At the dawn of the computer age, coding was seen as so rote that a 1968 career guide suggested that women who like “cooking from a cookbook” would make good programmers.
And indeed, they did. Programming initially emerged as a woman-led profession, making significant contributions to the field such as helping send the Apollo mission to the moon.
However, as computer chips became smaller and more powerful, and software grew more functional and lucrative, the field of computing transformed. Roles became higher-paying, and women were gradually pushed out. Starting in the 1980s, the representation of women in computer science plummeted. Throughout it all, people of color were and continue to be excluded and underrepresented thanks to systemic racism and persistent inequalities.
Those designing and building technology are still unconscionably homogenous. At the same time, the knowledge gap between tech creators and end users widens daily, matching the rapid pace of technological change. Tech is perceived as so complex and crucial that US companies spend $700 billion annually on IT consulting to help them understand, purchase, and maintain it. The result is a generalized and widespread sense of mystique around technology.
The notion of tech primacy has also become central to our culture. You can see it on full display in the Techno-Optimist Manifesto from Andreesen Horowitz: “Give us a real world problem, and we can invent technology that will solve it.”
The cultivated mystique of tech and the techno-optimist view go hand in hand: a tech wizard behind the curtain promising to solve problems for, rather than with, the people who need help. Developments and rampant speculation about artificial intelligence have recently threatened to further this illusion.
But just like Dorothy and her friends in the Wizard of Oz, we have the power to pull back the curtain on the cultivated mystique and reveal the reality behind the techno-optimist narrative. In a time when basic tech skills are more accessible — and more necessary — than ever, the technology we actually need often remains elusive.
It’s time to replace techno-optimism with a more balanced perspective: techno-pragmatism.
Techno-pragmatism
In direct conflict with the techno-optimist view: Not every real world problem calls for the invention of a new technology to solve it. We can’t and shouldn’t expect to code ourselves out of every challenge.
Instead, we need to ask better questions up front, and focus on the needs of specific communities rather than on the potential of some unknown technology. A techno-pragmatist approach may determine that technology isn’t the right solution for a particular challenge. It may determine that a creative application of existing technology is more efficient to serve their needs. And yes, sometimes it will determine that there is a place for new technology to fill the gap.
Pragmatism is rooted in tracing the practical consequences of hypotheses. It asserts that the value of an idea lies in its ability to produce desirable results or solve problems, and it draws on empirical grounding, pluralism, and human experience to do so. A techno-pragmatist view recognizes the ubiquity and possibility of technology while acknowledging its limitations and those of the ecosystem that creates it.
Building a techno-pragmatic ecosystem will require bringing together new types of players, ones that are clear-eyed about realistic outcomes and mindful of unintended negative consequences. Notable are pragmatist builders – those that live and breathe the problems they are trying to solve, and bend technology in ways that address them.
Organizations that pair developers with “problem experts” are leading the way, as demonstrated by Code the Dream Labs’ collaboration with farmworkers and clinical trial reformers.
Companies are also designing new products, such as Te Hiku Media’s innovative platforms and data licenses tailored to the specific needs of their constituents. Mozilla’s Data Futures Labs, #BlackTechFutures, the Center on Rural Innovation, and Fast Forward are also building new tech ecosystems by experimenting with new approaches to technology and data that are grounded in impact and human agency, not just profit.
Today, solutions are largely developed by those with technical skill, rather than those with lived experience to best define consumer needs and potential solutions.
Digital competency
However, contrary to the cultivated mystique, creating technology has never been more approachable and understandable. OpenAI’s Codex can turn natural language into code across a dozen programming languages, and a growing range of no-code or low-code platforms can turn anyone into an app developer. By fostering more — and more diverse — tech creators, we can change the solutions being created, leading to the development of tools that meet the needs of communities or groups frequently underserved by current tech design.
Closing the creator gap and bolstering the confidence of tech consumers will require that a greater number of people be computationally fluent from the outset. Even with help from new tools, we must develop strong skills in digital literacy and fluency, and greater comfort with the academic subjects (like math and computer science) that underpin technology.
The notion that not everyone can or should understand tech is deeply rooted; people see computer science, math, and engineering fields as requiring innate brilliance. And while no one argues that “some people just aren’t readers,” even teachers sometimes comfort students by asserting that “It’s ok – not everyone can be good at math”. Becoming a proficient tech user isn’t a “nice to have” skill in our modern economy. Digital literacy is table stakes for nearly every profession and a growing number of public services. And as individuals across occupations make decisions about whether and how to integrate AI and other emerging technologies into their work, these digital skills will become more important than ever.
Philanthropy and other mission-oriented capital have a critical role to play in taking advantage of this moment to create a more equitable tech ecosystem, widening the lens of who gets to create technology, what problems get attention and funding, who has access to new technologies, and who benefits from them. As society’s risk capital, philanthropy can fuel visionary pilot technologies, drive the creation of alternative tech incubators and ecosystems, and provide the seed capital needed for promising models to grow.
At Siegel Family Endowment, we have dedicated nearly a decade building our grantmaking on these principles. We work alongside and learn from partners like the Robin Hood Learning + Tech Fund, Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network, and others.
Philanthropies can underwrite public interest technology that is centered on people over profits. And they can play an important role in supporting the scientific and academic inquiry to create a shared research agenda and empirical findings about the ongoing impacts of technology.
Yet, there is a real opportunity for VCs and impact investors to unlock both impact and lasting returns on revenue-earning responsible tech companies. Innovative venture funds such as ex/ante, Chloe Capital, Visible Hands, and Slauson & Co, alongside forward-thinking advisors, such as Lucid Capitalism, Responsible Innovation Labs, and Worthmore are proving that public interest values do not have to stand in contrast to profit.
Widespread and durable progress won’t happen because a narrow group of people throw shiny technologies at deeply systemic problems, especially as many of those technologies carry the inherent biases of the very systems they seek to change. Progress will come from engaging with people to unpack their problems and constraints, and making space for shared imagination to design solutions, both technical and nontechnical, that actually improve people’s lives.
In this moment, we have an opportunity to break the cultivated mystique, throw back the (digital) curtain, and show the world that the wizard behind it is just a man.
Katy Knight is executive director and president of the Siegel Family Endowment.