Tech labor: a new interactions forum
Tech labor: a new interactions forum
复制标题
科技劳工：新的互动论坛
DOI：
10.1145/3466994
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fox, Sarah
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Avle, Seyram;Fox, Sarah
. C O M地球找到钴的动力设备电池，台湾工厂的工人谁制造芯片组，蓝领工人在世界各地谁销售设备，那些在呼叫中心和维修店从印度到肯尼亚工作，“假信息建筑师”[4]在马尼拉谁可能不受意识形态的动机，和内容版主在亚利桑那州[5]，他们没有心理健康资源，尽管他们经常使用暴力图像。是的，我们包括山景和深圳的设计师和工程师，但不比为他们提供食物的自助餐厅工作人员，在他们之后清理的看门人，在线订单履行工作人员，Uber，DoorDash和Grab等平台的司机，还有鸡东和马山[6]的家庭，他们在回收废弃设备时，呼吸着石墨的空气，感觉到烟雾灼伤了他们的肺。我们迫切地将这些跨越国界和规模的各种劳动联系起来，以强调权利，虐待和工作条件的共同经历，并强调有希望的空间和替代方案，这些空间和替代方案可以为跨阶级和地理区域建立全球团结的任务提供信息。这一广泛的职权范围也提醒我们，假设严格的界限、边界和定义可以有助于维持现状，我们加强了对不同主体及其所承担的多种劳动的不同价值。通过此次对话，我们推出了技术劳动论坛，旨在将这些关注纳入这一问题以及未来问题的持续对话中。从不同的角度来看，我们将考虑如何支撑技术的人类劳动改变生活和工作-工人如何组织，他们如何被同行和主管，雇主，法律和学者，他们的工作通知的行动和政策，决定技术劳动。在2021年3月至4月的《互动》杂志主编的带领下，我们使用全球透镜，不仅关注地理位置上的技术和劳动力工作，还强调了在全球互联的技术行业中工作的所有人的生存和尊严，并希望建立全球团结。在第一部分中，Rida Qadri和Noopur Raval利用他们对南亚不同类型的技术劳动力进行的民族志研究，为将人，特别是平台工人视为全球技术的基础设施（Qadri）提供了强有力的案例，并引发我们质疑在全球化的技术劳动力中，谁的劳动是无形的，以及可见性的话语为谁服务（Raval）。两者都强调了地方的持续重要性--特定的地点如何工作来询问关于技术、社会和劳动力的理所当然的想法--并推动我们对技术劳动力的连续性和摩擦进行更细致的思考，以及安娜青[7]所说的我们在快速变化的世界中的“集体生存”。从全球南部指定工作的目标不是要具体化“富裕的北方”和“贫穷的南方”之间无益的区别，而是，正如最近HCI和CSCW的一些工作所做的那样，表明特定的劳动力和工作条件超越地理边界，并通过强大的技术和劳动力话语联系起来，并通过种族，性别，阶级和性别的长期问题来维持。还有其他的正如拉瓦尔所认为的，一种“从根本上非殖民的世界主义伦理”对于理论化和
. C O M earth to find the cobalt that powers device batteries, to the Taiwanese factory workers who make chipsets, the bluecollar workers around the world who sell devices, those working in call centers and repair shops from India to Kenya, the “disinformation architects”[4] in Manila who may not be motivated by ideology, and the content moderators in Arizona [5], who do not have mental health resources despite constantly fielding violent imagery. Yes, we include the designers and engineers in both Mountain View and Shenzhen, but no more than the cafeteria workers who serve them food, the janitors who clean up after them, the online order fulfillment workers, the drivers for platforms such as Uber, DoorDash, and Grab, and the families in Jidong and Mashan [6] who breathe the graphite air and feel the smoke burn their lungs as they work recycling discarded devices. We link, with urgency, these various labors across borders and scales to underscore the shared experiences of rights, abuses, and working conditions and to highlight the hopeful spaces and alternatives that can inform the task of building global solidarity across class and geographies. This broad remit also reminds us that assuming strict boundaries, borders, and definitions can serve to preserve the status quo, where we reinforce the differential valuing of different bodies and the multiple labors they take on.With this Dialogue, we launch the Tech Labor forum, with the aim of bringing these concerns into a sustained conversation in this issue as well as future ones. Drawing from various viewpoints, we will consider how the human labor underpinning technological change lives and works—how workers organize, how they are viewed by peers and supervisors, employers, the law, and academics, whose work informs the actions and policies that dictate tech labor. Following the editors in chief’s lead in the March–April 2021 issue of Interactions, we use a global lens to not only draw attention to geographically situated work on tech and labor but to also underscore what is at stake—the survival and dignity of all who labor in the very globally connected tech industry—and hopefully to build worldwide solidarities. For the first installment, Rida Qadri and Noopur Raval draw on their ethnographically grounded research with different kinds of tech labor in South Asia to make strong cases for seeing people, specifically platform workers, as the infrastructures of global technologies (Qadri), and to provoke us to question whose labor is rendered invisible in a globalized tech workforce and for whom the discourse of (in) visibility serves (Raval). Both highlight the continued importance of place—how particular sites work to interrogate taken-forgranted ideas about technology, society, and labor—and nudge us toward more-nuanced thinking about continuities and frictions of tech labor and what Anna Tsing [7] calls our “collective survival” in a rapidly changing world. The goal of specifying work from the Global South is not to reify unhelpful distinctions between the “affluent north” and the “poor south,” but rather, as some recent HCI and CSCW [8] work has done, to show that particular labor and working conditions transcend geographic borders and are linked by powerful discourses of technology and labor, and sustained by longstanding issues of race, gender, class, and sex, among others. As Raval argues, a “fundamentally decolonial cosmopolitan ethic” is necessary for theorizing and