re: Analyzing Technologies
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: * * * I have to confess that the discussion about "technology" sort of baffles me since it seems detached from the broader question of how society is organized. There is no question that automation of blue-collar and white-collar work has led to increased misery under capitalism. And not just amongst the workers who are hired to do the work. Now technology is making us all do the work -- unpaid at that. Last night while calling to check on some flight details, the automated phone system first put me through trying to figure out whether I fell into the "press or say 1" or "press or say 2" category as we went through the menu (and I knew I did need to speak to a real person), I was put on hold because there weren't nearly enough people working to handle the customers (thanks probably to "right sizing"). I couldn't even mark exams while on hold - something I am avoiding at this second - because I had to be a captive audience for their ads. And this is not the only place in which we all are doing unpaid work for corporations as they use technology to turn us all into their virtual staffs. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Analyzing Technologies
Ellen Dannin wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: * * * I have to confess that the discussion about "technology" sort of baffles me since it seems detached from the broader question of how society is organized. There is no question that automation of blue-collar and white-collar work has led to increased misery under capitalism. Ellen J. Dannin Wrote And not just amongst the workers who are hired to do the work. Now technology is making us all do the work -- unpaid at that. Last night while calling to check on some flight details, the automated phone system first put me through trying to figure out whether I fell into the "press or say 1" or "press or say 2" category as we went through the menu (and I knew I did need to speak to a real person), I was put on hold because there weren't nearly enough people working to handle the customers (thanks probably to "right sizing"). I couldn't even mark exams while on hold - something I am avoiding at this second - because I had to be a captive audience for their ads. And this is not the only place in which we all are doing unpaid work for corporations as they use technology to turn us all into their virtual staffs. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 This is not limited to advanced technology. Having to assemble virtually all furniture, and common household products yourself is a not exactly new, or high tech.
re: Analyzing Technologies
Returning from a pleasant vacation in Austin, Texas where I had the great pleasure to meet Bill Lear over lunch and to discuss prospects for a PEN-L web page with him (more about this later), I sifted through my email late last night. I have to confess that the discussion about "technology" sort of baffles me since it seems detached from the broader question of how society is organized. There is no question that automation of blue-collar and white-collar work has led to increased misery under capitalism. Citibank help-desk personnel work under intense pressure to maintain quotas while they are constantly monitored electronically. Joan Greenbaum's "Windows on the Workplace" is a powerful critique of this system. Meanwhile, industrial skills continue to be degraded as traditional high-skill jobs like welding and tool-and-die get done by programmed machines. All the while, the assembly line pace quickens while harried workers try to keep up or lose their jobs to third world workers. The greatest fear is to lose one's job altogether to a machine. If we had no alternative to capitalism, this would be a grim picture. But isn't it the case that socialism would welcome labor-saving technology? I worked briefly in a very low-tech job shop as a spot-welder in the late 70s doing missionary work among the proletariat. It was unbelievably oppressive work. Why wouldn't we want to automate such tasks in a socialist society? On that job I held two pieces of metal in my hand while I stepped on a pedal that delivered the juice from dangerous weld-spouts that shot rooster-tail sparks in my face everytime contact was made. This is much the same way that spot-welding had been done since the 1930s and it is utter hell. Long-time workers in the weld shop were zoned out from the fumes and the heavy labor. Most factory work *is like this*. The whole goal of a socialist society would be to automate as much of this type of work as possible in "closed system" factories that eliminate pollutants at the point of production using advanced technology. There are actually some steel mills today that have virtually no workers, except some very highly trained college-educated people--often with degrees in metallurgical engineering--who keep the automated machines going. What would socialism be, other than widespread use of such factories that require very little labor? It's hard for me to think of any day-to-day jobs in capitalist society that are really enjoyable. In my first few months at Met Life in 1968 when I was programmer trainee, I was miserable at my desk and complained loudly to everybody in sight including my boss. He said, "You schmuck, now you know why they call it work" Even the people who are at the top of the food chain in the post-Fordist system--the computer programmers--would prefer to have the fucking computers program themselves. For Christ's sake, writing code to process a payroll check is not the same thing as growing orchids or teaching dolphins to speak. Most work is work, believe it or not. Let's let machines do it. I have a feeling that most of the people who write books about the apocalypse of machines replacing living labor are tenured professors who have never done factory work or sat in a desk in an insurance company. There never was a "golden age" as far as these types of jobs are concerned. Read Charles Dickens. Read Upton Sinclair or Harvey Swados. That's where it's at. One of the big achievements of Tecnica in Nicaragua was to implement a Lotus 123 application at the Central Bank to convert Nicaraguan pesos into foreign currency equivalents. It used to take 6 college educated people an entire day to come up with the sum total available for imports. After Lotus 123, it took one person a few hours in the morning. The other 5 people went on to more productive activity. This is the paradigm we should have in mind, not Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times", when we speak about technology. I may be one of the few eccentrics around who believes in communism, but back in 1968 when I got started at Met Life and saw the power of mainframe computers, I became a firm believer in "feasible" communism. I still am. Louis Proyect
re: Analyzing Technologies
the discussion between Bill and myself that follows mostly involves agreement. Bill Lear writes: I'm not so sure I agree that the growth of the info economy coincides with deskilling. Didn't this sort of separation [between conception and execution] long precede the information age? ... yes. That's why I said that One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much information as possible must be put into those hands. But, if this concentration of decision-making occured long ago, what do computers add? More efficient control? I'm sure computers aid in the control of labor somewhat, but do they really add anything fundamentally new? Maybe it's not fundamentally new (just a quantitative change rather than a qualitative transformation), but extra profit is extra profit, extra control over workers is extra control. Workers struggle against existing systems, figuring out ways to stay human or figuring out how to take advantage of the fixity of capital to win higher wages, so that new systems of control are continually needed if the capitalists want to avoid falling profits and losing control. I think that changes in information technology encourage the separation of conception from execution AND the separation encourages the development and use of info tech. Computers are great at aggregating data, at rapid processing of it, at relating data, and at remembering data. Bosses can get counts of workers in Vietnamese factories, weekly pay figures in maquiladoras, etc. But, when it comes down to it, real control strategies are things that computers cannot help with, except peripherally. The ability to control far-off factories allows a manager to threaten the workers in the "home country" (to use an increasingly archaic phrase). I'm curious, what sorts of information is available today to a boss that wasn't available to one living 100 years ago? Is it any different, or does it just get there faster and more accurately? the boss had a lot of info back then, but nowadays the need for info is larger, given the complexity of the products, the world-wide nature of the production process, etc. Also, aren't the great bulk of computers doing things other than controlling people? right. I didn't say otherwise. Ironically, in the computer software industry, at least from my experience, the workers are more difficult to control, because the separation of conception and execution, not to mention the measurement of work effort, is so difficult in programming. A good programmer can pump out 10,000 lines of code a day. A brilliant programmer can put out 2,000. right. Efforts at deskilling are at the microeconomic level. But they don't necessarily abolish skill overall, just as the introduction of the easy-to-use automatic transmission in cars implied the need for auto mechanics with more skills. (This is a major point that Braverman missed; he presumed that the micro efforts implied an overall decrease in the skill level.) BTW, there are efforts to deskill programming, by having the code-writers focus on only modules or "objects" rather than the whole program. I don't know how successful these efforts are. Of course, it also goes the other way: the development of info-processing and communication technology facilitates and thus encourages the deskilling of labor. Of course, it only does that by design. There is no necessary deskilling effect from development and deployment of info technologies. right. It's only under capitalist social relations that info technologies are encouraged by deskilling efforts and also encourage them (unless there are other modes of production that have the same deskilling drive as capitalism). Computer-centralized information does not necessarily mean human-centralized control of information. One might also claim that as the information age has become more mature, and computers more widespread, the American public has become better-informed: just think of the hassle Doug Henwood would have typing out his LBO and mimeographing the thousands of issues he sends out. I'm not entirely kidding, either. I think that the American public is better- (that is not to say well-) informed today than it was in 1950, the dawn of the information age. Along with this, methods of keeping the public away from actually using that information politically have become more advanced. ... Right. I'm not against technology at all. Technology increases human power, but we can use technology for either good or evil. Unfortunately, capitalism some well-known biases toward the latter. People often struggle for the former (though not often enough, or strongly enough). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Academic version of a Bette Midler song: "you are the hot air beneath my wings."
re: Analyzing Technologies
On Fri, December 26, 1997 at 07:54:25 (-0800) James Devine writes: ... BTW, there are efforts to deskill programming, by having the code-writers focus on only modules or "objects" rather than the whole program. I don't know how successful these efforts are. One of the standard ways of deskilling is pretty straightforward. You separate coders into "designers" and "implementers". The smart guys build "interfaces" --- that is, they specify *behavior* of components --- and "monkeys" code the bowels of the system to satisfy the design requirements. Of course, most programming is itself constrained even on the interface side of things --- management decrees they want a system to support X users, at Y transactions per seconds, and it must do this and that. This is passed down to the interface designers, eventually ending up in the laps of the implementers. Despite my disdain for Scott Adams, he does often accurately capture this sometimes idiotic relationship between management and software engineers; but his view is actually becoming rapidly obsolete: just as in the past, management is becoming staffed with more and more "co-opted" programmers who know the limitations of technology and are able to spec out things reasonably well themselves. However, this can get rather costly, since communicating design requirements can be a bureaucratic nightmare. You get much better code when the same programmer works on both (all three?) sides of the fence. This is an example of how the stupidity of capitalism drives systems away from optimal functioning in order to impose control. One explicit measure of this is that code written by the FSF (Free Software Foundation) tends to be vastly superior to commercial stuff --- faster, more flexible, and fewer bugs. So much for the "efficiency" of market-driven relations. I actually think that more attention should be payed to the cooperative successes of the FSF (and, many other non-corporate software projects). Bill
Re: Analyzing technologies
Available when? The books is Class Struggles in the Information Age (Macmillan). The galley's are now being prepared. Thanks for your interest. Michael, I know that there is often a hesitancy to engage in self promotion via email. But I think it would be very useful and desirable if you'd post the details on your new book when it's published so that the rest of us can get a copy. Cheers, Sid Shniad -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
I was taken by Michael P.'s discussion of the information economy of picking melons. In the real world, it's the melon-picker who uses his or her judgement to read the information about when or whether to pick melons. In Michael's imaginary scenario, there would be a division of labor between one worker who inspects the produce and writes a report on each individual melon and another who reads the report and decides which melons to pick. I guess then the first worker (or perhaps a third one) picks them. What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker). Exactly my point. One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much information as possible must be put into those hands. yes. Clear lines of communication must be established between the conception center and the execution peripheries. Of course, it also goes the other way: Yes, in my example, the workers "communicated" by stretching their back. Elsewhere keystrokes are measured. In my school we communicate with the administration by fte [full time equivalent -- or student body counts. Workers' thoughts are merely an intrusion in the work process. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
On Thu, December 25, 1997 at 16:40:45 (-0800) James Devine writes: What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker). I'm not so sure I agree that the growth of the info economy coincides with deskilling. Didn't this sort of separation long precede the information age? At least, that's the picture I get reading David Noble and others. One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much information as possible must be put into those hands. But, if this concentration of decision-making occured long ago, what do computers add? More efficient control? I'm sure computers aid in the control of labor somewhat, but do they really add anything fundamentally new? Computers are great at aggregating data, at rapid processing of it, at relating data, and at remembering data. Bosses can get counts of workers in Vietnamese factories, weekly pay figures in maquiladoras, etc. But, when it comes down to it, real control strategies are things that computers cannot help with, except peripherally. I'm curious, what sorts of information is available today to a boss that wasn't available to one living 100 years ago? Is it any different, or does it just get there faster and more accurately? Also, aren't the great bulk of computers doing things other than controlling people? Ironically, in the computer software industry, at least from my experience, the workers are more difficult to control, because the separation of conception and execution, not to mention the measurement of work effort, is so difficult in programming. A good programmer can pump out 10,000 lines of code a day. A brilliant programmer can put out 2,000. Of course, it also goes the other way: the development of info-processing and communication technology facilitates and thus encourages the deskilling of labor. Of course, it only does that by design. There is no necessary deskilling effect from development and deployment of info technologies. Computer-centralized information does not necessarily mean human-centralized control of information. One might also claim that as the information age has become more mature, and computers more widespread, the American public has become better-informed: just think of the hassle Doug Henwood would have typing out his LBO and mimeographing the thousands of issues he sends out. I'm not entirely kidding, either. I think that the American public is better- (that is not to say well-) informed today than it was in 1950, the dawn of the information age. Along with this, methods of keeping the public away from actually using that information politically have become more advanced. But here, I think we have to turn to an examination of the law, which Ellen Dannin's piece shows is extraordinarily important, and something I think that has been sorely neglected by progressives. Bill
Re: Analyzing technologies
It seems to me that all this discussion actually ties very well into the Hahnel and Albert Participatory Economics. Doug Henwood was asking whether a more humane system could appropriate all the benefits of modernization and separate them from exploitation, polarization, and the destruction of nature. They appear to offer a very plausible description of how to do just that. Michael is dealing with the centralization of power in job definitions, the centralization of information. Again PE very specifically suggests ways to reorganize work so that empowerment, desirability and access to information are divided roughly evenly. And I think your suggestion that such a redefinition would be more efficient even in the narrow sense is correct. They even touch lightly on the technology issue, with a hint of how computer technology should evolve to better serve PE. I know Pen-L has discussed PE to death already. But if you really are stuck for a feasible and humane alternative to capitalism, maybe it is worth another look. Cheers, and Happy Holidays Gar Lipow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was taken by Michael P.'s discussion of the information economy of picking melons. In the real world, it's the melon-picker who uses his or her judgement to read the information about when or whether to pick melons. In Michael's imaginary scenario, there would be a division of labor between one worker who inspects the produce and writes a report on each individual melon and another who reads the report and decides which melons to pick. I guess then the first worker (or perhaps a third one) picks them. What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker). Exactly my point. One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much information as possible must be put into those hands. yes. Clear lines of communication must be established between the conception center and the execution peripheries. Of course, it also goes the other way: Yes, in my example, the workers "communicated" by stretching their back. Elsewhere keystrokes are measured. In my school we communicate with the administration by fte [full time equivalent -- or student body counts. Workers' thoughts are merely an intrusion in the work process. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
I am not sure, but they have been very quick so far. I would guest that the book would be available in a month or two. Available when? The books is Class Struggles in the Information Age (Macmillan). The galley's are now being prepared. Thanks for your interest. Michael, I know that there is often a hesitancy to engage in self promotion via email. But I think it would be very useful and desirable if you'd post the details on your new book when it's published so that the rest of us can get a copy. Cheers, Sid Shniad -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
I was taken by Michael P.'s discussion of the information economy of picking melons. In the real world, it's the melon-picker who uses his or her judgement to read the information about when or whether to pick melons. In Michael's imaginary scenario, there would be a division of labor between one worker who inspects the produce and writes a report on each individual melon and another who reads the report and decides which melons to pick. I guess then the first worker (or perhaps a third one) picks them. What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker). One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much information as possible must be put into those hands. Clear lines of communication must be established between the conception center and the execution peripheries. Of course, it also goes the other way: the development of info-processing and communication technology facilitates and thus encourages the deskilling of labor. (My wife got me a miniature Tetris keychain for Xmas. Goodbye work effort.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Academic version of a Bette Midler song: "you are the hot air beneath my wings."
Re: Analyzing technologies
The fear of Ceasar Chavez led to the invention of the tomato harvester. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
Michael, Interesting point. Is this an off-hand opinion or supported by some evidence? Reason I ask is that I am not aware of any efforts by UFW in the period of the development of mechanical harvesters to target tomato pickers for organization, and given that these machines, as I recall, were introduced before the UFW had an established base, it is not clear to me that this was a driving motivation. Given the difficulty Chavez had establishing a presence in grape fields, I rather doubt that the corporate moguls who controlled much of California agriculture were quaking at the prospect of a union in the tomato fields. I am perfectly happy, however, to be educated on this point. michael e. At 10:45 AM 12/24/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: The fear of Ceasar Chavez led to the invention of the tomato harvester. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
The books is Class Struggles in the Information Age (Macmillan). The galley's are now being prepared. Thanks for your interest. Michael, I know that there is often a hesitancy to engage in self promotion via email. But I think it would be very useful and desirable if you'd post the details on your new book when it's published so that the rest of us can get a copy. Cheers, Sid Shniad -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
Scully was only one of a number of marketing types that came into the computer business. A good number came from the soft drink industry, beginning with the fellow who ran Osborne. None of these suits ever learnt to master the computer industry. They could understand sugar water better than electronics. I'm not sure what you mean by this; I suspect that this business migration connotes the usual condensing and bowdlerizing of information compelled by sales psychology. In his 1987 book "Odyssey: etc." former Apple Computer CEO John Sculley describes how, when he was the heir-apparent of the Pepsi empire, Steve Jobs spent months pursuing him with the zeal of a rock groupie though he protested that he knew nothing about computers (among other self-deprecating arguments). The bald reality was that The Two Steves had made a great product but had come to abruptly realize that sales is a science in itself that they knew nothing of. What they did know was that Sculley had waged "the cola wars" against Coke and thereby brought Pepsi back from the dead, so Sculley was their man. Jobs wrapped up his final pitch with a desperate question: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want to get a chance to change the world?" Surely among the greatest of one-liners in business history. Alas, the implication is that Jobs had no hope of pitching to the smarts of his potential customers because the product was too new, too complex and too expensive, so the impulse-buying that soft drink advertising panders to would have to serve instead: early corruption in the age of democratized knowledge-access. All more than a bit sad, really, but could a socialist society _ever_ have created the computer industry? We should not shrink from such a question, and I don't mean to pose it rhetorically. valis -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing technologies
Michael, I know that there is often a hesitancy to engage in self promotion via email. But I think it would be very useful and desirable if you'd post the details on your new book when it's published so that the rest of us can get a copy. Cheers, Sid Shniad
Re: Analyzing technologies
At 05:31 PM 12/24/97 +1100, Ajit Sinha wrote: At 11:51 23/12/97 -0800, Mike E. wrote: While what you say here is true, my understanding is that the primary motivation for the development of new varieties of tomatoes at the UC-Davis Agricultural School was the need for a variety that would be tough enough to hold up to harvesting by mechanical tomato harvesters, and ones that would ripen slowly off the vine, enabling distribution to national markets. The mechanical harvester was developed to replace field labor and to automate the harvesting process. In part this was a response to labor availability and costs -- a function of immigration policy -- but these were not the only considerations. One question: why should labor cost motivate mechanical harvesters. Why can't tomatos just become more expensive? Where there other tomato growing areas where labor was cheaper? A farmer I am not; nor an agricultural economist. I suspect the primary motivation was not labor cost alone. I merely raise this as a factor, since, absent other compelling reasons, there would be little motivation for mechanizing if the work could be done more cheaply and effectively by hand labor. There certainly are other areas where labor is cheaper, and indeed farms have migrated to them (in Mexico, for example). As a labor organizer during the 1970s-80s, I became painfully familiar with the phenomenon of runaway factories. Only after arriving in the Silicon Valley did I become aware that there could be runaway farms. I am confident there are one or more participants on this list who actually know something about the economics of corporate farming (or, being economists, will speak authoritatively so as to create the impression they do) and can enlighten us about the price elasticity of tomatoes and the economics of farming. Happy Holidays! Michael E.
Re: Analyzing technologies
Michael Perelman wrote, in conclusion: With the transformation of images and voice, as well as data, to digital form, alongside the more general commodification of cultural life, the distinction between data proper and, say, a movie, becomes blurred within the newly invented category of intellectual property. The vast flow of executives from the fast food and beverage industry to the management suites of the computer industry is symbolic of this broadening of the nature of information. I'm not sure what you mean by this; I suspect that this business migration connotes the usual condensing and bowdlerizing of information compelled by sales psychology. In his 1987 book "Odyssey: etc." former Apple Computer CEO John Sculley describes how, when he was the heir-apparent of the Pepsi empire, Steve Jobs spent months pursuing him with the zeal of a rock groupie though he protested that he knew nothing about computers (among other self-deprecating arguments). The bald reality was that The Two Steves had made a great product but had come to abruptly realize that sales is a science in itself that they knew nothing of. What they did know was that Sculley had waged "the cola wars" against Coke and thereby brought Pepsi back from the dead, so Sculley was their man. Jobs wrapped up his final pitch with a desperate question: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want to get a chance to change the world?" Surely among the greatest of one-liners in business history. Alas, the implication is that Jobs had no hope of pitching to the smarts of his potential customers because the product was too new, too complex and too expensive, so the impulse-buying that soft drink advertising panders to would have to serve instead: early corruption in the age of democratized knowledge-access. All more than a bit sad, really, but could a socialist society _ever_ have created the computer industry? We should not shrink from such a question, and I don't mean to pose it rhetorically. valis
Re: Analyzing technologies
At 11:51 23/12/97 -0800, Mike E. wrote: While what you say here is true, my understanding is that the primary motivation for the development of new varieties of tomatoes at the UC-Davis Agricultural School was the need for a variety that would be tough enough to hold up to harvesting by mechanical tomato harvesters, and ones that would ripen slowly off the vine, enabling distribution to national markets. The mechanical harvester was developed to replace field labor and to automate the harvesting process. In part this was a response to labor availability and costs -- a function of immigration policy -- but these were not the only considerations. One question: why should labor cost motivate mechanical harvesters. Why can't tomatos just become more expensive? Where there other tomato growing areas where labor was cheaper? Regarding the larger point of this chapter, it seems to me that what characterizes the information age is the commodification of a far larger and varied amount of information for the market and a larger number of new technologies which put a premium on instanteneous delivery. Thus, as you point out, the very definition of what is considered information becomes subject to both technical and market forces. In these terms, there is undoubtedly a huge explosion in the amount of information available, but an ever greater disconnect between "information" and intelligence or knowledge. I think we need to separate the pure consumption of information technology and its use in the production process. I think most of the popular treatment of this information technology is almost intirely based on the consumption aspect of it by the higher and middle classes. I liked Mike P.'s chapter on this issue. Specially the whole issue of short hand hoe. Cheers, ajit sinha
Analyzing technologies
Here is another short section of my forthcoming book: Class Struggles in the Information Age. It concludes the first chapter, which is a critique of the idea of an information economy. I tried to provide a critique of those who would dismisss the value of "primitive" technology. It is only a hesitant first step, but here it is: A Different Information Economy To some extent, the whole notion of an information economy may be an exercise in hubris. We take great pride in our increasing command of information without recognizing that we do not necessarily distinguish ourselves from other societies by our more sophisticated use of information. Instead, other societies merely use different types of information. In a sense, we might even propose that the real novelty of the information economy is not the informational content of our society at all, but merely our consciousness of the informational aspects of work. While we know more about computers, astrophysics, and the stock market than our forbearers, we know less about other things. For example, earlier students were often familiar with the classics of Latin and Greek literature. In fact, even seemingly primitive peoples had a deep understanding of the biology of their surroundings. For example, according to Edgar Anderson, during the last 5000 years modern society has not domesticated a single plant that primitive cultures had not already used. He points out that traditional cultures had already managed to discover all five natural sources of caffeine: coffee, tea, the cola plant, cacao, yerba mate, and its relatives (Anderson 1952, pp. 132-3). In may respects contemporary biologists still lag behind traditional societies in understanding the biological properties of the flora that surround them. Even today, approximately 25 percent of all pharmaceuticals contain some natural product (Day and Frisvold 1992). So-called primitive people were aware of many, if not most of these properties. Even today, scientists are just beginning to understand the biological rational for primitive agricultural practices (Gupta 1990). Admittedly, much of the non-medicinal, indigenous knowledge is not easily transferred to the core market economy. Much of this information is valuable only within the context of indigenous traditions and customs (Agrawal 1995, pp. 431-2). This condition is not unique to indigenous traditions. In fact, the value of much of our own modern technology, as well as a considerable portion of our mass of our accumulated information, is also contingent upon the existing structure of society. Let me refer to a rather crude example. Until widespread public protests caused them to be outlawed, many farmworkers in California used short-handled hoes. These implements are no more efficient than the more familiar hoe. Moreover, they took a terrible toll on the backs of farmworkers who were forced to hold their spine in an unnatural position for extended periods of time placing a great strain on the back. The real advantage of the short-handle was not technical at all, but informational. Because of the inadequate length of the handle, the short-handled hoe forces the worker to stoop in an uncomfortable position. This attribute of the hoe allowed the overseer to see when workers relaxed, since they would naturally stand erect to relieve the pressure on their backs whenever possible. Farmers appreciated this particular tool because of its ability to convey information to those who managed the field crews. This information was quite economical for the farmers. Unfortunately, it was costly to the farm workers. As would be expected, the continual bending frequently caused serious back injuries. Nonetheless, farming interests fought vigorously to continue the use of the short-handled hoe, often proclaiming that they were acting in the best interest of their employees (see Perelman 1977). Porat and the other accountants of the information economy would not include the short-handled hoe as an informational device along with computers and other information processing equipment. Nonetheless, the crude, short-handled hoe served to monitor workers just as surely as the sophisticated electronic appliances in use in the advanced workplaces of our modern information economy. Notice that, just as in the case of some of the 'primitive' information discussed above, the sort of information associated with the short-handled hoe is useful only in a particular type of society -- one in which the lives of those who do the work have little value. Again, we see a close relationship between the way a society constructs its information and the underlying class structure. Ernesto Galarza, one of the truly great advocates of the rights of agricultural labor, offered valuable insight into another sort of informational processing associated with agricultural field work, a class of labor thought to be among the most unskilled known to modern society:
Re: Analyzing technologies
At 10:22 AM 12/23/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: [SNIP] Those who have studied the development of agricultural technology know full well that if field work did not require considerable human decision making, it would have been mechanized long ago. The tomato is a perfect example. Many tomatoes are now bred to be hard enough so that they ripen slowly. As a result, freshness is not a concern when picking them. Machines now pick these tomatoes since the new breed of tomatoes has made the worker's judgment inconsequential. As anyone who has eaten these tomatoes, something is lost in the process. In doing away with the judgment of the workers, the delicious taste of a fresh tomato also vanishes. While what you say here is true, my understanding is that the primary motivation for the development of new varieties of tomatoes at the UC-Davis Agricultural School was the need for a variety that would be tough enough to hold up to harvesting by mechanical tomato harvesters, and ones that would ripen slowly off the vine, enabling distribution to national markets. The mechanical harvester was developed to replace field labor and to automate the harvesting process. In part this was a response to labor availability and costs -- a function of immigration policy -- but these were not the only considerations. The problem with the harvesting machine was that itchewed up the traditional varieties of tomatoes making them unsuitable for produce sales, sending the bright folks at UC-Davis in quest of what passes today for a tomato but serves equally well as a hocky puck -- a plasticized, tasteless facsimile of the real thing. The urban generations born after introduction of the mechanical harvester can go through an entire lifetime and never know what a real tomato tastes like unless they frequent organic markets or farm stands. Regarding the larger point of this chapter, it seems to me that what characterizes the information age is the commodification of a far larger and varied amount of information for the market and a larger number of new technologies which put a premium on instanteneous delivery. Thus, as you point out, the very definition of what is considered information becomes subject to both technical and market forces. In these terms, there is undoubtedly a huge explosion in the amount of information available, but an ever greater disconnect between "information" and intelligence or knowledge. I especially appreciated your treatment of the class bias and basis for information gathering, classification, and consumption. In solidarity, Michael E.
