Beach Haven

Back in 2019 I posted a review of this book. I'm reposting it here as the entire work is a testament to when the stated outcome of a technology in fact has the opposite effect. As technology entered the home with the intent of making work for mother become easier, in fact all the it tended to do is lower work for everyone else in the home. While 'mother's' work surely changed, it did not abate. In deed, work may have increased for her with each new invention. Below is what I published back then.

MORE WORK FOR MOTHER
By Ruth Schawartz Cowan
Free Association Books, 1989, 257 pages

​Most Significant Arguments

In More Work for Mother, author Ruth Schwartz Cowan links changes in domestic work with changes brought about by technological advancements. She speaks to the separation of labor into work for women, men and children. As technology makes tasks easier, or even not needed, Cowan notes how most of the advancements replaces work done by men and children. Those technologies that do help with “woman’s” work removes the “need” to keep other women help in the home.

Examples of taking away work by men and children are often around cooking stoves and ovens. As gas and electricity replaced wood and coal, the need for gathering and preparing wood dissipates. The cooking work still exists, but the help to mother by father and children is lessened, or even eliminated. Washing machines are another example. As machines came into the home there was no longer a perceived need for sending laundry out or having a laundress come into the home. Although doing a load of laundry was less strenuous, at the same time expectation for cleanliness also increased so the amount of laundry work increased. The effect of both of these examples was that work eased, but for mother workload increased.

In the post-war era of the 1960’s and 1970’s work for women outside the home became more normal. Unlike when this happened during the depression when poor women worked outside the home out of necessity, women in general felt either need or opportunity to do so. In this case not just poor women began to work outside the home, but so too middle-class women. Despite this, the housework did not shift off of mother and onto the rest of the family. Cowan argues this is because the division of labor, masculine and feminine work, has been firmly entrenched in American culture. Entrenchment of the single family home and self-sufficiency in America also keeps alternate arrangements from succeeding such as communal work sharing.

Comparison with Other Readings

Jesse Adams Stein addresses the idea of masculine and feminine work in the piece Masculinity and Material Culture in Technological Transitions. She points to the government press operations in Australia to show how cultural assumptions mold division of labor. Unlike the Cowan work looking to the home, Stein is looking at work outside the home, in the printing press. There was a division of “men’s work” in the press at the time of the letterpress. Generally the argument was that running a letterpress machine took physical strength and the ability to know a machine’s quirks so well as to be able to run it properly. Both of these aspects were thought to be beyond a woman’s ability. In fact a few women here-and-there did run these machines, but found other ways of approaching the need to load type if the weight was too much for them. Then the disruption came was letterpress was supplanted as a technology by offset lithography. Male machinists fought moving from the heavier manual process as they defined themselves in that role. Even when offset lithography became the norm, pressmen still defined their role in masculine terms. Less skill was needed to run the machines, but the tradition of working a press had been masculine and change was slow. Similar to Cowan’s argument that housework was primarily looked at as feminine culturally, Stein argues that press work was primarily looked at as masculine culturally.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Cowan’s arguments are well laid out. The technical migration and the corresponding correlation to changes in housework seem natural and logical. Even her arguments about why some technologies or processes were chosen over others seem to work.

One area I question was her depiction of the shift from mother as consumer of services to mother as producer of services. The “products” of mother were keeping the family fed, healthy and clean. As the specific work to accomplish this shifted from others to mother, and the quality and quantity expectation rose, the result was increased work for mother. Cowan gives examples of the shift from consumer to producer such as less delivery to the home with availability of the car. Mother now had to go to the supermarket to get the food rather than having it delivered, or going to a local market by walking there. The supermarket came about because increased use of refrigeration allowed for more variety of food out of season. As expectation to deliver health and food to family included a more varied diet, mother produced transportation of food stuffs by driving to a supermarket that was not close enough to walk to, and would not deliver. She also needed the car to allow for larger loads of foodstuffs required by the increased variety in diet.

I would argue that it is a little more complicated. For example when mother walked to the local market to pick up food, that act is not unlike driving to the supermarket. She was a consumer of delivery before the car (delivery to home, delivery to local market). She is a consumer of delivery after the car (delivery to the supermarket). Like drawing lines in a system between what is in and out of the system, the line between consumer and producer can be difficult. Mother was, and is, both consumer and producer of food delivery both pre- and post-car. The question is where does one draw the line? One could pick at similar arguments given by Cowan on healthcare (doctor home visits vs mother taking a child to the clinic), education (home schooling vs getting the kids to a public school), etc.

The ideas in this work could appeal to students of history, technology, sociology, gender, etc. I think there is appeal here to lay readers as well. The conversations sparked between my wife and I were interesting. My helpfulness with Thanksgiving preparations certainly increased, but I found her unwilling to allow me to get involved in some of the work which seem to support Cowan’s culture entrenchment arguments. Spouses and children should be more aware of the burdens on mothers whether they work outside the home or not.

I recently finished reading the book The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. You may recognize his name. He was famous for writing a series of pamphlets encouraging American colonist to revolt against England in the late 18th century. His rhetoric was fiery and inspiring to the revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, the work in question does anything but inspire. In The Age of Reason he examined The Holy Bible and made an argument ostensibly against all religion, but really and specifically against all forms of Christianity. It is a very good example of arguments I’ve heard plenty of times over the years. One of the biggest mistakes, in my mind, is a shallow study of the text. He argued over and over that he was “proving” the error of the scriptures by just using the text as presented. In looking only at the text he was ignoring the aspect of context. Like so many others, both proponents of and detractors from the Bible, he read much of his criticism based on the context of his own day, not of the time in which the words were written.

For example he often pointed to the fact that many of the books of the Old and New Testaments could not have been written by the person that Christendom has traditionally ascribed them to. He pointed out information in the text that makes it “clear” that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses. Given that “fact” he argued that it stands to reason that they are a lie. He could be right. They were likely written by later historians. That doesn’t make them less true. For example, much of early history was passed from one generation to another through oral tradition and are written down much later than the actual events depicted. He also misses the point that the books of the Bible are likely a compilation as opposed to a historical record written contemporary with events. Earlier writings were likely compiled or restated by later writers, the identity of whom is unknown. For example, they often reference events or location names that were not known, or were different from the times they are describing.

Paine gave many examples similar to this one. He also sited places of inconsistency such as the differences in the stated lineage of Jesus in the gospels. Scholars have come to understand these lineages as two types. One is a show of the rights of kingship. The other the priesthood line of authority. Had Paine done more than just apply reason to the writing from his personal context he might have been able to gain more from the scriptures than a way to make the argument in favor of a perspective he likely already had.

There is another interesting line of reason he gave I’d like to consider. The author questioned spiritual experiences such as revelation and prophecy. I get where he was coming from. His point was that if he himself has not had the revelation then he should not accept the experience of others as true, or even that the record of the claimed experience was accurate. This is a reasonable thought to me. Unfortunately he missed the second part of the argument. In fact, he, and we, should do exactly that. We should seek for revelatory experience for ourselves. Instead Paine argues that God does not offer revelation to men.

Much of Paine’s argument was a comparison of what Christians of his day, and those since the days of Jesus (specifically Catholics and Protestants), have said about what is in the scripture. His arguments were as much about how the doctrines of those churches differ from, or make confused, information in the Bible. I also agree with those arguments. However, his perspective of how “reason” trumps these religionists falters. He argued that their reasoning fails because it is not based on evidence like science is. What it seems he is really saying is though they might be based on some evidence, they are not based on enough evidence to justify their reasoning. I could use the same argument in questioning Paine’s perspective by saying it is based on some evidence, but not enough evidence to justify his reasoning. In other words, I question the ability for human kind in general to come to any real understanding of truth through reasoning alone. The arguments of philosophers of science such as Kuhn and Popper point to the faultiness of human reasoning specifically when it comes to science. They would argue that scientific theory and discovery are not an explanation of how things actually are so much as a method for humans to shape a paradigm that explains what limited evidence is available. At some point as more and more evidence is gathered by science there is a fundamental shift in the basis of prevailing scientific theory to cause a new way of looking at the larger explanation of how things in the universe “truly are”. Some philosophers of science believe that is because we are getting closer to truth as more evidence mounts. Others point that there is no assurance that we are getting closer to truth, but are only getting closer to a different way of describing what the evidence means.

In Paine’s defense, much of these philosophical ideas came to light after he wrote The Age of Reason, as did the restoration of the gospel as viewed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In full disclosure, I belong to that particular organization. Our church teaches not to rely on reason, but not reason alone. We are to seek light from the source of all truth. We are taught to seek confirmation of the truth of our reasoning from God directly through prayer, with an expectation of receiving direct revelation. Paine doubted the existence or availability of revelation. So he is sort of offering self-fulfilling prophesy. Since he believed revelation from God is impossible he would neither seek it, nor believe it if it were given to him.

How sad this all is to me. I am somewhat familiar with the general perspectives of science and engineering that Paine espouses as the only true way to understand God. I have made a partial focus of my studies to be about the philosophical views of science. I am currently researching topics about the effects of science and technology have on society, and the effects of society on science and technology. Like the apostle Thomas, the assumption of most scientific practitioners is that if you can’t measure something then it does not exist. Thomas, the apostle, meant that he would not believe the Lord had resurrected without seeing for himself. Science says an experiment has to be replicable. I say receiving a testimony by way of the Holy Ghost is very replicable. Millions of people have run the experiment and received their own measurement of the truth of the Gospel. By leaving out the experiment of seeking, asking and receiving, Paine and others like him are ignoring some of the available evidence that would take them to more truth than they can get on the evidence they self-limit to. How fitting that the author of The Age of Reason shares the name of the apostle famous for doubting.

This post was originally published in July of 2016 on another platform:

I picked up a book from the give-away shelves on the fourth floor of NPR. It's called Mindful Tech by David Levy. The gist of the book is about making the best use of new communications technologies without having them come to rule our lives. The first chapter reminds the reader of the funny video that came out a few years ago when a women was walking in the mall and typing on a cell phone at the same time. Failing to notice the fountain in front of her she fell in. The whole thing was captured on mall security cameras and went viral on the Internet. Levy makes the argument that by doing both things at the same time (multi-tasking) she really did neither of them well.

The author goes on to make an argument for developing a craft for tech use. Something like the idea of creating an object of art. He argues that we should put more effort into how we use our tech and what we say with tech. He then highlights what he calls "dimensions of craftwork." The following four items are quoted from the book:

Intention
When we craft something, we set out purposefully to make or do something. We have a direction and perhaps even an outcome in mind – to construct a bookcase, to play a certain piece of music or a game of tennis. When it comes to tech, all too often do we click around aimlessly online. By clarifying our intention, and by reminding ourselves of it (or consciously changing it, when appropriate) we increase our chances of arriving successfully at our destination.

Care
When we craft something, we also care about what we are creating or performing. Care, of course, goes hand in hand with intention. We care enough to clarify our intention, and then to make sure that we are realizing it to the best of our ability.

Skill
While having a caring attitude and the best of intentions is necessary, it isn't sufficient. We also need the appropriate skills to realize our intention, including the ability to maintain and use our tools well, and to bring the best of our mind and body to the task at hand. If we pay attention to our online craft, we will be able to notice when we are proceeding skillfully, and when we're not.

Learning
Finally, if we care enough for the quality of our outcome to bring our best skills to bear, then we will want to improve those skills. This requires a commitment of time and attention to engage in an ongoing process of learning.

After giving an example or two of how this has worked for others Levy notes that we shouldn't be craft-obsessed over everything all the time. He notes that by improving our use of the four dimensions of craft "we can avoid a certain amount of mindless and stressful behavior that is now so common in our online lives."

As an example that we don't have to be intentional about everything all the time, Levy refers to a promoter of the "lean, grain-and-local-vegetable-based" diet. After noticing how people took to the diet too strictly, the diet promoter began to tell people, "Sometimes you just have to eat a Snickers bar." When it comes to our interactions with tech, Levy notes, "The challenge and the opportunity is to decide for ourselves when to engage intention and care, and when to eat the Snickers bar (and when, sometimes, to eat the Snickers bar with intention and care). And when we decide to act intentionally and carefully, we ought to feel confident that our craft skills are up to the task."

Seems like some good nuggets here we can all gain from to improve our own craft.

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

At the NAB conference last year I picked up a book by this title. It was written by Andrew Dubber. It's interesting where he took this work. I had assumed he'd focus in on new technology and how it's changing what we do. He eventually gets there in later chapters. What he did instead at the beginning was to question what radio even is. On page 10 he says, "As part of a changing media environment, radio becomes a moving target." He continues, "Something is happening to radio - indeed something has happened to radio - and in order for us to understand what has changed about it and what that means, we need to stop and attempt to gain some clarity about what 'radio' was in the first place."
 
Dubber eventually describes a context to define and understand what is meant by the word radio. He proposes a list of 10 categories through which radio is defined. Here is the list:
 
Device
This is the tool used to listen to radio. It could be the traditional device in your car dashboard, on the kitchen table or the home stereo system. He also includes less traditional devices such as mobile phones, computers, and tablets.
 
Transmission
Here he includes electromagnetic radio waves that are modulated, wired internet connections, cell phone data streams and satellites. I would add audio channels on TV cable and satellite systems.
 
Text
By this Dubber means the programs offered through the medium.
 
Subtext
Here Dubber is speaking of the intentions behind the programming. What are the underlying purposes for making radio content? The motivation shapes the outcome.
 
Audience
This refers to the people who consume the content no matter how it gets to them.
 
Station
Dubber uses this term more broadly than the traditional idea of a business entity that broadcasts a radio signal over the air in a geographic location. He also includes any organization that produces texts (content).
 
Political Economy
Here he wants us to consider political and economic forces that shape the content shared and the funding mechanisms. Dubber also includes the ideas surrounding performance of some social or civic function.
 
Production Technologies
Tools used to create radio texts (content). Think hardware and software.
 
Professional Practice
In this area Dubber refers to techniques and work flows for using the technology to create and distribute the content.
 
Promotional Culture
This one relates to several of the others, but with the intention to have a specific effect on the consumer behavior of audiences.
 
Whew! So... How do YOU define RADIO? Let's see what you think. Of course that assumes anyone is actually reading this and has/shares an opinion that I'm OK leaving posted here. ;-)