Nathan Schneider’s article about the Joy of Slow Computing is a fantastic first step to the book the world needs on this subject! It’ll be like the Joy of Cooking or the Joy of Sex (definitive informative work on going deep on the topic in a way that is engaging and timeless). The brogrammer culture that further genders am already male identified dominate culture has made the tech/geek space hustle and unfriendly to folks” the learning curve as people like Lilly have already pointed out. There are of course other intersections of identity to consider in this quest such as race and class. Taking hours to switch your digital life over is something of a luxury for the middle to upper class who either have savings or one job around which they can work on such a time heavy hobby and endeavor. Similar to low income individuals being separated from the tech community because of the high entry price of time that folks need to work their jobs while going to school, etc. There is also the hegemonic nature of tech groups, thankfully changing to better reflect the population at large. But as a black woman, I’ve already experiences how I have to pay a black tax and a gender tax (work twice as hard to get half as much) in other areas of my life and tech spaces are very similar. The proving of oneself already inherent in such spaces is coupled with the surprise, shock, or distrust that a woman, a BLACK one no less can hold her own as a coder/programmer/gamer etc makes that learning curve more like a black diamond slope I’m at the bottom of (as a beginner) and have to schlep my way up to the top without one of those handy ski lifts. More of the culture, as ppl like me join and participate, is forced to change and hopefully together we can flatten the learning curve and lower the cost of entry to slow computing.
Tag-Archive for » race «
“As a #maker, I’m sick of the low income takers out there always asking for more.” – Stephen Colbert
With a good laugh, this Colbert marks a trend we noted here at Difference Engines back in 2012 in “Mitt Romney or Silicon Valley Designer?”. There, we quoted Pinterest founder Matt Sharp as saying: “Work with really nice people whose goal it is to make things and not to take things. Because there are people out there who just want to take things.”
Making is more than the proverbial putting labor into nature that supposedly creates value in classical political economy. This particular era’s American predilection for making marks some labor as more interesting, creative, and unalienated as the labors of those many manufacturing people in places like China. Creativity has become more than just a privileged name for everyday ingenuities. Creativity marks certain kinds of ingenuity as intellectual property and authorial attributions. Chinese hackerspace elites know this, as Silvia Lindtner’s work shows us; with the government, they work to evolve their country’s image from “made in China” to “created in China.” Creativity seems to have a race, and the sort of making that Colbert celebrates (and lampoons) is raced as well. What’s the difference between these makers and the makers who labor to create widgets? Makers doesn’t mean workers. Makers in these innovation discourses marks those who “build” whole new markets — or at least commandeer them by getting the intellectual property and commandeering the labor forces. Makers of markets — the blue ocean strategists and Schumpeterian creative destroyers — are are makers of the biggest rocks of all.
I spotted this Levi’s ad on Market Street downtown in SF, right in the heart of the shopping and financial district.
All this on the tail of a huge financial meltdown in our information/service/immaterial economy, rising unemployment, and sustainability crises that point their finger at us as a nation of consumers. And here, we have a consumer brand getting ahead of our anxieties by offering us the opportunity to consume worker-ness.
A press release gestures to “the history of laborers and artisans who shaped the cultural landscape of America.”
Levi’s is complementing their ad campaign by opening up workshops in SF and New York that double as community and retail spaces. The SF workshop will feature letterpresses, silk screen equipment, and photocopiers. New York will feature photography equipment.
At the very moment they pay homage to manual labor, they frame it as a temple to the embodiment in the information economy. The shops offer us ways to rediscover craft-y versions of our bits and pixels. Forgotten are the laborers — many Japanese and Chinese — who built American railroads at the turn of the century (or the racism they faced in forms such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882). No hint of the giant factories where Costa Rican woman churn out masses of Levi’s jeans or the thousands of laborers in San Antonio, TX Levi’s left behind with 24-hours notice when they moved their shop overseas.
Even as Levi’s valorizes “workers,” it romanticizes an unaliented manual laborer of the past, evacuated of all the racism, sweat, and toil that characterized their actual work conditions. At once, it taps into an elite maker ethos to tap into anxieties of a country whose jobs always seem on the cusp of being done cheaper by someone abroad.
Jeep taps into the same sentiment with their ad telling Americans “This is a country of makers. And it is again.”
Tellingly, the railroad spike pounded in the ads first frame is pounded by a handless, raceless hammer. This is a nation of makers. But a lot of the makers were overseason labor — non-citizens — on “American” land.
This is just scratching the surface of analysis of these ads. I know other blog contributors, especially zinc and Lisa, know a lot about histories of racism, exploitation, and making. The connections between these ads, economic anxieties, labor class formations, DIY culture, and race/ethnicity could probably be a whole book.
This Fall, I will be presenting at the Institute for Distributed Creativity’s conference “The Internet as Playground and Factory” from November 12-14 at the New School for Social Research. This looks to be a really interesting conference. As its website states, “This conference confronts the urgent need to interrogate what constitutes labor and value in the digital economy and it seeks to inspire proposals for action. Currently, there are few adequate definitions of labor that fit the complex, hybrid realities of the digital economy.” I figure that my job is to represent for the person/woman of color perspective in this. This writing is some work towards that end. So, how are bodies of color engaging with the digital economy as both labor and value, or to paraphrase Lisa Lowe through my friend race and gender scholar Grace Hong, how are bodies of color both labor and capital? What do the Mechanical Turk worker, the Twitter user, the citizen journalist, the gold farmer, and the game level author or modder have in common? And how are their interests (part of what makes this conference exciting is that it views digital laborers are both more numerous and a broader category than we thought, and also as even having interests, rather than simply demographics) similar to or different from those of people of color?
As Trebor Scholz writes on June 24 in the Institute for Digital Culture listserv, “Why do so many people care more about digital rights management on iTunes, intellectual property, and privacy on Facebook than about the suffering of people in Rwanda or indeed Neda Soltani (or the other Iranian students whose death was not recorded)?” Yet rather than seeing these two struggles—the struggle for racial justice and the struggle for the digital commons—as being two separate and opposed causes, it makes sense to me to see them as structurally linked. Both are social justice struggles that identify and challenge the mis-allocation of resources. As Andrea Volpe writes, “So the problem for the study of internet cultures, not unlike the pre-digital study of media and popular culture, is that any attempts at appropriation are complicated by top-down control of the means of expression.”
Critical race feminist theory and digital labor theory can benefit from each other—watching the Neda Soltani images on CNN I was struck by the ways that her phenotypic whiteness, beauty, youth, and gender gave her a claim to the “white woman in trouble” status that largely determines the style and extent of news coverage dedicated to violence against women in our news media. Her light skin, blue jeans, white tennis shoes, and unveiled but headscarved face permitted her to be “seen” as white, and thus as legible as a female subject to American viewers. The veil or hijab, which as Mimi Nguyen notes in “You Say You Want A Revolution (In a Loose Headscarf)” is “made to stand as a visual shorthand for Islamic oppression in the West.” Soltani’s dying body is a racialized digital image that was captured by a citizen journalist’s cell phone, and circulated via social networks like Twitter and Facebook and other pages on the web before ending up on the evening news. This is surely an epochal moment in digital media history; those of us teaching courses on new media will have to change our syllabi this year. Yet rather than viewing this as a triumph of born-digital media and the power of disenfranchised people to “get the truth out” faster and better than for-profit or commercial mass media, it is important to remember that its standing as a media event depends upon of the veil’s absence—a sign of the secular state’s power over women’s bodies– and because of the victim’s approximate whiteness. As Nguyen notes, the veil is always a sign of power over women: “both forced veiling and forced unveiling operated as disciplinary state edicts –often enacted violently on female bodies by male soldiers or police– at discrete political times to instrumentally shape a feminine civic body.” Suffering bodies are not telegenic when they belong to black or brown women in different contexts. Images of dead or dying Rwandan, Somali, or Chinese women and their children victimized by civil war, ethnic violence, famine, or the depredations of the modern slave trade fail to engage the sympathies and the air time of either legacy or “new” media: CNN and Twitter alike both earn a fail in this regard. There is, however, an immense appetite for mediation regarding black performing bodies, as the recent almost-crashing of the Internet by Michael Jackson’s recent demise attests.
As Scholz writes, DRM, privacy, and IP struggles may seem like luxuries of the moneyed class, one of the many minor irritants of the privileged digital consumer, yet they are linked to people of color issues quite intimately. In my recent work on worker-players in Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games like World of Warcraft, I describe how laborers or “gold farmers” create and sell virtual money, goods, and characters for real money. These workers are creating new racialized forms of labor. The term “Chinese gold farmer” has come to stand for all worker-players in MMO’s, just as the term “Mexican gardener” comes to stand in for all dark skinned men cutting lawns and trimming bushes in other people’s yards, be they Guatemalan, Salvadoran, or Brazilian. (The racialization of labor is a persistent effect of race classification itself—in my grandfather’s days “Japanese gardener” was a term that described him and many other Asian men in the Bay Area before the war, whether they were Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese. Today, the term “Indian computer programmer” can come to stand for Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, and all other brown people from South or West Asia.) The work that these digital migrants do is affective and embodied work within virtual worlds, yet forbidden by Blizzard’s terms of service. Blizzard’s ownership of World of Warcraft, a virtual world that is successfully marketed as and that is viewed by many of its users as a digital playground drives these forms of labor underground, where they come to resemble virtual factories. Just as in other leisure spaces, the work that maintains it must be hidden, just as is its racialization. The struggle against this type of value-extractive ownership of virtual worlds and of all digital communication forms is a racialized one, if only because it effectively criminalizes forms of transnational trade like gold farming that less fortunate people need to survive.
Neda Soltani’s death is a tragedy. I hope that nobody reading this thinks that I’m diminishing that. I mean to point out instead that beauty, gender, youth, race, and modernity came together in that piece of video that we saw to engage our sympathies in ways unavailable to other female suffering bodies. As sociologist Bonilla Silva writes in Racism Without Racists “phenotype will be a central factor determining where groups and members of racial and ethnic groups will fit—lighter people at the top, medium in the middle, dark at the bottom.” The digital labor that went into creating and distributing that piece of galvanizing media was multiply borne by thousands of people who formed an informal network, one that looked for a moment to have displaced commercial networks like CNN. It is important to track the ways that the event was quickly recuperated by the mass media industry—within hours of the story breaking CNN had altered its broadcasting to “promise” that it had “more news” about the story than any other source, presumably including the Internet. It is equally important to look at why and how this could become the particular spectacle that it did in the first place. War will always trump famine, slavery, and domestic violence as a visual event, even in “real time,” and the image of a “white woman in trouble” still represents the sine qua non of media palatability. The war became individualized and personalized—“real”–through the intimate images of Soltani’s face presumably at the moment of her demise.
The paradox of race in America is that race is both hyper-visible and commodified in both politics and media, yet simultaneously made invisible and unspeakable by individuals in social interaction as well as within the public sphere. Bonilla-Silva documents the halting and tortuous rhetoric that characterizes racial discourse, and is utterly constitutive of neoliberal racism. It is literally hard for people to talk about race. The Neda Soltani case makes this abundantly clear; pundits initially read and continue to read this as a story about the triumph of social networks and citizen journalism as an allegory for the power of the people. Race has not yet entered into this discussion at all, for some racialized bodies are not either on or in social networks. They cannot be, for reasons having to do with phenotype, access, gender, class.
This is the same paradox of the Internet itself. Value is extracted from race as it is from the Internet, but unfortunately, the proceeds are not often directed towards people of color, nor the “users” who make “user generated content.” Serious racial and class divides continue to exist and to worsen, as the furor over ownership of digital music, intellectual digital property, and virtual world currencies continues apace at academic conferences and corporate boardrooms alike.
Gender on Ice (great title) is an upcoming conference at Barnard College, New York (Nov. 20-21) focusing on “the intersection of science, policy, race, and gender in the way the Arctic and Antarctic are studied, represented, inhabited, and imagined.” Participants come from an unusually wide array of disciplines — photography, women’s studies, astronomy, filmmaking, philosophy, art history, geography, environmental studies, science writing — so it looks to be an interesting conversation at the very least.
The conference kicks off with a screening of True North, a film about Matthew Henson, the first African-American to explore the Arctic with Robert Peary in 1909. For more information, check the Gender on Ice website.