<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear All,<br>
<br>
I've been thinking about these kinds of histories, quarrels, and
computer historiographies in recent months, esp. in the light of the
"debate" around Shiva Ayyadurai and the invention of email. I'm
interested in these histories, claims, and claimants for the origins
and development of info technologies. They are stimulating and
telling ("symptomatic" one might say) for the reason that "computer
historiography" is not to my mind an impartial, neutral recounting
of a series of rote facts, but rather itself a vibrant actor within
the history of computational innovation. The Shiva case shows this
pretty well, because the "historiography" is in some way coextensive
with individuals staking claims that shape their ability to act in
the field in the present (i.e. Shiva has patents, a start-up
company, etc, so I think his belated discovery of his "invention"
speaks to his present-day ambitions; his enlisting of The
Smithsonian etc. to back up his claims is an fascinating case of an
actor-network theoretical aligning of interests in action). Same
goes for the Isaacson books, because they also involve efforts to
ally, interest, and orient readers around certain conceptions of
where and how invention happens. These frames and theories of
innovation converge with other agendas (figuring out how private
markets shaped the PC revolution; granting women greater
representation in computational histories; writing a history of
computing focused on its ability to stimulate our passions rather
than just crunch numbers). These kinds of frames and agendas relate
specifically to the struggles surrounding innovation and education
in the present; that they should bear on popular histories shouldn't
be so surprising, nor that they would come to bear upon how the
Smithsonian or TIME magazine decides to acknowledge innovation. <br>
<br>
As for the kinds of cases surrounding the "ENIAC girls" invoked in a
previous mail: Even despite the condescending instances of tokenism
invoked by Tom, I think that when push comes to shove, actually
distinguishing the "real" or "authentic" innovation from the
cultural hype proves tricky (this isn't meant as a
counter-argument--Tom's commented on these same problems elsewhere).
As works by Ensmenger and Jen Light and others note, the
distinctions between invention and innovation, hardware and
software, engineers and mere programmers, scientific and technical
labor, etc, themselves rest upon a set of (often naive and
shortsighted) cultural assumptions over what's the "real" work of
computing. Ensmenger in particular shows that these cultural
assumptions have profound consequences at the very heart of
technological development: There's a decent argument that early
computer scientists entirely dismissed programming as a kind of
subaltern variety of labor, contributing both to the wartime
assignment of this work to women, and the industry-crippling
software crisis that followed. This makes the attempt to sift though
debating historical causes and factors enmeshed, from the outset,
in debates over cultural theory, gender, notions of material
history and cultural labor, and so on (Schaffer makes a similar
point in Babbage's Intelligence). The attempt to identify a baseline
for the "real history" of a technology and its development never
"escapes" cultural agendas, for example, re-examining the
under-representation of women in computing, which can be credibly
cited as a determining factor in the technological (mis-)development
in the field. So as I see it, the work of historiography is really
about these ongoing battles and quarrels in our midst, each of which
deploys alternate values and horizons for making sense of
informatics--a process that necessarily will continue to evolve and
unsettle, without much resolution, so long as our field remains
vibrant and relevant. Isaacson is an actor in this field, much as we
are, even as von Neumann was, even if there are (as Tom correctly
urges us to recognize) different roles of vastly different import. <br>
<br>
Moreover, I think readers approach histories like Isaacson's with
the ability to recognize that the claims are sort of puffed up. For
example, I don't think many readers of Standage's history of the
telegraph take as literally true his claim that it was "the
Victorian internet" nor his other book's claims that the 17th c.
Chess-Playing Turk gave rise to IBM computing machines. Readers turn
to these accounts for fun, diverting accounts that mix trivia,
drama, and fragments of technical knowledge, as well as orientation
in the varied kinds of forces that play out in the history of a
technology. These histories, in turn, were often convened in
response to a given topical event (anniversary, marketing event,
product launch, someone's death). Readers recognize that, too.<br>
<br>
I wrote about this awhile back in the IEEE Annals, in an article
titled "The Historiographic Conception of Information," a kind of
reflection on the status of historiography within computing. As I
put it there, in discussing popular accounts of Claude Shannon on
the occasion of his death, I wrote:<br>
<i>‘Computer history’’ does not appear before the public as
a...natural and unmediated accounting of clearcut facts. Instead,
a historically specific organization</i><i> of experts, research,
resources, and interpretive frames emerges in response to present
and presumably historical events. This is not the meddling
intervention of outside interests and biases upon the neutral
labor of historiography; rather, these are the basic conditions
for writing computer history. These conditions’ appearance prompts
questions about how a retiring mathematician [Claude Shannon],
skeptical about his personal acclaim, emerged as a recognizable
and heroic subject of popular interest.</i><br>
<br>
I guess I'm not above taking some delight in our field's status as a
kind of joyful cultural science whose interest and relevance is
deeply tied up with its ability to bisect pop culture, current
events, and institutional struggles. And if our field attracts
shallow excitement and fantastic tale telling, I'm not above
welcoming this, our imaginative fecundity, however suspect its
offspring may seem.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Bernard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/5/14 9:47 PM, Chuck House wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E92F822-A041-4DD0-915E-1A0BFCD0B1ED@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
personal opinion, based on the Steve Jobs book and my interview
with Isaacson after his talk at the Computer History Museum, this
will be a relatively shallow treatment by a gifted captivating
writer
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 5, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Thomas Haigh <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:thaigh@computer.org">thaigh@computer.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Hello everyone,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">I haven't read
Isaacson's book yet, but have been looking at some
reviews with interest. It sounds from the review that
Andy links to that the book gets better as it goes on.
On the historical part, Wisnioski notes in his polite
and generally favorable review that "Isaacson
diligently attends to this syllabus, but it curbs his
trademark enthusiasm, and many of his anecdotes are
well-worn."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">What I've seen in
other places makes me question the diligence of
Isaacson's attention in the earlier chapters, like
that of Jane Smiley in her attempt at a popular
history of early computing a few years ago. According
to a profile in the New York Times the book starts and
ends with Ada Lovelace. Isaacson credits her to the
extent of observing that<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/fashion/the-innovators-by-walter-isaacson-how-women-shaped-technology.html?_r=0"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/fashion/the-innovators-by-walter-isaacson-how-women-shaped-technology.html?_r=0</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span
lang="EN">“Ada Lovelace defined the digital age,”</span><span
lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN">Mr. Isaacson said
in one of several recent interviews about the book….</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">“If it wasn’t
for Ada Lovelace, there’s a chance that none of this
would even exist,” Mr. Isaacson added as he waved his
hand in the air, gesturing as if to encompass all of
Silicon Valley and the techies sitting around us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Given that
Babbage’s project was itself apparently unknown to
computer pioneers of the 1940s such as Aiken, Eckert,
Atanasoff and Mauchly at the time they conceptualized
and designed their machines this claim seems to me
quite impossible to justify, however profound
Lovelace’s contribution to that project was.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">He also has a
chapter on the “Women of ENIAC.” That has been put up
as an text and audiobook extract as a teaser prior to
the launch of the book.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://fortune.com/2014/09/18/walter-isaacson-the-women-of-eniac/"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://fortune.com/2014/09/18/walter-isaacson-the-women-of-eniac/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">This chapter
captures a broader trend in ENIAC’s changing role in
collective memory: for about fifteen years now it has
been remembered primarily as a machine programmed by
women. Even within the scholarly literature our
discussion of the place of the initial cohort of six
operators has sometimes mischaracterized the work they
were hired to do and exaggerated their contributions
to the development of thinking about what ENIAC could
be used to do and how it might be configured to
accomplish those tasks. That’s something I’ve become
aware of in returning to primary sources for my
forthcoming book<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>ENIAC
in Action</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>with
Mark Priestley and Crispin Rope. Janet started this
thread with mention of some NPR interviews, and
coverage in her recent book<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Recoding
Gender</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>makes
a definite contribution towards clarifying these
issues. In contrast, drawing almost entirely on oral
histories and memoir, Isaacson is for the most part
just summarizing the consensus when he implies that
Jean Jennings and her colleagues made fundamental
innovations by, for example, realizing that the master
programmer could be used to do the exact task it was
designed and built to perform: looping nested
subroutines.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">It seems that the
book is held together with a Gladwellian argument
about the collective and incremental nature of
innovation, which is certainly preferable to the lone
genius view of history. However the ending of the
ENIAC extract makes me question how tightly though
through this argument is: he asserts that “all the
programmers who created the first general-purpose
computer were women”. That’s either a very radical STS
argument that a computer is only created in use, or a
sign that he did not spend much time thinking about
what creating a computer involves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Now of course
Lovelace, the “Women of ENIAC,” Hopper, and a few
others are of interest to a lot of people because of
their instrumental value as the source of parables
useful in the rebranding of computing as a field
created in large part by women. That’s a worthy goal,
and there are no wrong reasons to be interested in
history. Isaacson’s book will sell maybe 1,000 times
more than anything that any of us are ever likely to
write. However it would be nice if there was a way to
achieve this without pretending that a causal chain
makes Ada Lovelace essential to the “birth of the
digital age” or Jennings and her colleagues essential
to the creation of ENIAC. Is there a necessary
tradeoff between historical accuracy and inspirational
value, as with the story about young George Washington
and the cherry tree? I hope not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
Tom<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
This email is relayed from<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:members@sigcis.org"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">members@sigcis.org</a>,
the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list
archives are at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and you can change
your subscription options at<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:members@sigcis.org">members@sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/">http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members">http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr. Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan
Institut für Kulturwissenschaft
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.bernardg.com">www.bernardg.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>