Greetings all -
The deadline for paper and panel proposals for the Business History Conference is October 1. The meeting takes place in Portland, Oregon from March 31-April 2, 2016. The theme for the 2016 meeting is “Reinterpretation” - see http://thebhc.org/call-papers-2016 for details. It is sounding more and more like a timely theme, given recent discussions on this list.
I’m writing to encourage you to submit proposals, and to make a few comments about BHC:
- for those who haven’t been to BHC, you shouldn’t be too put off by the word “business” in the group’s title. Topics under discussion at BHC include the history of capitalism, political economy, regulation, organizations (including non-profit and public-private orgs), and (of course) technology. Also, one can attend BHC and be *anti*-business, if that suits your ideological preferences.
- Several SIGCIS members regularly attend BHC; indeed, many of us consider BHC to be a second scholarly home. There are often more than one or two panels that deal explicitly with computing and/or information. Perhaps some of them/us will comment here about their experiences with BHC. I believe we have at least one former BHC President as a list subscriber… For what it’s worth, my own experiences there have been uniformly positive, and I’m looking forward to attending the meeting in Portland.
- BHC has an excellent infrastructure for supporting young scholars, including travel grants, the Herman Krooss Prize for the best dissertation in business history, and the BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History - see http://www.thebhc.org/doctoral-colloquia for details of the latter.
- This year's CFP notes that the 2016 meeting location on the west coast provides an opportunity for the community to “take a fresh look at what might be termed the communities of the Pacific.” For those planning to attend the SHOT/SIGCIS meetings in Singapore in June 2016, the BHC meeting in Portland looks like it could serve as a nice way to focus attention on things Pacific.
Finally: I would be happy to facilitate a SIGCIS-themed submission (or submissions) for this year. If you have a paper idea or panel idea, and would like to find other scholars to join in, please let me know by September 15. Or, better yet, feel free to use the list to float your ideas and recruit others to join in.
All the best,
Andy Russell
SIGCIS Chair
---------------------------------------
Andrew L. Russell, Ph.D.
Director, Program in Science & Technology Studies
Associate Professor, History
College of Arts & Letters
Stevens Institute of Technology
Hoboken, New Jersey 07030
t. 201-216-5400 || f. 201-216-8245
arussell(a)stevens.edu<mailto:arussell@stevens.edu> || @RussellProf
www.stevens.edu/cal/sts<http://www.stevens.edu/cal/sts> || www.arussell.org<http://www.arussell.org>
Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks
(Cambridge University Press, 2014 || www.arussell.org/open<http://www.arussell.org/open>)
Hi
SIGCIS members are likely to be familiar with how these four groups read the putative successes/failures of each others' interpretive/methodological strategies: historians of sci/tech, philosophers of sci/tech, STSers, and practitioners of sci/tech.
It appears from the discussion of the past week that this group is less familiar with the field of cultural studies of sci/tech which is about 35 years old, or how its practitioners read/evaluate the work in related fields. Generally, cultural studies scholars focus on the workings of language/discourse and definitely do not regard its various forms (vocabulary/grammar/oral/written/et al) as a neutral tool or transparent window for representing the world. That field also has a practice of circulating exploratory essays as a way of launching new topics of investigation.
It is useful for my work to learn from the strengths/weaknesses of each approach; demarcating territories or engaging in border control is not.
Cordially,
Sharon
Sharon Traweek
________________________________________
From: Members [members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Willard McCarty [willard.mccarty(a)mccarty.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:28 PM
To: members(a)lists.sigcis.org
Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson
Dear colleagues,
I'm merely a fellow traveller of the primary audience of SIGCIS, though
I am much indebted to STS and its closely related disciplinary
communities. But this particular discussion moves me from lurker to
participant.
It seems to me that Tom's argument should find wide acceptance in many
disciplines. The problem I see with McPherson's and similar stories is a
terribly naive, undereducated historiography that comes from the
imperious politicization of academic research. To question the
connection between the prejudices of a time and place and the work done
then and there is very important indeed. We need to understand this
connection. But to assert a simple and necessary causality between the
one and the other is thoughtless and at best damaging.
So basic is history to the disciplines of the humanities that striving
to get it right and succeeding as well as one can should earn very wide
respect indeed. If it doesn't then we really do have a problem.
Yours,
W
On 25/08/2015 07:05, Thomas Haigh wrote:
> Thanks Hansen,
>
> You are exactly right regarding my argumentative intent. I am sure that
> design choices within Unix do exert certain kinds of political influence
> on the world. My point is simply that _/within McPherson’s story/_ no
> effort is made to demonstrate that influence. Thus she does not depict
> Unix as something Winner would recognize as an artifact that “has
> politics,” merely as something socially (or more accurately culturally)
> constructed.
>
> I share your instinctive reaction that McPherson is trying to make a
> generic STS-like social construction of technology (SCOT) argument and
> failing egregiously. However, as per my earlier post, I must concede
> that this reading only holds from within our disciplinary community. To
> readers in other disciplines it presumably looks as if she’s making a
> novel argument supported by exciting critical theory and succeeding.
> This is perhaps a sign that STS has not been successful in demarcating
> its turf, to the extent that even humanities scholars issuing manifestos
> to explore the mutual shaping of code, culture, and politics feel no
> need to familiarize themselves with our methods, cite our literature, or
> take seriously our objections. There are many more comp lit and media
> studies programs than STS programs, and our view of the world is not as
> widely shared as we would like it to be.
>
> Tom
>
> *From:*Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Hansen Hsu
> *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 6:22 PM
> *To:* Joris van Zundert <joris.van.zundert(a)huygens.knaw.nl>
> *Cc:* thaigh(a)computer.org; members(a)sigcis.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson
>
> My take on Tom’s remarks is not necessarily that he meant to say that
> "Unix has no politics" per se. I think in STS it’s pretty much been
> shown that political and cultural context shapes design choices. That
> design choices can have political effects in the large is also not
> controversial, though whether specific design choices /necessarily /or
> /inevitably/ leads to certain effects, or even highly disposes society
> to lean in certain political directions, as Winner’s nuclear power
> argument goes, is still up for debate, and as Joris has pointed out,
> intention does not straightforwardly lead to outcome, especially when
> user appropriation comes into play.
>
> But I think what Tom is saying is that McPherson neither makes this
> argument nor has the evidence to support it. Even if Unix’s modular
> design was somehow influenced by pervasive societal racism (which she
> hasn’t convincingly shown), does that modular design then have racist
> political consequences for society? She doesn’t make that argument nor
> provides any evidence to support such an argument. Tom’s point is that
> Winner’s argument about how artifacts have politics is about their
> political effects, in an almost soft-determinist way, whereas McPherson
> wants to make a social constructivist argument about opening the black
> box of Unix to show how racial politics shaped its construction, though
> she isn’t successful in doing so. Winner is not a social constructivist
> of technology along the lines of Trevor Pinch or Wiebe Bijker, and in
> his paper “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty” Winner
> outlines his disagreements with Pinch and Bijker and the SCOT school. So
> my interpretation of Tom is that when he’s saying “Unix has no
> politics,” he’s really saying (and he’s free to disagree with my reading
> of him) that McPherson doesn’t argue that Unix has politics in Winner’s
> sense, that a particular technical design has social effects either
> through its materiality or its strong compatibility with particular
> institutional or political structures. McPherson wants to make a SCOT
> argument, but is going about it more like Foucault and painting a fairly
> broad brush, whereas STS/SCOT scholars really get much deeper into the
> socio-technical detail, which involves more than just a discourse
> analysis of marketing materials, technical writing or code but extensive
> archival research, interviews with the designers, or ethnographic
> observation of design work. I’m all for McPherson’s larger project, we
> need to investigate the role race plays in the design and effects of
> technology, and we need to do it by opening up the black box of things
> like Unix and showing how technical decisions are not purely technical
> but also social, cultural, political, ideological.
>
> My problem with McPherson’s piece is that it’s not good STS; she doesn’t
> succeed in opening the black box as she doesn’t have the empirical
> evidence to show compelling linkages between modular design and the
> racial politics of the civil rights era, other than simply waving her
> hands and saying that we’d be naive to think that it isn’t mere
> coincidence that the two happened at the same time. Anyone can make any
> similar (or even contradictory) claim, as Tom pointed out in his
> original post, and such broad assertions are practically impossible to
> disprove. Perhaps it’s not fair to apply STS standards of evidence on a
> scholar from another discipline, but she is trying to reach outside her
> own discipline to make an STS argument without doing any STS work, and
> to me that makes it fair game to critique from the standards of STS and
> social science more broadly. From that perspective she appears as a
> scholar who has imposed some preconceived theory onto the empirical data
> and goes through some theoretical contortions to make her evidence
> support her argument, something that historians and anthropologists are
> careful to avoid. So although her provocation to scholars to do more to
> study the imbrication of race and technology is welcome and necessary,
> unfortunately because her evidence is so poor, it severely damages her
> credibility and makes it much more difficult for not only engineers and
> students but other scholars who might otherwise support her larger
> political project to take her work seriously.
>
> It’s for these reasons and the many others Tom has explicated that
> Winner’s piece is a better pedagogical tool than McPherson’s.
>
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Joris van Zundert
> <joris.van.zundert(a)huygens.knaw.nl
> <mailto:joris.van.zundert@huygens.knaw.nl>> wrote:
>
> My quibble remains with "Unix has no politics" as a generalized
> statement. I readily assume that Tom Haigh does not intend
> absolutism with his remark that "the technology here is shaped by
> culture, but it does not have politics". Nevertheless, I think this
> is an important point to challenge, to draw out the politics that is
> inherent in Unix and any other technology.
>
> Even if Winner's 'Moses' Bridges' and McPherson's articles are more
> effective as rhetoric than powerful as proof, they serve to show
> that technologies arise in some cultural context (McPherson) and/or
> some context of authorization (Winner). These contexts are in any
> case highly politicized. Certainly the IT engineering contexts I
> have witnessed had/have all the office politics going on that you
> would expect. Design choices are influenced by that, even decided on
> basis of these politics, both consciously as tacitly. That is not to
> say UNIX must be racist, just that design choices in part are
> politically informed. Thus I would argue that office politics,
> institutional politics, and bigger ideologies do shape IT design and
> technology in general.
>
> Of course Tom's statement foremost considers the intent and agency
> of technology, not its context of development. So I take this to
> mean that Unix is not an agent of the possible politics that
> influenced its development. Indeed the politicized context that
> gives rise to a technology needs not result in a technology
> imprinting those particular ideas onto society. They certainly can
> be intended as such however: Linux (a descendant of UNIX) is
> explicitly political, or at least ideological. Of course, whether
> intended influence and actual effect match is an entirely different
> matter, with 'results vary' as a probable answer.
>
> In any case neither at the design end, nor at the business end of
> technology do I see a possibility that technology is without
> politics. If there are politics at play in the design phase, then
> how probable is it that there would not be—even be they
> unintended—politics as a result at the business end?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
>
--
Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/) Professor, Department of Digital
Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research
Group, University of Western Sydney
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
