>
>I learned programming apprentice style, by reading other
>programmers's code for effectiveness and elegance. Note that
>I did not always succeed in my attempt at elegance, but I
>tried.
being a sociologist is an art. if there were a more convenient way to share our knowledge, i'm certain that plenty of sociologists would give it away.
i consign everyone here to a read of white collar by c. wright mills. for heavensake!
i'll repeat b/c i don't think posts got to list:
1. there are claims made about how special progtramming is b/c it's an art and embedded in a set of social rel. that may somehow be potentially revolutionary. feh. do you know how many occupations made the same claims?
2. there is a failure to examine the claims made as to its supposed "caring and sharing" culture in so far as there IS and HAS been until i said something, an assumption that coding is somehow unsullied by the more mundane aspects of life on planet earth. double feh. now, why is it that anyone is supposed to get all doe-eyed about any of this? eh?
3. while there is nothing wrong with giving and sharing, but i was asking for a little more reflexivity about claims that this is primary motivation. i'm asking, "how is that possible" the answer is obvious to me. in answering, i'd take a closer look at "gift cultures" and at this point you might want to think long and hard about who has traditionally been consigned to the role of noble giving for the greater good.
hmm??
yoshie, wanna help me out here re ideal of victorian womanhood.
i am suspicious of a male dominated occ. and this insistence on the claim, "we're special b/c we give things away and want to be recognized for it". see the feminist critiques of the professions for engaging in this discourse rather unreflexively most of the time.
no i'm not say that y'all are oppressing women. i'm using feminst analysis as a tool for critique.
also, my sensors are cued to this b/c as i expl'd to peter, this is one of the fundamental signs of an unorganized set of practices (an art) becoming professionalized and formalized. i'm not blowing smoke here--this is well documented in the literature. to make this critique is not to render the object of critique insignificant, sinister, or even disingenuous. it is to point out the contradictions and problems with the discourse and to make connections and analogies with other examples in recent history to ask, "what direction is this taking? what's at stake? who has a stake?" etc.
5. yes. it's beautiful. but there is a disconnect and some odd inability to see that this goes for any number of other things one can do for a living that one can find extremely fulfilling. i used to cook. a pastry chef. i learned the craft tradition way too. no school. i loved it. i used to love to make wedding cakes. i *never* made them for a profit and indeed never even asked people to pay me for the cost of making it. i did them for free because i loved doing it, loved making something beautiful, and loved the symbolic significance of the gesture and the cake itself. and i got something out of it. as you say, "so what?"
but i don't run around pretending or claiming that my former occupation is somehow going to be part of the coming revolution. indeed, i would prefer to look at exactly why we get such a thrill out of conceiving of our work as an art, as opposed to doing it for a buck or some "external" motivation. what is going on there? it's a rhetorical question. there's no surprise why people see and want to see their work as more than just making a buck. but a lot of people accomplish this, even in the most mundane boring jobs you can find people talking about all the reasons why they do it because they love it, or some part of it.
6. i have never been much for the opposition pitted b/t altruism and selfishness, but i AM attuned to the issue and the fact that is HAS been, in our culture, one of the primary ways of conceiving of the rel. b/t the two characteristics--as a binary opposition. see a slew of feminist research on that topic. it's a feminist analysis of the way in which men uphold (and ask to be rewarded in various ways) for their altruism while assuming that women will not need same because they naturally selfless!!! knowing this history of the discourse re self interest v. altruism makes one pretty attuned to the ways in which people deploy the discourse. no, i'm not saying that the discourse drawn on here is patriarchal, or masculinist or whatever. i'm simply saying that i've drawn on a feminist analysis of this discourse to ask you guys to reflect a little more on why you're portraying coding, etc in this way. what's at stake?
why should i accept your claims and not those of a stock broker regarding the art and greater social benefit of what he does? there is no reason whatsoever to do so.
just as no one should accept my claims about sociology in that regard. we sure engaged in all the same kinds of discourse and in the process managed to mystify it all in the name of empowering 'the people" and 'practicing our art" and "pursing knowledge for the sake of knowledge" too.
kelley