LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127 » December 4th: Posthumanism

December 4th: Posthumanism

Plan for the Day

Ok…so I decided to separate the discussion into two different pages. It will help to keep from digressions.

A Little about the Late-1980s

This is a story from the late-1980s, a time of great suspicion about crime, job loss, and automation anxiety. The intrusive capabilities of new technologies (and new commodification) were also anxieties played out through late-1980s films, such as RoboCop (1987), They Live (1988), and Cyborg (1989). Many of these films had a dystopian feel to them and technologies are seen more as harmful to humanity as opposed to texts from the Star Trek universe, where technologies are (usually) considered helpful overall. Although video games had been in homes since the early 1970s, by the late-1980s, video game consoles and computer games were extremely popular. Computer games, video games solely available on PCs, were popular with a particular type of computer “enthusiast.” Not that I’m biased or anything, but those who were more interested in computer games, such as the Sierra Online games, were usually more cerebral and had better knowledge of computers because PCs, specifically, were less standardized, requiring the superb debugging skills of self-taught individuals who found workarounds. {While this passage may appear to be all satire, one should realize there’s quite a bit of truth in satire…}

Eileen Gunn’s “Computer Friendly” (1989)

This is another technological dystopia. It starts out like a story about a child’s first day of kindergarten or 1st grade, but there’s a twist…the school is testing the children to determine if they’re worthy to be part of the labor force. The biggest theme in the story is the push for predictability and standardization. Uniformity makes processing more efficient. Instead of technologies being created to fit human conditions (a humanistic approach), humans are “optimiz[ed] for predictability” (p. 652) to work efficiently and fit the technologies (system-centered approach). This is a projection (“if this continues…”) of Fordist/Taylorist goals of efficiency during the early 20th Century. In fact, here are some aspects of Taylorism for the mid-Industrial Revolution:

  • Henry Ford’s Assembly Line; Frederick Taylor’s Management Science
  • Taylor (1911/1967) asserted that “great gain, both to employers and employés,” will come “from the substitution of scientific rule-of-thumb methods in even the smallest details of the work of every trade” (p. 24, emphasis added).
  • Taylor argued that “[t]he enormous saving of time and therefore increase in output…can be fully realized only after one has personally seen the improvement’’ of Taylor’s scientific application (p. 24).
    • One major goal of Taylorism was efficiency from ‘‘[t]he general adoption of scientific management’’ to achieve ‘‘the increase, both in the necessities and luxuries of life, which becomes available for the whole country’’ (p. 142).
    • Also, another goal would be “the elimination of almost all causes for dispute and disagreement between [management and workmen]” (p. 142).
  • Although Taylor (1911/1967) directly addressed managers and workers, the results of his system were to be a benefit to all industrialized nations: ‘‘Is it not the duty of those who are acquainted with these facts, to exert themselves to make the whole community realize this [study of scientific management’s] importance’’ (p. 144).
    • Taylor (1911/1967) claimed, “our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient, and which Mr. [Theodore] Roosevelt refers to as a lack of ‘national efficiency,’ are less visible, less tangible, and are vaguely appreciated” (p. 5).

Basically, although we claim the pace of life has increased with the ubiquity of computer technologies since the late 1970s, the drive for efficiency is much older. Don’t forget the beginning of the semester’s Futurism readings:

  • ‘‘Futurism is grounded in the great discoveries of science’’ (1913/1973, p. 96, italics mine).

Standardization

Because Elizabeth (Lizardbreath) is in a school context, the practice of standardized testing jumps out at me. Think about all the standardized testing you had do in school. Why do you think schools use standardized tests? Are you away of a growing trend to drop requiring the SAT and ACT tests? Also, I’m pretty sure the school in the short story is based on the Francis W. Parker School in Chicago, IL, which currently has an innovative early childhood education curriculum.

  • p. 642: Why do you think it’s called the Asia Center?
  • p. 643: Why does Elizabeth’s dad need his brain wiped?
  • p. 644: Elizabeth’s dad tells her, in her future career, “you’ll be hardwired into the network…” cyborg style!
  • p. 644: Elizabeth’s dad says, “‘Being an executive is sort of like playing games all the time….the harder you work…the more fun you’ll have later.”
    • Someone else’s father also had a video game-type job…
    • He even had a special suit he wore.
  • p. 645: Her parents are happy that “her physical aptitude scores are even lower than Bobby’s”
    • What other story didn’t want people to have too much physical capability?
    • Semester’s coming full circle.
  • p. 646: Elizabeth dreams of Sheena not wanting to fall asleep.
    • What are the “white things in glass jars”?
  • p. 647: Elizabeth on lying–“It seemed to be mostly a matter of convincing yourself that what you said was true.”

(In)Efficiency

One of the pursuits of systems is efficiency–meeting goals with the fewest resources. Conventional wisdom claims that you make more profit if you reduce your costs, and one way to reduce costs is being more efficient. Computers (and other technologies) are supposed to make our lives more efficient. Elizabeth’s mother and brother have become efficient tools of “the system” by becoming machines. They don’t jack in like in The Matrix; they never leave cyberspace.

  • In order to get the most efficiency, the human is reduced to brain waves. So are animals. Brownie “fetches” information for Elizabeth.
  • p. 649: All computer functions appear to be personified.
  • pp. 651-652: The Chickenheart was surprised about his creation and its insistence on optimizing for predictability.
    • What’s the problem with too much predictability?
  • p. 653: The Chickenheart brings Sheena and Oginga into the system.
    • “Things are too predictable here already. Same ideas churning around and around.”
    • “[Oginga] has a brand of curiosity we can put to use.”

Overall Questions for “Computer Friendly”

Because we have a social science fiction approach to our readings, consider what the following questions through that lens:

  • What comment is being made about our labor practices?
  • What’s the problem with too much predictability?
  • What other story showed a little change in the system at the end?
    • What might be Gunn’s comment on a little subversion in the system?
    • Also, what’s the bigger picture hierarchy of this system? Who are the cops, executives, and architects?
  • What’s the play on the phrase “user friendly”? What effect does changing “user” to “computer” have?

Posthumanism

The topic of posthumanism, like many philosophical terms, doesn’t have an exact definition. However, we can begin to understand the concept–after all, this course is all about leading you to more questions than answers–by thinking literally of “post” being after humans. Although many science fiction texts have humans becoming machine-like, I read that metaphorically as the ways in which technologies–socially constructed–have conditioned behaviors (but not values or worldviews necessarily). You have heard me say that we became posthuman once we used non-instinctual technologies. Humans are tool users, but we have also become tools for social systems that we cannot separate ourselves from. Although this concept has varying ideas about how much control humans can exert on a system, I argue that our control is extremely limited and tied to illusions of control embedded in a system that trained us to think and even dream the way the system wants.

There is certainly room for subversion, but how often is is co-opted by hegemonic actors? Perhaps, I’m too pessimistic and reject the overwhelming potential of small, incremental changes. Perhaps, others are too committed and too optimistic of the potential for individuals to effect change. Perhaps there’s more gray area.

I hope you’ve enjoyed the semester! Sorry I can’t tie up all the loose ends. Then again, what fun would that be?

Final Exam!!!

We’re done with class. Your Final Exam is December 11th–don’t forget–on Canvas. It will be 85-100 questions, and, yes, the exam is cumulative. I will set it up so you’ll definitely get questions from these last two short stories and, of course, our discussions. Good luck! And may the odds be ever in your favor.

Works Cited

Marinetti, F. T. (1913/1973). Destruction of syntax—[Wireless imagination]—Words-in-freedom. In U. Apollonio (Ed.), Futurist manifestos (pp. 95–106). Boston, MA: MFA Publications. (R. W. Flint, Trans).

Taylor, F. W. (1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton. (Original work published in 1911).