Today I interviewed Douglas Rushkoff, an author and keen observer of new media and digital culture. I wanted to talk to him about his most recent book, Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. He argues that in learning to code, or at least learning a little about coding, we can better understand the biases of digital technology, and the design decisions that go into our digital technologies. In short, we don’t need to be passive consumers of new technology.
You can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3.
Play audio:
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
I like what he is saying and I agree with what he is saying, but I also recognize that he is a bit confused. I suppose it's the thought that counts, and it *is* much appreciated — but he may be missing the boat on a few details.
Consider his comment on Facebook being a programmed environment to monetize user-generated social spaces in favour of advertisers and customers. This is related to programming in the sense that it runs on PHP/AJAX and database-oriented foundation, but programming is not at the ultimate core of it. It has more to do with media process: any media company must 1) sell content to their viewers, and 2) sell their viewers to advertisers. This is a media problem: not a computer problem. Television did this. Radio did this. Newspapers did this. And as luck would have it, computers do it too. I suppose it relates to "programming" in a very loose sense, but it doesn't have much to do about code. :
I think his idea to have programming be taught is a good idea for many reasons, but trying to promote a type of critical literacy about media and social algorithms can't be one of them. On its own, computer science is another form of mathematics: a type of language without any form of social context. The function f(n) is only a series of arithmetic actions; it does not inherently know it is decreasing someone's wages. If Mr. Rushkoff's critical literacy about programming is to become true, the programming must be combined with a thorough liberal arts curriculum as well — something which the education system below postsecondary hasn't had the best track record with.
I'd take Rushkoff more seriously on this subject if I could find him on Github or Stack Overflow, or someplace else where people who actually program share knowledge. I thought the interview with Ted Striphas did a much better job of getting to the same basic points.
I'm a coder, I love coding, and I love helping people who want to code learn to do so. But I think a lot of folks would do just as well to read books like James Gleick's "The Information" or Steven Levy's "Hackers" to understand how programmers think.
In any case, I appreciate what you guys are doing with Spark—thanks!
nora I totally enjoyed that interview of Rishkoff with my morning coffee!!! thanks so much !
Nora
My comment is centred more on the visceral than reason. I enjoy your show and especially love your radio voice.
I must agree with you Rich. His show is great and his radio voice is like an lighting that goes through my body every time I hear him. Great man , great character.
I just listened to the interview, because I thought it would address some of the thoughts and frustrations I have been dealing with; going on the Internet now that it has become so interactive, but sensing that my understanding of what I am doing is so very limited. It seems my "understanding" is an extremely small part of the big picture of what is happening in the interaction . That not only makes me uncomfortable, but it also makes me want to know more…but not have a clue where to look , where to start and learn how to make my interaction more my own, have more information to know how and what to do.
Just for example: right now I am on a "netbook" that someone put a linux os, Ubuntu on. I find it easy enough to use, but when anything goes wrong I am at a total loss. I may call someone and ask them what I can do to solve the problem, and they can give me a few suggestions, and most often the problem is solved. And sometimes I just hit a few keys, try to get at things intuitively…..But my approach has nothing to do with understanding, just blind faith, or something like "giving the computer a kick" to see if I can get it working again.
Another different example: I approach "facebook" with a lot of trepidation,as if I have to check each step I take to see if the ground is solid under my feet. And I don't think about what I'm giving back to facebook, though I have heard the question asked "how does facebook make money, how can it be so financially successful when it's basically free?"……….most people probably don't think about that, and if that thought crosses their minds, they dismiss it . So much unknown, and yet so much connection. WOW!
And though I may seem like a novice, most of my acquaintances that are around my age(50s, 60s) or older, know so much less. Mr Rushkoff is right, we need to know more, and make that education available and accessible to all. As the person a few comments before said Mr Rushkoff is confused well, I for one am a lot more confused!!!!.
I'm for starting self education……got any good suggestion for where I can start?
I'm not so sure I agree that Rushkoff is "confused" as MW asserts above. I think Rushkoff was quite a lucid thinker about the media and the way we consume it. If there was any confusion, perhaps it centred on the word "programmed". While Facebook is "programmed" in a software kind of way, it is also "programmed" in the sense of being constructed for a particular purpose, that is to deliver social demographic information to a set of clients that pay Facebook for that information. In that way, I see it as being remarkably similar to television and its, er, "programs"; except there, the "programs" are the cheese crumbs that bring us mice-viewers to the kitty cat advertisers. Perhaps the thing we have difficulty with is the notion that the media consumers are in fact the products and we are being sold (to a buyer) and, at least in the case of TV, sold to, as well.
Is it important for us to understand how a software program is constructed when we are trying to understand our relationships and the way they are being shaped by the various media we use? Hmmm. Is it important for us to know how a folio from Elizabethan England was bound in order for us to understand Shakespeare's Macbeth? I don't think so. But it might help to know who was paying the bard for us to get some of his message.
Rather than learning how to program software, maybe we should be asking questions, such as "Why would those nice folks at Facebook (or CTV or wherever) be so kind as to give me free entertainment? Are they really just hoping I'll be a happier, kindlier person?" To be sure, much of our lives are "programmed" (determined) by the software in use by various government and business agencies. But I think it would be a mistake to ignore the "programming" that has been going on for much longer by those who wish to sell us stuff.
As they say in the murder mysteries, "follow the money". If we do that, I think we'll have a clearer understanding of the scope and purpose of various media, digital or otherwise.
Excellent points, Duncan. For me, perhaps the point where these two senses of 'programmed' meet is in the design decisions that are made….the programming that fuels the programming, as it were.
I should add as a general point of clarification to anyone who hasn't read his book, that saying 'learn to code' is mostly a provocation on his part, since he knows most people are not going to do this. The book is more centrally about learning to understand the biases of the technology
Fascinating interview, great show!