User:Thijshijsijsjss/Gossamery/Profielen Letter Joseph: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
(Create page on Joseph's letter to Profielen magazine)
 
m (Fix conjugation of a word)
Line 3: Line 3:
*English version: https://pads.c3w.at/pad/#/2/pad/view/h6tsyo6QH+V2CPTNdkmVxIq8dHyg8kBUZDtM4wqJuSM/embed/
*English version: https://pads.c3w.at/pad/#/2/pad/view/h6tsyo6QH+V2CPTNdkmVxIq8dHyg8kBUZDtM4wqJuSM/embed/


Joseph send out a Zulip message linking to a published letter of his. I was curious (1) because Joseph has interesting, passionate takes, and (2) because the title suggest a kind of connection to [[Quilting_infrastructures|the current Special Issue (23)]]. Indeed:
Joseph sent out a Zulip message linking to a published letter of his. I was curious (1) because Joseph has interesting, passionate takes, and (2) because the title suggest a kind of connection to [[Quilting_infrastructures|the current Special Issue (23)]]. Indeed:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Anjo [van Kerckhoven, IT van de WdKA] oppert: ‘Het is onprettig als een apparaat begint te storen wanneer je net een college of presentatie wilt geven. Daarom vervangen we preventief.’
Anjo [van Kerckhoven, IT van de WdKA] oppert: ‘Het is onprettig als een apparaat begint te storen wanneer je net een college of presentatie wilt geven. Daarom vervangen we preventief.’

Revision as of 13:56, 9 March 2024

Joseph sent out a Zulip message linking to a published letter of his. I was curious (1) because Joseph has interesting, passionate takes, and (2) because the title suggest a kind of connection to the current Special Issue (23). Indeed:

Anjo [van Kerckhoven, IT van de WdKA] oppert: ‘Het is onprettig als een apparaat begint te storen wanneer je net een college of presentatie wilt geven. Daarom vervangen we preventief.’

This feminist server manifesto ends with:

[a feminist server t]ries hard not to apologize when she is sometimes not available.

All in all, this manifesto advocates for a seamful technology. Van Kerckhoven's argument raises a question about to what extend we can show seams, without them inhibiting the technology's function so fundamentally that it would be better to not use it anymore. In our SI conversations on seams, we have mainly focussed on 'manageably sized' communities surrounding particular technology. The second bullet in the manifesto reads:

[A feminist server i]s run for and by a community that cares enough for her in order to make her exist

How does this translate to communities that are not formed by or centered around on a technology, but still rely on it one way or the other? Just like with the these seams (?) in movies, there's a factor of a community embracing seams to recognize, acknowledge and appreciate a craft. It is self-reflective in that sense. In some instances, this might require a level of technical savvyness to appreciate, something that should not be a responsibility for any and all people in one of these communities. What value does a seamful approach bring then?

(Note that this is a different discussion from software naturalization and obscolence, as rightfully noted in the letter. These are problems with different seams and different attributions of responsibility.)

After reading this, I feel vindicated for carrying an external keyboard alongside my laptop for the last 4 years.