware, command activities in how to expand the use of the
>>"new technology." Often these are informationally barren
>>exercises. (Barbara, one with whom I hang out, noted that
>>she went to one of the workshops on Word Perfect to find
>>that much time was taken with the wallpaper design of
>>the screens and screensavers. This appropriation of
>>domestic vocabulary for the technology and the interest
>>this generated, evidenced some things to look at, but of
>>course when it's 'new' does one need to look?)
>>
>>Some of us are mousetrapped with the technology. As
>>we begin being asked to develop web pages, etc., the new
>>technologies and techniques facilitate that. It's either go to
>>some of those abominble short courses or do it your self.
>>Either way, what is occurring is a prolietarianization of
>>labor, something with which I am ambivalent. So instead
>>of having a caste of service workers, we now fold those
>>tasks into things like professorial jobs. Even in this stodgy
>>setting I hear some disssonant voices complaining that
>>they sense they are becoming more like "directors" than
>>academicians (though the evidence of the latter is at best
>>tenuous, though I suspect there must be some movie trope
>>that these folks have in mind). This prolitarianization began
>>with wordprocessing. We used to have a caste system.
>>Of course it was a systewm of perverse inequality. So now
>>we do the work of the old untouchables, but what is occurring
>>is that when "savings" are sought (to buy new technology)
>>who is laid off? The former secretaries. And I don't see
>>substitute positions in the open market that are as supportive
>>of low paid public sector work with the variety of fringe benefits
>>and stable employment. When one looks at the big growth
>>areas in employment - cashiers, guards, janitors - this is not
>>a happy thing. Meanwhile those in universities follow the
>>mantra that this "new" technology is what is driving economic
>>"development." It is a most abstract calculation when if one
>>looks about this economic development seems to be translated
>>into sharper distinctions between the affluent and nonaffuent.
>>Meanwhile, the faculty seem poised to being prolitarianized,
>>with the most reactionary dreamers being the the antagonists
>>to various academic talk (the stuff of "culture wars" infamy)
>>and the new class intelligentsia with nominal linkages to the
>>left that sees the university as a place of significant social
>>transformation (something that some of us acknowledged
>>wasn't believeable by the end of the 60s).
>>
>>In some of Ray Cuzzort's rethinking of sociology, especially
>>his references to Meehl add to your concern about "sophisticated"
>>data handling. If one isn't attentive to the basic data (and even
>>contingency tables may need some revisiting), some of the
>>things, especially when they lead to statistical "tests," are
>>simply compounding the problematic. The reduction of things
>>to "method" is as flakey as a lot of the things that now go under
>>the rubric, "theory."
>>
>>Finally, Ockham's razor is a nice reminder and this is why
>>I prefer Thoreau to the musty sociological theorists. Meanwhile
>>I will continue to see if there are some tactics or strategies to
>>employ.
>>
>>Below I have appended a note sent to the faculty in my department.
>>It was in response to a mailing that cited Peter Drucker's claim that
>>in 30 years the university as we know it would cease.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Arthur
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>---------------
>>
>>3/2/97
>>
>>Though I admit to being fascinating with prophetic stories, I find
>>the circulation of Peter Drucker ideas a suspicious activity.
>>
>>First, this is the second time in several years that the name Peter
>>Drucker has popped up in talking about the "future" of the university.
>>Last time he was approvingly quoted to prop up the bizarre
>>priorities and planning process. Efforts to clarify the talk were
>>of no avail. So Drucker hangs about like mildew, living like an
>>intellectual fungus.
>>
>>Second, Drucker belongs to the "management science" gang.
>>Aside from that this is more an operation of warlocks and witches,
>>most of us know that management is the management of labor.
>>Since the days of Taylorism things haven't changed much except
>>there is a periodic effort to put a friendly face on things - Quality
>>Circles, TQM, CQI. Simply, management has been primarily
>>concerned with getting more work out of labor, now academic
>>labor. And of course there is enough "soldiering" about to make
>>it appear that labor discipline is "rational."
>>
>>Third, Drucker's notions about labor substitution seem very
>>reminiscent of the move to replace craft workers with operatives.
>>That there are many managers and would be managers in our
>>ranks along with those who have been seduced by notions of the
>>"speed up," does not negate that what Drucker's world is little
>>more than a deskilling of academic workers. It might be hard to
>>think of how much more deskilling could go on, given the nature
>>of a lot of academic work, but it looks possible.
>>
>>Fourth, while Drucker's message seems to have scare value,
>>what it doesn't seem to do is provide a very good description of
>>what goes on in universities and what is happening in the labor
>>market.
>>
>>The facile acceptance or toleration of Drucker is simply
>>an indication that there is little practical academic life left. And
>>so if Drucker wins, it seems someone loses.
>>
>>Drucker is a major voice in not just cultural production, but in
>>the discourse of the day. Since he is not too attentive to empirical
>>concerns (something true for many in the management ranks), his
>>fairy tales join, I suppose, with others in the scribbling class whose
>>replacement won't be missed; they can't and won't defend
>>themselves. I suppose trees are more worthy objects of attention
>>than clear thinking.
>>
>>It doesn't seem in the world according to Drucker that there is
>>much of a market for the lament, "oh to be young again." Gee,
>>thanks Pete!
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>wojtek sokolowski
>>>institute for policy studies
>>>johns hopkins university
>>>baltimore, md 21218
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>voice: (410) 516-4056
>>>fax: (410) 516-8233
>>
>>At 03:22 PM 4/2/97 -0500,Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>>>Baran & Sweezy in their book _Monopoly Capital_ argued how planned
>>>obsolescence, together with military spending, contribute to the survival of
>>>capitalism. By making things prematurely obsolete, the industry forces
>>>consumers to buy products they would not buy on thier own volition.
>>>Consequently, bamboozled consumers literally throw away usable objects --
>>>clothing, furniture, automobiles simply because they have become 'obsolete.'
>>>
>>>With the advent of computer industry, planned obsolescence reached new
>>>heights. The industry's strategy was to clear their warehouses with the
>>>technology developed mabny years ago and define it as progress. The first
>>>computers, such as Commodere 64, introduced in 1980s were based on
>>>technology developed and used some 20 years ago. At that time, the military
>>>was most likely using "Pentium" computer technology -- which several years
>>>later was mass marketed as "technological breakthrough."
>>>
>>>Computer software gives virtually endless opportunity for planned
>>>obsolescence, as arbitray changes in the program not only qualify it as a
>>>"new version" but also make the "old versions" obsolete because they cannot
>>>access created by the "new" version.
>>>
>>>Yet, in terms of useful functions, the "new" programs do not offer anything
>>>new over the "old" program. Microsoft Word 7.0 for Windows 95 does
>>>essentially the same things as Wordperfect for DOS, save for a few bells and
>>>whistles. Moreover, planned obsolescence is a slap in the face of
>>>professionals who put considerable effort to acquire a new skill only to
>>>learn that their skill become "obsolescent" with a stroke of Bill Gates'
>>>pen. Can you imagine a surgeon having to learn every few months how to use
>>>a novelty scalpel; or a an airline pilot lerning anew how to fly a jet
>>>because some schmuck decided to re-arrange all the controls?
>>>
>>>The planned obsolescene of computer-related technology is accomplished, to
>>>some extent, by the propaganda blitz created by computer "magazines" that
>>>are nothing more than full length advertising for the industry. However,
>>>the major role in that propaganda is played by the academia. "Cost
>>>conscious" administrators uwilling to spend money on new faculty of remedial
>>>programs, somehow loose their const consciousness when it comes to buying
>>>news hardware and software. The faculty are the gung ho advocates of not
>>>only new hardware, but new software as well.
>>>
>>>Moreover, software sophistication starts to compensate for crappy research
>>>design. Few people use contingency tables anymore, even though that
>>>technique is not only easy to interperet, but also allows the comparison of
>>>the "effects" between different studies 9using different population).
>>>Instead, many use logistic regression which is not only almost impossible to
>>>interpret, but the results are not comparable between different population.
>>>Yet, logistic regression has the aura of hi-tech which the "obsolete"
>>>contingency table does not. A cursory glance on the stuff published in the
>>>ASR reveals fascination with techn-jargon and technological novelties in
>>>data analysis. How much of this techno-bullshit will be remembered, let
>>>alone contribute to the the development of social science, in the same way
>>>as Durkheim's Suicide or Adorno's Authoritarian Personality -- whose
>>>contribution came from the greatness of the ideas and research design rather
>>>than novelty of techo-gizmos used in data analysis.
>>>
>>>I thing that the academia is still in the position to stop the
>>>bastardization of human thought by techno-gizmos and planned obsolescence.
>>>Here are a few suggestions what we can do:
>>>
>>>- refuse abandoning old computer products that work just fine, simply
>>>because Bill Gates & Co are pushing their novelties; Wordperfect or SPSS for
>>>DOS work just fine on a 286 or even an XT machine;
>>>
>>>- discourage students from using novel data analytic techniques when the old
>>>one works fine, eg. lower the grade for someone using logistic regression
>>>when crosstab can do the job;
>>>
>>>- object spending money on new hardware and software when old one works
>>>fine; use cost effectiveness the same way the administrators use it, by
>>>buing the less but sufficient skills for less money;
>>>
>>>- when someone sends you a computer fole, demand that the file is saved in
>>>an old format; make them aware of the fact that you are using "old"
>>>technology because it serves your purpose;
>>>
>>>- make it is hard for the computer technicians and engineers as possible;
>>>ask them to do the jon for you, not just telling them in obscure
>>>techn-jargon how to do it; is they say "reconfigure your so and so file" ask
>>>them "how would you react if your doctor told you: 'here is a scalpel, do
>>>thatby-pass yourself' or if your automechanic told you 'here is a monkey
>>>wrench and a screwdriver, change that gasket yourself." Stres the fact that
>>>you are a professional not a computer geek.
>>>
>>>- DO NOT BUY COMpUTER NOVELTIES!!!!! Money is waht drives this whole
business.
>>>
>>>- make other faculty and student aware of the negative effects of the
>>>planned obsolescence of computer products on professional skills and the
>>>quality of research; stress that hi-tech tools do not make the jon high
>>>skil, on the contrary, they frequently de-skill jobs.
>>>
>>>- DO NOT subscribe to any of the trashy computer magazines, and make sure
>>>that your department is not wasting any money on that junk;
>>>
>>>- popularize the "Ockham razor" principle that underlies scientific research
>>>and apply it to research technology -- make sure that your students and
>>>otgher faculty undersdtand that it is desirable not to multiply hi-tech
>>>entities beyon the absolute necessity.
>>>
>>>Any comments or other suggestions?
>>
>>>****** REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! ******
>>>+----------------------------------------------------------+
>>>|There is no such thing as society, only the individuals |
>>>|who constitute it. -Margaret Thatcher |
>>>| |
>>>| |
>>>|There is no such thing as government or corporations,|
>>>|only the individuals who lust for power and money.|
>>>| -no apologies to Margaret Thatcher |
>>>+----------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
****** REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! ******
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|There is no such thing as society, only the individuals |
|who constitute it. -Margaret Thatcher |
| |
| |
|There is no such thing as government or corporations,|
|only the individuals who lust for power and money.|
| -no apologies to Margaret Thatcher |
+----------------------------------------------------------+