Last week was big: I was reminded of the importance of situating contemporary developments within their historical context, as well as the potency and centrality of feminist perspectives in the discussion of contemporary issues. When viewed through a historical lens, what may at first appear to be new and unprecedented debates and dilemmas arising in response to the introduction of new technologies turn out to be reminiscent of many that have gone before. No such thing as an original idea?! This point was raised in some of the articles I read last week, in their discussion of the hype surrounding the labour-saving potential of automation facilitated by smart technologies and its resemblance to that of domestic appliances and other technological advances of the twentieth century. I was particularly drawn to the work of Astra Taylor in this area and to the term ‘fauxtomation’ which she coined to refer to the gulf between the illusion of a workless future and the present reality, and the effect of technology on concealing the continued significance of human effort (Jackson, 2019).

The proponents of heady claims about automation and robotics eradicating the need for human labour would do well to consult the annals of history, as it could be just the grounding experience they need. What I read last week impressed upon me something very important: that humans work just as much or even more now than they have for centuries, but that the nature of much of this work, at least in more affluent societies, has shifted. And the trend seems to be towards increasing amounts of this work going unrecognised, either in terms of remuneration or classification. Examples include self-service checkouts and food counters, as well as the ever-increasing use of online platforms for everyday services such as banking and trip planning. In such transactions, the amount of work involved has not actually been reduced but rather is carried out by the unpaid customer in place of a paid member of staff. The lack of recognition or misrepresentation of what constitutes labour has given rise to exaggerated predictions regarding the transformative potential of artificially intelligent technologies in the realm of employment. What various writers (Taylor 2018; Watters 2015) seem to be suggesting is that there is a need to challenge such reductionist and deterministic thinking and demand that everybody’s labour, regardless of the form that it takes and whether or not it receives a paycheck, be recognised and valued rather than marginalised, ignored or taken for granted.

At this point it seems to make a great deal of sense to view the issue of automation and the degradation of human labour not only through a historical lens but also a feminist one. After all, traditionally it has been the labour of women that has been much more likely to go unrecognised and unrewarded, despite the fact that without this work society would literally have ceased to function. According to Taylor (2018), ‘fauxtomation’ acts as a continuation of this trend of discounting unpaid work (mostly that done by women) from official measures of economic output. In her blog, Watters (2015) also refers to the tendency towards a ‘feminisation’ of labour, as it becomes increasingly “contingent, casualized, adjunctified”, with an ongoing expectation that women will continue to carry out their duty of care: “In all things, all tasks, all jobs, women are expected to perform affective labor – caring, listening, smiling, reassuring, comforting, supporting. This work is not valued; often it is unpaid. But affective labor has become a core part of the teaching profession – even though it is, no doubt, “inefficient.” It is what we expect – stereotypically, perhaps – teachers to do.”

So what might the implications of all this be for educators, for the way in which technology impacts on our work and the extent to which our labour is officially recognised? Reading Watters’ (2015) arguments about the ‘feminisation’ of labour chimed with my experience of working in professions with a significant caring component, especially teaching. If what we are seeing concurrent with the growth of digital technologies is an extension of the discounting of unpaid female labour, then surely now is the time that feminist ideas should be given more currency than ever. At the level of the teaching institution, this should involve increased recognition on the part of managers of the centrality of the caring component, of ‘emotional’ or ‘affective’ labour, to the work of a teacher. Instead of applying increased pressure to teachers to bow to the forces of technological progress else risk being made redundant (in all senses of the word), managers should champion the joint indispensability of the human and the technological to the future of education. As well as receiving increased support with the implementation of technology in their classrooms, it is my opinion that teachers would also benefit significantly from increased support to manage the emotional toll of their work. In the institutions where I work, at least, there is very little to no mention of this whatsoever, and the possible impacts it can have on the psychological wellbeing of teachers. Meanwhile the focus is increasingly on tools, platforms, systems, performance, efficiency – not necessarily things I entirely discourage, but I have to agree with Taylor’s argument that one unfortunate side effect of technology’s increased profile is a distraction or detraction from other vital elements of our work.

As educators, we should also be asking ourselves in what ways technology could be seen to be reenforcing existing social bias, working mainly in the interests of the powerful, contributing to the subordination of traditionally marginalised groups in society. Asking myself such questions in the past few weeks has certainly helped me to understand why I have previously felt undermined and underappreciated in my work, as well as providing me with an outlet for my discontent through informed criticism and resistance. Long may it continue!

Jackson, G. (2019) ‘Why the rise of the robots hasn’t happened just yet’, The Financial Times, 23 January. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/ec2f65c8-1e61-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

Taylor, A. (2018) ‘The Automation Charade’, Logic Magazine, Issue 5. Available at: https://logicmag.io/05-the-automation-charade/

Watters, A. (2015) ‘Teaching Machines and Turing Machines: The History of the Future of Labor and Learning’, Hack Education, 10 August.                        Available at: http://hackeducation.com/2015/08/10/digpedlab

Week 3: “Fauxtomation” – History repeating itself? / Jemima Collins/An introduction to digital environments for learning (2018/2019)[SEM2] by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0