Monday, August 08, 2005

on technology

at the large bank where i work i keep hearing people use the word "technologist." "Obviously," said a very senior person in IT today, "you need to be a good technologist."

Thing is, despite my prodigiously large vocabulary, I have no clue what a "technologist" is. Having been ridiculously overly educated in a classical tradition, my first impulse is to tear apart the word into roots and whatnot. -ologist being someone who studies, tech being greek for art or craft. Yes, technologists must be people who study arts and crafts! Guess I would have made a good camp counselor after all, though I never did learn how to start or finish a lanyard. By the way, you can thank the TeX documentation for my knowledge of what tech means.

The other problem with this etymological approach is that i know these people are just taking the word technology and turning it into a profession. That doesn't work so well because we (people with my job) don't actually study technology, we use it in a practical way. in any case, technology is fundamentally different from other -ologies in that it's not defined as a body of knowledge. a biologist for example, works to improve the body of knowledge that is biology. there's a temptation to say that what i do is analogous to a doctor in terms of biology, but that already has a name: engineering. fact of the matter is that the precise area i work in is kind of engineering, but plenty of people who are being called "technologists" are application developers which is just not the same.

as an aside, many companies are actively in the practice of transforming sciences, that is to say, ologies, into industries. scientists no longer produce knowledge, they produce, well, product. of course, at that point it's no longer science but instead technology.

thing is, pretty much everyone uses technology in some form or other in his job. teachers use chalk, salesman have phones, policeman have nightsticks, chefs have knives. and mandolins. and silicone gloves and stand mixers and salamanders and man i need to stop watching food network. point is, i'm not sure why i'm a technologist and mario batali's sous chef isn't.

going back to the root of technology, i would posit that artists would have to be the ultimate users of technology. sculptors have taken the hardest rock and crude metal tools and created that which looks as if it lives and breathes. painters take oil and pigment and create all sorts of images, from sunday in the park to de stijl to happy trees. in other words, artists take technology and bend it to their whim to produce greatness. pretty much the only art i can think of that is pretty much unaltered because of technology is writing. by the way i like it when people leave com... oh.

1 comment:

  1. i have many responses to this.

    a) i like the thinkiness of it. thinkiness is a word. LOOK IT UP.

    2) i enjoyed your quaint ideas of the "technology" that various professions use. nightsticks, indeed. can you think of a nyc police officer who has used his nightstick in recent memory? i feel the gun is far more popular technology in the force. and teachers using chalk. i was going to say something about how there's smart boards and lcd projectors and wireless internet and laptops and stuff we can use in the classroom, but then i realized that pretty much the only technology i DO use IS chalk. with the occasional dvd player. and books, i guess. but yes, chalk. unfortunately true. and as we all remember, chalk is more precious than money. does that mean that technology is more precious than money? i think we could argue yes.

    gamma) arts and crafts!!!! yeah i think the word technologist is pretty empty of definition. there seem to be many titles and names and definitions that sum up what a "technologist" might do, so why can't we use those? we don't need to ad "ologist" to the end of an area of study in order to sound impressive. then i'd call myself an Englishologist or perhaps a literaturologist, and that just sounds stupid. i think i'll stick with student of literature, or perhaps (gasp) educator. neither sounds terribly impressive, but they're a damn sight better than sticking "ologist" on everything.

    unicorn) i also enjoyed the bob ross shout out. and you do need to stop watching food network. or go be a chef or something. CHEFOLOGIST!!!

    ReplyDelete