Slashdot Mirror
Black Futurists In The Information Age
First of a series on "Technology and the Future."
Every new edition of "Technology and the Future," edited by Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a monumental event.
First conceived more than a generation ago and repeatedly updated, Teich's book - there are eleven new pieces in this edition (Bedford/St. Martin's) - is almost a literary marvel. It collects and reflects more smart and provocative thinking about the future of technology than any given decade's worth of newspapers and newsmagazines.
In the next few columns, I'll select several of the essays and ideas in Teich's brilliant book to talk about. Then I'll start waiting for the next edition.
***
Sooner or later, race surfaces in discussions of almost every social and political issue in America. Because computing is, on the surface at least, a color- blind culture, it's been slow to join in the conversation.
But as Timothy L. Jenkins, (Yale Law School graduate, CEO of Unlimited Vision, Inc., and one of the creators of the first black online forum on the Net) makes clear in his essay, "Black Futurists in the Information Age," the Net means very different things to different people.
Computing is as white an industry as exists in American life, as any high-tech worker can see just from peering around. Although middle-class African-Americans and other minorities are getting online in substantial numbers, there remains an enormous disparity between whites' computer use and blacks', especially among the so-called underclass.
Online culture is too diverse to generalize about in political terms. But if there any universally-shared ethic among the Net generation, it might be the belief that getting online is an individual responsibility. That might fairly be described as the federal government's attitude as well: Here's the tent; anyone who can make it inside is more than welcome. But everybody has to get there on his own.
Given their histories and experiences, this has enormous different connotations for blacks than it does for whites.
"The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long.
Jenkins agrees with most philosophers and social historians that, on the surface, there's every reason to celebrate the proliferation of new Information Age technologies. But along with many other blacks, he can't buy the idea that universally -available information leads inexorably towards democracy.
There is, writes Jenkins, "palpable" evidence that without major social intervention, "the utopian predictions of the Information Age for the society as a whole will paradoxically result in a doomsday scenario for the masses of black people."
Black political leaders don't really have a technological agenda, he writes, and most white politicians ignore the issue of technological equality. Blacks need to move from being gatekeepers to gatecrashers when it comes to technology, Jenkins writes, and to set forth an agenda for technology and the future. As it now stands, prophesies Jenkins, many blacks, already suffering economically in the early stages of Information Age, "may be like the canary in a coal mine, forecasting climactic dangers before they become a general manifestation."
In the final analysis, he writes, the essence of technology ought to be service. "Judged from that perspective, it remains to be seen whether the interests of the black community are served or sacrificed. Absent purposeful leadership involvement, either could be true." And there is anything but purposeful leadership. Black politicians have been as muddled in their discussions about technology and the future as members of Congress.
Writes Jenkins: "If its (technology's) prime effect is to reduce the labor force to an absolute minimum in order to maximize profits or to allow jobs to follow tax breaks and the lowest wages wherever they might lead, then technology, while benefiting some, will have failed us all!"
The equitable distribution of technology has never been a mainstream political issue in America, though it might have more impact on shaping the future than any other single social or political development.
The United States has been embroiled for years in a raging, obsessive debate about sexual imagery online. But apart from the techno-millenial blabber that occasionally erupts from Al Gore and Bill Clinton, hardly anyone mentions the whopper moral issue surrounding technology and the future: What will become of the people who can't or won't learn how to use new information technologies?
What kind of education will be available? What kinds of jobs will they have? What kinds of lives can they aspire to lead?
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Jenkin's fears are well-grounded. About 42 per cent of all U.S. households now have a PC, says a government report released on July 9, l999 (www.usatoday.com). But they're in about 80 per cent of homes in which families make $75,000 or more a year and in fewer than 16 per cent in which families make less than $20,000.
Income isn't the only variable, found the Commerce Department. The gap in Internet use between whites and blacks expanded to 20.7 percentage points last year (32.4 per cent of white households vs. ll.7 per cent of black) from 13.5 percentage points in l997. The difference between white and Hispanic use in l998 rose to 19.5 percentage points from 12.5.
The recent history of computing is clear enough: technology provides an educational and economic bounty for society's best and brightest. The history of underclass Americans - especially black underclass Americans - strongly suggests that if any group is voluntarily or involuntary excluded, it will be the African-American poor.
If they don't catch up soon, Jenkins persuasively warns, they never will. Yet recent surveys show the techno-gap between haves and have nots widening, not shrinking. Don't look for politicians or the press to make this is a significant political issue in the coming presidential election either. It's much easier to exploit fears about new technology than to focus on its real consequences.
It's clear by now even to rabid Luddites that new information technologies will be critical in shaping economic and employment opportunity, freedom of speech and thought, educational advancement and, increasingly, political knowledge and participation. As such, cautions Jenkins, we stand on the threshold of the invention of what may well become a new worldwide technological caste system.
There is no real political ideology online, other than a vaguely Libertarian wariness of government intrusion and a widespread passion for the free movement of ideas and information. It is not an exclusionary culture.
But Jenkins is right. Hardly anyone has seriously addressed the long-term racial and class implications of the emergence of a new techno-elite in the United States - an educated, affluent, overwhelmingly white, and increasingly dominant group.
Next: Ethics for programmers.
""The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long. "
As a young science nerd, bullied at school and beaten at home, I learned the 'ability and necessity to see things...differently' and became suspicious of jerks' ability to understand me, all without the 'benefit and burden of being black'.
Why must the discussion of the effects of oppression always devolve to racial semantics, immediately shutting out the common experience of ALL human political groups (i.e., two or more nekkid monkeys )? All can realize that, if one can't overpower the oppressor, the option is to outsmart them. Becoming "educated, affluent" now MEANS "increasingly dominant", able to push any agenda of merit, regardless of color. ( check out Bobby Seale's Page).
Racists have suckered the black kids really well; learning in school is "white", thus uncool, and resisting the establishment's agenda of getting them to study becomes the height of emotional fulfillment. Bingo! Another batch of burger-flippers propelled out the door in a puff of self-fulfilling despair. The alternative is 'submission' to 'the Man', an obvious dead-end, right? Well guess what - the institutions ( and cliques ) are hardly less oppressive for any outcasts! Where's the anger, the determination to OUTLEARN the clueless old biddy, the high-handed ass't-principal, and the smug jock thugs?
Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result. Smashing skulls with that jawbone no longer works at the 21st century's watering holes. The choice is to bite down, endure ( or teach yourself ), and learn, or to accept your masochism and let your morale improve with the beatings.
What some dead Klansman did to shatter the nerve of whatever good menschen, now poor, has no bearing on my aptitude as a programmer or the advantages that it merits. I'm refurbishing old junk boxes in my garage; I'll happily give a few to the Mexican family across the street, but will one of them learn enough to admin it themselves? I can only hope to impress them with the stakes involved in that decision - their daughter plays with mine, after all...
- A.Lurker@Hellmouth.Rim
This can't be first post, I previewed it too long.
The inequality of the Web is not racial - it's economic. It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. Remember the "Shoe Event Horizon" in Hitchhiker's Guide, where everyone on the planet was making shoes? That could be us. Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
Let's keep the government and everyone else out of this and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Black, white, et al - who cares?
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
THis article has seriously made me want to go out and join a club or other organization that helps poor people 'get connected.' In a sense, the whole 'free software' movement is great, as long as we realize that it isn't just about freedom, it is also about free beer.
Everyone keeps harkening on, "Oh yeah, and you can SELL linux too." But you know what I think is another aspect of the revolution? The fact that you can make a $200 box for a home, with a free (as in beer) OS, so that your grandma or a poor inner-city youth can experience the same inforation as everyone else.
Freedom is not freedom if you have to buy it from (Choose your favorite software vendor).
Maybe it is not time yet to start calling for free beer (and the social-guerilla tactics are exactly why I like ESR), but soon (comrades) soon we should stop putting down and rather pick up our neighbors. Strange that code may set us free....