B/EN/Review
In order to reflect on technology effectively, on how we should approach it and use it in an ethical way, we better learn how to champion whole continuum of possible scenarios. While somewhat extreme outcomes may be easy to come up with, to describe all the between-steps or even recognize them happening may be harder then defining what is information.
Before I move to the articles, I have something to share. An idea came on my mind: I could approach this review slightly differently. Right now it’s twenty minutes after midnight, Friday 27th. It is also few hours since we received the instructions. They informed us about this topic: „Write a review until November 9th, choose at least two of items on this menu. Items can be added ad libitum, if they have the same taste.“ After reading our menu, skimming through few items while not reading anything so far I know four words to be guided by: utopia-dystopia-technology-learning. Let’s stick with it like that, and before I even start to read I will try to articulate initial evocation on the topic.
Fear and Wish. Utopia and Dystopia. Heaven and Hell. Utopia as heaven and dystopia as hell. Or is it the other way around? Matter of perspective? Relationship between these two termini technici and learning? I suggest following: Utopia and dystopia as an absolute extremes on a bar symbolizing negative-positive polarity. They are ultimately not attainable, but they can wield extraordinary power – power of motivation, but only if they are vividly portraited – this part is not to be omitted. No wonder these two words are so often associated with novels and fiction. Through novel, an author can describe very alluring picture of society in more than ideal state, or a quagmire of our scariest nightmares. Well and when we see both these pictures, we can be emotionally manipulated in our choices of what to teach others. Filled with fear to avoid dystopia, or guided by wish to create its counterpart. Through filtering of our possibilities. Teaching as filtering, yes – an attempt to block associations and train of thoughts that would lead to dystopian states and to permit those which would establish utopian state. Speaking of technology – us people do not really make anything done without it, right?
I chose to read three articles for this review. First one is Farm robots: ecological utopia or dystopia. For the second i chose From Utopia Through Dystopia: Charting a Course for Learning Analytics in Competency-Based Medical Education. And finally Looking Forward, Looking Backward: The Changing Image of Technology. As seen rather clearly, two are scientific articles, one is an essay from a book. Essay is where I start…
In third entry of his book, Looking Forward, Looking Backward: The Changing Image of Technology, Andrew Feenberg deals with how the overall sentiment over technology in society changes over time. To limit the timeline, he chose an utopian novel from Bellamy Looking backward: 2000-1888 written in 1888 as an example of people’s thinking about the future and to reflect over. To that he adds another novel, dystopia this time, well-known Brave new world written by Huxley. He asks the question, why did we not end up in utopia described by Bellamy more than 100 ago and how did our evaluations of outcomes change? Without going too deep into every little snippet from the essay (there is a lot of interesting stuff) let us describe three interesting points. First one is the main thesis and it explains why according to Feenberg technophobia, largely prevalent in society’s attitude after the WWII and during the Cold war, dissolved and gave a way to more positive attitude towards technology on the verge of new millennia.
It was the Internet, of course, which catalysed this shift from anxiously picturing terminators walking around earth and killing everything in their way, to caress the idea of becoming terminators ourselves. And the revolutionary aspect at the core of network technology is interaction. The fact that we can interact in a decentralized network breaks the monopoly of top-level authorities like government or companies and give bottom layers this empowerment. Actually, one part of analysed text deals with „new forms of agency„, explicitly stating political activists who can address millions, or software users, who can create movements.
Monopoly and decentralized are keywords here, the second stance to pinpoint being that of the possible reason, reason why are we actually slipping to fear of the great machine, of the big brother or Skynet as personalisation of dystopic neurotoxins poisoning our visions every now and then, sometimes for whole decades of subconscious defence against bright lights of not-so-daunting endings, still in clasp of claws of technological determinism, unwilling to deal with inherent dangers which progress inevitably brings. (exhale of attrition) For it may be exactly these two attributes being assigned to the technological stakeholders of dark-clouded scenarios we pictures in dystopias, that lie at the centre of our fears. As cited from Feenberg:
„The fear of dystopia arises from the experience of large-scale social organization that, under modern conditions, possesses an alienating appearance of rationality. (…) This interactive relationship to the medium (internet), and through it to the other users, appears non-hierarchical and liberating“
This was sort of enlightening to me. Not being big fan of any of both genres, I could not see it. But it makes a lot of sense and so does portrait of internet as the saviour who does not let this happen then. Argument could be risen though. This interaction is allowed not due to some emergent inherent quality of internet, it’s the way how it is designed and decision of that design are being made by individuals and could possibly be reversed. My remark, a minor correction, or maybe rather an underlining of word already articulated in the quote: appear. Internet, I claim, appears to be non-hierarchical and liberating. The fear, although not being wide-spread now, is still there. It is that of networks turning into such a state, that the interaction will turn into nothing more than a cosmetic procedure. Either by some radical principal reorganizing or even worse, due to chain of decisions creepingly leading us towards the state of society and human mind, in which we simply do not see the way, how to use this power of interaction to assert our positions. Which leads me to the third point.
Feenberg builds on Habermas’s theory of distinction between system and lifeworld and refines it with Michel de Certeau distinctions between two contra-active sides, the first one, top-down-pushers, being institution-based groups of people who assert strategies and bottom-up-pushers, who exercise tactics against them. The gist is that the technocratic system is not separated from lifeworld but we’re speaking about one interconnected space and decisions from lifeworld sphere can influence technocratic system. Technocratic system would be the side exercising strategy, lifeworld the side trying to push with tactics and interconnection is provided by networks. I agree with this.
My objection now is to try to apply these ideas to the next scientific articles I read. Not as easy I realise now. Here is the thing with meaning of utopia and dystopia words, which is interesting. Both scientific article use utopia and dystopia simultaneously. And they use it as a method – anticipatory storytelling. It is, in fact, in line of my introductory evocation. Two absolutes, which must be written in narration to harness motivational effect. But they use it more as best-case and worst-case scenarios here. I think, in From Utopia Through Dystopia in particular, there is this aspect of alienating rationalisation of system missing. Dystopic scenario sounds almost just like another Friday 13th. Also in Farm robots, the dystopia is only related to agriculture. This is a big difference. I could hardly apply this strategy-pushers and tactics-pushers distinction. Not enough information is presented.
Somehow difficult is to trace the role of internet and alleged power coming through interaction in Farm Robots. Obviously, robots operating on fields must use connection with farmers. In medical paper Dr. Walzar also has choice to interact. But how did it help her? Her dystopia really shows a picture of someone, who can be subjugated despite her interacting possibilities. The third scenario in medical paper is interesting though. In a case, which should portray safe and ethical implementation of learning analytics (and sounds more like utopia to me), we can see the power of tactics being exercised, namely in co-design collaboration with various stakeholders throughout activities. Implicit is the assumption of her using network technology all the time.
Much more interesting is to take a step back and talk about the motivational part I wrote about. Because both papers do one thing the same. They portray the best, the worst, and use it as an argument of what policy and frameworks must be implemented. In case with Farm Robots it’s this part with policy implication on page 775 and in Medical Education page 592, chapter about Charting a Course and framework from Slade and Prinsloo. I see quite clearly the underlying emotional argument through vivid imagination meant to shake and motivate the receiver, to give proposed policies a change. But are these policies what will really make this change, guide us to heaven and prevent us to slip to hell?
Final remark on learning. Could learning or education play a role in bridging our present to harbour of utopia? When speaking of learning and technology, something must be taken from shadow back to light. learning is a process and it needs two ingredients at least. What and how.
The question is not if learning can build a bridge between our present and future full of flowers and honey. Better questions would be, assuming flowers is what we really want, what do we need to teach in order to bring our perfumed dreams to life? And if we agree on this, how to teach it so, that we will get there as fast as possible? These decisions still lie in the realm of human conscience, having more to do with their needs, emotions and agendas. What could, in my opinion, be answered affirmatively is if modern technology implemented in educational ‚how-where-when‘ could change the parameters of the process as such so to speak. Naming the internet. Obvious is the speed. Simply by such vast knowledge few clicks away can spare us the time of visiting libraries and waiting for books to be delivered. Obvious is also the time. Not being dependent on opening hours of anything. Naming data analytics. Less obvious but promising are the ways of earning insights into the studying process and enhancing it. Even less obvious may be the power of interaction we’re taking for granted.
Perhaps in order for technology in learning to guide us toward bright future, we need to substitute ethics, values and culture for what, every time for when, everywhere for where and responsible and thoughtful inter-edu-action for how.
Portfolio 