Despite their outward differences, feminism, cultural studies, queer theory and post-colonialism share a common thread: the critical analysis of various ideological discourses that marginalize disadvantaged sections of society, driven by an intent to counter the effects of those discourses. This essay shall attempt to distill the essence of these critical techniques and subsequently apply a generalized form of their text-oriented approaches toward an unlikely candidate: the Windows XP operating system. It will culminate in a demonstration of the underlying ideology that causes Windows XP to marginalize users of software produced by entities other than Microsoft.
The techniques employed by the aforementioned marginalization theories harness much of the chaos generated by the use of deconstruction. The core of deconstruction is a subversion ofthe power relationships enjoyed by certain qualities, known as binary opposites. An inventory of binary oppositions observed while using Windows XP includes two that are of significance to the topic at hand: self-promotion/interoperability and consistency/flexibility. Interoperability is a measure of the lengths to which Windows XP goes in order to accommodate users of non-Microsoft software. As will be discussed later in this essay, it makes minimal effort to do this, instead engaging in heavy promotion of several Microsoft products.
The debate over consistency and flexibility is an old one. Proponents of consistency arguethat a computing environment is easier to use when all its components share the same look andfeel, even if it means that everybody is forced to adapt to the same environment. At the other endof the scale, advocates of flexibility would have you believe that it is of paramount importance toallow users free reign to customize their computing environments, in the interests of maximizingthe productivity of individual users, once they have have mastered the system. An idealcomputing environment would provide consistency by default with ample opportunity for userinitiatedcustomizations. In Windows XP, Microsoft co-opts the argument in favour ofconsistency to justify shepherding users of their operating system into a computing monoculture.
According to Judith Butler, the traditional assumption that gender is inextricably tied tosex is faulty, as they two are quite unrelated. Just as these traditional values have blurred thedistinction between sex and gender, Windows XP blurs the distinction between a class ofsoftware applications (e.g. word-processors) and the Microsoft product that competes in thatspace (e.g. Word). It manages to relegate into obscurity any notions of choice between multipleapplications that fulfil the same need, craftily leading users to believe that the Microsoftapplication in each case is the only possible means available to them. It accomplishes this byignoring user education in favour of branding. Because it has sole control of the user's initialcomputing experience, Microsoft is able to shape the way in which people think about software.They present themselves as a friendly guide with the user's best interests at heart, which placesthem in the optimal position to promote their own software in any situation where it might beusable. They do this without explaining to users the criteria by which they may evaluatecompeting software or even mentioning any such competitors.
For instance, whenever the user starts to do anything involving the use of audiovisualmedia, Windows Media Player is automatically thrust at them, bolstered by a gushing stream ofbuzzword-laden introductory text that continually reinforces the positive image Microsoft wishesto associate with this application. At no point in the user experience is any mention given tocompeting technologies such as Apple's widely respected QuickTime or RealNetworks'RealMedia.
This behaviour has the effect of blinding users to the existence of alternatives, not tomention the fact that they might be better off with a different application. Such tactics are easilycomparable to the British strategy of indoctrinating the inhabitants of their colonies into theBritish world-view via the educational system, which has been the subject of much postcolonialistresearch. In this respect, Windows XP is a classic case of cradle-rocking privilegesbeing exploited with an eye toward maintaining market domination. The pervasiveness of thisdetermination to control every aspect of people's computing experiences is ironically reflected inthe street address of Microsoft's world headquarters: One Microsoft Way.
Realizing that the canon of English literature was populated almost exclusively by thework of white males, Hazel Carby championed the expansion of the canon to include a morediverse sample of work. In the same vein, as a result of Microsoft's dogged promotion of theirexclusionary vision for several years, the "canon" of consumer software is now overwhelminglydominated by Microsoft offerings. From the trio of Word, Excel and PowerPoint to InternetExplorer to Windows Media Player to Outlook Express to MSN Messenger and Hotmail, theyrun the gamut of everyday computing tools. Even under constant pressure from multiple rivalsoftware providers, Microsoft has been able to defend this hegemony with astounding successthanks to their death-grip on the initial computing experience of virtually every personpurchasing a PC.
Not even critically acclaimed products like WordPerfect were able to compete againstMicrosoft Word, which was usually bundled with new computers, while WordPerfect had to beseparately purchased. Naturally, sales of WordPerfect were thereby restricted to those whoalready knew about it, while everybody else — the vast majority of new computer owners — were quite happy to use whatever they already had. This situation draws strong parallels withFiske's criticism of television culture, which he argues will submerge viewers in the ideology ofthe shows unless they make a conscious effort to fight back.
Dick Hebdige has much to say abut the effectiveness of ideological recruitment as ameans for holding dominion over a group of people. He explains that hegemony is much betterthan coercion as a means of keeping the masses in line, which is interesting because of howMicrosoft uses Windows XP for ideological recruitment. Having established themselves as the defacto purveyors of all general purpose software, Microsoft is now cementing this position via thecunning integration of its software palette into every aspect of Windows XP.
The first time someone uses Windows XP, it presents them with a request to sign up foran MSN account or supply their MSN username and password if they already have such anaccount. Assuming that this is required in order to proceed, almost every new user will obedientlycomply, thereby accepting recruitment into the Microsoft ideology. Should users refuse to sign upor provide their credentials at this juncture, they will be repeatedly asked to do so each time theylog in, until they eventually wary of the hassle and succumb to the persistence of Microsoft'srecruitment drive.
Once users have started using MSN, Microsoft can then exploit it as a channel throughwhich to systemically indoctrinate them into its monocultural vision of computing. This tacticallows them to curtail the adoption of rival instant messaging and webmail systems such as AOLand Yahoo, thereby marginalizing users of those communication systems due to MSN's surgingpopularity.
Post-colonialism places much emphasis upon the importance of language in maintainingcultural hegemony in colonies. The analogue of language in the realm of computer software is thefile format, which dictates how data is represented in digital form for storage (on a hard drive) orfor transmission (across the Internet). With striking similarity to the power of the languagemakersto influence the way people think, those with control of popular file formats can influencethe way people use their computers. For instance, they can introduce new services or relatedproducts by bundling them with the software for viewing or working with the latest version oftheir file format. Due to the wide variety of uses for desktop (and laptop) computers, there tendsto be at least one file format for each type of application. Nevertheless, there is a great deal ofcompetition between the major players to have their file formats be accepted by the masses.
The main reason for the cherished position of Microsoft Office on corporate andconsumer computer systems is that the file formats used by them have become the formats ofchoice for exchanging textual documents, spreadsheets and presentations; so much so that theterm 'powerpoint' has come to stand for that entire genre of applications, much as Shakespeare'sname has become synonymous with the kind of sonnets he wrote. It has only been very recentlythat any other office suite has showed the merest glimmer of hope in its bid to unseat thesesoftware imperialists: Sun Microsystems, a longtime competitor of Microsoft, acquired and madefreely available an office suite called OpenOffice, whose claim to fame is that it can read andwrite all Microsoft Office file formats flawlessly. This is tantamount to the the recent emergenceof excellent English fiction writers from the former British colonies.
The other crucial use of file formats to propagate the Microsoft ideology is even moreimportant because it has been at the forefront of their battle to escalate control of the desktopcomputing experience into control of the far more promising network computing experience. In1996 Microsoft realized the strategic importance of the burgeoning Internet and embarked upon acrusade to ensure that they were not blindsided by the wave of Internet-inspired startups, mostnotably Netscape. Just as the white people in Australia were once concerned about being overrunby the influx of Chinese miners, Microsoft was terrified that they would be cast aside as theWorld Wide Web became the new medium of choice for digital communication. To counter thisthreat, they introduced their own web browser — the now universally pervasive Internet Explorer — to compete with Netscape's Navigator and eventually started bundling it with their operatingsystem. The strategy worked like a charm, slowly marginalizing users of Navigator as webdevelopers began to ignore them, forcing Netscape to finally release Navigator to the public as afreely available and community-supported alternative to Internet Explorer.
The latest incarnation of Internet Explorer is now an integral part of Windows XP, usednot only as a web browser but also by the internal documentation (help) system. Sticking to theoriginal plan, Microsoft makes absolutely no efforts to assist those who might be tempted to try adifferent browser. Even if another browser, such as Opera or the latest incarnation of Netscape'sNavigator, is installed onto a Windows XP system, the operating system itself continues to ignoreit and stubbornly resorts to using Internet Explorer whenever it requires a web browser. Thisattitude toward the marginalized is an echo of the stance taken by political conservatives, who arestill sour over the liberal acceptance of feminism, ethnic diversity, religious freedom,homosexuality and social justice.
It is important to realize how monocultural the computing landscape has become becauseit is only after arriving at this realization that people can open their eyes to the stagnant conditionof consumer software. With the exception of Apple's OS X platform, there is no viable alternativefor those wishing to break free of the Microsoft hegemony. This means that the software behemoth has little reason to expend much effort in those areas of computing where it laysunchallenged. Held in this vice-like grip, the world of software will never again experience therapid evolution it has enjoyed so far. Only by embracing diversity in our computing endeavourscan users hope to wrench control away from Microsoft and allow rampant innovation guided byneutral standards bodies to push software forward in the same manner that the Oxford EnglishDictionary has guided, but not stifled, the dynamic evolution of the English language.