This weeks readings highlight the negative effects of network technologies. What a downer. Barney argues, “the networked computerization of production makes it flexible customizable, and responsive because when process information is reduced to standardized, universal form of bits that can be exchanged almost instantaneously and with considerable reliability across vast distances in great volumes, the need for friction-ridden human labor is greatly reduced” (Barney, 136). I personally don’t view this as negative as Barney paints it to be. True, at the moment this is creating a large unemployment rate and jobs that are temporary and/or unreliable. This is the changing environment and we, as a society, need to adapt to it. “Flexible, customizable, and responsive” technologies are a good thing! This stimulates the economy. Unfortunately there the labor force is too large. As a result, we need some serious population control. We need to fight that biological urge to reproduce and have 5+ children. Lets keep it to three or less okay? Preferably two. I would say one, but I think that having a sibling is an important part of social development, lol. But honestly, there must be an algorithm that could indicate the appropriate population needed for optimal economic functioning, in addition to the health of the earth in relation to depleting resources.
Another concern was the degradation and surveillance of unskilled workers. This is a legitimate concern. If workers increasingly do not have anything to distinguish themselves from others, then job opportunities are limited, which means that the monomaniac capitalist boss gets to dictate the turf rules as a result of the unskilled worker being forced to choose between unemployment vs. the conditions of the boss. Barney points out that “computerized surveillance is more extensive because it can be applied to a growing number of occupational categories and to a broader range of activities within those categories” (Barney, 156). This oddly is not of much concern to me. I have faith that some sort of legislation to monitor personal information would limit corporations from this unethical behavior. As far as monitoring worker performance, go right ahead if you think it will improve productivity, of course it might lower moral and thus lower productivity, but who knows? I’m not an industrial psychologist or an economist.
Of course I wrote this before I actually read Andrejevic’s work. Evidently there are database companies that “keep lists of people who take Prozac for depression, believe in the bible, gamble online, an buy sex toys” (Andrejevic, 7) That’s mildly horrifying, but I assume it is for marketing reasons, not some creepy Big Brotha’ conspiracy. In fact, I think that’s great. Maybe Veronica will find a top of the line sex toy as a result of this sophisticated monitoring system. The problem comes in our desire for privacy. No one wants his or her name to be publicly linked to a sex toy…usually, *shifts eyes.* Moreover, why not keep track of people who are looking up how to blow up a plane? I would also like to comment on Andrejevic’s section on “watching each other.” I mean, this was really kind of funny. At work, “keystroke monitoring programs serve as a means to both monitor and discipline employees” (Andrejevic, 227). Moreover, spouses were using software to track their adulterous partners. For me, this is a human problem. If you have a cheating spouse and you are neurotic enough to buy software to check, go right ahead. If you are a parole officer monitoring a pedophile, go right ahead. I feel like I should be more concerned about privacy, but I view these advances as practical.
No comments:
Post a Comment