[Software] Development as Freedom — Part 2
Part 2: Who for, what for?
This blog is part two of the series [Software] Development as Freedom, where I explore the downfalls and dangers of the belief that giving people coding skills will lead to a more equal society. In part 1, I challenged the idea that coding camps alone can address issues of social mobility because they overlook the role of structural inequalities in shaping social, educational and economic opportunities.
Now, I’ll explore why conceptualising coding as an emancipatory practice raises important questions about what the purpose of coding is.
Software development is not a neutral practice: what is being coded is just as important as how to code.
Technology development has historically been deeply intertwined with military purposes [1], a domain in which the subjectivity of the benefits of technology often falls along geopolitical lines. Consequently, those who feel inclined to work in this domain, or indeed those who feel that this domain is liberating, is intricately tied to questions of identity, nationality, and politics. For example, those in the United States who believe in the army as a defendant of national security are likely to feel very differently about the US Military’s $3bn technology development budget than those on the receiving end of it. This dynamic is often amplified in the case of data science and software development, where roughly thrown-together technologies are released into the public sphere before their effects can be truly anticipated. A recent example of this — when the US-driven Afghan biometric database was abandoned to the Taliban — serves as an important reminder that the question of whether or not technology is liberating very much depends on your positionality.
The lived reality of those harmed by digital technology makes the notion of coding as an emancipatory practice a little hard to swallow. It’s perhaps not surprising that whose who are disproportionately harmed by technologies such as AI and automation — namely people of colour, people of marginalised genders, and people in lower socio-economic groups — are also those who are underrepresented in the field [2]. If digital technologies are underpinning what Donna Haraway calls ‘The Informatics of Domination’ [3], then the rhetoric of ‘software development as freedom’ must not only question who is coding, but also what is being coded. As Janet Abbate puts it: “The software industry is unlikely to achieve equal representation until computer work is equally meaningful for groups who do not necessarily share the values and priorities that currently dominate Silicon Valley” [4]. Getting a cab more quickly (Uber), having groceries collected by someone else (DoorDash), or renting another person’s house (AirBnb) are services which address ‘problems’ that only the most privileged can consider their primary concerns.
That’s not to say that software development is a ‘pipeline issue’.
Discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion and treatment at work are as much a part of the problem of homogeneity in the tech sector as the lack of diversity in those who choose to enter the field [5]. However, looking at the plethora of scandals that the largest technology employers (such as Facebook, Google and Amazon) are embroiled in raises questions about whether equal representation in technology can be separated from what technology companies are offering society. As Sasha Constanza-Chock asks: “Is the aim to make all coders good people or all people good coders?” [6]. A more diverse technology sector which continues to be involved in wars, corporate monopolies, and privacy scandals remains one which perpetuates inequality.
However, digital skills don’t have to be incompatible with liberatory practices. Grassroots projects such as #YesWeCode hackathons in Philadelphia have produced apps tackling health issues in Black communities, services for youth in foster care, and urban re-development projects which centre community self-determination [7]. Meanwhile, Black queer and trans communities are combatting misogynoir on social media by creating and using hashtags like #GirlsLikeUs to grow community spaces, raise awareness around social justice issues, and develop support networks for sharing material resources with those who need it most [8].
“A more diverse technology sector which continues to be involved in wars, corporate monopolies, and privacy scandals remains one which perpetuates inequality.”
Nonetheless, the notion that providing people with coding skills will necessarily lead to a more equal society overlooks the harms that common software development applications create, and thus fails to question what ‘success’ in the technology sector looks like. This not only impacts who is represented in the sector, but also what the sector is here to do. So, for software development to really lead to freedom, it must not only challenge who is coding, or how they are coding but it must radically challenge what is being coded. Digital skills programmes which simply channel new coders into jobs at Google, Facebook, Apple or DARPA do not disrupt the status quo. Rather than promoting the deterministic idea that the future is digital and skills will set you free, digital skills courses might be better off asking:
The future [might be] digital. [How can] skills set you free?
[1] McKenzie and Wajcman, 1999; Haraway, 1991
[2] O’Neil, 2017; Noble, 2018; Eubanks, 2018
[3] Haraway, 1991
[4] Abbate, 2021, p. 266
[5] Hicks, 2017, pp. 235–237; Abbate, 2021
[6] Constanza-Chock, 2020, p208
[7] Abbate, 2021, pp. 265–66
[8] Bailey, 2021
Bibliography
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020) Design justice: community-led practices to build the worlds we need.
