Letters

Fables about fables in the information age

EDITOR: "Fables for the Information Age," which appeared in the September 1982 Illinois Issues, is a poignant example of the failure of many humanists to contribute their uniquely valuable insights to the evolution of a tool of unprecedented importance to the human species. This failure is especially regrettable because, unlike many previous technological developments, the computer evolution bears directly on one of the domains of central importance to the humanities: the workings of the mind.

Carolyn Marvin's essay fails in both what it says and what it does not say. Although the sins of omission are of more fundamental importance, the distortions in what is said are more aggravating and I will examine them first. The first section of the essay is filled with claims about what "we" believe, and Marvin gratuitously implies that advocates of computer use are all naively optimistic, socially irresponsible, and blindly materialistic. Her casual stereotyping of all such advocates makes her assumptions suspect, and the five colleagues I polled, all of whom are working on educational uses of computers, were adamant in their disagreement with the views which Marvin assumes they share. Those of us active in research on uses of computers and their implications for society are acutely concerned about the obvious inequality of access between the children of the middle class and those of the poor, about the tendency for females to be less likely to acquire computer skills, and about the intellectual poverty of most software currently available. Contrary to what Marvin implies, humanists are not the only humans concerned with "human dignity and identity."

While Marvin deplores the current cost of home computers and points to the socio-economic inequities inherent in that cost, she conveniently overlooks some important matters.

It is a remarkable accomplishment, first of all, to put within the reach of a large number of families computer power that 30 years ago would have been beyond the means of the computer centers at major universities. Although $1,000 is a lot of money, it is no more than the majority of American families have invested in two or more color televisions and stereo systems over the past 10 years. More exciting and important, the cost will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. Ten years from now it is quite likely that a system currently costing $1,000 will be available for about $100, at which point Marvin's gasping at the thought that there is a democratic potential in this revolution will seem short sighted. Had Marvin been writing essays in 1456, Johann Gutenberg would no doubt have drawn her wrath because the first books off his press were too expensive for all but the very rich — far more expensive in relative cost than the current microcomputers — and these books were clearly instruments of established authority and (Marvin forbid!) Gutenberg showed no concern for the plight of scribes and quill makers whose jobs were jeopardized by his invention.

Finally, perhaps the best contradiction of Marvin's gloomy perspective is to be found in the multitude of constructive efforts around the globe aimed at the development of educational and creative applications of the new technologies. A committee at the University of California-Berkeley is exploring uses of computers in the humanities. Here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison a professor of music who had never laid a finger on a computer before has substantially improved the speed with which undergraduates master music theory. The writing laboratory at the University of California-Santa Barbara is finding ways to open up creative exposition and poetry writing to undergraduates who previously showed no interest or aptitude for writing. Marvin bemoans the fact that substantial numbers of Americans have only minimal reading skills but offers no explanation or solution for this enduring problem. She might be interested in research done at Stanford and elsewhere suggesting that substantial improvements in the reading skills of poor, minority children may result from computer aided instruction.

But even these minor successes must be seen in the context of a technological development that is in its infancy. The advances in software and hardware that seem almost inevitable over the next 20 or 30 years seem likely to reduce somewhat the number of people who cannot read well, to increase somewhat the number of people who can play at least one musical instrument well, and to even increase slightly human problem solving skills. No simple answers, no quick cures, but modest improvements of some pith and moment.

W. Patrick Dickson
Professor, Child and Family Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Professor Marvin responds

The issue is not whether to advocate computer use. Computers are here. The issue is what the manner of their use is and is to be — use for what, use by whom, use on whom. I am glad Professor Dickson is concerned about the social consequences of computing technology, and indeed I hope he represents a very large group. I suspect he is aware that there are people who believe that problems of equity in the acquisition of computer skills and of accessibility to computers are technical problems to be taken care of by experts, or in the marketplace. Emphatically, these problems are for every citizen to consider, and the future to which they belong began a long time ago.

Families that have invested in "two or more color televisions and stereo systems over the past 10 years" are precisely the families we can expect to buy computers. On this Professor Dickson and I agree. It is those who do not fit this category who are of concern to me, and I trust, to him. The price of home computers is not the critical point, however. There are many households whose members can well afford the price of books, but who have not acquired skills for using books in an advantageous personal way. Social efficacy is not in a technological object. Social efficacy, whether in books or computers, requires the development of skillful practices in a social environment able to provide practical support. Providing such support has never been a natural function of the marketplace when equity was the issue. Not the speed of technological change

January 1983 | Illinois Issues | 30

though it is not irrelevant, but the speed and impulse of the political process are at issue. I do not think this insight belongs to humanists. I wish it did. I would be proud to claim it for them or any other group. There are advocates of computer use who do understand it, and humanists who do not (as if it made sense to make two separate categories of this kind). But there is general blindness to this point in public discussion, because we persist in believing that technological possibility is an effective substitute for political will.

Professor Dickson chides me for not remembering that Gutenberg and his fellow promoters of early print did not engage in social discussion of the kind I am urging for computing, and yet we are all the inheritors of the benefits of his invention. We are not in fact all equal inheritors of the benefits of printing. In addition, there has been another very important event in Western history since the invention of printing — the invention of modern democracy. Gutenberg wasn't liable for the concerns of democracy because it came after he did. We are liable. Four centuries after the invention of printing, it occurred to some governments that democracy might depend on the ability of every citizen to use and understand the most powerful symbol system of the day. Only at that point were institutions for that purpose set in motion. How long do we want to wait this time?

In a democratic society, computer literacy and access to computers must be an objective of public education because the powerful already have computers. The logistical problems of implementing this goal are numbing to think of, but until we make that political commitment, its implementation will be subject to just that much more delay, with unfortunate distortions of the possibilities for democratic community, and tragic effects on the life chances of many individuals. These, I need hardly add, will quickly become generational and class disadvantages, historically cumulative and intractable in their consequences. Computers are not consumer goods like bathroom towels or automobiles. If you don't know how to fix your car in this society, you may be cheated at the garage, but there is a limit to your liability. If you cannot dicker in the symbolic currency available to the powerful, you suffer a very different kind of liability whose consequences do not end with an overcharge for spare parts. In other words, with all due respect to the spirit of concern in Professor Dickson's remarks, I am not impressed by accounts of introducing college students and professors to computing. These groups are already in line to receive the benefits of privileged education. Our imagination must also embrace those whose experiences may never include higher education.

Maybe computer-assisted reading instruction will help the habitually disadvantaged and maybe it will not. Whether it does depends on whether people besides the habitually disadvantaged are willing to spend quite a lot of money for quite a long time on the appropriate hardware, software and teacher training. Is it an improvement, as Professor Dickson believes, if at least a few such people learn to read better? It is a hollow improvement to extend symbolic charity to the few while the rest of us function in a system to which these skills and machines will come as a matter of course. It is not we who buy computers that really count on a large scale, in terms of computing power, socialization, and economic advantage, anyway. It is usually our employers. Our use of Big Computing is often effectively free. Who will make Big Computing free to the poor?

The good things that computers can do are more likely to take care of themselves than the bad things they are doing are likely to be addressed. Therefore, it seems to me more useful to insist that inequities exist, than to insist that one cannot call into question the benevolence of the great god technology. The human race has a poor historical record of keeping straight the critical difference between technological virtuosity and political responsibility. I regret to say that I think Professor Dickson's remarks reflect this confusion.

Carolyn Marvin
Professor, Communication
Annenberg School of Communications
University of Pennsylvania

Kennedy essay on Chicago's Catholic Church

EDITOR: Your August humanities essay by Eugene Kennedy was first rate and appropriately raises as many questions as it answers about religion, church politics and leadership in Chicago's Roman Catholic archdiocese. Most large scale contemporary institutions are sitting ducks for the segmented analytical skills of the journalist pundit as well as the academic social scientist. Kennedy's essay on the post-immigrant church in Chicago is less cynical, more accurate and kinder than most. Moreover, he adds a balanced historical sense to our understanding of the "unreformed" regime of the late Cardinal Cody. At the same time he suggests that the coming of Archbishop Joseph Bernardin will make a considerable difference in the life and role of the church and the city. But will it?

Will there be a post-immigrant Chicago politics as a consequence of the modernization of leadership in this our largest and predominately Catholic Illinois city? What will the shape and form be of such a new politics? If it is true, as Kennedy suggests, that the Church and its bishops no longer play "a decisive role in the formation of the contemporary moral conscience," what long-term benefit will be derived from a renewed post-immigrant church in Chicago? Is it possible that the impact of this one gifted leader will be limited to internal reform and renewal — with little effect upon the entrenched interests and political behavior of the city? Will the end of the immigrant church bring about the beginning of a modernized, effective religious community in which the full resources of lay and religious leadership play a positive role in the city? Is there hope, too, that the five downstate dioceses will benefit by some kind of trickle-down effects of such good things? And finally, will the Church as a "Christian life community" come to evaluate the performance of its civic leaders in terms other than the punishing "test oaths" of single political issues?

I look forward to more from Kennedy. He is uniquely situated and qualified to help us understand what might reasonably be expected from that unique urban mix of belief and politics which is Chicago's great heritage. It is difficult to see, however, whether the better world suggested in his humanities essay could occur in that depressing negative parable — Kennedy's new novel The Queen Bee.

Robert C. Spencer
Professor of Government and Public Affairs
Sangamon State University

One coherent water management plan

EDITOR: I applaud Illinois Issues and James Krohe Jr. for bringing our most important water-related problems to the attention of the public through his series of excellent articles on water resources in Illinois. But his most recent article ("Illinois Water: Cleaner But Not Clean," October 1982) discusses "nonpoint" sources of water pollution without mentioning that the largest nonpoint source of input to most Illinois streams is natural groundwater discharge. Where groundwater has been polluted, efforts to make our streams clean again by controlling nonpoint sources of surface runoff may be thwarted by the continual seepage of pollutants through the streambed in the form of contaminated base flow. Our historical failure to recognize the impact of groundwater on Illinois' streams may be at least partially responsible for our inability to achieve the clean water goals set forth by the legislature.

If future efforts to manage our precious water resources are to be effective, prevention of further groundwater pollution and early detection of existing groundwater pollution must be among the basic objectives of water resource management policies. The time has come to abandon the "separate but (un)equal" approach and to integrate groundwater management and surface water management into one coherent water management plan.

Michael O'Hearn
Associate Hydrologist
Groundwater Section
Illinois State Water Survey

January 1983 | Illinois Issues | 31