Group E

My reaction to Pink's article was very similar to Tony's, and I especially appreciated Pink's approach to his article, particularly the conversational back-and-forth between the Indian and American points of view. However, what I found most striking about the article is that while it is superficially very sympathetic and appreciative of the Indian workers and more specifically programmers, there is still a very strong underlying assumption that America's future contributions on a global scale will be superior to those of other countries.

“...Before these Indian programmers have something to fabricate, maintain, test, or upgrade, that something first must be imagined and invented. And these creations must be explained to customers and marketed to suppliers and entered into the swirl of commerce in a fashion that people notice, all of which require aptitudes that are more difficult to outsource - imagination, empathy, and the ability to forge relationships. After a week in India, it seems clear that the white-collar jobs with any lasting potential in the US won't be classically high tech. Instead, they'll be high concept and high touch. “

As has already been pointed out, Anderson relates the outsourcing situation to the introduction of computers to the workplace. While no direct allegory is drawn in the article, there is a subtle implication of dehumanization of the Indian work force in their presentation to the American public: they are new “computers”, machines to take care of mindless busy work. There is a clear assumption that the contribution of Indian workers is not expected to surpass grunt labour, while the “high concept and high touch” jobs are automatically attributed to the American labor force. The most interesting aspect of this assumption is its juxtaposition with Pink's portrait of the Indian middle class. What was once a very respectable and reasonably well-paid job in the US is referred to as “merely cranking code” at the hands of the emerging Indian middle class. While it must be accepted that as we progress in our technical, conceptual, and intellectual pursuits certain jobs which may have been previously considered to be high-skill jobs will be marginalized, I found the undertone of expected superiority to be surprising in the article.

In fact, Tony's comment that “Developed countries such as United States and European countries have the technology and time to pursue a new field of study “ was, to me, very reminiscent of one of the often overlooked functions of slavery in early American history: the opinion has been expressed that by having slaves take care of menial labour, many colonial Americans had the time and opportunity to become educated as well as accomplished leaders. The results are beneficial, but it wouldn't hurt to take a step back and re-examine our position.