Accounting for Humanity

When reviewing historical literature for my thesis, I became very aware of a reality that, while should not have come as a surprise, induced a surprisingly strong reaction in my mind.

In every reference to technology, professions, and any other areas of societal or cultural significance, the narrative continually highlighted the journeys, accomplishments, and challenges of ‘him’. With each paper read, it became rather apparent that this was not a history of humankind, this was a history of ‘men’. Before me was a timeline filled with reminders of the perceived insignificance of women in society and, more notably, in its professions. Even in exploring the concept of the replacement threat of technology it is ‘man’ versus machine, woman/non-binary need not worry, for she/they have nothing worth taking…
As mentioned, this should not have been (and ultimately was not) a surprising discovery, it is not uncommon to see women written out of, or erased from history; 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Hatshepsut of Ancient Egypt was swiftly erased from record following their death in 1458BCE (Strudwick, 2006). Although the actual reasoning for their (attempted) erasure is unknown, it is not overtly ambitious to note the recurring theme of (what society would assign) females in positions of power being wiped from history (Queen and co-ruler Nefertiti being another example). On a research side note; Hatshepsut in particular, would have made for an interesting study into gender identity if such records were available; was their ambition to demonstrate that women could govern as effectively as men or, could it be possible that they identified themselves as male or non-binary? After all if, as pharaoh, they were a physical embodiment of the male god Horus, then Hatshepsut embodied both male and female identities.
The case of Hatshepsut and Nefertiti dates from the 14th and 13th century BCE respectively, a time when it could perhaps be assumed that women were subordinate (though in many civilisations such as Mesopotamia this was not the case). The literature concerned in my research discovery dated from the 20th century CE, over 3000 years later and yet, the underlying message remains largely unchanged. Licklider (1960), the author of one component of my theoretical framework, proposes a theory of ‘Man-computer’ symbiosis, again reminding us that computers, and by-proxy technology, are beyond the scope of female and non-binary. The concept of women not being ‘fit’ to handle the complexities of man, as noted, is not a new concept (and certainly all identifying in non-gendered groups have been arguably all but entirely excluded until the 21st century). Steele (2003) noted this notion in their exploration of the cultural history of the corset, highlighting that one such perceived danger of corset wearing during the Victorian era was the restriction of blood flow to the brain, resulting in women experiencing delusions around the desire of ‘pursuing careers’ (I assure you, I have worn many a steel boned corset and my ‘career delusions’ remain unaltered when I remove them).

Although women’s rights had (marginally) progressed by the mid-20th century CE, they were, and still are, largely omitted from professional contexts. This again prompts one to question why society generally assumes historical societies as less advanced when considering that women in numerous ancient societies could rise to the role of rulers yet, in the 19th and 20th century CE, they were considered ‘too fragile’ to work. It may be that in the post world war eras, this perception somewhat diminished however, the remnants of thousands of years of predominantly patriarchal society still produces what may be an unintentional yet, gendered language in literature. For example, Kee’s (1993, p.187) study of the technological advancement in information processing in accounting highlights “man’s early economic activity”. This is most likely not intended to be exclusionary however, the choice of the term ‘man’ instead of ‘human’ reminds us that as recently as the 1990’s, male dominance is still assumed and asserted. As an individual identifying as female, it is isolating to observe your omission, whether intentional or not, from professional contexts (a scenario even further multiplied for non-binary and women of colour). There is a suggestion, and feeling of hostility, that as a female or non-binary, you dare not step into the realm of ‘man’, you do not belong and thus, are not welcome. The result of such exclusion? Your identity, your presence, your value and impact in society is stolen; through no act of your own doing, you are written out of history, erased and lost to time.
There is hope however, particularly in the field of technology. Griffith and Greitzer (2007) address Licklider’s (1960) exclusionary language, updating the theory to what they term “Neo-symbiosis”. Furthermore, in 21st century studies ‘man vs machine’ is replaced with ‘human vs machine’, in a move akin to the evolution of Star Trek’s famous line from “where no man has gone before” to “where no one has gone before”, the ‘human’ is finding their place in academia, showing us that the world is (slowly) acknowledging that society is made of more than men, and that all members of society have equal potential and value (Cong, Du and Vasarhelyi, 2019; Leitner-Hanetseder et al., 2021; O’Regan and Killian, 2021).
Furthermore, there is an additional positive to be found here. As a result of this experience, my own writing, has adopted a new practice; never assume to know the identity of a writer. Gender is a choice and as such it is not my place to make an assumption of gender based upon a name (or even assume that gendered practice is followed at all by the writer). In my reflection, I consider this a ‘win’ as, I have not always followed this practice, I am guilty of looking at a name and assigning a societally-appropriate gender. However, now aware of how such gender bias influences readers, all future writing will aim to embrace accessibility, every human should see themselves in academia.
Admittedly society will never be able to erase the concept of gender, as long as differences exist among us, we will label and group ourselves to make identification ‘easier’. While this in itself may not be ‘wrong’, it is important not to place individuals within a prescribed group without allowing them to choose where they ‘belong’. Thus, it is from this experience in researching my thesis that, whether they stem from 8000BCE or 2022CE, all included in this study will be humans first and genders where they are known…

References
Cong, Y., Du, H. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2019) ‘Technological Disruption in Accounting and Auditing’, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 15(2), pp. 1-10. Available at: 10.2308/jeta-10640

Griffith, D. and Greitzer, F.L. (2007) ‘Neo-Symbiosis: The Next Stage in the Evolution of Human Information Interaction’, International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 1(1), pp. 39-44,46-52. (Accessed: 26th May 2022).

Kee, R. (1993) ‘Data Processing Technology and Accounting: A Historical Perspective’, The Accounting Historians Journal, 20(2), pp. 187-216. (Accessed: 06/03/2021).

Leitner-Hanetseder, S., Lehner, O.M., Eisl, C. and Forstenlechner, C. (2021) ‘A profession in transition: actors, tasks and roles in AI-based accounting’, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(3), pp. 539-556. Available at: 10.1108/jaar-10-2020-0201

Licklider, J.C.R. (1960) ‘Man-Computer Symbiosis’, IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1, pp. 4-11. (Accessed: 25th May 2022).

O’Regan, P. and Killian, S. (2021) ‘Beyond professional closure: Uncovering the hidden history of plain accountants’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 94 Available at: 10.1016/j.aos.2021.101276

Steele, V. (2003) The Corset: A Cultural History. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Strudwick, H. (2006) The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Amber Books Ltd.