((in)ter)dependence/On the Neutrality of Data

Or a virtue of language: a letter to editorial group ((in)ter)dependence

I feel a bit responsible for our confusing stance on the neutrality of data. In fact, I have confused myself quite a bit. So let me attempt to put to paper some of our discourse.

I think it's in line with the feminist approach to consider data inherently not-neutral. The first part of the feminist server manifesto refers to the situated nature of technology. Any statement is made through its context, as is any choice of representation, as is any choice or reflex of interpretation. I can accept this way of thinking. In fact, I believe this is my way of thinking, too, at this very moment.

However, that is with a caveat. 'The neutrality of data' implies a universal quantification, a statement regarding all data. And in this universal sense, I feel the confidence in this stance crumble.

Personally I'm inclined to accept an idea of 'data' as a much broader concept, as something that's not necessarily the product of technology, not necessarily the product of human labour, not necessarily anything related to any worldy intent. I can accept data to be anything that hold information through representation. I gave the example of a grain in the wood of the bench we were sitting on: this grain tells us about the history of the wood, about the manufacturing of this bench, about the people sitting on it. That information is carried through these data, and that information can arguably seen as not-neutral. But this not-neutrality is obtained through interacting with the data. The grain itself just 'came to be'. Yes, it is situated. But is it partial?

In the past, I have considered the example of Platonic ideals as neutralities. This is a difficult case to make. In language and philosophy, these 'perfect originals' cannot be captured faithfully in any wordly occurance, and therefore seem (to me) to be inherently susceptible to interpretation. And therefore, not neutral in any wordly occurance. That said, a more mathematically inclined voice inside of me still believes these ideal Forms exist in some functional sense. In set theory, for example, there is a notion of an empty set. This is an ideal in the sense that there is no faithful representation possible. Yet we accept its existence in a conceptual sense (in ZF through the axiom of separation (combined with extensionality to see it is unique, a Form)). I can accept the empty set as data, a representational form. And I can accept it as neutral, I think.

But does that even matter at this point?

I tread on the verge of pedanticality. I'm not saying this to nitpick on the discourse around neutrality and feminist methods. I am not saying this just to conjure up new problems. I'm not saying this to drench our discourse in difficult language, to consequently simultaneously mask and highlight a futility at the core of it.

And this is what it is: a 'problem' of language.

I am saying this to challenge this concept, 'neutrality', to challenge our understanding of it. But more so I am saying it because I feel confused, and anxious, and frequently succumb under the pressure of this looming futility. I am saying this, because expressing this is, to me, valuable. I am saying this because we've encountered barriers of language again and again and again, and this is yet another example. But to me, this example illustrates that through language's shortcomings, we can find new, meaningful insights. And that is beautiful and reassuring. And that is something I hope to share with you with this writing.

We near the end of the trimester, and find ourselves in a web of (linguistic) confusion, spun not only by the topics at hand, but also by us through our careful and thoughtful nature of conversing. Now that we've done our intellectual homework, now that 'the data' is there, I feel encouraged to focus on this 'us'. The data itself is interesting, sure. But it's how we interact with it that holds even more value.

> Each of us come with their own deeply subjective and biased point of view. Each POV has been influenced by countless things; different cultural background, families, and the hosting and cooking practices we were raised with. Instead of pretending that objectivity is anything but acknowledging our biases, we decided to make them, and our subjectivity, explicit.)