Naive? Not really
Interpersonal Computing and Technology
In NRC Handelsblad, 7 Nov. 1991 there was an article I
think relevant to the way this debate is going. Since
the original is in Dutch (pub. in Rotterdam),
I summarize:
De Onzichtbare Techneut (Trans: The invisible techie)
by C.le Pair & C.N.M.Janz
--------------------------
The Dutch neologism 'techneut' (rhymes with the French pejorative
'gueux' as in 'Ils ne sont que des gueux' - 'a bunch of fools')
actually seems to carry less of the pejorative sense than GMP's
use of 'techie', and is almost synonymous with 'engineer'. Except
that in Holland 'Engineer' is a *title* like 'Doctor', so perhaps
'technician' or 'technologist' is closer. (BTW 'techie' is
unused here in S.Africa as far as I know)
The article, however, is a defense of the techneut. The main
thrust of the argument being that the techneut has not received
due credit from historians.
This is partly due to the chasm between what C.P.Snow referred
to as the alpha and beta cultures, a division we witness today
between GMP (alpha) and his tech friends (beta). le Pair & Janz
offer the thesis that history is invariably written by the
alpha's, who invariably under-rate the betas.
Some examples: A strong force behind the Netherland's domination
of world trade in the 17th C. was their ship-building technology
which introduced definitive innovations in construction methods
and design. This, and the superior construction of weaponry,
notably of cannons, finally led to freedom from domination by
Spain. Yet a map of the distribution of universities at that
time shows only one centre of learning (Leuven) in the region
where this technology developed. The universities are not where,
say le Pair & Janz, the techies of the time got their learning.
Yes, they were learned, but not in the scholastic sense. They
wrote their manuals and technical books allright, right back
to the roman Vitruvius under Augustus, who was in fact well
known and read by the techies busy constructing bridges and
windmills in the 'dark ages' while the monks wrote and argued
about the Virtues, or about the Dimensions of Heaven.
A contemporary example is found in the development of the
electron microscope. le Pair & Janz found huge disparities,
to the order of 2000:1, between the number published references
to a specific intrument and citations of work by the same
instrument's inventor. The work of one such techie who made a
major contribution to a certain instrument, J.C.Tiemijer, received
zero citations, whereas his microscope was specifically mentioned
in more than 6000 publications. And Tiemijer & Co. were not
illiterate - they just got their learning at places not deemed
fit to be called 'universities', e.g. the 'technical high school'
at Delft.
To sum up le Pair & Janz: The scholars (including all who have an
'-ology' suffix), as befits their mentality and social standing,
write books and/or publish their papers. The techneuts, or
techies, change the world (for better or for worse) and get
little or no credit for doing so.
My own conviction is that at many points in the present debate
on IPCT-L various aspect of the above have come to the surface.
I see it in the way some threads on IPCT-L meander on in a
highly literate manner about 'community' or 'gender' while other
threads such as 'naive?' or 'mosaical' quickly become acerbic,
or evangelistic. Alphas earn their bread by writing and
publishing, while betas make this very debate possible and
get up in arms when they see their creative tinkering derided.
Thank goodness for the 'T' in IPCT-L.
Frank Bokhorst
Psychology
University of Cape Town
(Note the -ology suffix! Clearly an alpha. No, I'd rather be a techie!)