Chapter+4


 * Chapter 4: Who Will We Be in Cyberspace? Langon Winner** pp45-54

Why talk about American history? “Today’s zealots of the information age and cyberspace often insist that we are confronted with circumstances totally unprecedented, circumstances that require rapid transformation of society. That may be true in some respects. But it is also true that we Americans are past masters in reinventing ourselves and sometimes proceed thoughtfully to good effect. “To invent new technology requires that, in some way or another, society also invents the kinds of people who will use it. “It is important…to go beyond questions about the utility of new devices and systems, beyond even questions about economic consequences…and ask about conditions that sustain selfhood and civic culture. “If we limit our attn to powerful technical applications, their uses and market prospects, we tend to ignore what may be the single most consequential feature of technological change, the shaping of the conditions that affect ppl’s sense of who they are and why they live together. “Along with the excitement and sense of limitless possibilities arise some serious misgivings…In businesses, universities, government agencies, and other organisations, the connection between the introduction of new computing systems and widespread announcements of layoffs and downsizing seems obvious…Whole vocations—secretaries, phone operators, bank tellers, postal clerks—have been eliminated or abolished or drastically reduced. “Some basic conditions of human identity and association are being powerfully redefined. “The assumption in computer-centered enterprises is no longer that of belonging to and being crucial to any enduring framework of social relations. TO an increasing extent our organisations expect perpetual expendability. How people will respond to that, how they will create selfhood in an ear in which everyone is expendable, could well become a far more serious issue in coming decades than even the often lamented decline of real wages. (p.51) (similar argument raised in ch2). “Another crisis brewing…has to do with where and how ppl will experience membership. For modernism…social relations was that of city and suburb. Today …attachment is no longer defined geographically at all. Many activities of work and leisure take place in global, electronic settings and that is how ppl define their attachments. [on the one hand you have the] “Sociopathic cyberlibertarianism thinking, a fierce desire for market freedom and unfettered self-expression with no expectation that inflated cyber-egos owe anything to geographically situated others. [on the other] “There are many others who expect that desirable new forms of community will emerge, that ppl will use their computers and internet to forge new social relationships and identities, including ones that might bolster local community life. [however, **TAKE HOME MSG**] “Time will tell…what sorts of personalities, styles of discourse, and social norms will ultimately flourish in these new settings.

“If we’re asking ppl to change their lives to adapt to the intro of new info systems, it seems responsible to solicit broad participation…some of the best models come from the Scandinavian social democracies where a variety of social and political circumstances make close consultation with ordinary workers and citizens a much more common practice than it is in the USA. “While its sometimes tempting to conclude that we are merely going ‘where the tech is taking us’…[actually] deliberate choices about the relationship b/w ppl and new tech are made by someone, somehow, everyday of the year.

“The future of computing and the future of HR is thoroughly intertwined. Foremost among the obligations this situation presents is the need to seek alternatives, social policies that might undo the dreary legacy of modernism: pervasive systems of one-way communication, preemption of democratic social choice, corporate manipulation, and the presentation of sweeping changes in living conditions as something justified by a univocal, irresistible ‘progress’. [The habits of the past decades] will not be easily overcome… [but] computer professionals are well situated to initiate public debates on this matter, helping a democratic populace explore new identities and the horizons of a good society.
 * Summary:**