In Chapter 2, Jones and Hafner discuss data, information, and
knowledge. The differences among these areas is the difference between what we
know, how we know, and what we do with what we know—in other words, how is data
and information constructed into meaningful knowledge.
This reading reminds me of another book, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power (1989),
by Shoshana Zuboff. In a chapter called The Information Pantopicon, Zuboff
describes the characteristics of today’s information and knowledge. First, panopticism, from Foucault, (Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison, (1995) is the design of a prison that induces to the inmate, a
state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic
functioning of power” (p. 201). In other words, the inmate is observed or
seemingly observed at all times. The design of the prison and the tower are
situated in such a way as to give the impression that inmates are under
constant surveillance, which in turn provides the observer with the power to
control them. They, in fact, Foucault indicates, police themselves because they
are under the impression that they are constantly being observed (p. 201).
Second, Zuboff applies this concept to the information age, looking
specifically at manufacturing. She describes an information panopticon as a digital environment designed to observe
production. She tells the story of a manufacturing plant that installed a
software program linked to the actual production on the plant floor, every
activity. This software told the plant manager everything s/he needed to know
about the amount of production without the manager needing to talk to anyone.
This software removed the need for building a social relationship with the
workers.
The information itself is not dangerous; it’s the knowledge that is
constructed from the spreadsheet that demonstrates a different kind of power.
It used to be that plant managers would walk the floor talking to the workers,
getting updated on family information as well as productivity. Now the manager
could sit in an office and simply pull up a spreadsheet to determine how things
were going. The manager was still the one in charge, but workers previously felt
a more personal relationship to her/him, connecting on a more human level. With
only a spreadsheet, managers could now find it much easier to lay off workers,
even fire unproductive ones, without knowing any more than the numbers. I
wonder about the kind of meaning that is being constructed by the manager.
At UNO, faculty have a similar experience in that we must create an
annual report of our activities (teaching evaluations, research, service
activities) using Digital Measures. This software environment enables
administrators to “see” what activities faculty are engaged in simply by
running a report. Having been in an administrative position, I can see why this
software makes everything easier and more efficient (as opposed to wading
through stacks and stacks of papers), but like the managers, the power is
concentrated in the administration with no need for building personal relationships
with faculty. The system affords efficiency and constrain human relations. I
think the data that is collected is constructed and productivity recorded, creating
meaning infused with power. Is that power effective or not effective?
The example of the prison where the inmates' behavior changed as a result of them being under constant surveillance (or thinking they were) reminds me of where I used to work (at a group home for at-risk youth). Cameras were installed in most of the rooms in the 'cottages' where the kids lived. This was supposed to help monitor them which it did, to some degree at least. It was surprising to me how quickly (almost immediately) the youth were able to discern exactly what the cameras could see (angles, distance, lights on or off) and they would just move to places where they could not be seen to do their mischief. They were, however, very aware of their privacy rights. It was like a game or a challenge to many of them. I once had a group of junior high boys who set their alarms for 4:00 a.m. so they could meet in the bathroom to play poker undetected. It was never an easy task to get them all up early for anything else! Also, it is interesting that the staff were the ones to complain about the cameras. It added another thing to an already overwhelming "to do" list and was nearly impossible to check cameras as often as would be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteWow, this entry is just really great. I knew about the prison from readings other professors have asked me to do before. I found it interesting that in a prison of that size that all the prisoners would behave because the fear of someone possibly watching them. This reminds me of the novel by George Orwell, 1984. Winston and all of Oceania were being monitored by a figure known as Big Brother. Although many people have read the novel and used the internet, they may not have made the connections to Google or the government(the real Big Brother) monitoring their actions. Google attempts to match data to people based on their previous searches and preferences. Our government tries to keep everyone appeased and in line to the best of its abilities by doing the same thing. It very interesting that we basically keep ourselves in line much like the prisoners in the Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, by Foucault.
ReplyDeleteYou also mention a technology that I am not familiar with, the program in which bosses may monitor their workers and their progress without having to meet the people specifically. Not connecting on a human level is kind of depressing because that's what computers are basically trying to do, or at least that's what we try to make them do. We want them to mimic us and treat us well, the same as or better than other people do in the real world. I think using a program to do the hard work is a bit of a cop out when it comes to treating others like humans. I can't agree more with your last statement about the program affording efficiency and constraining human relations. That seems to be the case in my above mentioned point of view. As for your question, I believe it is effective for the company or boss specifically, but not so much with the people and keeping everyone happy and life fair.