“Tech” culture probably can’t be fixed

Tim Chevalier recently penned an excellent essay on leaving “tech culture” behind, talking about how he come to see his work as a programmer as both exhausting and pointless:

“I have no love left for my job or career, although I do have it for many of my friends and colleagues in software. And that’s because I don’t see how my work helps people I care about or even people on whom I don’t wish any specific harm. Moreover, what I have to put up with in order to do my work is in danger of keeping me in a state of emotional and moral stagnation forever.”

I found this post via Twitter and then I read an optimistic response – i.e, said culture can be fixed if only the “right people” were in charge – from functional programmer and ex-Googler Michael O. Church on his WordPress site. As companies like Google and Facebook have become central to the neoliberal surveillance state, as Silicon Valley has become this weird locus for both entertainment (today’s smartphone addicts are just yesterday’s nuclear family sitting rapt in front of the rabbit-ears TV) and austerity lingo (“innovation,” “entrepreneur,” and “failure” are particularly odious), there has been mounting attention on the cultural problems in tech. These issues usually include:

  • Rampant sexism, with the recent Ellen Pao suit against venture capital firm KPCB bringing it into play in a high-stakes trial (Pao lost). Software and hardware remain overwhelmingly male fields, and not by accident either (more on this in a bit). Facebook and Google, as well as much older firms like Apple, wield enormous powers comparable to those at various times in history have been vested in states (e.g.., surveillance in the case of the Web giants), while being driven by a laughably unrepresentative slice of humanity (the upper middle-class to the superrich, with strong biases in areas of race and gender).
  • Workalcoholism, with 80-100 hour weeks described with violent euphemisms like “killing it” or “crushing it.” Just as Uma Thurman had to trek those steps in “Kill Bill,” it seems that everyone in tech has to live out the nonstop bullshit about being, or at least serving, a businessman entrepreneur who works around the clock to build something that has questionable social utility as well as dark political potential capable of quelling outrage over inequality, since criticizing workaholics is surprisingly difficult in the U.S.
  • Individualism, which may seem surprising in workplace cultures increasingly dominated by jargon about “teams” and “families,” but the strain is readily apparent in the archetypes of the cowboy coder, the “visionary” CEO, and the notion that a singular force like “tech” is the solution to political, anthropological, and social issues as well as technical ones. Just as so much anthropology has dissolved into discussions of “power” at the expense of all other motivations, popular social and political science have taken an acid bath in “disruption,” “innovation,” and “technical skills” and the priorities of a narrow group of individuals.

All of these trends are awful, and together they have created a “tech culture” that is enormously unfriendly even to the many of the upper middle-class people whose equal love of social stratification and devices (for instance, Uber is not just an app, but a way around egalitarian public transport) would seem to make them perfect cogs in its machine. It’s gotten to the point of self-defeat. But why is “tech culture” this way? What is it about “tech” that makes it so much worse for women, specific minorities (minorities in the U.S., I mean; they could be and are “majorities” elsewhere) and no-nonsense introverts than, say, “trance music culture” or “content marketing culture”?

I don’t think it is attributable solely or even largely to there being so much money in the industry right now. The facile argument would be to just say that large amounts of money and competition drive people crazy, bringing out the dreaded base “human nature” for antisocial/Hobbesian violence and self-interst (the same “human nature” used to explain contrary concepts like sociability) and running roughshod over cultural penchants for equality.

But such outlooks are necessarily pessimistic about mankind, with roots in the idea of a dismal state of nature (an idea with a very specific, hardly universal, lineage from Thucydides to Hobbes, the latter being the former’s English translator). Plus, to make this argument while fretting over how to fix “tech’s broken culture” is to fuel the same fire that is in need of snuffing: Assumptions about the worst in people coming out in lieu of a paternalistic security-surveillance state are probably major causes of said “brokenness.”

So here goes, three reasons why “tech culture” as conceived can’t be fixed. My intent is writing this is not to paint “tech”‘s problems as intractable so much as it is to highlight how the very terms of the conversation – problematic words like “technology” and “technical,” for instance – necessarily constrain any worthwhile corrective action, which would almost certainly require access to political and cultural channels that “tech culture” has willfully isolated itself from.

1) The term “technology” is a problem in and of itself
Like many words with Latin or Greek roots, “technology” gets off the air of sophistication to English speakers whose routine conversations are dominated by shorter words of Anglo-Saxon origin. Leo Marx has written extensively on how “technology” is a “hazardous category,” one that emerged as a way of appropriating the work and culture of blue-collar individuals – machinists, artisans, et al – for their white-collar counterparts, or at least the most visible artifacts thereof, particularly industrious men in lab coats (more indicative of wider “technical culture” than “tech culture,” but the gap between “technology” and “technical” is narrow and it’s sometimes not even clear what “tech” is short for anymore), serious politicians paying lip-service to “innovation,” and MBAs and executives of all stripes who have seen “tech” as the next road to riches.

“Technology” as a word is in this respect a lot like “innovation”: Its usage automatically draws a line between classes. Just as “innovation” is off-limits to the activities of individuals like bus drivers or shoe repairman, “technology” is off-limits to the social underclasses and the demographically disadvantaged. Yet, the issues of “inequality in technology” and the “technology gender gap” keep popping up and confusing otherwise sensible people. Remember that the entire technology category was made to rebrand once-workmanlike activities like repairing a machine or reviewing specifically coded systems into something acceptable for the upper, mostly male, classes.

Technology is no longer even about labor, or the “hard work”that so many entrepreneurs pay homage to in order to subtly justify inequality, but about the production of artifacts, as Debbie Chacra so memorably put it in a piece for The Atlantic entitled “Why I Am Not A Maker“. This shift that is neatly encapsulated in the Maker movement that makes it clear that tangible (commercial) items, not behind-the-scenes care-taking or educational work, are the best representations of the value of one’s effort and class. The obsession with creating objects and turning yesterday’s castoffs – factory machine labor, geek culture – into tomorrow’s winning business formulas brings me to…

2) Geek/nerd culture may be at fault too
Saying the geeks won the battle over their one-time high school bullies has become cliche. Silicon Valley, Makers, DIY lifestyles: They all nominally benefit geeks who were “unpopular” (I don’t even know what this means anymore, in an age when anyone can get thousands of likes for a Facebook status or reddit post) in high school and invested themselves in “uncool” (not anymore) activities like reading comic books or programming.

There is a large overlap here between the rise of the artifact-obsessed technology culture of Silicon Valley, the newfound top dog status of geeks, and the enormous monetization in the West of properties like DC and Marvel Comics, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars, to name but a few. Disney (owner of both Marvel and Lucasfilm somehow) now turns to comics rather than Broadway (the inspiration for many of its old-school animated musical) for its cash cows.

The point of this overlap, though, is that there is tremendous reinforcement from all over of the geek mindset, which of course prioritizes things – fictional characters, universes, continuities, costumes, etc. – over real people. Think of the enormous mental energy channeled into deciding between an Autobots and Decepticon costume for a convention, for instance. There are finite resources and time in any day, and geek culture expends it on fantasy worlds in which factors like race, class, and gender are secondary because real people aren’t involved and the universe might be on the verge of being destroyed or something.

There is a striking parallel between what tech culture is producing – software, mostly, for limited audiences and use cases – and what the increasingly commoditized geek culture is churning out in the form of mass market film, comics, and games. The cultural issues that besiege tech certainly have analogues elsewhere – sexism, racism, and crass individualism are in pretty much every office – but the industry faces the unique pressure of having to absorb tremendous amounts of money (from VCs and consumers alike) while still overseeing its long tradition of lionizing artifacts and abstractions at the expense of nearly everything else (that’s why we get so much speculation about how much a “great programmer” is worth when we should be asking what an average one is worth).

3) The separation of “technical” and “non-technical” persons is more needless stratification
This picks up the end of the last point. Go to any story about the mythical “skills gap” in the U.S. or the bios parts of a tech firm’s website and you’re likely to run head-on into the word “technical.” Here again we have something maybe once had tangible meaning – someone’s skill with a carpentry tool or machining process – being used as a preemptive moat against anyone with “soft” skills like communications, writing, PR, etc.

Of course it’s weird that politics – the “softest” skill of all since it is so hard to evaluate, with a “bad” grasp perhaps benefiting one as much as a “good” one would, depending on the context – is still what determines how organizations function. But if tech, and more specifically technical skills, is the answer to everything, politics goes out of sight (it doesn’t go away, but ends up sort of like the man behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz,” if you will) and the often random fortunes of a company and its culture are instead put under the illusion of a meritocracy. ”

Technical” is a handy word in this setting because it implies easily quantifiable results and, let’s admit it, a certain look and behavior that informs all of the stereotype and extreme cases, like the aforementioned cowboy coder. A technical person can produce artifacts, which are what tech is known for. The fact that artifact-making is traditionally a male habit and one with a long tradition of excluding all but a narrow cross-section of society becomes secondary, and the problems multiply.

This entry ended up being way longer than I imagined, and I have likely gone off onto confusing parenthetical tangents here. Ultimately It feels like the tech industry’s hand-wringing over its culture problems is like the coal industry fretting about environmental damage: Admirable, but intrinisically linked to how it does business and why it has succeeded in the first place. We’ll probably have to rethink the entire category of ‘technology’ to ever get onto better footing.

%d bloggers like this: