Welcome to Dialogues on Feminism and Technology, which is part of a larger distributed open collaborative course (or DOCC). This experiment in teaching and learning is organized by FemTechNet. Variations of this course have been taught on over a dozen campuses with input from over a hundred feminist scholars. Some of those participants collaborated at an in-person meeting here at UCSD during the Feminist Infrastructures & Technocultures conference in 2013.
A DOCC recognizes and is built on the understanding that expertise is distributed throughout a network, among participants situated in diverse institutional contexts, within diverse material, geographic, and national settings, and who embody and perform diverse identities (as teachers, as students, as media-makers, as activists, as trainers, as members of various publics, for example).
A few basic ideas to help structure our opening discussion:
Feminism and Technology means much more than Women and Computers, although the fact that a "computer" was once a person who performed calculations will be an important fact to know for many of the readings in this course. You can check out some of these links to learn more about the time before "computer geeks" replaced "computer girls," find out how women founded the software engineering initiatives that were critical to the space program, and explore "images, documents, and sources that transform what counts as computing." And, of course, feminists study occupations and practices coded as masculine as well.
Technology can be important in many different domains. In addition to technologies that calculate and communicate, such as computers, feminist scholars of science and technology studies have analyzed reproductive technologies, surveillance technologies, defense technologies, imagining technologies, and supposedly "domestic" technologies related to housing, clothing, hygiene, and cuisine.
Theories about feminism and technology can be useful to think about traditional power structures or about systems of classification or about the design of infrastructure or about what counts as "mess."
Keep in mind the following principles as you participate in the course:
Technology is material (although it is often presented as "virtual")
Technology involves embodiment (although it is often presented as disembodied)
Technology solicits affect (although it is often presented as highly rational)
Technology requires labor (although it is often presented as labor-saving)
In class today we watched Donna Haraway, feminist science studies scholar and founder of the “cyborg feminism” school of thought, unravel what she called the “national geographies” of primates, disentangling and weaving new webs of knowledges (yes, I mean that word to be plural) about inter-species relationships and the dynamics and paradoxes of love, power and social interaction as we live with animals and technologies in our complicated world.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/donna-haraway-reads-national-geographic-primates-ted-koppels-long-march-viewed-dan
In this hour-long video, Haraway speaks with humor and incisive criticism about her groundbreaking research about primates, which would soon be published in the hilarious and brilliant book Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (1989). I was struck by the extent to which Haraway, in her Paper Tiger performance, did not simply tell us about primate intelligence, or primate research. Her real focus seemed to be the ways in which humans use primates and other animals as a means to establish who we are and what we know in the world. "Let’s take culture apart like these balls of yarn,” she suggests. Her first topic is Koko the primate, a guerilla born in SF Zoo (where she is on display as living spectacle) and who becomes the companion of Penny Patterson, a Stanford psychology graduate student researcher. Is Koko Penny’s pet, Penny’s family, Penny’s research project, or all three? What does it mean for a living being to be all three of these things at once? What does it mean for a lab to be “home,” for scientists to love their research materials, and for the lab to be a place where primate love as "reproductive processes" is staged for scientific observation and species preservation. As Haraway puts it, this speaking guerilla, who (as Patterson would have it) shouldn’t be captive because she speaks, is entered into a science project that involves manufacturing a domestic experience for Koko, capturing for her a mate and having her perform according to normative notions of familial reproduction. I would love to hear other comments interpreting Koko, and perhaps Koko and Michael, her mate, as cyborg beings. I would also enjoy hearing discussion about the normative ideas of care and family that are applied to Koko as she is offered first a pet, and then a mate. I was struck that Michael is captured in the wild in Africa. Why does Haraway remind us that we should be aware that this narrative unfolds after decolonization and during years of the rise of multinationalism? What does that have to do with primates, anyway, and with Koko's domestic lab life?
Donna Haraway's connection she makes with Technology and animals and how they are integral to our world reminds me of a previous reading I read for another course, "Darwin's Anthropomorphism: An Argument for Animal-Human Continuity" by Eileen Crist. Through evolution we are able to understand animals and read their minds through their behavior or as Darwin describes it as anthropomorphism. It is through action and mind that that depicts animal life as Darwin explains. Darwin also makes an interesting connection by noting that "dogs and monkeys show jealousy [this shows] that animals not only love, but have the desire to be loved just like we long to clasp in our arms those whom we tenderly love." It is the connection that both authors make about human and animal emotions that help us understand their behavior. Just as Cyborgs try to act out human functions, humans are able to understand animal’s behavior and emotions by what they have experienced. It is one of the connections we were trying to make in class after reading the article. It is interesting to relate multiple readings and ideas from other classes and how we can connect them with each other while also getting other perspectives especially in different time periods of when they were written.
ReplyDeleteI found Donna Haraway's video fascinating. Before I go onto content, being a true student of speech and debate, I was awestruck at how unbiased her opinion came off. When addressing any of her major viewpoints, such as the Koko magazine covers, she would convey the topic in a manner that felt completely accepting and informative. When I say "accepting," I simply mean that she seemed to not push any particular viewpoint, instead showing the topic from 360 degrees. For example, when she was discussing the kitten that Koko adopted, she used certain words that could be taken as abrasive, such as "living on the border between species" and "abnormal," but Haraway's non-verbals and tone kept the audience open-minded. This can be seen in her placative smile, soft gestures, and friendly tone. I understand that there is an intense debate going on about the controversial issues surrounding Koko and her companion, Penny, but the manner in which Donna Haraway pulled the strings from our own "ball of yarn" minds, I found myself captivated and fascinated by the cyborg theory she presented. It left me wanting to dive right back into her Cyborg Manifesto, which perplexed me during my first read-through, with renewed vigor. I am so absolutely allured to her idea that we are all cyborgs living on and between the boundaries that we initially assume we would fall under. I would like to now apply her cyborg theory to myself. Instead of just "Man," "Caucasian," and "Young Adult," I find my self living between these borders. I am a man that was raised by strong females. I am half Scottish, half Hawaiian, and completely baffled by the intersection of these cultures in which I find myself. And finally, I am not a teenager, nor a full-fledged adult, but instead some strange, mid-developing age in between.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFemTechNet provides various videos which help explain Haraway's work and sheds different light on it, especially Transformations.
ReplyDeleteThe way I understood the video was that the way scientists and people within our society is finding cures for diseases directly affects who we are and who the animals are. Because the treatments were tested on animals and later injected into humans, that is how I believe this human/animal binary is created. Also, how the cancer is directly affecting the human and the animal are seen side by side in varying shots. Seeing this gives impact to the viewer because it brings the problem right in front of the viewer's eyes and creates the meaning that Haraway seems to be evoking.
By watching this video, I understood more of what Haraway was trying to convey through her work. I further understood the idea of the different binaries that she brings up and tries to relate to her audience and readers. The binary concept was more relatable to me because it was a bit hard to understand while reading it in her article.
I understood the different author's viewpoints as well because each of the videos went into detail about how feminism and technology were both affected and integrated into the different ideals that each author delves into. Wilding discusses sexualities in feminism and technology which is an idea that is directly related because sexualities coincides with feminism. While others, like Hershman Leeson discuss the idea of archives in relation to feminism and technology which doesn't seem to be directly related. However, after watching the video, I seem to understand how the idea of archive affects feminism and technology and vice versa.
I believe that these shorter interview-type videos are really conducive to my learning about the different topics that are presented. However, documentary-type and movie-type videos really help me understand material as well. I think that I am more of a visual learner so seeing media material at all is quite helpful.
Also, the last image which I believe is from Metropolis shows how technology--even technology back then affects the different social classes and the eventual coming together of technology in the social classes. This technology affects labor directly because of the socioeconomic class. However, I am still hoping the class helps me further understand how this image in Metropolis in the scope of labor reflects feminism.
Donna Haraway's video that discussed National Geographic's magazine covers really interested me when she discussed the gorillas use of sign language. Since my focus is mainly on the disabilities and the human cyborg, I found her section in the video about KoKo the gorilla and how he connects with humans through sign interesting. She discussed sign language as a way the disabled pointed out the power relationships and how they situate the boundary between nature and culture. I am not quite sure yet how to fully interpret what she means by this but my interpretation of it seems to lie within the means of the situation in which sign is being used, in this case between human and primate. When I think about sign language as a type of communication, I think of the dependency that is needed in order for this to work or be translated. Sign is a technology that is learned that can be seen as a tool or technology that one uses to exchange meaning and culture. In the video I see two different types of cyborgs presented; I see KoKo the gorilla and Penny her companion. I see how their term "Universal Man" for KoKo can be viewed due to her "crossing boundaries" of animal and human. I question if her knowledge of sign is a type of cyborg that is advanced enough to be independent, or if it entraps her because of her dependency to communicate with Penny and sign language. If her involvement with humans is a type of disability for her future in nature, or if it's an advancement?
ReplyDeleteHumans that communicate through sign on the other hand, have a way of involving them within culture and society. There is still a sight of dependency in order to be translated to society due to their crossing between boundaries. They become a cyborg in the sense of having a form of communication that is not known to all and is only communicated to through some natures in society, but we are also all cyborgs with the technology of voice and language that are mediated through different cultures. I am stretching to connect the cyborg and disability but Donna Haraway's video seemed to help put a sense of direction of language into the picture.
-Jessica
In Week1, we talked about the relationship between cyborg and feminism in lectures. Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" emphasizes her belief on female that woman should act outside the box and beyond limitations. Her article reminds me of a Japanese movie "My Cyborg Girlfriend". It is story about how a female robot tries to emerge into the real world and how she interacts with her human boyfriend. I think the movie does not show the typical stereotype of female which they are vulnerable and weak; instead, it portrays female as strong and smart. In the movie, the man is the one that is protected by his cyborg girlfriend; he is weak and vulnerable. I think this suggests that idea that if woman act beyond limitation of gender, they will be able to break the stereotype and play the same role as man in the society. However, after the man falls in love with the cyborg girl, every thing changes. The man expresses his feelings and the needs of her by being violent and cruel. I think this can be related to the idea of "sexual appropriation" mentioned by Haraway in her article. This is a way of making woman objects of man. In the media, female is always attractive, and male are always attracted and obsessed with them. the portrayal of woman in media hence links female to the terms sexual and seductive. As many people learn from the media, they may change their perspective on female. And I think these are the reasons why feminism is needed in our society because it can educate the public and show them the truth of female.
ReplyDeleteWhen the class first began, I admit that I didn’t really understand what Haraway meant in regards to technology and cyborgs. But as the quarter progressed and we continued discussing more in class, I found myself looking back at this and realizing what she meant. I find Haraway’s cyborg manifesto very interesting, as I have seen it apply to myself throughout the quarter. As a stage manager during a technical rehearsal, I have around me a tech table, monitors, headset, comm system, script, glasses, pencil and ruler. All these things are a necessary technology, and with all of them combined, I become a cyborg. There is no way I can work without any of them - they give me sight (monitors), a voice (god mic, headset) and without the comm system I would literally not be able to communicate with anyone in the room. The job would not get done. Can I perhaps argue that the assistant stage manager who is on deck (backstage) is a technology, an extension of the stage manager in the audience? Realizing what Haraway meant and implementing those ideas into my work really helps uncover ideas and thoughts that might help me. I think my cyborg self even changes throughout the rehearsal process - in the rehearsal room I wear a different suit, and I use different technologies than when I get to the theatre. One thing that stood out during Haraway’s video is that she mentioned that Koko’s sign use of sign language is a technology. If so, then I too fall between knowing/having more technologies than I ever thought.
ReplyDelete