Imagine if Siri, Alexa and Cortana were named Deshawn, LaToya and Tyrell and, instead of being female, their voices were clearly identifiable as Black.
We command them to make our appointments and take us places. We expect them to stand by, 24-7, hovering and ready to provide whatever assistance they can. We tolerate no mistakes and curse at them when they don’t do what we ask. We toy with them. We don’t have to say please or thank you. And they ask for nothing in return save a little electricity and bandwidth. Our ancestors could only dream of having servants as cheap, competent and submissive as Siri, Alexa or Cortana—but they had to rely on living beings.
For millennia, people with power or money have used other people and nonhuman animals to act as extensions of their own mind and body: servants that cook and scrub, slaves captured in wars or traded on an open market, plough horses, concubines, secretaries who take dictation, butlers, chauffeurs, wet nurses, guardian dogs, beasts of burden.
One downside for our ancestors was that living servants and slaves are expensive. They have to be fed and housed, and—if they are human—clothed. That created a huge advantage of machines, which are capable of more for less. A 50-horsepower engine is incredibly small and easily fueled by contrast with the infrastructure and resources required by a stable of horses.
Another downside is that servants and slaves who are living beings have a will of their own. They have to be enticed or compelled to set aside their own preferences and projects and instead to act as extensions of a boss or master. People can be incentivized by pay to act part-time, say eight hours daily, as an extension of another person, like the modern executive secretary. Often though, through history, the service has been less voluntary. To get the assistants they want, strong people have exploited power differentials: the desperation of indentured servants and wage slaves; the inability of nonhuman animals to negotiate or escape; the subjugate weakness and low social status of human chattel.
Most of us look back on that history and cringe. In the United States, we cringe especially at the horror that was Black slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. Virtual assistants with default Black names and voices would immediately call up that history, the ongoing struggle of Black Americans to transcend the devastation it wrought, and the residual racism in our society. Except for, perhaps, some literal neo-Nazis, people would be outraged. There would be boycotts. Virtual assistants that sounded like Black Americans would be an unmitigated public-relations and financial disaster for the corporations that produced and branded them.
So, how is it that Amazon, Apple and Microsoft roll out virtual chattel with female names and voices, and get away with it?
Some might point out that Black people are the only Americans whose ancestors were brought en masse to this continent in chains. There’s a solid reason many people are sensitized to images, vocabulary, narratives, roles and norms that treat Black people as less-than.
That said, across human cultures and geographies, the type of persons that have most routinely been treated as chattel—legal property belonging to other people—are women. This is not ancient history. In many countries today, women and even underage girls are still “given” by their fathers to husbands—the very name husband meaning master of the house and manager, as in animal husbandry or husbanding resources.
Female servitude continues to be reinforced by America’s dominant religion. Many forms of Christianity still today teach that women should not be church leaders and some say that females should keep silent in church as dictated by the Word of God. Wives are taught to submit to their husbands. The Bible’s second creation story—considered by many to be literal truth—teaches that the first woman was created as a “helpmeet” to the first man, who was made in the image of God. The New Testament promises that women will be saved through childbearing. Church fathers and modern leaders who made vile statements about women have yet to be repudiated.
Christianity is not alone. Modern imams try to explain carefully how and why a man can smack his wife in accordance with the scripture. Conservative Islam continues to force hijab or worse on hundreds of millions of women. Hijab may be seen by some in the West as a symbol of multi-culturalism and tolerance, which traditionally symbolizes male ownership of female sexuality. Even in the West, young women get killed by relatives for pursuing love interests of their own choosing. Women’s rights advocates are jailed and lashed in Muslim majority countries. Among Jews, the Haredim continue to demand that women cover their hair and ride in segregated buses. They deface images of women in public.
All of this is now, in the 21st Century. It doesn’t work to say that female servitude is less of a big deal than black slavery. The only explanation I see for the success of Siri, Alexa and Cortana is that people are more comfortable with sexism than racism, with female servitude than Black servitude. The question is why we are comfortable with either.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including The Huffington Post, Salon, The Independent, Free Inquiry, The Humanist, AlterNet, Raw Story, Grist, Jezebel, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.
Just as families would never have existed save through the enforced slavery of wives, civilization would never have existed except through the slavery of others. (Imagine a bunch of hunter-gatherers sitting around a fire and one of them says “Hey, I’ve got an idea, how about a bunch of you work really, really hard so that a few of us could sit around at leisure and do things like boss you around and maybe make a few pieces of art?” Right. What, no volunteers?
I saw an estimate that said that in the year 1800 about 50% of all humans existed in some form of slavery (serf, bonded servitude, chattel slavery, etc.). Imagine a religion that opposed slavery. Never heard of such a thing? Well, that is because any such religion would have been stamped out by the elites as being seditious. (Consider what the Romans and Roman Catholics did to “opposing” screeds. There’s a reason all of those original documents can’t be found.)
LikeLiked by 5 people
“Just as families would never have existed save through the enforced slavery of wives,…”
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Perhaps a couple of links to academic papers or other research.
I’m not disagreeing with you, yet, as I don’t know the answer. However, it seems to me that a couple of rational people, even considering Stone Age rationality, could form a family in order to provide for themselves a division of labor, better personal security, and other benefits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think one of the forces enabling and ‘allowing’ women abuse (define it as coarsely or as subtly as you want) to continue, is women in positions of power or wealth who have no need for equal treatment for all women. They have equal – and often way above equal – treatment and feel no need to advocate for others less fortunate. In fact, some speak out AGAINST ‘equal rights’. Speaking FOR equal rights for all may even endanger their privilege. Which means it’s really a privilege divide, doesn’t it? The rich and powerful don’t need / don’t want REAL equal rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How sad that the church has historically defended the Bible passages about slavery by claiming that they were somehow culturally and socially necessary and therefore not wrong, rather than simply saying, “Owning another person is deplorable!” Likewise with women, the rationale seems to be that dominant men and submissive females are necessary to maintain order in the family, enabling centuries of abuse, resulting in a lot of broken people and families, despite the church’s supposedly God-inspired teaching!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Thesseli.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Valerie, (Second try. One of my just turned 83 yo fingers “disappeared” the first.)
(And the Second try too.) Valerie, What you write- All too True. Sure, there may have been and be personal, individual expressly chosen exceptions. But I’ve seen no evidence to contradict that the conditions you describe permeate all human cultures and their “religious” iterations. Thanks as always.
Get Outlook for Android
Siri can be set to a male or female voice, and the name “Siri” is generic, but it does default to female. The others, not so much. I set my Siri on the male voice, mostly because I’m a contrarian.
You can change the “wake word” on the Echo devices. I had mine set to “computer” for a time because I really dislike personifying machines. Unfortunately, I found that I use the word “computer” too often when speaking so I had to change it back to “Alexa”.
When they were first doing GPS devices that spoke, supposedly they’d found that people preferred hearing the female voice. On most of those, you could choose from among a number of voices, both male and female. But the GPS isn’t really a servant — it’s issuing the commands!
Anyway, having heard years ago about the reasoning for the female voice on the GPS, it never occurred to me that the default of “female” for these devices was due to sexism, so you’ve given me something to think about. Thanks.