Education as Social Institution

Education is another of the primary social institutions from which we learn the values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of a dominator culture. A discussion of education as a social institution embraces: (1) how we come to know (epistemologies); (2) the methods of teaching and learning (pedagogies); and (3) what we know, the content of our knowledge tradition. In Chapter III, I explored some ideas about epistemological barriers to women in IT education related to our philosophy of science. For example, some scholars have argued that since more women tend to be concrete learners, and more men tend to be abstract learners, women may be less comfortable with the abstract approaches that predominate in science and IT education (Belenky, 1986; Estrin, 1996; Goldberger, 1996; Greenbaum, 1990; Keller, 1992; Kramer & Lehman, 1990; Riger, 1992; Rosser, 1995; Turkle & Papert, 1990). In Chapter IX, I will address questions of epistemology and pedagogy in more depth as I propose a partnership model of education. In this chapter, I would like to focus on the third issue, that is, the content of our knowledge tradition. This chapter explores: (1) our incomplete knowledge tradition; (2) a brief her-story of women in math, engineering, and IT; and (3) the ins and outs of women’s education and employment in these fields.

A Concluding Pledge

This book has offered one feminist’s perspective on how a deeper understanding of our dominator social system might clarify why women are underrepresented as developers, users, and beneficiaries of technology. I have suggested that we move beyond the attitude of simply providing access to the more encompassing goal of co-creating a partnership social system. This approach will increase the participation of women, as well as other currently underrepresented populations, in information technology. In the end, co-creating a partnership global IT industry is about building relationships founded in an attitude of empathy and caring that informs all of our human relations. Although I have attempted to offer a vision of what partnership in IT might look like in relation to media, language, education, and business, the best efforts to increase the participation of women as developers, users, and beneficiaries of technology will be broad-based, multifaceted, include many more perspectives than mine, and involve all of our social institutions. In earlier chapters, I have suggested some places to begin. Breaking through false assumptions about the purpose and relevance of women’s studies and feminist science studies, along with perspectives from many other disciplines, is a key to exploring a rich mine of ideas about how our current social system operates and how we might work together to co-create a more hospitable social climate for all. Undoing the damage done by dualistic thinking and stereotypes will take us a long way towards a richer understanding of our shared human experience. Reframing some of the core assumptions of the philosophy of science—primarily the founding assumption that science is male and nature is female—will offer new perspec tives from which to understand our increasingly complex scientific and technical knowledge tradition. Citizens of the United States of America have learned to think of themselves as members of the world’s greatest democracy. We call our nation the “land of opportunity” and we rely on the “myth of meritocracy” (the idea that anyone can achieve anything by their own efforts) without any acknowledgement of the institutionalized barriers that make it much harder for some. However, we have yet to live up to a true democratic ideal as a nation, and one of the reasons for this is the power of unnamed stereotypes. Learning more about the power of media as a social institution to shape our views about ourselves and one another is a critical component of any lasting social change. Henderson (1996) describes the global mass information system as a new kind of “government” that she calls a “mediocracy” run by large businesses and financial interests (p. 112). At the same time, Henderson also shares my hope for what the media could do if we all participated in information technology: “Mass media could become a national feedback mechanism by providing a random-access conduit for all the wisdom, creativity, and diversity of our citizens” (Henderson, 1996, p. 117). That is the potential that a partnership approach to information technology can help us manifest.

Partnership Global IT Business

In Chapter VII, I asked how our knowledge about the dramatically unequal distribution of global income combined with the estimates on global population growth might raise questions about our social responsibility to each other as a human community with regard to the direction of development efforts in the IT industry. How might we use technology to close the existing (and rapidly growing) gap between the haves and have-nots worldwide? How might we use IT in service of human need instead of placing humans in service of the technology? What are the most critical global social concerns that technology might serve? Can we afford the either/or attitude of IT businesses that completely divorce profit-making IT development from broader social concerns? What might a partnership philosophy of science look like? What might a partnership global IT business look like? This chapter outlines a few starting points for answering these questions by exploring the following topics in relation to co-creating a partnership global IT business: (1) U.S. economic dominance in IT; (2) “partnerism” a new economic model; (3) global IT development ideas between developed and developing nations; (4) partnership IT policy making; (5) examples of partnership science and IT; and (6) ideas for where you can begin to co-create partnership. In Chapter I, I contrasted the characteristics of dominator and partnership social systems. Table 1 describes the characteristics of partnership social systems that are particularly relevant to the global IT business as a social institution as they relate to the topics covered in this chapter (Eisler, 1987, 2002, 2007; Eisler & Loye, 1990; Eisler & Miller, 2004).

Gendered Philosophy of Science

This chapter explores the ways in which the dualistic notion of gender is at the core of many fundamental ideas in the philosophy of science. The ways in which we have learned to perceive, think about, teach/learn, and conduct research in science and IT are deeply informed by a dualistic, gendered framework: science is associated with maleness, and nature with femaleness. This primary split supports a philosophy of science that envisions “good science” as purely rational and objective (male), devoid of emotion and subjectivity (female). These core values of a dominator society contribute to a climate that is not likely to be hospitable to those who are gender-socialized as women. In the end, I call for a new perspective on our philosophy of science and technology that embodies partnership values and ask: How might we proceed to reexamine our assumptions about science and technology to make the shift from a dominator to a partnership perspective? These ideas are explored in the following sections: (1) science is male; nature is female; (2) the myth of objectivity; (3) there’s no crying in science; and (4) envisioning a partnership philosophy of science (democratizing science and technology, redefining what makes good science, and examples of partnership science and IT).

Partnership Language and Media

In Chapter IV, I discussed how language operates as a social institution to teach us the values, attitudes, and beliefs of our society. Our dominator legacy is deeply embedded in the language we use and the ways we have learned to communicate. Since language acts as such a powerful social institution, it is also a great place to begin to create a partnership culture. “We need a language that connects us to the heart of our human experience—our values, dreams, desires, and needs” (Hart, 2004, p. 115). We need language that liberates us from the limiting either/or perspectives of a dominator culture and inspires the unlimited both/and perspectives of a partnership culture. We need language (and styles of communication) that help us focus on the ways in which we are connected as human beings, more than the ways in which we are different (which serves the dominator values of ranking human beings). In Chapter V, I discussed how media teach us the values, attitudes, and beliefs of a dominator culture via the persistent use of stereotypical images and messages. To create the climate for partnership in IT, we need new representations of women and people of color in relation to technology in books, magazines, television, film, and advertising. We need to break free of the “geek” stereotype and show more complex human beings portrayed as developers, users, and beneficiaries of technology. We need to move outside of a narrow Amerocentric lens regarding the ways in which we think about and envision technology and its uses. Creating this kind of change may seem daunting, but it need not be. People often resist participating in change because they see society as a rigid mechanism that’s “always been this way” or “just the way things are.” However, we need to shift away from this dominator view of society as a machine in which people are “expendable cogs” (Eisler & Loye, 1990, p. 185); this attitude contributes to a lack of responsibility towards being part of the change. “If we deny our power to affect people, then we don’t have to worry about taking responsibility for how we use it or, more significant, how we don’t” (Johnson, 2006, p. 133). The truth is that individuals interact with the larger social institutions, and those social institutions can be changed by that interaction. To create a partnership society, you must adopt the view of society as a living organism that you are co-creating with others. This will make it easier to claim responsibility for your part in reifying our dominator system or moving towards partnership.

Partnership Science and Technology Education

Ultimately, creating lasting and long-term change in the participation of women as developers, users, and beneficiaries of technology necessitates addressing this change in all of our social institutions. However, as the social institution that is given explicit responsibility for teaching the next generation of citizens, education holds particularly significant potential to be a positive force for change. We need a fundamental shift in the culture of science and IT away from its dominator roots to a partnership perspective, and we all (i.e., teachers, students, parents, businessowners, and citizens) need to co-create this change together. In Tomorrow’s Children: A Blueprint for Partnership Education in the 21st Century, Riane Eisler (2000) calls for changes in content (what we teach—our curriculum), process (how we teach—our teaching methods), and structure (where we teach—our learning environments). In Chapter VI, I explored the first issue—what is missing from the content of our knowledge tradition. In Chapter III, I explored the second issue—process barriers that some learners face in due to the gendered philosophy of science and the ways in which certain learning styles are privileged over others. This chapter adds to the discussion of all three issues, but focuses primarily on the second and third—partnership methods of teaching and learning and how to create partnership learning environments. This chapter explores the following suggestions for shifting education (especially science and IT education) away from a dominator and towards a partnership model: (1) partnership ways of knowing; (2) considering the needs and perspectives of users and beneficiaries of science and IT in education; (3) educating teachers from kindergarten through college to better understand how our current system works as well as how to co-create partnership; (4) redefining student-teacher relationships in terms of partnership; (5) co-creating collaborative learning environments; (6) developing partnerships systems of testing, evaluating, and measuring learning; and (7) offering examples of partnership curricula and programs. In Chapter I, I contrasted the characteristics of dominator and partnership social systems. Table 1 describes the characteristics of partnership social systems that are particularly relevant to science and technology education as they relate to the topics covered in this chapter (Eisler, 1987, 2000, 2002, 2007; Eisler & Loye, 1990; Eisler & Miller, 2004).

Language as Social Institution

Language as a social institution is the primary symbol system through which we teach/learn about our dominator culture. The assumptions, values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are considered “normative” are deeply embedded in our language and communication style. The “language of domination” features “shoulds and musts, blame and criticism, [and] judgment and demand,” all of which privileges certain groups and suppresses others according to their “appropriate” social rank (Hart, 2004, p. 114). Language is also one of the powerful mechanisms for teaching and conveying stereotypes; the significant impact of which we have already explored. Further, without a great deal of mindful effort, the average person conforms to stereotypes of language and communication style without even being aware of it. Johnson (2006) describes how most of us learn to take the “path of least resistance” with regard to social expectations of ourselves and of others. This also points to the necessity for what feminist activists and scholars have called “consciousness raising.” Once we become conscious of the ways in which our language and communication style reflect dominator stereotypes that have taught us false models for how to think about ourselves and each other, we can make conscious choices to do things differently. This chapter explores the following concepts in an effort to chart the map down the “path of resistance” to a dominator social system: (1) why political correctness matters; (2) gendered communication style; (3) malecentered IT communication style and culture; and (4) dominance, violence, and sex metaphors in IT.

Mass Media as Social Institution

Communication is generally understood as a two-part process consisting of messages that convey content and the interpretation of that content by the receiver. Meanings are conveyed through words, images, and symbols. In the U.S., mass media serve as one of the most significant social institutions shaping communication since media act as gatekeepers of information using stereotypes as one of the primary tools to communicate the values of the dominant culture (Creedon, 1993; Wood, 1999). As I discussed in Chapter II, stereotypes circumscribe the boundaries around where we “belong” and what is “possible” for us in our lives. We learn both about how to view each other (which teaches us to “discriminate” and rank by category), how to view ourselves (which teaches us to internalize views of being “less than” in relation to gender, race, class, and other systems of ranking), and how to organize our society (which teaches us who belongs where). These representations have a powerful influence on the possibilities that people perceive for themselves and impact the behaviors through which they manifest these possibilities. Contemporary mass media play a pivotal role in defining the “appropriate” cultural boundaries around such factors as gender, race, and class. In Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (1992), Toni Morrison states: “Eddy is White, and we know he is because nobody says so” (p. 72). It is only necessary to “define” those who are outside of the dominant social center. In the end, every “aspect of our culturally mediated identity . . . is challenged or altered by the hypnotic power of mass media” (Miller, 2004, p. 2). This chapter explores these issues in the following sections: (1) mass media and its power to influence; and (2) and in-depth analysis of Wired magazine.

Business as Social Institution

The global IT business as a social institution reflects the same dominator values as other social institutions in the U.S. Since IT is a large and increasingly powerful industry worldwide, the question of what kinds of values the business purveys holds growing significance to our human community. Further, our ways of doing business are defined by the economic models that we adopt. The term “economics” can be used in two ways: (1) in reference to the academic discipline “that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services”; and (2) in popular reference to describe “economic systems, policies and practices” (Eisler, 2007, p. 11). In this chapter, I refer to the latter—economic systems, policies, and practices—as we explore the following topics: (1) the dominator economic values reflected in the global IT business; (2) the relationship between postcolonialism and U.S. participation in dominator global economic development; and (3) the rising social and political significance of economic development in India and China with specific relation to the IT industry. I end this chapter with an in-depth example of a global IT giant to demonstrate the effects of dominator economic decisions on the Holocaust during World War II.

Dualisms and Stereotypes

Dualisms are a hallmark of dominator societies, and dualistic thinking is a deeplyembedded attitude that shapes our values and beliefs. The deficiency of dualistic thinking is that it encourages us to organize knowledge in simplistic “either/or” terms, rather than considering the “both/and” complexities of our human experience. Gender is socially-defined in dualistic terms; one is either male or female. Understanding gender, the ultimate dualism, can help one begin to grasp the ways in which gendered attitudes and beliefs are reflected in the social institutions through which we learn about IT. The stereotypes (of gender, race, physical ability, age, etc.) that are purveyed by our social institutions are one of the most enduring and significant ways in which we all learn our sense of identity and “appropriate” location in the social hierarchy, as well as how we perceive and categorize others. Therefore, an in-depth understanding of stereotypes and their influence is critical to beginning to understand how we all continue to participate in recreating a dominator society. Dualisms and stereotypes are two of the most pervasive and powerful tools of a dominator social system. Audre Lorde (1984) explains that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (p. 110). If we are ever to lay down these tools and construct a different house for our human community, we must understand how proficient we have all become at using the dominator tools of dualistic thought and stereotyping.