Architect or Bee? Mike Cooley: the human spirit


EDITORIAL

Architect or Bee? Mike Cooley: the human spirit

Karamjit S. Gill1

Published online: 26 August 2016

� Springer-Verlag London 2016

As AI&Society moves through its 30th anniversary and

marches into the extraordinary times and uncertain world

we live in, we celebrate the pioneering work and contri-

butions of Mike Cooley in the shaping and evolution of the

journal over the past 30 years. The journal is now a major

international forum for socially responsive technology, far

beyond the initial aspirations of its founding board mem-

bers. Mike Cooley as the Founding Chairman of the

AI&Society Board has been a towering figure in the

human-centred intellectual tradition, arguing for a unified

cultural vision that embodies human centredness and the

rich tradition of Italian Renaissance art and architecture.

Mike has now reached a stage in his life with frail health

and would like to pass on the baton to the Journal board

members and future generations. In recognition of his work

and inspiration, the AI&Society Board would like to honour

Mike in asking him to become Patron of the Journal as he

steps down from being the Board Chairman.

Decades before concerns about the black swans of the

algorithmic culture were raised following the recent finan-

cial crash; Mike Cooley expressed deep concerns about the

human price of automation at the work place. He argued for

an alternative human-centred vision of socially useful tech-

nology that facilitated the ethos of human–machine sym-

biosis that he saw as a collaboration of human judgement and

the calculation capacity of the machine. It is interesting to

note that values of the human-centred tradition of the 1970s

are reformulated in the emergence of socially useful artificial

super intelligence, Big Data and Internet of Things. Similar

questioning of technology led to the making of the European

human-centred debate of 1970s. During this era of the

rationalisation of industry and the ‘white of heat of tech-

nology’, Mike Cooley together with a number of socially

conscious thinkers felt perturbed about the hold of the sci-

entific method of Taylorism and its implications for working

life in the industrialised world, and by implication for the

wider society. The concerns included the fear of automation

of production processes, the mechanisation and by implica-

tion dehumanisation of the work place, the loss of human

skill and expertise, and ultimately the replacement of the

human worker by the robot, leading to mass unemployment

and exclusion. On the same time horizon, the computer as a

symbolic embodiment of instrumental reason was seen to go

further than the machine, being made in the image of man; an

imitation of a certain aspect of man in the sense that it ven-

tured into the realm of the imitation of human thought. This

was seen as a step towards the reproduction of some key

aspects of human traits if not their replacement. There was

further unease at the idea of venerating the machine to the

point that there is no difference between humans and

machines, and betweenhuman thought and machine thought.

This made human-centred thinkers recognise that humanity

should take this risk seriously. The human-centred intellec-

tual tradition saw problems with this instrumental rationality

early on; it was clear that human activity itself could not be

adequately understood, prescribed or pre-designed using the

instrumental approach of Taylorism. Central to the human-

centred vision is the notion of a symbiosis of the tacit

dimension and the objective. This conceptualisation is

founded on the belief that through the interplay between the

richness of human skill and the calculation capacity of the

machine, we can create a work place model that leads to

much enhanced productivity and enriched human expertise

& Karamjit S. Gill
editoraisoc@yahoo.co.uk

1
Professor Emeritus, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

123

AI & Soc (2016) 31:435–437

DOI 10.1007/s00146-016-0675-2

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00146-016-0675-2&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00146-016-0675-2&domain=pdf


through the combination of human ingenuity and techno-

logical innovations. Cooley, however, warns us of the danger

of the objectification of human knowledge and experience

into information and data; this turns human judgement into

calculation and in the process, turns the human into a robot

and an appendage of the machine.

Over the last 30 years since its inception, AI&Society

has gone through its own evolution responding to the

ongoing interlocution between technology and society,

with its focus on human-centred systems during the first

decade followed by its focus on machine intelligence, and

now on knowledge, culture and communication. The

socially responsive ethos of the Journal is rooted in the

human-centred movement of the Lucas Workers’ Plan of

1976 (Cooley 1987), encapsulated in the statement that

‘there cannot be islands of social responsibility in a sea of

depravity’. Mike Cooley as the architect of the Lucas Plan

highlighted the problem of the technological advanced

society of 1970s in noting: ‘the appalling gap between what

technology could provide for society, and what it actually

does provide’; ‘the tragic waste our society makes its most

precious asset—the skills, ingenuity, energy, creativity and

enthusiasm of ordinary people’; and ‘the myth that com-

puterisation, automation and use of robotic devices will

automatically free human being from soul destroying,

backbreaking tasks and leave them free to engage in more

creative work’. The Lucas Plan not only provided a critique

of the mindless introduction of new machines and new

work organisation, it laid the foundation and framework of

the British Human-Centred movement. It conceptualised

human–machine symbiosis as an alternative potential for

work life, whilst at the same time becoming a catalyst for

humanistic movements such as ‘Democratic Participation’

(Scandinavia) and ‘Humanisation of Technology and

Work’ (Germany). These European human-centred move-

ments provided a basis for the establishment of the ‘An-

thropocentric Systems and Technology’ programme of the

European Union during the 1990s.

It was during the summer of 1981, at a summer school at

the University of Sussex, that I was introduced to Mike

Cooley’s seminal book, Architect or Bee? The Human/

Technology Relationship, edited by Shirley Cooley. A

revised version of the book came out in 1987 under the same

title but with a new subtitle that reflected the far-reaching

impact of technology on society: Architect or Be? The

Human Price of Technology (Cooley, ibid). This seminal

work remains at the heart of the evolution of AI&Society.

During the early 1980s, I launched and directed a mul-

timedia project, CAAAT (Computer Aided Animated Arts

Theatre) that formed the basis for the SEAKE (Social and

Educational Applications of Knowledge Engineering)

Centre at University of Brighton. The SEAKE Centre

organised annual workshops and conferences on Artificial

Intelligence for Society, with the first conference held at

the University of Brighton in 1983. This 1983 conference

was chaired by the late eminent philosopher, Prof. Michael

Dummett, and attracted a wide range of international par-

ticipants including Maggie Boden, Alan Bundy, Massimo

Negrotti and Achille Ardigo (Italy), Ajit Narayan, David

Smith, Richard Ennals, Satinder Gill, the late Bob Muller,

Janet Vaux, Mahesh Uppal, the late Swasti Mitter, all of

whom were to join the founding Boards of AI&Society.

The work of the SEAKE Centre and the CAAAT projects

became the catalyst for my sabbatical year at GLEB

(Greater Enterprise Board, London) in 1985–86, to work

with Mike Cooley, who was then the Executive Director of

Greater Enterprise Board (GLEB). In 1981, the new Labour

administration of London, under the leadership of Ken

Livingstone, the first Labour Mayor of London, invited

Mike Cooley to head the technology division of GLEB.

Mike pioneered the setting up of Technology Networks in

London in collaboration with universities, trade unions and

community organisations. It was during this period at

GLEB that Mike introduced me to the European

researchers, Peter Brodner, Lauge Rasmussen, the late

Howard Rosenbrock, Felix Rauner, Martin Corbett and

John Palmer of the Guardian Newspaper, all of whom later

joined as founding members of the Journal Boards.

During my time at GLEB, Mike sponsored my research

visit to the USA, and introduced me to the late Prof. Joseph

Weizenbaum, who in turn introduced me to Marvin Min-

sky, Seymore Pappert, Hubert Dreyfus, David Noble, Terry

Winograd and Bob Lawler. In New York, I met with James

Finkelstein and at New Mexico I met Derek Partridge, and

Maggie Boden introduced me to Daniel Dennett. They

were all to join the Journal as founding members of its

Boards. It was during my visit to MIT that the idea of

launching an international journal on Knowledge and

Society was formulated, during my seminar at the MIT

Media Lab organised by Bob Lawler. Both Profs.

Weizenbaum and Marvin Minsky supported the idea of a

Europe-based journal. On my return to GLEB, I proposed

to Mike that we launch the Knowledge and Society journal

and he agreed to support it with a focus on the human-

centred ethos of science and technology. The proposal for

the journal was put to a number of publishers, but it was

Springer that responded positively to the idea of a Euro-

pean AI journal. I had earlier edited a book, Artificial

Intelligence for Society (Gill 1986), that was based on the

proceedings of the 1983 conference with the same title.

This was published by Wiley, and coincidently Jamie

Cameron who was with Wiley during the publication of my

book had moved to Springer as Managing Director to set

up their London office, and he liked the idea of inaugu-

rating his move with a new international journal dealing

with technology and society. It was Jamie Cameron who

436 AI & Soc (2016) 31:435–437

123



suggested the title AI&Society whilst accepting Mike’s

subtitle of human-centred systems. So in July 1986,

AI&Society: Journal of human-centred systems was laun-

ched by Springer. The North American inauguration of

AI&Society took place during the annual conference of

Computers for Social Responsibility in 1987, chaired by

Terry Winograd and supported by Doug Schuler, and Doug

later joined the advisory board of the Journal.

The focus of the tacit dimension of knowledge in both

the Journal and the AI for Society book, attracted a visit to

Brighton (where I lived) by two Swedish researchers, Bo

Goranzon and Ingela Josefson, who were then leading a

European research network on Language, Culture and

Artificial Intelligence and were planning an international

conference on the same theme. The founding members of

AI&Society, Mike Cooley, Hubert Dreyfus, Tore Norden-

stam, Kjell Johnanessen, David Smith, Richard Ennals,

Massimo Negrotti and myself participated in the confer-

ence of Language, Culture and Artificial Intelligence, held

in Stockholm in 1988. Soon afterwards in 1989, a sym-

posium on human-centred systems was organised by the

SEAKE Centre to explore a collaborative future in human-

centred systems between European and Japanese

researchers. The symposium was chaired by Mike Cooley

and hosted by the visiting Japanese research delegation

sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of External affairs and

led by the late Yuji Masuda and the late Fumihiko Sato-

fuka, both of whom later joined the AI&Society Boards.

This initiative led to the EU–Japan collaboration in

Anthropocentric Systems and Technology under the FAST

programme of the European Commission. AI&Society

became a catalyst and forum for promoting the contribu-

tions of this collaboration, cultivating cultural perspectives

of the human-centred movement beyond the European

tradition. This collaboration laid the foundation for the

EU–India Cross-Cultural Innovation Network coordinated

by Karamjit S Gill. This collaboration between European

and Indian universities was built upon the human-centred

ethos of socially useful systems and technology. Whilst

European researchers, Francesco Garibaldo from Bologna,

David Smith from Wales and Lauge Rasmussen from

Denmark, were already involved in AI&Society, Mike

Cooley introduced Dietrich Brandt from Aachen to join the

EU–India Network and the Journal, and along with the

India network members Ashok Jain and Partha Banerjee,

they became members of the Journal boards. In recognition

of his international contributions, Mike Cooley was invited

by the European Commission to chair the steering com-

mittee of the EU–India Cross-Cultural Programme.

AI&Society again became a catalyst for bringing together

research networks from Europe, Japan, India, Australia and

the USA for promoting the human-centred ethos of science

and technology. As the Journal progressed into twenty-first

century, Mike welcomed Victoria Vesna, Sha Xin Wei,

Toyoaki Nishida and Larry Stapleton to the editorial board.

His human-centred vision of technology and society has

always been warmly supported by our Computing Editors,

Beverley Ford and Rachel Roberts at Springer, London.

Mike’s contribution to the evolution of AI&Society over

the last 30 years is just an illustration of his international

achievements, which include the launch of the LUCAS

Plan in 1970s, the award of the Alternative Noble Prize in

1981, the setting up of Technology Networks at GLEB in

1980s, the steering and chairing of international work-

shops, conferences and symposia on human-centred sys-

tems, and his continuing emphasis on ‘purpose’ over ‘cause

and effect’ in designing systems and technology that enrich

human creativity and liberate us from the militancy of

automation. Cooley sees the computer as not an isolated

phenomenon but rather as a technological continuum of

human history over last 400 years or so. During this period,

humanity has witnessed the decline of feudalism, the

growth of capitalism, the weakening of religion as the

leading edge of European society, and the emergence of

Cartesian science. The central issue of concern to Cooley

has been our overwhelming faith in science and techno-

logical change. Science, to him, is a shallow and arid soil in

which to transplant the sensitive and precious roots of our

humanity. Science and technology are now leading edges

in society—in rather the same way religion was in medi-

aeval times. This new religion confuses people with ana-

lytics and technical jargon, and the apparent rationality of

symbolic logic bludgeons people’s common sense. It is no

surprise that there is a concern among many socially ori-

ented researchers about the existential risk of artificial

super intelligence, and ethical and social implications of

big data and Internet of Things. Cooley is concerned that

we confer life on machines and diminish ourselves, and

consequently we are gradually becoming observers of life

rather than its active participants.

Anthony Barnet sums up Mike’s vision of humanity in his

Introduction to Architect or Bee?: for Cooley, ‘the future is

not ‘‘out there’’ in the sense that a coastline is out there before

somebody goes to discover it’. It has yet to be built by human

beings (Cooley, op.cit). AI&Society editors will always

cherish Mike’s humanistic spirit and generosity and wel-

come him in his new role of ‘Patron’ of AI&Society.

References

Cooley M (1987) Architect or Bee? the human price of technology.

The Hogarth Press, London

Gill KS (ed) (1986) Artificial intelligence for society. Wiley, London

AI & Soc (2016) 31:435–437 437

123


	Architect or Bee? Mike Cooley: the human spirit
	References