textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000027.txt

353 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext

SOFTECHNICA
The word softechnica has recently come into being to designate the presence
of these new intangible information technologies which surround us [1], which
are related to the expansion and development of the role of software in
natonal economies. This article airs some issues arising from it, firstly by
looking at some of the myths associated with computers, and then by
considering the implications of the "softening of the economy".
Myths About Computers
"In technology it has been quite a quiet decade. The main innovation has been
the personal computer, which is simply a convenient mental tool; it hasn't
changed the way people live. But I think its significance will be seen in
retrospect as the beginning of something immensely important: the rise of
artificial intelligence. The creation of machines as intelligent as human
beings is not far off - reproductive machines that can design themselves.
This is the way to wealth: to replace men with machines, Machines can work as
doctors, dentists, teachers; every old person could be looked after. It's
frightening in some ways, because it raises a lot of difficult religious
questions about the nature of existence. But these are questions that we have
to confront." [2] This quote from Sir Clive Sinclair contains a number of
strands I wish to examine.
The first concerns some myths about the possibility of artifical
intelligence. Can machines design (and therefore create themselves)?
Computers can only add, subtract and compare. Human beings, as well as being
able to make intuitive leaps, can recognise patterns, even when they are
varied. Although current artificial intelligence research is seeking to
remedy this, they have not solved this basic difference.
Expert Systems (which the AI research departments in universities get so much
money for developing) are designed to be able to appropriate someone's expert
knowledge and to use this for problem solving. The most current application
is for self-maintainance and repair and trouble-shooting in automation
projects or, for example, electrical systems. (So Star Trek scenarios where
the SS Enterprise can self-repair could become possible.) So is Sinclair not
being too "over-optimistic" about "reproductive machines that can design
themselves"? Although the nearest to this at present is software which can
activate a pre-programmed self-repair facility.
Some Questions to Think About
As "artificial intelligence" progresses, models of the functioning of the
human mind are suggested, usually based on the instrumental logic which
post-modernist critics like Lyotard have identified with the "Reason" of the
Enlightenment project. The ultimate goal of ai research is to close the
receding gap between what the human mind can do and what computers can do,
based on the premise that this is possible. Emerging explanations of the
processes of the human mind are then constructed through comparative
difference.
So the "big questions" seem to be: Are computers conscious? Can they be so?
Can they be capable of being "self-conscious" (aware of self)? or
self-reflexive?
The second myth Sinclair seems to be pushing is that the advent of
information technology hasn't changed our lives. It has affected work
practises (management theory covers the "humane" introduction of information
technology into office administration); computers have become part of our
culture and have brought their own terminology into our vocabulary; and the
application of the new software technologies are and will have other
far-reaching social and political consequences.
New words which have come into our vocabulary often mask a reality:
user-friendly masks the fact that with menu-driven systems all the decisions
have been taken in advance and the parameters already defined. An example in
the field of architecture is a software package known as HARNESS, devised on
the concept that "the design of buildings can be systematicised to such an
extent that each building is regarded as a communication route. The computer
system stores a number of predetermined architectural elements which can be
disposed around the communication route on a Visual Display Unit to produce
different building configurations. Only those predetermined elements may be
used and architects are reduced to operating a sophisticated "lego" set. [3]
Phillipe Lemoine, vice chairman of the French National Committee on
Technology, Employment and Work has pointed out that "There is a whole range
of standard software to help the individual user but, as a rule, these
packages are simply tools designed to compress the range of possible
objectives sufficiently for the user to feel that his (sic) freedom of
expression is coming up against logical constraints and thus to establish the
autonomy of his own requirements" [4] "Interactive information technology" -
interactive with the user's particular needs in approach to searches are now
being developed to remedy this.
"Hands-on" implies some tactile relationship with the object, when in fact on
a visual display screen you are in contact via the keyboard (except for
systems with touch screens) in a cerebral manner, possibly with hyper-reality
(which you might have access to by means of hyper-text). Hyper-reality is a
hypothetical or possible reality which could take material form - either as
hard copy (an image on paper) or as a simulation of a three-dimensional
space. Hyper-text can store data which can be produced both as written text
or as visual simulation. But the only "hands-on" is hands on the computer
keyboard, which plays a mediating role between human beings and electronic
impulses.
(Whilst on the subject of simulation of concrete objects, architects using
Computer-Aided-Design, where you can rotate your building through 360o in
hyper-reality, have perhaps been in hyper-reality in the Baudrillardian
sense - a universe composed entirely of surfaces, signs and images
circulating with no reference to any "real world" outside themselves - when
they have found that their constructions, perfect in simulation on the
screen, ressemble prisons when inserted into their real (and social)
context.) [5]
These systems, the intangible technologies which surround us, these features
of the non-objective world have been called "Softechnica... the coming of
live objects, a new presence in the world" [6] Perhaps their development is
making us rethink our philosophical materialism concerning matter and what it
consists of.
I would suggest that a name be given to express some angst about both the
existence of these new systems and technologies and the implications of the
"softening ofthe economy" in general and possibilities offered by automation:
Softechnica-angst (because it sounds like a plausibly related symptom). It is
both philosophical and sociological, and I have it, and I have caught it
along with others who have worked in the "information field". It is not an
anti-technology stance; it isn't just angst about an intangible, non-material
phenomenon but concerns the implications of these new systems within a global
capitalist economy.
Automation annd the "Softening of the Economy"
Both phenomena are related and inter-related to the changes in the economy on
a global scale, affecting work practises and future deskilling as the nature
of capitalism is shifting (or mutating) into another phase.
The micro-processor, "a formless representation of the real", a space "in
which things are stord and transferred [and which] is beginning to determine
the real, to be the real" [7], has enabled the development of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems (FMS) within Computer-Aided Manufacture (CAM), assisted
of course by CAD (Computer-Aided Design). Flexible Manufacturing Systems are
controlled by software written in specialised programming languages.
The significance of the application of software to manufacturing is that,
firstly, the movements of a single machine can be varied without alteration
to its mechanical structure. Robots, the first machines on the path to FMS,
unlike conventional mass production techniques, are particularly applicable
to the production of small batches of varied products. The earliest robots'
movements were controlled by altering electrical connections on a plugboard.
Later versions (the continuous path playback robot) are programmed by a
playback system or by a "teach box" which uses buttons or a joystick to
define the machine's movements. [8]
This means that, mainly in the areas of aeronautics, car manufacture,
shipbuilding and architecture, the repertory of forms needs no longer be
limited to keep within the computer's range. Flexibility is thus greatly
increased: "Objects and transmutations to which they are subject can now be
simulated by altering just one variable; their volume can be represented as
revolving in 3-dimensional space; differennt instructions for their
fabrication can be automatically programmed." [9]
This in turn increases ability and potential for "niche marketing" (as
opposed to global markets) - post-modern consumers "expressing" their
different and perhaps ever-fragmenting class, gender and ethnic identities
through consumption, or even perhaps through active participation in the
design process?
The second implication (as Tessa Morris-Suzuki points out) of the application
of software to manufacturing is that "the worker's knowledge may be separated
from the physical body of the worker and may itself become a commodity" [10]
Robots are an early form of expert system, endlessly able to replicate the
precise and complex motions of (for example) a highly-skilled car
spray-painter. How much control will the person whose skills are being learnt
have over this commodity? Will it be even as much as that other prime
commodity - labour power?
Morris-Suzuki sees the separation of knowledge from labour and machinery and
its emergence as an independant commodity and element in production as a
gradual process dating back to the very beginning of capitalism. "The special
properties of knowledge (its lack of material substance; the ease with which
it can be copied and transmitted) mean that it can only acquire exchange
value where institutional arrangements confer a degree of monopoly power on
its owner." (i.e. copyright)
"Software represents a special form of the commodification of knowledge... in
essence [it] consists of instructions for performing a particular task, and a
major technological key to the growth of computing was the creation of means
by which these instructions could readily be stored and fed into a machine"
[11] (i.e. the microchip)
This poses problems about the labour theory of value. For Marx, surplus value
is the difference between the selling price of the product and labour costs
(variable capital) and initial capital outlay for machinery, etc. (fixed
capital) With the use of software in automation "Surplus value is extracted
from the labour of workers who prepare software for an automated production
system, but this surplus value only acquires meaning and substance when the
software is brought together with machinery and the production of goods
begins. Once this happens, however, the value of labour embodied in the
software becomes subdivided between a potentially infinite number of products
(since software as such can never wear out). Unless the manufacturer can
maintain total monopoly over the technique, spreading automation will rapidly
reduce the value of the product, and profits will dwindle to nothing." [12]
This seems to rehearse an old argument about the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall and neglects the role of the State in propping up capitalist
economies. This is effected either by notorious examples of tampering with
the "free market" (e.g. past U.S. Governments burning part of the wheat
harvest to maintain world prices or the maintainance of EEC food mountains)
or by shifting to the State sector the costs of unprofitable economic
activities, or by the impact of financial State subsidies (e.g. loans and
credits with advantageous conditions or tying public funds to economic
ventures under the direction of the giant corporations). [13]
Profits could however be maintained simply by keeping prices high compared to
production costs, or it could finally be a way of producing enough goods for
everyone on a world scale, very cheaply, under a different type of social
organisation. Under the present conditions, Morris-Suzuki says the managers'
only solution to the decreasing value of products and profits is "to pour
increasing amounts of capital and labour into the development of better
software, new techniques, better products. The fission of labour inherent in
the nature of robots, in other words, creates a situation where it is only in
the design of new productive information and the initial bringing together of
information and machinery that surplus value can be extracted. Unless this
process is continually repeated, surplus value cannot be continuously
created, and the total mass of profit must ultimately fall. But over a fairly
extended period of time it is possible that high levels of automation may be
sustained by the incessant generation of new products and new methods of
production." [14]
She concludes that the spread of automated manufacturing, by sundering the
labour process and squeezing out surplus value from the production of
material objects, will force capitalist enterprises to become perpetual
innovators.
The role of labour in the production of surplus values is increasingly
minimised and replaced by the role of innovation. Information which
contributes to the productive processes becomes a commodity produced by
corporate enterprises as routinely as cars flowing from an assembly line. The
so-called information society is one in which production and sale of new
productive information (rather than goods) becomes increasingly central to
economic life. Production of technological knowledge will become the main
source of profit, and there is starting a shift in emphasis from goods
production to knowledge production.
The declining share of Japan's corporate capital expended on material inputs
(such as machinery / raw materials) and a growing share spent on non-material
inputs (e.g. software, data services, planning and research and development)
has been described as the "softening of the economy". And it has been seen as
a forerunner of a global trend. In 1970 more than half of Japan's industries
could be classified as "very hard industries", those where material goods
made up 80% or more of the total value of outputs. In 1980 only 27.3% fell
into that category. [15]
Structure of the Workforce
One illusion fostered by the ideologues of the "information society" is that
work which does not involve direct manual production is necessarily
intellectual and creative. This phenomonon can only be called the "socialism
of designers". According to this ideology, we can attain the status of
"telematic nomads... endowed with quasi-divine powers... whose attributes
approximate ever more closely to the ancient gods of mythology" [18]
The reality is quite different, however, under the conditions of the
commodity production of knowledge which leads to an increasingly fine
division of labour and growing routinisation and fragmentation of tasks.
Complex information network and database systems can be compared to the
conveyer belt in factory production - facilitating the breaking-down of tasks
into small, isolated components which can be performed by less skilled
workers. What Morris-Suzuki sees emerging is a hierarchy of
knowledge-producing occupations, ranging from the highly-trained scientific
researcher / long-term planner (a deskilled scientist who retains some
independance of action and identifies in part with management goals) to the
data compiler / computer programmer whose work is as routine, alienating and
poorly-paid as most manual workers. The actual tasks performed by most people
operating computer terminals continue to be data capture and manipulation,
not decision-making. A small minority at the top continue to make all the
important decisions and new technology merely makes sure that they are better
informed.
A perpetual innovation economy requires a workforce which is "highly
flexible", i.e. easy to take-up and discard, and this economy is likely,
according to Morris-Suzuki, to be characterised by growing insecurity of
employment and companies' increased reliance on a pool of part-time temporary
and contract labour.
This fragmentation of tasks, which has turned many areas of highly technical
work into relatively simple routine operations, has created a situation where
engineers in a design team using CAD do not have to talk to one another,
because all the information they need about a project is in the computer.
[17] The magazine Processed World, based in Silicon Valley, California,
outlines the situation where this structured division of design enables
programmers to write "slave" modules of code performing simple tasks, and an
entire computer program design can be assigned by project leaders without it
being mentioned that the Pentagon will use the software to refine an
experimental missile: "Management benefits directly: many people may not
enjoy creating office automation technology and weapons systems that destroy
life but if the work seems as harmless as a game of chess, so much the
better." [18]
Is it the technology itself which is suspect or its use in a specific
organisation of society?
Some (like Mike Cooley) argue that the premises on which Western science are
based, derived from Plato's rule-based system, are to be questioned and need
not be rethought. Others argue that a lack of a materialist base to this mode
of thought creates a mystical idea about the knowledge capable of reproducing
itself, that this is knowledge separated from the body, "separate thought".
An example of how technology can be used differently can be seen in the EC's
ESPRIT programme: to fund jointly a project to build the world's first Human
Centred Integrated Manufacturing System, a ten partner project with teams in
Denmark, Germany and the UK, initiated by the Greater London Enterprise Board
(M. Cooley, director). At each level, from design through to production
planning to manufacturing, the system builds on human skills rather than
marginalising it. Thus the human being handles the qualitative subjective
judgements and the machine merely the quantitative elements, with the idea
that humans dominate the machine and not vice-versa. [19]
In that project, some dissenters in the information world are rejecting the
cybernetic conception of creativity, whose reductive logic merely rearranges
elements in experience, all knowledge being codified in symbolic form by
"knowledge engineers", rather than acknowledging qualitative leaps,
problem-solving in a humane manner, and elements of common sense.
To conclude, these new technology systems are nothing but the reflections of
those who design them, and the conditions under which they are devised. And I
suggest that, until we have a society where we all have some control of
decision-making in the general social, political and aconomic apparatus, we
cultivate elements of softechnica-angst before we all catch softechnicosis
(symptoms extend from being taken-over by total computer-speak to excessive
paranoia about electronic surveillance)!
Lucy Forsyth
(Based on a talk given to the West Yorkshire Discussion Group in November
1989.)
Notes:
[1] See "Softechnica" by John Chris Jones in "Design After Modernism: Beyond
the Object", edited by J. Thackara (1988)
[2] Sunday Correspondent, 1/10/89
[3] Mike Cooley "Contradictions of Science and Technology in the Productive
Process" in "The Political Economy of Science", edited by H & S Rose (1976)
[4] "The Demise of Classical Rationality" by Philippe Lemoine in "Design
After Modernism"
[5] "From Brunelleschi to CAD-CAM" by Mike Cooley in "Design After Modernism"
[6] "Softechnica" by John Chris Jones
[7] "From Socrates to Intel: the Chaos of Micro-Aesthetics" by Thierry Chaput
(perhaps suffering from reading too much Baudrillard), secretary-general of
ACM Siggraph in "Design After Modernism"
[8] "Robots and Capitalism" by Tessa Morris-Suzuki in New Left Review 147
[9] "The Demise of Classical Rationality"
[10] "Robots and Capitalism"
[11] "Robots and Capitalism"
[12] "Robots and Capitalism"
[13] For a more detailed discussion of this, see Manuel Castels "The Economic
Crisis and American Society" (1980)
[14] "Robots and Capitalism"
[15] "Robots and Capitalism"
[16] "Invisible Design" by Claudia Dona in "Design After Modernism"
[17] "An Unanswered Question: Automation's Effect on Society" by Fred Guterl
in IEEE Spectrum vol.20 no.5 (May 1983)
[18] Processed World magazine, no.10
[19] Explained by Mike Cooley in "From Brunelleschi to CAD-CAM"
From Here & Now 11 1991 - No copyright