Re: [Air-l]RE: [Air-l] Re: first post (An Internet without Space)
I'd like to add that Edward Casey's *Fate of Place* is also a stimulating set of reflections and history of the concepts involved, Kevin Tharp <k.tharp@cqu.edu.au> writes:
Regarding the place - space conversation, a question comes to my mind. When we invest of ourselves in cyberspaces or cyberplaces, are we investing in the space/place, or are we investing in the people that occupy that space/place.
I'd say we are investing in what we can do as well. That clearly involves the people, but it also involves the demands of offline life, the way it fits in with our online activities and so on. It is possible certain structures of online forums might facilitate different kinds of actions, different kinds of interactions etc. They m ight also attract different kinds of people. Thus giving the feel of different kinds of space or place. And it would be the ability to make the comparisons between forums, and sites and what they enable, which make them seem like different kinds of 'locale' (to use the term I prefer :), to an extent which is not the case with 'phone space' or 'TV space' where only a limited set of relatively uniform actitons are possible.
As a researcher/practitioner in the development of cyber**aces that can encourage and support the interaction between the people of a geographic locality, it seems to me that an understanding of such things lies in the perceptions of the people that appropriate them as part of their lives.
So yes, if its a community forum that we are thinking of, then the way this enables actions in the community is really important. otherwise people will continue to use the old channels for many things - if not everything. The old channels will support old power networks for one. If the community computer network becomes a local business spam channel for example it will probably be abandoned pretty quickly - at least more quickly than a bushfire or flood alert channel might be. So there are issues of power to begin with. The network is never 'pure'.
Similar to the concept of community (dare I use such word in educated company), it is not the infrastructure that makes the community, it is the people that make the community. The community is then supported by the infrastructure.
I'd suggest that the infrastructure is not quite that passive. The infra structure allows certain types of community to form, and is in turn shaped by the politics of that community and may reinforce those politics. The more permanent the structure the more it enstructures. But even a permanent shifting structure enables certain behaviours more than others. These structures can then largely determine who interacts with who and thus which people ally with each other, which people compete with each other, which people become the pivital points of communication, which people get defined as outsiders, criminals or heretics and so on. jon UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ========================================================================
Sorry for crossposting - please fwd to all who may be interested. r Call for Chapters: Webbing Cyberfeminist Practice: Communities, Pedagogies, and Social Action Kristine Blair, Bowling Green State University, <mailto:kblair@bgnet.bgsu.edu>kblair@bgnet.bgsu.edu, Radhika Gajjala, Bowling Green State University, <mailto:radhik@bgnet.bgsu.edu>radhik@bgnet.bgsu.edu, Christine Tulley, University of Findlay, <mailto:tulley@findlay.edu>tulley@findlay.edu Although current manifestations of cyberfeminism are visible in various digital, computer-mediated environments, some of these seem to imply that the only concern for cyberfeminists should be the setting up of a feminist counterculture in the form of spaces merely in opposition to the presumed masculinist hegemony online. Yet if cyberfeminist agendas are indeed to produce subversive countercultures that are empowering to women and men of lesser material and socio-cultural privilege the world over, it is important for us to examine how individuals and communities are situated within the complex global and local contexts mediated by unequal relations of power. To address these issues, Webbing Cyberfeminist Practice: Communities, Pedagogies, and Social Action, will feature an interdisciplinary collection of voices that address both the possibilities and constraints of female and feminist identity, community, and social/educational transformation in cyberspace. Contributors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the appropriate section editor for a 20-25 page chapter. Our proposed text is organized into three sections: Section I. The Everyday Life of Borderwork (Section Editor, Christine Tulley) What do female web spaces look like when they operate in opposition to or distinctly from standard borders/communities (for example, classroom and community spaces, political arenas, or cultural centers)? What happens to women who design cyberspaces that dont necessarily fall under the category of feminist? Some potential areas to investigate for this category might include: The practice of shopping for women in cyberspace Communities with a traditionally feminine focus Cybercommunities for moms Websites for women devoted to specific feminist interest Dating websites or profiles We are open to other areas for investigation as well, especially those projects that examine practices of women using the net that cannot be easily labeled or operate on or beyond borders previously established by other fields of study. Section II. Classroom and Community Networks (Section Editor, Kristine Blair) Essays in this section will focus on the role of technology in fostering feminist teaching and learning communities, including community action and service learning projects and the gender and power dynamics that evolve as more and more women enroll in distance education or seek access to communication networks as part of their academic, professional, and social lives. Possible questions to guide the section include: In what ways do feminist theory and critical cultural pedagogies intersect with classroom and community e-space to foster reciprocity, dialogue, and social activism? How do women, as educators and activists, construct and sustain virtual spaces that potentially subvert cultural views of technology as male? Rather than align ourselves with uncritical views of technology as liberator, contributors should theorize the role of technology in classroom practice and social action projects, acknowledging the possibilities and constraints of virtual spaces in subverting traditional intersections among gender, power, and identity to foster social and political transformation both locally and globally. Section III. Building Cyberfeminist Webs (Section Editor, Radhika Gajjala) For this section of the book, the authors solicit essays that develop and analyze strategies and tactics for building cyberfeminist webs. Even as women are displayed visibly in relation to various technological contexts, the complex gendered, raced, classed, embodied - in short the socio-cultural and economically situated nature of technological design and practices - are not acknowledged often enough; thus we seek engagement with the following questions: What are women allowed to use these technologies for and why? Which women are allowed, and under what conditions? Where and how can we locate agency in relation to these spaces and practices? At the same time there exists a mediated visibility of gender in relation to computers and cyberspace, much discourse surrounding new technologies implicitly assumes the transparency of these technologies. Thus this section will include various critical theoretical perspectives that practically form the necessary collaborations to design and produce dialogic electronic networks. Deadlines: 500-Word Abstracts: April 15, 2004 Selection of Abstracts: June 15, 2004 First Version of Manuscripts: September 15, 2004 Feedback to Authors: November 15, 2004 Final Versions: January 15, 2005 _____________ http://www.cyberdiva.org blogs: http://www.cyberdiva.org/cyberdiv/october research and teaching: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik
participants (2)
-
Jonathan Marshall -
Radhika Gajjala