When tech culture only celebrates creation, it risks ignoring those who teach, criticize, and take care of others.
Chachra, Debbie. “Why I Am Not A Maker“. The Atlantic, 2015.
Debbie Chachra’s article caused me to think back in my life in terms of technology. Being born in 2001, I’ve been surrounded by technology. My earliest memories of using tech consisted of playing “Brick-Breaker” on my parents’ blackberry, “Bloons Tower Defense” on a chunky desktop, and surfing the early versions of YouTube.
Soon enough, it was the age of smartphones; Samsung Galaxies, iPhones, HTCs, and other flagship brands flooded the market, creating fiercer and fiercer competition among each other. This type of competition is present in every field of technology from speaker systems and graphics cards to electric cars and workout equipment. Additionally, cutthroat competition has extended into countless other fields of technology including environmental, bio-medical, and mechanical engineering to name a few.
This article piqued my interest because I noticed some connections:
What’s something that connects all of the tech fields described above?
STEM.
What’s the opposite of STEM?
Humanities.
In the world we live in now, what would seem like a “better” job: being an engineer at Apple or an editor at The Atlantic? Most people would say the tech position would be better. It’s common sense now to think that STEM and tech jobs have the potential to bring home much more money than a writing job, which is true. The younger generation has grown up having this sentiment ingrained into their brains. Along with the increasing materialistic culture of society, the less-paying jobs are being shunned more and more.
This thought-process is exactly what Debbie Chachra discusses in her article “Why I am Not a Maker.” She states that there is a widespread ideology that “People who make things are simply different [read:better] than those who don’t.” Chachra goes on to describe that “makers” are like people in silicon valley, raking in tons of money and gaining prestige. The main point of her article is the fact that as society values “makers” more and more, the humanistic jobs and positions are being rendered useless.
All that being said, I’m eager to explore methods of Digital Arts and Humanities that don’t fall into being a “non-maker.” So far, I’ve already learned how to use SketchUp and am excited to start using other “making” softwares as the term goes on. I acknowledge that these plans sound counterintuitive to what Debbie Chachra talked about and I agree. However, I’m not in any position to challenge these norms and nor would I even want to.
Byron, I found your connection between the ubiquity of technology in today’s world to the perpetuation of the maker’s mentality that Chachra highlights to be really insightful, I definitely also find myself interested to explore new technologies with a newfound awareness and acknowledgement of the issues regarding the maker’s mindset. I’m going to push you however, a bit on your statement in which you claim to not be able to challenge these norms, I don’t think that’s true! I’m of the belief that just by having these conversations and acknowledging the inherent problems with these norms, we’re already challenging them!