[W]e will sing of the nightly fervour of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons; greedy raiIway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents; factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts. (Marinetti, 1909)
F.T. Marinetti, ‘Les mots en liberte futuristes’, 1919
Heidegger wrote one of the most important philosophical critiques of technology in his “The Question Concerning Technology.” He describes technology not simply as a collection of artifacts but as an all encompassing world view “the technological understanding of being.” A culture’s assembled tools and practices define for them a particular way of both seeing and interacting with the world. This has changed through a series of epochs in the western world: from a model of man amongst wild nature, to the religious world view of the middle ages, through to the modern world where technology was designed to stand against nature and satisfy desires of autonomous subjects, into an age of information, and now one of manifest networks of communities. In this new epoch, networks of social communities completely “enframes” the world, fitting everything into a grand unified ecosystem, and treating everything as a potential node to be used and exploited, friended and followed. Both object and subject are converted to a “standing-reserve”, to be disaggregated, redistributed, recontextualized, and reaggregated.
When Heidegger wrote in the middle part of the last century, the paradigm he had in mind for demonstrating the ‘enframement of being’ was the electrical grid. Hydroelectric dams convert rivers into a resource for energy, that energy is distributed across the population, and everyone in the population is reliant upon the distribution system. But the new era of networked computers fits Heidegger’s model even better. Information and our relationships in the context of social networks is the ultimate resource. It can be endlessly disaggregated, remixed and redistributed. The network ‘enframes’ our entire world, because information about anything can be sent over the network. And human individuals, who were once reduced to resources (Frederick Taylor, and the authoritarianism of Human Resource departments), or “eyeballs” in the terminology of internet marketing executives; are now the creative engines of growth, innovation, and creativity.
Albert Borgmann builds upon Heidegger’s work in his books “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life” and ” Crossing the Postmodern Divide” (Borgmann, 1984 and 1992). Borgmann sees technology as providing the promise of a better, easier life, but it seduces us into substituting the collection of material objects for a focus on what makes the good life (family, friends, sex and food). He distinguishes two types of technological artifacts: focal things and devices. Focal Things form the loci for a set of activities that defines a form of living, places such as the kitchen provided a setting for much of family life. Devices, on the other hand, tended to be hidden and so encourage us to think of the good they produce as a commodity whose utility is to be maximized within the constraints of time and money. The device paradigm replacement for the kitchen/hearth might be a central heating unit or furnace. It provides heat, but its operation is usually hidden, so we think of the heat merely as a commodity, not as the central organizing focus for the family (Borgmann, 1984, pp. 41-42). This becomes even more interesting when we wonder about the context and meaning of start-ups intentionally exposing their office space’s ductwork – as if the open office with exposed pipes re-instantiates a manifestation of the hearth, or at least ‘un-hides’ the circulatory system of commerce.
Office with Exposed Duct Work
In his later book, Borgmann sees fit to differentiate between “modern, hard” technology, which through rigidity and control overcame the resistance of nature to fabricate durable devices, and “postmodern, soft” technology, which through flexibility and adaptiveness produces a diverse array of goods for specialized activities. Postmodern technology uses the hyper-reality of simulations to get rid of the limitations imposed by reality. The limit of postmodern reality is not the total objectification of nature, but the replacement of reality by virtual reality totally under our control. The objects of reality disappear to the extent that we as subjects gain control over them, but we are similarly reduced to “a point of arbitrary desires.” (Borgmann, 1992, p. 108) Modern computing devices allows us the freedom to do many things, but in so doing we risk our intelligence becoming diffuse, our memory lost without our electronic aids — my iPhone is my memory, contact list, communication device, assistant and extension of my central nervous system – I don’t even know my best friends phone numbers, email or meat-space addresses any longer.
Borgmann’s antidote for losing our personality to the shallowness and superficiality of hyper-reality is to return to focal activities. Focal activities are practices which center our attention on the richness of life. For example, the preparation of a well cooked meal calls upon our skill, focuses our attention on the necessities of life, and can be an aesthetic or sacramental communal activity, where as frozen dinners commodify the process of eating. Technology can assist in the performance of focal activities – witness the wide array of kitchen implements available – as long as the technology does not become the focus instead of the activity. It takes commitment on our part to engage in focal activities, but the effort affords us a chance to maintain some sense of self in the technological world. (Borgmann, 1992, p. 116-122)
Marcuse and the critical theorists harshly criticize the technological way of life. Technological thinking, by measuring everything in quantifiable terms, leads us to think in abstract and de-contextulized ways. By quantifying everything we separate the ethical from the true, and values are relegated to the subjective. Thus technological rationality can claim that technologies are value neutral, and only uses are good or evil, despite the fact that the uses are shaped by the technologies. And technology leads to new forms of domination. For the critical theorists history has always had domination, but in our time domination has changed from master over slave or lord over serf to the domination of humanity by economics and the market. We are given the illusion of liberty, but that is simply the freedom to choose between brands of mass-produced products. Computer technology further de-contextualizes human experience by emphasizing information over understanding. And computers further domination by providing new means of tracking the productivity of workers to the corporation and depersonalizing supervision; very much a modern panopticon envisioned by Jeremy Bentham.
Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham
While Marcuse concentrates on the domination of technology, it is not clear who is dominating whom; we are all caught up in the web of technological society. Foucault speaks of power instead of domination. Power is evident in all human activities, whether they are oppressive or benign. Power can be used to dominate, but it can also be used to transform. Technologies, social institutions and practices are all interconnected in the applications of power, and so new technologies can bring about a change in the power structure within society. Foucault’s view allows for the possibility that information technology could be used to put people in more direct communication with each other and spread the concentration of power over society. (Coyne, 1995, pp. 90-98)
How Do I Interact With Digital Technology?
The development of widespread digital technology, from laptops to iPhones, has changed many of our daily practices. Borgmann describes the evolution of writing equipment. The fountain pen encouraged us to write to someone to whom the quality of our handwriting mattered, carefully composing our thoughts on serious personal matters. The typewriter was better suited for the rapid recording of business matters or factual reports. Now, MS Word and freely available blogging software encourages us to constantly revise, so a work becomes a series of drafts, none of which is final (just like this post). And when the computer is connected to the internet the drafts can be circulated to many people for input (using co-author technologies like Google Docs or Adobe Buzzword), so that authorship becomes diffuse. I post this article, you comment, I revise – in a constant, evolutionary strange loop. So devices are not neutral, they affect the possibilities available to us, as well as ‘enframe’ our relationships with both the objects (which are now collaborative-with the ontology to organize them – which is collective) and the people’s acting upon those objects.
As the nature of writing changed from fountain pen, to typewriter, to word processor and now to blogs and Twitter, so has changed interpersonal communications from letters, to telephone, to e-mail, instant messaging, blogging with comments, to my twitter stream. So too has the nature of work changed from crafts, to factory production, to the information economy and now to the “creative/collaborative/crowdsourced/collective economy”. Our relationship to information has changed from the library model of careful selection, classification within strict taxonomies, and permanent collections to the information retrieval model of access to everything, diversification, dynamic collections and bottom-up folksonomies. All of these changes are disruptive, they foreclose old practices and provide new opportunities. Some people are always hurt by these shifts, while others find unseen chances to thrive.
The new technologies have brought new opportunities to affect social change. In the manner of Foucault‘s philosophy we have the chance to redistribute the power within society. E-mail was used by students during the Russian coup; by relaying messages through an intermediary in the U.S. the students were able to respond to changes faster than the Army and recently the most up to the minute information about the terrorist attack in India, or the plane crash in New York, was distributed through Twitter – instantly, and around the globe. Blogging and the web offer the possibility for marginalized voices to reach a wide audience – but big brands still hold control. Basic xhtml code is easy to learn and use, and web authoring tools like Dreamweaver make the process even easier. So anyone can post information to the web with a small amount of effort. Such self broadcasting was not practical with television, where larger amounts of investment and knowledge are necessary. Of course, it is up to us to avail ourselves of these opportunities. The entrenched power structures are also trying to control as much of the new media as possible to maintain their positions of power. The issue has not been decided yet, but the internet is not as free as it was just a few years ago. One place the larger, more powerful brands can’t control is social media. As explained over Twitter by Thomas Vander Wal (who coined the term “folksonomy,”) it’s the velocity of communication that brands still have difficulty managing and controlling. The ideals of futurism remain as significant components of modern culture; the emphasis on youth, speed, power and connectivity finding expression in much of modern commercial cinema and culture from mashups to Twitter to distopic visions in Minority Report.
“The cry of rebellion which we utter associates our ideals with those of the Futurist poets. These ideas were not invented by some aesthetic clique. They are an expression of a violent desire, which burns in the veins of every creative artist today. … We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past, a religion encouraged by the vicious existence of museums. We rebel against that spineless worshipping of old canvases, old statues and old bric-a-brac, against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal.”
(Marinetti, 1909)
Computer technology can assist us in pursuit of Borgmann’s focal activities, despite Borgmann’s reservations. If writing is a focal activity for us, word processors can make the job easier even though we have seen that they alter the process. Maintaining contact with friends is facilitated by e-mail, IM, SMS, etc. Even if it predisposes us to short note rather than long heartfelt letters, e-mail is useful for organizing face-to-face meetings. Cooking, Borgmann’s exemplary focal activity, can be aided by accessing new recipes online from places like epicurious.com and allrecipes.com. And all sorts of activities have online interest groups where people around the world can meet to discuss their common passions. Some activities were solitary activities, pursued by lone individuals as their individual means of artistic expression, until the internet allowed them to realize that others shared their interest — they were no longer freaks!
Often the overwhelming experience when dealing with computer technology is one of frustration. Computer interfaces are often confusing and arbitrary. Simple, routine tasks take great effort to do. Programs crash causing the loss of laboriously produced work. Incompatible versions will not read old data. And rapidly advancing technology leaves our equipment outdated in a short time, leading to feelings of inadequacy as the manufacturers try to convince us we need the latest models. Any benefits to our practices can be lost through frustration over difficulty using the technology to accomplish the tasks. The computer becomes the focus of our attention rather than the focal practice we my be trying to pursue through it.
Design Can Soften the Disruptive Force of Technology
The creators of computer technology can lessen the disruptive force of the technology by embracing good design. Well designed systems and devices should be useful, usable, easily learned, and perform functions that let people do the things they want to do (Gould, 1988). Good design can lessen the frustration users feel when they use computers. The sum of all the small frustrations with everyday life add up to the feelings of powerlessness and despair felt by many in the modern world. Alleviating those frustrations leads to an improved quality of life. By making the system easier to use and more reliable, designers help users get on with the tasks they wish to accomplish rather than worrying about the computer. When systems help users realize their goals and intentions they promote the human value of autonomy.
User Experience Honeycomb
Things that are easy to learn reduce the disruption caused by new technologies. Technological society may force new methods and practices upon us, but if they are easier to learn, then at least the people adept at the old practices can learn to operate in the new manner. While the philosophical issues remain, the impact of new technology on individuals can be softened by design. Technology can be made easier to learn by making the choices of acts you can perform obvious and by providing appropriate mental maps of the operation to the user. Computer technology, by virtue of its interface being flexible, could be made very easy to learn. But, alas, most systems are not designed to realize this possibility (Norman, 1990).
Good designs make possible the benefits of computing technology. Use of a computer as an instrument in pursuit of a focal practice is only possible if the computer does not crowd one’s focus of attention. The computer interface should fade into the background so that we may concentrate on our human-affirming activities – and example being the LG Internet Refrigerator appliance.
LG Internet Refridgerator
If the difficulties experienced mount, then any benefit is canceled out by the trouble with the instrument. In such a case it would be better to do without the new technology. In order for technology to fade from our focus while we use it to perform a task, it should operate reliably and consistently so that after a brief learning period we can form habits of use and then use the technology without thought. Computers, once again by virtue of their flexible structure, could be designed to operate consistently and appropriately, more so than material technology which must obey mechanical constraints, but, once again, it often is not so designed. (Norman, 1990)
So we see the importance of good interface design, and we know from experience that technology often fails to meet standards of good design. But what constitutes good design? Donald Norman examined the qualities of good and bad design of common technologies in his book “The Design of Everyday Things” (Norman, 1990). His advice boils down to: make sure the user can figure out what to do, and that the user can can tell what is going on. Good design should use the natural properties of people and the world to produce systems whose operation is obvious. Different features offer different affordances, or operations that they suggest to the user. For example, buttons are made for pushing, and knobs are made for turning; we naturally know what to do, unless they are built to work in some other way which will be hard to use. If everything in the design has its proper place and obvious function, then only a short amount of instruction is necessary to begin use. If the design is made such that common activities have a simple and intuitive action to perform, then users will quickly become habituated and can perform the tasks rapidly and comfortably. If the instructions are so complicated or non-intuitive to prompt the user to wonder “How am I going to remember that?” or if simple actions can lead to catastrophic failures then the design has failed and should be re-worked.
Methods and Metaphors
In order to design good computer systems that support people in their endeavors, designers must observe how real people use their computers and design accordingly. Too many programmers are trained in the logic of computer languages, but not in the needs of computer users. While in some computer projects the user interface is the last part of the program to be designed, it should be the first. For most users the interface is what they see as the computer. Some designers of computer interfaces have come to realize this. John Gould wrote an important paper “How to Design Usable Systems” to explain simple but important design principles to other programmers. He sought to have programmers focus on the needs of users from the very start of the project. He offers four simple principles to be followed:
- an early and continuous focus on users,
- early and continual testing,
- iterative design revising for the results of testing, and
- integrated design where all the elements develop constantly and in coordination
Gould suggests that these principles are easy to implement, even by those not trained in psychological or human factors studies, it just takes a commitment on the part of the programmers and managers to create a good, useful product.
Gould’s attitude towards design finds philosophical support in pragmatism. Pragmatism recognizes that everyone is socially situated. Dewey taught that scientific theories or methods of logic are tools used in a certain social practice. Attention to the practices surrounding an object are important to understanding it. Since he viewed knowledge as participatory he argued that learning must come about by doing. Coyne argues that Dewey’s attitudes resonates with the methods of computer system designers such as Gould (Coyne, 1995, pp. 36-51). Dewey’s pragmatism provides a better philosophical basis for computer science education than the rationalism that underlies most training. The rationalist attitudes are responsible for a concentration on logic and theory in the education of programmers rather than attention to the needs of computer users. However, projects to produce user centered design, like Gould’s, reflect the same concern for practice that is the bases of Dewey’s philosophy. Gould even suggests programmers learn through doing by actually spending time at the job sites where the programs will be used, following exactly Dewey’s prescriptions for education (Gould, 1988). This, of course, was well before the ‘golden-age’ of user-centered design, activity centered design and all the myriad bastard children that seems to have sprung up recently.
More recently, over the past five or six years, metaphor has become an important concept in website, web application and system design as well as in language. Metaphor is more than just a literary device used for poetic effect, it is an integral part of our language and thought. Lakoff and Johnson showed in their book “Metaphors We Live By” the ubiquity of metaphor in our language, often being used without our even noticing (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Metaphors provide us a way of understanding the world, by associating one thing with another. Powerful metaphors are like magic, and inform how we think of the objects described, revealing hidden aspects of the thing described. New metaphors for the forces in our lives will suggest new ways of living. Metaphors interact with technology in several ways: technology serves as a source of metaphors, new technologies are understood metaphorically, and our metaphors in life pose problems to be solved technologically (See Dan Saffer’s presentation, “The role of Metaphor in Interaction Design“).
For devices that work in an abstract language like computers, metaphors provide a way for the user to understand the operation of the machine. The Apple Mac desktop metaphor is famous. It provides a way of understanding the file structure of the machine in terms of a physical space that most people understand. By developing new metaphors, interface designers can suggest new ways of working with computers. If these metaphors are carefully chosen then they will provide a natural model which makes operation of the machine easy.
“In that Empire, the Art of cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Disproportionated Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds built a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided accurately with it.”
Jorge Luis Borges, ‘Del rigor en la ciencia’, 1960
Just as metaphors can help us understand computers, computers can provide new metaphors for life. Postmodern theories of psychology suggest that there is no single unified “ego”, but that each of us is made up of a multiplicity of parts, while Minsky discusses the “agencies of mind” in his book “The Society of Mind.” Philip Bromberg claims that a healthy personality is one in which different aspects of the self can come to know one another and reflect upon each other. This fluid multiplicity of personality is what gives us our flexibility and resilience. With the rise of MySpace, Facebook, personal blogs, IM and Twitter, a popular activity on the internet is participation in these consensual hallicinations of community in social networks. In these social networks, we create a persona within a distrbuted ecosystem. We interact with ‘the other,’ — folks through their online persona initially their projects of self which, over time, tend towards some mean around a distrubution of ‘self-hood’. People are not restricted by their biological gender, or in the case of World of Warcraft, even their race or species. Social networks allow participants to explore different aspects of their personality, to manufacture and evolve aspects of their personality depending on context and mood. Many regulars sometimes play several characters in different social networks at the same time, cycling through their online personalities. While some observers might see this activity as evidence of Heidegger’s disaggregation of the subject by technology, it can also be seen as a model for Bromberg’s self as being one while being many. This is just one way in which computer technology, the internet, and connected social networks can show us a new way of understanding ourselves.
