Last fall, for some “light reading” (okay, it was really for a master’s seminar at Utah State University), I was reading Stuart Selber and Lawrence Lessig, two writers, teachers, and theorists about the nature of the use of computer technology in education, politics, and society.
It was a fascinating look at how technology really affects us, not just on a surface-level IM/email/text messaging sort of way. Both texts focused heavily on the idea that our use of technology as a whole is an agreement of concerned parties. Lessig relates it particularly to software; because we create software, we ultimately control what can and will happen politically and socially if it involves software as a key component. Whether it be freedom of speech, privacy, copyright law, marketing, sales, or education, ultimately we can create any solution we as a society deem appropriate, because we control the code. And simply because certain decisions have already been made about the nature of Cyberspace, the Internet, and the technologies that power it, emphatically does NOT mean that those things are set in stone, or static.
Both texts examine the fundamental paradigms that surround our use of computer technologies in education and society, and examine whether we are, in fact, hamstringing ourselves in relation to our own technology use. Again, since we have control over how software is implemented, we have the ability, if we choose to, to fundamentally alter the course technology takes during our lifetimes.
Lessig was fairly optimistic in his outlook, stating that the forces that move in the technology sphere have, at least historically, moved in progressive ways, though he cautions that when money and politics are involved, you cannot trust the establishment to simply act out of “good will to humanity.”
Selber is far more critical, especially of higher education, essentially stating that higher education as a whole has completely cow-towed to the rise of technology as and end unto itself. It’s no longer even rational to question the “why” or the “need” for technology–it’s simply assumed that investors in higher education will simply fall in line and let the computer science and information technology departments lead us into the promised land.
There are of course many uses of technology in non-technical university subjects, but far too often we bow down to those perpetrating the technology with our money and time without truly considering the real needs at hand.
Even more critically, as Selber states, because the general population is educated in only the most cursory of uses of technology, that developing cohesive educational, political, and social goals for its use is nearly impossible. There are so few citizens who have the education and training to make informed technology decisions that more often than not in higher education and society as a whole, we go along with what is presented, because we really don’t see or understand realistic alternatives. In many cases, the options presented to us by the technology purveyors may in fact be an ideal solution, but there may be numerous instances where alternative solutions, more cost effective solutions, and more humanistically appropriate solutions may be bypassed for convenience, or even worse, because the technology companies feel it is their prerogative to make a buck.
Both books were eye-opening, and a must-read for any socially conscious, forward-looking student of technology and its impacts on the political and social consciousness.
-Steve
No comments:
Post a Comment