((in)ter)dependence: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
(Transclude data neutrality entry)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''To be inextricably linked, in a way that is impossible to disentangle.'''
'''To be inextricably linked, in a way that is impossible to disentangle.'''
Draft: Because the term care has it difficult and violent history, interdependence arose as a term in the disability justice community to signal not just that they need to depend on (a social body, network of support, individual people) but that there are "structural conditions that shape gendered, racialized, and globalized care work."
Because the term care has it difficult and violent history, interdependence arose as a term in the disability justice community to signal not just that they need to depend on (a social body, network of support, individual people) but that there are "structural conditions that shape gendered, racialized, and globalized care work."[1]


__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 16:43, 20 March 2024

To be inextricably linked, in a way that is impossible to disentangle. Because the term care has it difficult and violent history, interdependence arose as a term in the disability justice community to signal not just that they need to depend on (a social body, network of support, individual people) but that there are "structural conditions that shape gendered, racialized, and globalized care work."[1]

((in)ter)dependency tree

             interdependence
     inter ──┘             └── independence
in ──┘-------------------------┘          └── dependence
     ┌─────────────────────┐
    ─┴─           ─────────┴─────────        
( ( i n ) t e r ) d e p e n d e n c e
 ───────┬───────  ─────────┬─────────
        └──────────────────┘

inter

▚ Prefix: Used to form adjectives meaning "between or among the people, things, or places mentioned" ▞ 
┌ between; among; in the midst
│
├ reciprocal; reciprocally
│
├ located between
│
├ carried on between
│
├ occurring between
│
├ intervening
│
├ shared by, involving, or derived from two or more
│
├ between the limits of : within
│
└ existing between

in

░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░    ░                                                                                             ░ 
░    ░ <-- you are often not here ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░         ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░ outside
░ in ░ <-- isolated           └───but instead in the space ░ between ░ categories ░ ░ topologies ░ ░
░    ░ <-- apart from             ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░         ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░
░    ░ <-- inside of                                                                               ░
░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
 
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░
░            ░ ░           ░ ░     ░
the space between categories is erased
░            ░ ░           ░ ░     ░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░

independence

The state of wanting or being able to do things for yourself and make your own decisions, without help or influence from other people.

dependence

when you can't go about it on your own
                                    └┅when you need┅┅┅┅┅┅to lean on┅┅┅┅depend on┅┅┅┅rely on┅┅survive with
  ┏┅others┅┅loved ones┅┅strangers┅┅groups┅┅communities                                                                         
  ┇ 
  ┗┅resources┅┅material┅┅substantial┅┅substances┅┅help┅┅support┅┅mutual aid
     ┏┅immaterial structures┅┅coping mechanisms┅┅
     ┇
     ┗┅abstract systems┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┅┓
                ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇             of education                        
     of justice ┛ ┇ ┇ ┗ of support                          
        of health ┛ ┗ of care

Borderlands and Monsters

Monsters:

A monster occurs when an object refuses to be naturalized (Haraway 1992)[1]

I'm struck by this sentence, because: Meme I'm in the photo and I don't like it
A monster could be:

  • a plant brought into a region it is not native or indigenous to. And this plant cannot co-exist with the other plants, it either takes up all the resources or grows uncontrollably, or just refuses to grow. When it spreads around and was brought by humans intentionally, it becomes naturalized.
introduced species, alien species, exotic species, adventive species, immigrant species, foreign species, non-indigenous species, or non-native species...
  • a person who asks a lot of questions when encountering how things are done here, and refuses to just accept the how but asks the why
  • an immigrant living in this country for 5 years, who has in slight yet persistent ways, refused assimilation and the next step naturalization. Not learning the language, not participating in the culture, carving out a space for themself where your own culture could exist.

Borderlands:

a borderland occurs when two communities of practice coexist in one person (Anzaldúa 1987)[2]
  • When you have to code-switch
  • When you use an entirely different language depending on the context you're in
  • When you're split between what your day job needing you to use adobe while still trying to use free software in your downtime
  • When you live on the hopscotch your way between on the border, between the lands, practices, communities and people who create them.


Communities of Practise

Appears in Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method, and Information Technology (Susan Leigh Star, 1994, find it here on the bootleg library), that builds on the concept from Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1992).

A community of practise...
    ... is composed of people and things, 
        themselves in ecological relation...> > > check ecological relations
    ... as a term emphasizes the ways in which people work together and act together to form communities
    ... is a way of talking about a linked web of actions, people, and artifacts
Objects in a community of practise...
    ... come to be only in the context and action and use
    ... exhibit a level of familiarity, 'taken-for-grantedness'
    ... are on a trajectory of naturalization 
                ─┬─────────────┬─────────────
                 │             └ the removal of contingencies of an object's creation and its situated nature 
                 │              [first computer rolls around and we're all Really aware of it but now smartphones are 
                 │               just a part of us, they have become naturalized, a part of our lives 
                 │               and the landscape, it's historical context is no longer that important]
                 └ it is not predetermined an object will ever become naturalized or how long it will remain so
People in a community of practise...
    ... are considered 'newcomer' 
        not through their relation with other people in the community
        but through their relation with the objects in the community
    ... are on a trajectory of membership
        ─────────────────────────────────
        (which ranges from illegitimate peripheral participation
                      to   full membership)
        that consists of a series of encounters with the objects in the community
        and increasingly being in a naturalized relationship with them

Ecological Relations

Those interactions that are analysed by Social ecology, the study of how individuals interact with and respond to the environment around them, and how these interactions affect society and the environment as a whole. So are those systems where ecological relations are highly taken into account those that have a deep interconnected connection between society, their members and the ecosystem that is formed around them?

We look at the text[3] again, page 152. Editorial team member C is taking notes.
A: Could you break this question down?
B: which one?
A: 'So are ... around them?'
B: I googled: where [noisenoisenoise]
C: Sorry I missed it, the explanation
B: Me as well aaah
All: hahaha
B: Where people care a lot about building a good environment. Togetherness. Flexible in relationships.

So could it be that social-ecological systems are those that are more flexible? \can absord better turbolescences. Are they less vulnerable as systems, do they accept their vulnerabilities?

A: So those ecological systems are more flexible than other systems?
B: Yes?
A: The last question I don't fully understand, because it starts with a statement.
B: I found this piece that talked about social problems, vulnerabilities... Ecological means that as well, talking about vulnerabilities and care... I think I should write hours and hours to get a really good explanation.

In the text ecological relations emerge as the author describes her point of view of what information is, in the context of feminist method, and connected to the communities of practices.

So ecological relations within the communities of practice, communities where people work in cooperation to form groups

Digging into the meaning of the term "ecologically" we see how it can mean taking everything, every aspect of an outcome into account.

A: I really like the last sentence, 'how it can mean taking everything, every aspect of an outcome into account'. Maybe we can put it on top or somehow highlight it...


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.)


References

Star, S. L. (1994). Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method, and Information Technology. In: Bowker, G. et al. (eds) Boundary objects and beyond: working with Leigh Star. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press
Haraway, Donna . 1992 . “ The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others .” In Cultural Studies , ed. Lawrence Grossberg , Cary Nelson , and Paula Treichler , 295 – 337 . New York : Routledge .
Anzaldúa, Gloria . 1987 . Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza . San Francisco : Aunt Lute .
Fritsch, K., O’Connor, C. and Thompson, A.K. (eds) (2016) Keywords for radicals: the contested vocabulary of late-capitalist struggle. Chico, CA: AK Press. Kelly, Christine. Care.

  1. Haraway, Donna. 1992. “ The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others .” In Cultural Studies, ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler, 295 – 337. New York : Routledge.
  2. Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza . San Francisco : Aunt Lute.
  3. Star, S.L. (2016) 'Misplaced concretism and concrete situations: feminism, method, and information technology,' in The MIT Press eBooks, pp. 143–168. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0009.