According to Sara Wachter-Boettcher, the tech industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that’s built upon the backs of the misogynistic thought and presumptions that limits the field to like-minded people. Diversity in the tech industry is mere rhetoric, and while corporate bangs the diversity drum, it also beats the tune of exclusionary practices. Although the statistics proffered were at a higher level than I would have imagined, the overall sentiment did not surprise me.

Having spent many years in the marketing department of a Fortune 100 company, the amount of high level executives continues to skew toward the white male, and while there have been strides to extend diversity in the corporate workplace (of which we primarily speak when we talk about IT functions) there is an overwhelming amount of status quo that continues.

Wachter-Boettcher speaks of personas, the stereotypes that are created for marketing whatever is being “sold”, this too extends to the people that corporations want to “fit” into the position, or even the environment. This too is the default position of the hiring manager and HR. Consider the stories of people hired because of their skills that do not share anything in common with the people with which they spend 40+ hours a week with. These situations are often short-lived. Our worldview is conditioned, but these can change. Although there may be conditions that one finds uncomfortable, actions can often counter these preconceived ideas, and lend to a bigger world-view by all. For example, historically men were secretaries, but at the turn of the twentieth century these roles transitioned to women. It must have been a growing experience for those who had been male secretaries, or men that had male secretaries, to see this role “relegated” to “women’s work”. Preconceived ideas even play a part when avoiding stereotypes, such as when Wachter-Baettcher discusses the casting for Rhime’s production company in that they “cast whoever feels right” (48). Great idea, but what is that really but a form of bringing in “what I think is right”.

Everything, and nothing, is normal; as Wachter-Boettcher says, “The only thing that’s normal is diversity” (47). Normal is a limiting factor in seeing beyond the parameters of status quo. It also supports the ideals of “fit” and “right”. What is right for one, isn’t right for another. What is right for most, isn’t right for all. I remember a meme that was out in the 80s, “Why be normal”. I embraced this sentiment, and  have continued to do so. That said, I still prefer to spend the majority of time with people that think, and act, like I do. Why would technological mind-set be any different? As we read in Ambivalent Internet, this kind of adherence to the known excludes too many others that do not fit into a singular mode, where “[w]eird content outnumbers ‘normal’ content at a 2:1 ratio” (8), and the importance of understanding the extent and ramifications of this weirdness proceeded to develop a “Weird Internet panel” to determine what is indeed weird, and what weird really means. That is fascinating! Yet, will there ever be consensus?

As we think about old tech and new tech convergences, it becomes an interesting prospect. Old tech isn’t that old afterall, but as Jenkins examines this phenomenon, he uses a word that fits what we see in Wachter-Boettcher’s piece, this word is “collide”(2). Jenkins is speaking specifically to media, which of course is an arm of technology, but I think we can extrapolate that thought to the technological industry as a whole. Old thinking must be used alongside new thinking as culture demands it. Technology is no longer a workplace phenomena, it’s impacting the law (as seen in recidivism prediction), education (a highly diverse population), religion, politics, etc. Jenkins states, “Media barons of today will be grasping to hold onto their centralized empires tomorrow” (5). Again, he singles out media, but this is what Wachter-Boetter asserts is happening in the field of technology. Old school power and money want to run the show.

Power is not easy to give up once it is held. We see “the edge” or “the stress” seeking that same power.  Tech leadership’s “meritocracy” is a mentality of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. We are seeing a move toward “it is broke, so let’s fix it”. But how do we fix a megalithic conglomerate with many tentacles? Understanding that fit is important but is not without exclusionary components, and diversity is about more than gender or race; it’s about decentralizing group think, and integrating cultures to reflect as many of the populist as possible in order to expand said fit, while not forgetting that culture is a two-way express lane. If we cannot navigate the road together we will crash and the biggest vehicle wins – but at what cost? A lot that we have read so far speaks to technology’s need to consider the creator, and the user as co-voices, and co-creaters. Can this happen? Is it achievable? Or do the masses prefer to be dumbed-down, relying on a default – whatever.

Works Cited

Image: VoxEurop.eu. Accessed 6 Mar 2019 https://voxeurop.eu/en/content/cartoon/4946327-playing-chicken

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press, 2006.

Phillips, Whitney., and Ryan M. Milnver. The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online. Polity Press, 2017.

Wachter-Boettcher, Sara. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.