User:Zuhui/πŸ‘€/Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method, and Information Technology: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
Β 
Line 33: Line 33:
Considered formally, then, '''<mark>[[/the attributes of feminist method | the attributes of feminist method]]</mark>''' are particularly important.
Considered formally, then, '''<mark>[[/the attributes of feminist method | the attributes of feminist method]]</mark>''' are particularly important.
<br>
<br>
"...where, after poststructuralism, can we find validity?" asks Patti Lather
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
==Where should information be situated?==
==Where should information be situated?==
<blockquote>
<blockquote>

Latest revision as of 11:50, 4 November 2024

Introduction: The 'turkey baster disaster' and the realpolitik

What was important about it for our purposes here, however, was a marked shift in the community from essentialist, β€œbiologically” driven explana- tions to more complex, contradictory, heterogeneous ways of thinking about experi- ence and situations. β€œMen” became modified by β€œour sons”; β€œmutants” were newly domesticated and intimate. And from this experience and many others, the vocabulary of essentialism was deeply scrutinized and abandoned (by many). Among other things, we took the misplaced concretism of sex and re-situated it within the concrete experi- ence of gender and relationships.

I want to take us from low-tech turkey basters to high-tech computers via this exam- ple, because I think it says something important about feminism, method, and tech- nology. One simplistic way of reading these events (and others of the late 1970s and early 1980s) is that the blunt reality of life experience interfered with an idealistic, ideo- logical kind of talkβ€”a form of realpolitik that was also a co-optation.

I hold that it is the all at once-ness that is at the core of feminist survival, and as a consequence at the core of our relationship to science and technology. The power to hold multiple, contradictory views in a moral collective is necessary in shaping the divergence between Big Brother and a positive, cyborg-inhabited multiverse.

νŽ˜λ―Έλ‹ˆμ¦˜μ΄ λ³΅μž‘ν•œ ν˜„μ‹€κ³Ό λͺ¨μˆœλœ 관점을 λ™μ‹œμ— λ°›μ•„λ“€μ΄λŠ” λŠ₯λ ₯을 톡해 μƒμ‘΄ν•˜κ³  λ°œμ „ν•΄μ™”μœΌλ©°, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ λŠ₯λ ₯이 κ³Όν•™κ³Ό κΈ°μˆ μ„ λ°”λΌλ³΄λŠ” 방식에도 μ€‘μš”ν•˜λ‹€. λΉ… λΈŒλΌλ”μ²˜λŸΌ λ‹¨μΌν•œ ν†΅μ œμ™€ κ·œμœ¨μ„ λ”°λ₯΄λŠ” λŒ€μ‹ , μ‚¬μ΄λ³΄κ·Έμ²˜λŸΌ λ³΅μž‘μ„±κ³Ό 닀원성을 ν¬μš©ν•˜λŠ” 사고가 ν•„μš”ν•œ 것이닀. λ™μ‹œλ‹€λ°œμ„±μ€ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ λ³΅μž‘ν•œ 문제λ₯Ό ν•΄κ²°ν•˜λŠ” 핡심적인 방법둠이며, μ΄λŠ” λ‹¨μˆœν•œ νƒ€ν˜‘μ΄ μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ λ³΅μž‘ν•œ ν˜„μ‹€ μ†μ—μ„œ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 관점을 μˆ˜μš©ν•˜λŠ” λŠ₯λ ₯을 λœ»ν•œλ‹€.

Look also-> 'A Cyborg Manifesto' by Donna J. Haraway, 1985


"Method is a way of surviving experience"

Method is a way of surviving experience. It is a word at once stronger than paradigm, in the sense that it often crosses, both historically and spatially, most uses of the Kuhnian term. It may be part of several paradigms; it may persist after other attributes of a paradigm have fallen away.

β–² 방법둠은 역사적, 곡간적 λ§₯락을 μ΄ˆμ›”ν•΄ μ—¬λŸ¬ νŒ¨λŸ¬λ‹€μž„μ„ λ„˜λ‚˜λ“ λ‹€. 즉, ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ νŒ¨λŸ¬λ‹€μž„μ΄ λ°”λ€Œκ±°λ‚˜ 사라지더라도, κ·Έ μ•ˆμ—μ„œ μ‚¬μš©λœ 방법둠은 μ—¬μ „νžˆ λ‚¨μ•„μžˆκ³  μœ μš©ν•  수 μžˆλ‹€. 예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄, 과학적 μ‚¬κ³ μ—μ„œ μ–΄λ–€ νŠΉμ •ν•œ 이둠이 νŒ¨λŸ¬λ‹€μž„μœΌλ‘œ λ°›μ•„λ“€μ—¬μ‘Œμ„ λ•Œ, κ·Έ 이둠이 λ‚˜μ€‘μ— λ²„λ €μ§ˆ 수 μžˆμ§€λ§Œ, κ·Έ 이둠을 νƒκ΅¬ν•˜λŠ” κ³Όμ •μ—μ„œ μ‚¬μš©λœ 방법듀은 μ—¬μ „νžˆ μœ νš¨ν•  수 μžˆλŠ” 것과 κ°™λ‹€.

The geography of nature to be experienced by feminism
-Subjects are cyborg : μ‚¬μ΄λ³΄κ·ΈλŠ” 인간과 κΈ°κ³„μ˜ 경계가 λͺ¨ν˜Έν•œ 쑴재둜, μœ λ™μ μ΄κ³  κ³ μ •λ˜μ§€ μ•Šμ€ 정체성을 μƒμ§•ν•œλ‹€. νŽ˜λ―Έλ‹ˆμ¦˜μ—μ„œ μ£Όμ²΄λŠ” κ³ μ •λœ 성별, 정체성을 λ„˜μ–΄μ„œλŠ” μ‘΄μž¬λ‘œμ„œ, λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 영ν–₯을 λ°›μœΌλ©° λŠμž„μ—†μ΄ λ³€ν™”ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€.
-Nature is Coyote : μžμ—°μ΄λ‚˜ μΈκ°„μ˜ λ³Έμ§ˆμ„ κ³ μ •λœ κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ 보지 μ•Šκ³ , λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ κ°€λŠ₯성을 μˆ˜μš©ν•˜λŠ” 관점.
-The geography is elsewhere : μš°λ¦¬κ°€ μ•Œκ³  μžˆλŠ” 기쑴의 지리적 λ˜λŠ” μ‚¬νšŒμ  경계가 더 이상 μ€‘μš”ν•˜μ§€ μ•ŠμœΌλ©°, μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ νŒ¨λŸ¬λ‹€μž„ μ†μ—μ„œ μš°λ¦¬κ°€ μœ„μΉ˜ν•œ 곳이 λ‹€λ₯΄κ²Œ 해석될 수 있음.

"...Included in the cyborg image is the question: how β€”a fundamentally methodological question."
μ‚¬μ΄λ³΄κ·ΈλŠ” κ³ μ •λœ 본질이 μ—†κ³ , 경계λ₯Ό λ„˜λ‚˜λ“œλŠ” μ‘΄μž¬μ΄λ―€λ‘œ, μ–΄λ–»κ²Œ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ λ³΅μž‘ν•œ ν˜„μ‹€μ„ λ°©λ²•λ‘ μ μœΌλ‘œ λ‹€λ£° 것인가

In Shulamith Reinharz’s terms, knowledge is inseparable from the process of strategic community building and understanding.

Considered formally, then, the attributes of feminist method are particularly important.

"...where, after poststructuralism, can we find validity?" asks Patti Lather



Where should information be situated?

...It becomes new, however, when people are added as active interpreters of information, who themselves inhabit multiple contexts of use and practice. What becomes problematic under these circumstances is the relationship between people and things, or objects, the relationship that creates representations and not just noise. Information is only information when there are multiple interpretations. One person’s noise may be another’s signal, or two people may agree to attend to something but it is the tension between contexts that actually creates representation.

Context - Tension - Representation
정보가 μ‘΄μž¬ν•˜κ³  ν•΄μ„λ˜λŠ” 문화적, μ‚¬νšŒμ , 역사적, 개인적 λ°°κ²½κ³Ό 같은 λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ λ§₯락듀 κ°„μ˜ 차이가 κΈ΄μž₯을 λ§Œλ“ λ‹€. κ·ΈλŸ¬λ‚˜ 이 κΈ΄μž₯이 λ‹¨μˆœνžˆ κ°ˆλ“±μ„ μ΄ˆλž˜ν•˜λŠ” 것이 μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ, κ·Έ μžμ²΄κ°€ μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ 의미λ₯Ό μ°½μ‘°ν•˜λŠ” κ³Όμ •μ΄λΌλŠ” 점이 μ€‘μš”. μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ λ§₯λ½μ—μ„œ 정보가 ν•΄μ„λ˜κ±°λ‚˜ μΆ©λŒν•  λ•Œ, κ·Έ κ³Όμ •μ—μ„œ μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ ν‘œν˜„/μ˜λ―Έκ°€ μƒμ„±λœλ‹€λŠ” 것.

The expansion occurs by shifting the context in which the information resides.

κΈ΄μž₯: λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 관점, 해석, ν˜Ήμ€ 방식듀이 μΆ©λŒν•˜λ©΄μ„œ μ„œλ‘œ 영ν–₯을 λ―ΈμΉ˜λŠ” 상황. 이 μΆ©λŒμ€ 정보에 λŒ€ν•΄ ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ μ ˆλŒ€μ μΈ 해석이 μ•„λ‹Œ, μ—¬λŸ¬ 해석이 μ‘΄μž¬ν•  수 μžˆλ‹€λŠ” 것을 μ „μ œλ‘œ ν•˜λ©°, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ κΈ΄μž₯은 μ •λ³΄μ˜ 의미λ₯Ό ν’λΆ€ν•˜κ²Œ λ§Œλ“€κ³ , λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ κ΄€μ μ—μ„œ μž¬ν•΄μ„λ  수 μžˆλŠ” 기회λ₯Ό μ œκ³΅ν•œλ‹€.
:예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄, 예술 μž‘ν’ˆμ΄ μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ μ‹œλŒ€μ™€ λ¬Έν™”μ—μ„œ λ‹€λ₯΄κ²Œ 해석될 λ•Œ, 이 κ³Όμ •μ—μ„œ λ°œμƒν•˜λŠ” κΈ΄μž₯은 μ’…μ’… μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ 해석과 의미의 ν™•μž₯을 κ°€μ Έμ˜¨λ‹€. 마치 ν˜„λŒ€μ˜ λ…μžκ°€ κ³ μ „ λ¬Έν•™ μž‘ν’ˆμ„ μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ μ‹œκ°μ—μ„œ 해석할 λ•Œ, κ³Όκ±°μ—λŠ” κ³ λ €λ˜μ§€ μ•Šμ•˜λ˜ μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ μ˜λ―Έλ“€μ΄ λ“±μž₯ν•˜λŠ” κ²ƒμ²˜λŸΌ.
ν‘œν˜„κ³Ό λ§₯락: κΈ΄μž₯은 ꢁ극적으둜 ν‘œν˜„μ„ μ°½μ‘°ν•˜λŠ” 데 μ€‘μš”ν•œ 역할을 ν•œλ‹€. ν‘œν˜„μ΄λž€ νŠΉμ •ν•œ λ§₯λ½μ—μ„œ ν˜•μ„±λœ μ˜λ―Έλ‚˜ 상징을 λ§ν•˜λ©°, 정보가 λ‹¨μˆœν•œ 데이터가 μ•„λ‹Œ, κ·Έ μ†μ—μ„œ νŠΉμ •ν•œ 의미λ₯Ό κ°–κ²Œ λ˜λŠ” 과정을 μ˜λ―Έν•œλ‹€. λ§₯락 κ°„μ˜ κΈ΄μž₯이 μ—†λ‹€λ©΄, ν‘œν˜„μ€ κ³ μ •λ˜κ³  μ •μ²΄λœ μ˜λ―Έμ— 머무λ₯Ό 수 μžˆμœΌλ‚˜ 이 κΈ΄μž₯이 μ‘΄μž¬ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨, ν‘œν˜„μ€ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ λ§₯λ½μ—μ„œ μƒˆλ‘­κ²Œ ν•΄μ„λ˜λ©°, 동적이고 λ³€ν™”ν•˜λŠ” 의미(i.e μΈν„°λ„·λ°ˆ)λ₯Ό κ°€μ§€κ²Œ λ˜λŠ” 것.



Objects in communities of practice

Mediated by "Member" objects

 1.사물은 행동에 λ΄‰μ‚¬ν•œλ‹€
 2.사물은 행동을 μ€‘μž¬ν•œλ‹€
 3.사물은 λ§₯락과 행동 μ†μ—μ„œ 의미λ₯Ό 가진닀
 4.사물이 후속 행동을 μ€‘μž¬ν•˜λŠ” νž˜μ„ 가진닀

A community of practice is defined in large part according to the co-use of such objects, since all practice is so mediated. The relationship of the newcomer to the community largely revolves around the nature of the relationship with the objectsβ€”and not, counterintuitively, directly with the people. Acceptance or legitimacy derives from the familiarity of action mediated by β€œmember” objects.

Familiarity and Naturalization

She explains that when a new member joins a community of practice, the relationship with objects is more important than the relationships with other members of the community. In other words, to be recognized as a member of the community, one must become familiar with the objects used within that community. The relationship with objects becomes a key criterion for gaining legitimacy within the community.

When an object becomes naturalized within a community, it is no longer seen as something special but rather becomes something that members use as a matter of course. Members become part of the community through their interactions with these objects.

사물은 λ‹¨μˆœν•œ 도ꡬ μ΄μƒμ˜ 의미λ₯Ό 가지며, μ‹€μ²œ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ μ€‘μš”ν•œ κ΅¬μ„±μ›μ²˜λŸΌ ν™œλ™μ„ μ€‘μž¬ν•œλ‹€. 사물은 κ·Έ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ—μ„œ ꡬ성원듀 κ°„μ˜ μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ κ°€λŠ₯ν•˜κ²Œ ν•˜κ³ , μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ ꡬ성원이 곡동체에 μ μ‘ν•˜κ³  μΈμ •λ°›λŠ” 데 μ€‘μš”ν•œ 역할을 ν•œλ‹€. λ”°λΌμ„œ, 사물은 μ‹€μ²œ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ 핡심적인 λ§€κ°œμ²΄λ‘œμ„œ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ κ΅¬μ„±μ›μ²˜λŸΌ κΈ°λŠ₯ν•˜λŠ” 것.
Trajectory of membership and ambiguity
She states that people move along a trajectory of belonging within a community of practice. This trajectory represents the process by which individuals gradually adapt to the community, develop a sense of belonging, and ultimately become full members.
From illegitimate peripheral participation to full membership
이 과정은 λ‹¨μˆœνžˆ 지식을 μŒ“λŠ” κ²ƒλ§Œμ΄ μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ, 곡동체 λ‚΄μ—μ„œ μ–΄λ–»κ²Œ ν–‰λ™ν•˜κ³  μ†Œν†΅ν•˜λŠ”μ§€λ₯Ό λ°°μ›Œλ‚˜κ°€λŠ” 과정을 λ§ν•œλ‹€. ν•™μŠ΅μ€ λ‹¨μˆœν•œ μ •λ³΄μ˜ μŠ΅λ“μ΄ μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ, μ†Œμ†κ°κ³Ό κ΅¬μ„±μ›μœΌλ‘œμ„œμ˜ 정체성을 ν˜•μ„±ν•˜λŠ” κ³Όμ •μ΄λΌλŠ” λœ»μž…λ‹ˆλ‹€. λ˜ν•œ μ €μžλŠ” μ†Œμ† 과정을 λ‹€λ₯΄κ²Œ ν•΄μ„ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄, μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ μ€‘μš”ν•œ 역할을 ν•˜λŠ” μš”μ†Œλ‘œ 사물과 κ·Έκ²ƒμ˜ μžμ—°ν™” 과정을 μΆ”κ°€ν•œλ‹€. μ‚¬λ¬Όκ³Όμ˜ μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ΄ μ†Œμ†μ˜ ν•„μˆ˜ 쑰건(sine qua non)μ΄λΌλŠ” 뜻이며, μ†Œμ†μ˜ κΆ€μ μ—μ„œ μ€‘μš”ν•œ 것은 κ·Έ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ—μ„œ μ‚¬μš©ν•˜λŠ” 사물듀과 μ–΄λ–»κ²Œ 관계λ₯Ό λ§Ίκ³ , 그것듀이 μžμ—°μŠ€λŸ½κ²Œ μ΅μˆ™ν•΄μ§€λŠ”μ§€μ˜ 여뢀인 것이닀.



Boundary Objects

Borderlands and Monsters - limitations of traditional sociology and functionalism

μ €μžλŠ” 전톡 μ‚¬νšŒν•™μ€ λ‚΄λΆ€μž(insiders)와 μ™ΈλΆ€μž(outsiders)의 관계λ₯Ό κ°•μ‘°ν•˜λŠ” κΈ°λŠ₯주의적 색채λ₯Ό 띀닀고 λ§ν•œλ‹€. κΈ°λŠ₯μ£Όμ˜λŠ” μ‚¬νšŒλ₯Ό μ•ˆμ •λœ μ²΄κ³„λ‘œ 보고, κ·Έ μ•ˆμ—μ„œ 각자의 μ—­ν• κ³Ό μœ„μΉ˜λ₯Ό μ •ν•΄λ†“λŠ”λ‹€. 즉, μ‚¬νšŒλŠ” 잘 μž‘λ™ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄ κ°μžκ°€ 맑은 역할을 ν•˜λŠ” ꡬ쑰둜 μ΄ν•΄λ˜λ©°, 이 ꡬ쑰 μ•ˆμ—μ„œ λ‚΄λΆ€μžμ™€ μ™ΈλΆ€μžμ˜ 관계가 μ„±λ¦½λ˜λŠ” 것이닀. κ·ΈλŸ¬λ‚˜ κΈ°λŠ₯μ£Όμ˜λŠ” μ‚¬λ¬Όμ˜ λ³Έμ§ˆμ΄λ‚˜ λ‹€μ€‘μ˜ μ •λ‹Ήν•œ μ†Œμ†(즉, ν•œ μ‚¬λžŒμ΄ μ—¬λŸ¬ 곡동체에 μ†ν•˜λŠ” 것)을 닀루지 μ•ŠλŠ”λ‹€. κΈ°λŠ₯주의적 μ‹œκ°μ—μ„œλŠ” μ‚¬λžŒμ΄ ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ κ³ μ •λœ μ†Œμ†λ§Œμ„ κ°€μ§ˆ 수 μžˆλŠ” κ²ƒμ²˜λŸΌ λ³΄μ΄μ§€λ§Œ, μ‹€μ œλ‘œλŠ” λ§Žμ€ μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ΄ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 정체성과 μ†Œμ†μ„ λ™μ‹œμ— κ°€μ§€λŠ” λ³΅μž‘ν•œ 상황에 놓여 μžˆλ‹€λŠ” 것을 μ§€μ ν•œλ‹€.

κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ™€ λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°μ™€μ˜ 관계 μš°λ¦¬κ°€ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μ†Œμ†κ³Ό μžμ—°ν™” 과정을 λ™μ‹œμ— μƒκ°ν•œλ‹€λ©΄, κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ™€ λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°λΌλŠ” κ°œλ…μ„ μ—°κ²°ν•˜λŠ” 관계적 지도λ₯Ό 그릴 수 μžˆλ‹€.

Monster: occurs when an object refuses to undergo naturalization. Again, β€˜Naturalization’ refers to the process by which a particular object or concept is accepted as natural and commonplace within a community. However, a monster resists this process of naturalization, remaining a strange and unfamiliar presence within the community.
Borderland: arises when two communities of practice coexist within one person. For example, when an individual holds two or more identities or affiliations at the same time, that person is in the borderland. This concept, proposed by Gloria AnzaldΓΊa, explains that people in the borderland have multiple affiliations but do not fully belong to any one of them.

…And feminism has had a great deal to say about this, for borderlands are the naturalized home of those monsters known as cyborgs.

In a practical sense, this is a way to talk about what happens to experience in the science classroom when someone comes in with no experience of formal science. It is not simply a matter of the strangeness, but of the politics of the mapping between the anomalies and the forms of strangeness/marginality.

μ‚¬μ΄λ³΄κ·ΈλŠ” 인간과 κΈ°κ³„μ˜ 경계λ₯Ό λ„˜λŠ” 쑴재둜, ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ 곡동체에 μ†ν•˜μ§€ μ•ŠμœΌλ©° 경계에 μœ„μΉ˜ν•œ μ‘΄μž¬μ΄λ‹€. λ„λ‚˜ ν•΄λŸ¬μ›¨μ΄λŠ” 사이보그λ₯Ό κ³ μ •λœ μ •μ²΄μ„±μ΄λ‚˜ μ‚¬νšŒμ  범주에 얽맀이지 μ•ŠλŠ” 쑴재둜 μ„€λͺ…ν•˜λ©°, μ΄λŠ” κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ—μ„œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λŠ” λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°λ“€κ³Ό μ—°κ²°λœλ‹€.

전톡 μ‚¬νšŒν•™μ΄ κ³ μ •λœ λ‚΄λΆ€μž/μ™ΈλΆ€μžμ˜ 관계λ₯Ό λ‹€λ£¨μ§€λ§Œ, μ‹€μ œλ‘œλŠ” λ§Žμ€ μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ΄ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 곡동체에 속해 있고, μ‚¬λ¬Όμ˜ μžμ—°ν™”μ— μ €ν•­ν•˜λŠ” κ²½μš°λ„ μžˆλ‹€. κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€λŠ” λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μ†Œμ†μ΄ κ³΅μ‘΄ν•˜λŠ” 곡간이며, κ·Έκ³³μ—μ„œ μžμ—°ν™”λ˜μ§€ μ•ŠλŠ” λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°κ°€ λ“±μž₯ν•  수 있으며, μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 경계적 μ‘΄μž¬λŠ” 사이보그와 같이 νŽ˜λ―Έλ‹ˆμ¦˜ λ‹΄λ‘ μ—μ„œ μ€‘μš”ν•œ 역할을 ν•œλ‹€.

"이것이 λ°”λ‘œ μ‚¬μ΄λ³΄κ·Έμ˜ μ§„μ •ν•œ κ°€λŠ₯μ„±μž…λ‹ˆλ‹€. ν•™μžλ“€μ—κ²Œ, 이것은 λ°˜λ“œμ‹œ ν•™μ œ κ°„μ˜ κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ—μ„œ μ΄λ£¨μ–΄μ§€λŠ” 탐ꡬ이며, μ‚¬λžŒ, 사물, 그리고 ν‘œν˜„ 기술 κ°„μ˜ 전톡적인 경계λ₯Ό λ„˜λ‚˜λ“œλŠ” κ²ƒμž…λ‹ˆλ‹€."

The relational nature

many-to-many relational mapping

A mapping between multiple marginality of people(borderlands and monsters) and multiple naturalizations of objects(boundary objects and standards)
μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ€ μ’…μ’… μ—¬λŸ¬ μ‹€μ²œ 곡동체에 μ†ν•΄μžˆμ§€λ§Œ κ·Έ μ•ˆμ—μ„œ μ™„μ „νžˆ 받아듀여지지 μ•Šκ±°λ‚˜ 경계에 μœ„μΉ˜ν•œ 쑴재둜 κ²½ν—˜λ  수 μžˆλ‹€. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 주변성을 가진 μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ€ κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€(borderlands)와 λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°(monsters)처럼 두 곡동체 사이에 μœ„μΉ˜ν•˜κ²Œ λ˜λŠ”λ° 반면, 경계 객체(boundary objects)와 ν‘œμ€€(standards)은 μ—¬λŸ¬ 곡동체가 μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ λ°©μ‹μœΌλ‘œ 의미λ₯Ό κ³΅μœ ν•  수 있게 ν•΄μ£ΌλŠ” 사물이닀.
이 맀핑 λͺ¨λΈμ€ μ—¬λŸ¬ 주변성을 가진 μ‚¬λžŒλ“€κ³Ό λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μ‹€μ²œ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ—μ„œ μ—¬λŸ¬ λ°©μ‹μœΌλ‘œ μžμ—°ν™”λœ 객체 κ°„μ˜ 관계λ₯Ό ν˜•μ„±ν•œλ‹€. 예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄, 경계 κ°μ²΄λŠ” μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 곡동체가 각자의 ν•„μš”μ— 따라 자유둭게 해석할 수 μžˆλŠ” μœ μ—°μ„±μ„ 가지며, ν‘œμ€€μ€ μ—¬λŸ¬ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ—μ„œ κ³΅ν†΅μœΌλ‘œ μ‚¬μš©λ  수 μžˆλ‹€.

이 맀핑 κ΄€κ³„λŠ” μ‹œκ°„μ΄ μ§€λ‚˜λ©΄μ„œ 두 가지 λ°©μ‹μœΌλ‘œ λ°œμ „ν•œλ‹€.
1. 개인과 집단이 κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ—μ„œ ν†΅ν•©λœ μžμ•„λ₯Ό ν˜•μ„±ν•˜λŠ” κ³Όμ • (i.e. μ½œλ¦°μŠ€μ™€ μ•ˆμž˜λ‘μ•„μ˜ 연ꡬ)
2. 지속 κ°€λŠ₯ν•œ 경계 객체λ₯Ό μ°½μ‘°ν•˜μ—¬ μ—¬λŸ¬ 곡동체가 μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 관점을 κ³΅μœ ν•  수 μžˆλŠ” 기반 마련.

Over time, the mapping is between the means by which individuals and collectives have managed the work of creating coherent selves in the border lands (e.g., Collins, AnzaldΓΊa) on the one hand, and to create durable boundary objects on the other.

many-to-many to meta-relational

The map must point simultaneously to the articulation of selves and the naturalization of objects.
One of the things that is important here is honoring (I won’t say capturing) the work involved in borderlands and boundary objects.

1.λ‹€λŒ€λ‹€ 관계성을 λ„˜λŠ” 메타-관계성
: λ‹€λŒ€λ‹€ κ΄€κ³„λž€ μ—¬λŸ¬ 곡동체와 μ—¬λŸ¬ 객체 κ°„μ˜ μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ λœ»ν•˜μ§€λ§Œ, 메타-관계성은 κ·Έ μƒν˜Έμž‘μš©μ„ 더 ν¬κ΄„μ μœΌλ‘œ λ°”λΌλ³΄λŠ” μ‹œκ°μ„ λ§ν•œλ‹€. 즉, μžμ•„μ˜ 정체성과 객체의 μ˜λ―Έκ°€ ν•¨κ»˜ μ—°κ²°λœ λ°©μ‹μœΌλ‘œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜λ©°, 이듀 μ‚¬μ΄μ˜ κ΄€κ³„λŠ” κ·Έ 자체둜 μƒμœ„ κ°œλ…μœΌλ‘œ 닀루어야 ν•œλ‹€λŠ” μ˜λ―Έμž…λ‹ˆλ‹€.
2.μžμ•„μ˜ ν‘œν˜„κ³Ό 객체의 μžμ—°ν™”
: μžμ•„μ˜ ν‘œν˜„(articulation of selves)은 κ°œμΈμ΄λ‚˜ 집단이 μžμ‹ μ„ μ •μ˜ν•˜κ³  ν‘œν˜„ν•˜λŠ” 방식을 μ˜λ―Έν•˜κ³ , 객체의 μžμ—°ν™”(naturalization of objects)λŠ” κ·Έ 객체가 곡동체 μ•ˆμ—μ„œ λ‹Ήμ—°ν•˜κ²Œ λ°›μ•„λ“€μ—¬μ§€λŠ” 과정을 λœ»ν•œλ‹€. μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ 메타-관계성은 이 두 가지가 λ™μ‹œμ— μΌμ–΄λ‚˜κ³  μ„œλ‘œμ—κ²Œ 영ν–₯을 λ―ΈμΉ˜λŠ” κ΄€κ³„λ‘œ 바라봐야 ν•œλ‹€λŠ” 뜻.
3.κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ™€ 경계 κ°μ²΄μ—μ„œμ˜ μž‘μ—… 쑴쀑
: μ €μžλŠ” κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ™€ 경계 객체와 κ΄€λ ¨λœ μž‘μ—…μ„ μ‘΄μ€‘ν•˜λŠ” κ²ƒμ˜ μ€‘μš”μ„±μ„ κ°•μ‘°ν•œλ‹€. μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ κ²½κ³„μ§€λŒ€μ™€ 경계 κ°μ²΄λŠ” μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ΄ 닀쀑 곡동체에 μ†ν•˜λ©΄μ„œ μžμ•„λ₯Ό ν‘œν˜„ν•˜κ³  객체의 의미λ₯Ό ν˜•μ„±ν•΄κ°€λŠ” 경계적 μž‘μ—…μ„ μƒμ§•ν•œλ‹€. μ €μžλŠ” 이λ₯Ό 쑴쀑해야 ν•œλ‹€κ³  ν‘œν˜„ν•˜λŠ”λ°, μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ β€˜ν¬μ°©(capturing)β€™μ΄λΌλŠ” 단어 λŒ€μ‹  β€˜μ‘΄μ€‘(honoring)’을 μ‚¬μš©ν•œ μ΄μœ λŠ” μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μž‘μ—…μ΄ λ‹¨μˆœνžˆ κΈ°λ‘λ˜κ±°λ‚˜ ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ 틀에 λ§žμΆ°μ§€λŠ” 것이 μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ, 쑴쀑받고 μ΄ν•΄λ˜μ–΄μ•Ό ν•˜λŠ” 역동적인 κ³Όμ •μž„μ„ κ°•μ‘°ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•¨μž…λ‹ˆλ‹€.

This work is almost necessarily invisible from the point of view of any single community of practice: as Collins points out, what white person really sees the work of self-articulation of the black person who is juggling multiple demands/audiences/contingencies? It is not just willful blindness (although it can be that), but much more akin to the blindness between different Kuhnian paradigms, a revolutionary difference. Yet the juggling is both tremendously costly and brilliantly artful.


Articulation Work/Invisible Work

What is the name for this work of managing the overheads and anomalies caused by multiple memberships on the one hand, and multiply naturalized objects on the other? Certainly, it is invisible. Most certainly, it is methodological, in the sense of reflecting on differences between methods and techniques. It is often invisible. Within both symbolic interactionism and the new field of computer-supported cooperative work, the term β€œarticulation work” has been used to talk about some forms of this invisible β€œjuggling” work (Schmidt and Bannon 1992; Gerson and Star 1986).

Canonically, articulation work is work done in real time to manage contingencies; work that gets things back β€œon track” in the face of the unexpected, that modifies action to accommodate unanticipated contingencies. It is richly found for instance in the work of head nurses, secretaries, homeless people, parents, and air traffic control- lers, although of course all of us do articulation work in order to keep our work going.(μ΄λŠ” μ‹€μ‹œκ°„μœΌλ‘œ λ°œμƒν•˜λŠ” λ³€μˆ˜λ“€(예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄ Suchman의 μš©μ–΄λ‘œ β€˜μƒν™©μ  행동(situated actions)’)이 μ–Έμ œλ‚˜ 기술의 μ‚¬μš© 방식을 λ³€ν™”μ‹œν‚€κΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έ.)

λ°œν™” μž‘μ—…(articulation work)은 μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ΄ 각각의 κΈ°μ€€κ³Ό 관점에 따라 정보λ₯Ό ν•΄μ„ν•˜κ³  μ²˜λ¦¬ν•˜λŠ” 차이λ₯Ό μ‘°μœ¨ν•˜μ—¬ 정보가 μΌκ΄€λ˜κ²Œ ν•΄μ„λ˜λ„λ‘ λ•λŠ” 보이지 μ•ŠλŠ” 과정이닀. 이 μž‘μ—…μ΄ μ—†μœΌλ©΄ 각기 λ‹€λ₯Έ μ •μ˜μ™€ κΈ°μ€€μœΌλ‘œ μž…λ ₯된 정보듀이 ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ μ‹œμŠ€ν…œ μ•ˆμ—μ„œ 일관성을 μžƒκ²Œ λœλ‹€. 예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄, μ–΄λ–€ μ‚¬λžŒμ€ λ‚™νƒœλ₯Ό λ²”μ£„λ‘œ 보고 λ°μ΄ν„°λ² μ΄μŠ€μ—μ„œ μ œμ™Έν•˜λŠ” 반면, λ‹€λ₯Έ μ‚¬λžŒμ€ 이λ₯Ό 의료 ν–‰μœ„λ‘œ 보고 ν¬ν•¨μ‹œν‚€λŠ” 식이닀. μ΄λ ‡κ²Œ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 기쀀이 λ§Œλ“€μ–΄λ‚΄λŠ” μ°¨μ΄λŠ” 데이터 μ‚¬μš©μžμ—κ²Œ 보이지 μ•ŠκΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έμ—, κ²°κ΅­ μ‚¬μš©μžλŠ” μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 차이가 λ°˜μ˜λ˜μ§€ μ•Šμ€ 데이터λ₯Ό 톡해 편ν–₯된 결둠을 λ‚΄λ¦¬κ±°λ‚˜ β€˜ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ 보편적 μ§„λ¦¬β€™λ‘œ 받아듀일 μœ„ν—˜μ— μ²˜ν•˜κ²Œ λœλ‹€. λ°œν™” μž‘μ—…μ€ λ°”λ‘œ μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 보이지 μ•ŠλŠ” 차이λ₯Ό λ“œλŸ¬λ‚΄κ³  μ‘°μ •ν•˜μ—¬, 정보가 κ· ν˜• 있게 해석될 수 μžˆλ„λ‘ ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 관점이 반영된 해석을 κ°€λŠ₯ν•˜κ²Œ ν•˜λŠ” 것.


Articulation work as the role of managing discrepancies between memberships and naturalization

1.mismatches between memberships(μ†Œμ†) and naturalization
: μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 곡동체에 μ†ν•œ μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ΄ ν•œ κ³³μ—μ„œ ν˜‘λ ₯ν•  λ•Œ, 각 κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ κΈ°λŒ€μ™€ κ·œλ²”μ΄ λ‹€λ₯΄κΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έμ— λΆˆμΌμΉ˜κ°€ 생긴닀. 2.anomalies management
: 이상 ν˜„μƒμ€ μ˜ˆμƒ λ°–μ˜ κ°„μ„­μ΄λ‚˜ 쀑단을 μ˜λ―Έν•˜λ©°, μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ κ·œλ²”κ³Ό κΈ°λŒ€κ°€ 맞물릴 λ•Œ λ°œμƒν•˜λŠ” 예기치 μ•Šμ€ 상황이닀. μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ 간섭은 μ–΄λ–€ μ‚¬λžŒμ΄ μ˜ˆμƒκ³Ό λ‹€λ₯Έ 행동을 ν•˜κ±°λ‚˜, νŠΉμ • 객체가 μ˜ˆμƒλœ 흐름을 λ°©ν•΄ν•  λ•Œ λ°œμƒν•œλ‹€. λ°œν™” μž‘μ—…μ€ 이런 이상 ν˜„μƒμ„ μΆ”μ ν•˜κ³  μ‘°μœ¨ν•˜μ—¬, 곡동체 κ°„μ˜ ν˜‘λ ₯을 μ›ν™œν•˜κ²Œ ν•˜λŠ” 역할을 함. 3.impossibility of glass box technology
: 투λͺ… κΈ°μˆ μ€ λͺ¨λ“  것을 μ™„μ „νžˆ 투λͺ…ν•˜κ²Œ 보여주고 관리할 수 μžˆλŠ” κΈ°μˆ μ„ μ˜λ―Έν•œλ‹€. ν•˜μ§€λ§Œ μ—¬λŸ¬ 곡동체가 λͺ¨μΌ λ•ŒλŠ” μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ κΈ°λŒ€μ™€ κ·œλ²”μœΌλ‘œ 인해 항상 이상 ν˜„μƒμ΄ λ°œμƒν•˜κΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έμ—, λͺ¨λ“  상황을 μ™„λ²½νžˆ 투λͺ…ν•˜κ²Œ κ΄€λ¦¬ν•˜λŠ” 것은 μ–΄λ ΅ -> μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 곡동체가 ν˜‘λ ₯ν•˜λŠ” κΈ°μˆ μ€ λͺ¨λ“  κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ κΈ°λŒ€λ₯Ό λ™μ‹œμ— μΆ©μ‘±μ‹œν‚€κΈ° μ–΄λ ΅κ³ , μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ κ³Όμ •μ—μ„œ 차이와 좩돌이 생길 μˆ˜λ°–μ— μ—†λ‹€. 4.creating monsters
: μ—¬λŸ¬ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ 관점과 κΈ°λŒ€λ₯Ό μΈμ •ν•˜μ§€ μ•Šκ³  ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ 기쀀을 κ°•μš”ν•  λ•Œ β€˜λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°β€™κ°€ 생긴닀고 μ €μžλŠ” 계속 μ„€λͺ…ν•œλ‹€. μ—¬κΈ°μ„œ λͺ¬μŠ€ν„°λŠ” μ—¬λŸ¬ μ†Œμ†κ³Ό 기쀀이 μΆ©λŒν•˜λ©΄μ„œ λ°œμƒν•œ 일관성 μ—†λŠ” μ‹œμŠ€ν…œμ΄λ‚˜ μ†Œμ™Έλœ 쑴재λ₯Ό μƒμ§•ν•˜λŠ”λ°, μ„œλ‘œ λ‹€λ₯Έ 정당성을 가진 곡동체듀이 닀쀑적 κΈ°λŒ€λ₯Ό μˆ˜μš©ν•˜μ§€ μ•ŠμœΌλ©΄, κ²°κ΅­ 일뢀 κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ 관점이 λ¬΄μ‹œλ˜κ±°λ‚˜ μ–΅μ••λ˜λ©°, κ·Έ κ²°κ³Ό μΆ©λŒν•˜λŠ” μ‹œμŠ€ν…œμ΄λ‚˜ 괴리감이 큰 μ‘΄μž¬κ°€ λ°œμƒν•˜κ²Œ λ˜λŠ” 상황.


The ideals of transparency and naturalization and their practical limitations

1.the ideal goals of transparency and naturalization
: μ΄λ‘ μ μœΌλ‘œλŠ”, μžμ—°ν™”μ˜ μ΅œμ’… λ‹¨κ³„λŠ” λͺ¨λ“  객체가 μ™„μ „ν•œ 투λͺ…성을 μ–»λŠ” 지점이라고 λ³Ό 수 μžˆλ‹€. 즉, κ°μ²΄λ‚˜ κ°œλ…μ΄ νŠΉμ • 곡동체 μ•ˆμ—μ„œ μ™„μ „νžˆ μžμ—°μŠ€λŸ¬μ›Œμ Έ, μ˜μ‹¬μ΄λ‚˜ μ„€λͺ… 없이 λ‹Ήμ—°ν•˜κ²Œ λ°›μ•„λ“€μ—¬μ§€λŠ” μƒνƒœλ₯Ό λœ»ν•˜λŠ” 것. λ§ˆμ°¬κ°€μ§€λ‘œ, μ†Œμ†κ°μ˜ μ΅œμ’… λͺ©ν‘œλŠ” κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ 쀑심적 역할을 ν•˜κ±°λ‚˜, μ™„μ „ν•œ 정당성을 νšλ“ν•˜λŠ” 것이닀. 이 μƒνƒœμ—μ„œλŠ” κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ˜ λͺ¨λ“  κ·œλ²”κ³Ό κΈ°λŒ€μ— μ ν•©ν•œ μ‘΄μž¬κ°€ λ˜μ–΄, 더 이상 μ˜λ¬Έμ΄λ‚˜ κ°ˆλ“± 없이 μΈμ •λ°›κ²Œ λœλ‹€. 2.practical limitations
: κ·ΈλŸ¬λ‚˜ ν˜„μ‹€ μ„Έκ³„μ—μ„œλŠ” μ΄λŸ¬ν•œ μƒνƒœκ°€ 본질적으둜 λΆˆκ°€λŠ₯ν•˜λ‹€λŠ” 것이닀. κ·Έ μ΄μœ λŠ” λͺ¨λ“  μ‚¬λžŒμ—κ²Œ λ‹€μ–‘ν•œ μ†Œμ†κ°μ΄ 있으며, μƒˆλ‘œμš΄ κ΅¬μ„±μ›μ΄λ‚˜ 이방인이 μ§€μ†μ μœΌλ‘œ λ“±μž₯ν•˜κ³ , κ°μ²΄λ‚˜ κ°œλ…μ΄ μ—¬λŸ¬ λ§₯λ½μ—μ„œ 각각 λ‹€λ₯Έ λ°©μ‹μœΌλ‘œ μžμ—°ν™”λ˜κΈ° λ•Œλ¬Έμ΄λ‹€. λ”°λΌμ„œ μΌμ‹œμ μœΌλ‘œ 이런 이상적 μƒνƒœμ— κ°€κΉŒμ›Œμ§€λŠ” μˆœκ°„μ΄ μžˆλ”λΌλ„, μ΄λŠ” λΆˆμ•ˆμ •ν•˜κ³  μ§€μ†λ˜μ§€ λͺ»ν•˜λŠ” 것. 3.things that make objects and statuses seem given, durable, real
: μžμ—°ν™”κ°€ μ™„μ „ν•œ 투λͺ…성에 λ„λ‹¬ν•˜μ§€ λͺ»ν•˜λ”라도, μ–΄λ–€ μš”μ†Œλ“€μ΄ 객체와 μ§€μœ„λ₯Ό ν˜„μ‹€μ μ΄κ³  κ²¬κ³ ν•œ κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ λŠκ»΄μ§€κ²Œ λ§Œλ“œλŠ”μ§€κ°€ μ€‘μš”ν•˜λ‹€. 3-1. ?
: μ–΄λ–€ κ°μ²΄λ‚˜ μ§€μœ„κ°€ μ‚¬νšŒμ μœΌλ‘œ λ‹Ήμ—°ν•˜κ²Œ 받아듀여지고 κ·Έ μ‘΄μž¬κ°€ μ•ˆμ •μ μœΌλ‘œ μ—¬κ²¨μ§€κ²Œ λ§Œλ“ λ‹€λŠ” 의미. μ΄λŠ” μ–΄λ–€ κ°œλ…μ΄λ‚˜ 객체가 ν•˜λ‚˜μ˜ κ³΅λ™μ²΄μ—μ„œ λ„ˆλ¬΄λ‚˜λ„ μ΅μˆ™ν•΄μ§€κ³  μžμ—°μŠ€λŸ¬μ›Œμ Έμ„œ, κ·Έ μ‘΄μž¬μ™€ 역할에 μ˜λ¬Έμ„ ν’ˆμ§€ μ•Šκ³  마치 필연적이고 λ‹Ήμ—°ν•œ κ²ƒμœΌλ‘œ λ°›μ•„λ“€μΈλ‹€λŠ” 뜻.
e.g. 슀마트폰: μŠ€λ§ˆνŠΈν°μ€ 이제 ν˜„λŒ€ μƒν™œμ—μ„œ 맀우 μ€‘μš”ν•œ 객체가 λ˜μ—ˆκ³ , 마치 ν•„μˆ˜ν’ˆμ²˜λŸΌ 여겨진닀. 슀마트폰의 κΈ°λŠ₯κ³Ό 역할은 λ„ˆλ¬΄λ„ μžμ—°μŠ€λŸ¬μ›Œμ Έμ„œ, κ·Έ 쑴재 자체λ₯Ό 더 이상 μ˜μ‹¬ν•˜μ§€ μ•Šκ³  λ‹Ήμ—°ν•˜κ²Œ λ°›μ•„λ“€μ΄κ²Œ 된 것. μ΄λŠ” 슀마트폰이 ν˜„μ‹€μ μœΌλ‘œ ν•„μˆ˜μ μΈ κ²ƒμ²˜λŸΌ λŠκ»΄μ§€λ„λ‘ λ§Œλ“€μ–΄μ‘ŒμŒμ„ λœ»ν•œλ‹€.
e.g. μ‚¬νšŒμ  μ§€μœ„: 예λ₯Ό λ“€μ–΄, μ˜μ‚¬λΌλŠ” μ§μ—…μ˜ μ§€μœ„λŠ” 곡동체 λ‚΄μ—μ„œ ν•„μˆ˜μ μ΄κ³  μ‹ λ’°λ°›λŠ” μ—­ν• λ‘œ 자리 μž‘μ•„ μžˆλ‹€. μ‚¬λžŒλ“€μ€ μ˜μ‚¬μ˜ μ‘΄μž¬μ™€ 역할을 λ„ˆλ¬΄λ‚˜λ„ λ‹Ήμ—°ν•˜κ²Œ 받아듀이기 λ•Œλ¬Έμ—, μ˜μ‚¬μ˜ μ§€μœ„κ°€ 마치 필연적이고 μ•ˆμ •μ μΈ κ²ƒμ²˜λŸΌ λŠκ»΄μ§€κ²Œ 된 것.

Generalization and Ethics of Ambiguity

Casual vs. Committed Membership