Shibinator

Book Review

The book //Gender// //and Community in the Social Construction of the Internet// by Leslie Regan Shade argues that women and the people with less resources cannot be marginalized from the new medium, the Internet. The Internet is the right tool for the knowledge economy and “it is the site of wealth, power and influence, now and in the future.” But in the euphoria of bridging digital divide the Internet is actively promoted as a “tool for eradicating poverty, empowering community, creating new jobs and enhancing democracy.” But everybody does not believe in this cyberutopian discourse. If the cyberspace is the right metaphor for community, then there has to be intensive studies on the varied network of digital relationships, and the participation and engagement of the digital citizens in each and every stage of it.

With this background, the book asks four basic questions. How different communications technologies, gendered historically through social practices, have been studied by various feminist scholars. How some women’s communities using the Internet gets into some interesting case studies. It also provides some critical feminist perspectives of digital capitalism. Finally, the book provides some policy framework from feminist perspectives and suggests that women become more actively involved in the continued shaping of Internet culture and technology.

The book highlights the current emergence and promotion of commercial interests in the Internet based on the theories of social construction of technology and how compelling it is for looking for gender and technology. The book accepts the limitations of SCOT and discusses Winner’s criticism of SCOT, “an almost total disregard for the social consequences of technical choice … what the introduction of new artifacts means for people’s sense of self, for the texture of human communities, for qualities of everyday living, and for the broader distribution of power in society”.

Social construction of technology also fails to consider gender and other disenfranchised social groups in many of its case studies of technology. By focusing on the consumer, the social consumption of technologies for individuals and communities can offer more insight. The book defends this argument. Feminist historical analyses have also underscored several conspicuous components of mainstream social science studies. The book argues that focus on the political economy and women and the Internet is part of the study. In this light the author argues that targeting women as consumers, commodification of information, women’s access and participation are important issues that need special attention.

The book also deals with the tensions between corporate strategies and use of the Internet by women in a very casual manner. The author has given some examples where similar studies have been done in other communications technologies, like, the telephone, the radio, the television. It touches on the points that women communities can use the Internet for activism, mainly for feminist ideas and democracy for women. But it fails to offer any meaningful ways and means of doing it on the Internet.

(Sixth Contribution 11/07/07) Our generations in India hate the British. This is an anti-colonial legacy we have inherited from our earlier generations. We dislike the British not for the oppression perpetrated by a few political and military officials. That was bearable. The rulers will rule by the gun. But we hate the British intellectuals. During the eighteenth and Nineteenth century, British intelligentsia was teaching the world ethics and morality when their parliament was acting otherwise throughout the colonial empire. They were not part of the direct oppression of the colonies. But they were silent and they took full advantage of the colonial loot.

British colonial past is history now.

But are we not committing the same mistakes? The ethics surrounding the fresh organ transplant racket can never be supported. But it is continuing and will continue because we are on the other side of the table. “Yes, the poor are being exploited. And I do not belong to the poor.”

I am ashamed. Fifty years down the line a child in Manila or Moldovo will point her finger to us and utter the same bad words that I have for the British.

But can those children (sons and daughters of kidneyless parents) really speak?

Yes, you are right. It is sounding like Spivak’s “Can the Subalterns Speak?”

(Fifth Contribution 10/31/07)

Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies is not a history of the reemergence of the cell or the ideas of its plasticity but the constant presence of the questions of cultured cells and the growing and shaping of cells and their lives. The cultured cell was even present in the days of genetics and molecular biology as an invisible infrastructural condition. The particular technique of tissue culture puts emphasis on the practices that exploit the plasticity of living things. Plasticity is the ability of living things to continue living despite catastrophic interference in the environment.

What impressed me most while reading this book is that scientists constantly engage themselves to find out how things work. Never satisfied with what they know but concentrate on what they are yet to know. This inquisitiveness finally reach them to states where (in this reading) they mastered the techniques of plasticity or the modes of operationalizing biological time, making things endure according to human intentions.

Tissue culture and the subsequent cloning (barring a few ethical issues) are great achievements in biotechnology. But the authoress puts finally a pertinent question. Amidst all the materials and methods of biotechnology the centrality of the human is often lost. Implication of the human health is there for funding and investment motives but how much of biotechnology is about human biology? The reading categorically states, “Once we have a more specific grasp on how altering biology changes what it is to be biological, we may be more prepared to answer the social questions that biotechnology is raising.” The social and cultural values of being biological entities, in other words to be both biological things and human persons at the same time, raises the fundamental question of the approach to research in biotechnology.

(Fourth Contribution. 10/16/2007) I write this essay to prepare the framework for my dissertation on e-governance in India Cyberspace now touches all lives. If it does not, policy makers at national levels need to do something drastic and immediate. The whisper of technological promise with the advent of ICT has to be a reality soon. The have-nots have to be integrated into the mainstream of developmental paradigm through the virtuality powered by cyberspace. National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) initiated by the central government in India is a step in that direction. But the political, cultural and economic tensions of the virtual world need to be analyzed to discern the structures that govern it. This essay is an attempt in preparing the framework for understanding power in Indian cyberspace. The everyday use of the word power generally refers to the ability of persons or objects to do certain things. Analyzing power can be a good tool to understand political, cultural and technological objects or infrastructures. The process can also lead us to some fundamental questions as who can do what and who cannot? Who has the power and who does not? An e-governance initiative can well be analyzed better by understanding its power relationships in its political, cultural and social links. Three different theories of power are discussed here: the power as a possession formulated by Weber; the power as a result of interactions among individuals suggested by Barnes; and finally, the power as networks of domination postulated by Foucault. In this concept Weber (1952; 1986) suggests that power like an object is a possession. By possessing it someone can enforce a desire over others. This brings us to the idea that power is intentional; there is a will to enforce it. With Weber one can understand the actions and the effects related to power. Second, power as a possession needs a resistance to manifest itself. Power gets dissipated if everyone willingly follows orders. Third, power should be able to overcome a resistance and enforce a will. This theory of power as possession leaves some questions answered. What enforces obedience to the power of will and what overcomes the resistance? This individual instances of power obfuscates the existence of collective structures of social relations that already exists to make sense of the individual instances. Barnes talk about power as various routines of social life based on our collective knowledge. People obey strictures because they have collectively agreed to obey it and they are all aware of the consequences of disobeying it. This is how power resides on collectively constituted structures in a society; often delegated to other structures in different forms. This idea becomes very useful in investigating large technological systems in which people delegate power and create a collectively held knowledge about it. Barnes elaborates, “Social power is the added capacity for action that accrues to individuals through their constituting a distribution of knowledge and thereby a society (Barnes, 1988: 57).” This theory has three interesting implications in understanding cyberspace. Primarily it tells us the individual’s power and its source, that social power can be embodied in objects and finally, knowledge and power are essentially the same thing. Barnes looks at power as “sustained by genuinely co-operative social interaction (Barnes, 1988: x).” Power to him is neither good nor bad but a tool to understand how social order is maintained. This then puts aside the common use of the term: used to repress and dominate. Power in more general terms is used to understand inequalities and oppressions. This would lead us to the analysis of social inequalities. This shifts the position from what power is to the analysis of how power represses. In the third theory suggested by Foucault power is considered as a force that generates structures of inequality between people. It is similar to Barne’s relations between people but it is against Weber’s idea of power as possession. Here power is manifested more as an effect than an object. The full significance of power is understood within a number of other relations. So, power in Foucault’s idea is more of a relation and not as possession. Power is a relation that is part of many social relationships which create inequalities. Interestingly, power is not exercised only by the elite in a society over the inferiors but traverses across all people. Its effects can be felt in a multitude of minor or major instances. It is a relationship between the dominator and the dominated. It hardly appears with clarity but produces a form that creates multiple positions individuals occupy in the strategies of power. Much of Foucault’s conception of power can be close to the ideas of Barnes. But the focus on the process of oppression allows more politically acute version to emerge with Foucault. Power also moves to produce certain effects but is never driven by any one will. Different elements move in a way to fulfill an overall purpose. There may be grand strategies of social power that rely on micro-tactics to work. In order to understand inequality in India’s cyberspace it might be important to concentrate on the education system or the caste system which maintains the divisions of rich and poor. Another important issue in this theory of power is that there is no single individual to control and maintain this power game. If patriarchy is the cause of power relations between men and women then it is impossible to find out a council for patriarchy. As a methodology, it is important to find out some purposeful tactics implemented as a strategic design of domination. Analyzing power in this way also helps in analyzing power in governance. A governance is not a single institutionalized form which governs daily conduct nor is it the bureaucracy. But it is the analysis of the way people act in relation to each other. If it is true that power has a hand in forming individual nature, needs and desires, then examination of power should produce an analysis of the typical conduct of individuals and how that conduct contributes to, produces or resists forms of power. Foucault describes, “Power applies to immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him (1983: 212).” In the question of a National e-governance plan (NeGP) in India, the question that should be important now is to find out under what conditions was this initiative produced and offered to the people and what were the conditions that can use the cyber facility to enforce their will? In order to possess the e-governance portal, it had to be constituted first. What were the rules that governed the construction of the whole facility starting from its design stage? All these questions will form the points of analysis for studying power in Indian cyberspace in my study of NeGP. Barnes, B. (1988). //The Nature of Power//. Polity, Cambridge. Foucault, M. (1983) The Subject and Power, in Dreufus, H. and Rabinow, P. //Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics,// second edition, Chicago University Press. Weber, M. (1952). Class, Status, Party, in Gerth, H and Wright Mills, C. (eds) //From Max Weber.// Routledge, London: 180. Weber, M. (1986). Domination by Economic Power and by Authority, in Lukes, S (ed). //Power: Readings in Social and Political Theory//. Blackwell, Oxford.
 * Power Relationships in the Digital World**
 * Power as Possession**
 * Power as Social Order**
 * Power as Domination**
 * References**


 * Genome Space ( 3rd Contribution Oct 03, 2007)**

I have been trying to work out some correlations between difference (as discussed in Derrida) and the multiplicity of genes. Let me try it. Pene Deutscher while trying to make my life a little easier reading Derrida says, “Difference is neither present nor absent. … Instead, it is a kind of differentiation that produces the effect of identity and of difference between those identities.” A classic case is the meaning of dog. It is not a four-legged animal only. It can be domesticated; it can be of different breeds, etc. Interestingly, all these new words (four legged, domesticate) will lead us to new meanings of the same object. There is no end to this continuous flow of signifieds from a single signifier. Saussure has some interesting suggestions here. There are various ideas generated from signs. But what is important is the value emanating from the system. “These concepts are purely differential, not positively defined by their content but negatively defined by their relations with other terms of the system.” The most interesting concept here is that signs are what others are not. Derrida reiterating this theory said, “the first consequence to be drawn from this is that the signified concept is never present in and of itself, in a sufficient presence that would refer only to itself … every concept is inscribed in a chain or in a system within which it refers to the other, to other concepts, by means of the systematic play of differences.” Deutscher further writes that, “The interconnections of atoms, or cells, or chemicals, or gene coding involve systems in which relational differences circulate whose spatiality and temporality, the spacing and connections and breaches between combinations and substitutions amount to energy, life, species, materiality, disposition, emotion.” I believe Fortun is trying to argue in a similar line in his genome space. “What are the qualities of genome space? What effects might such qualities, particularly the avalanches or deluges of data, have on the individuals and institutions that populate the genome space?” There has to be a better understanding of the genome space in all its excesses of exploding databases, multiple and contradictory categorization frameworks for human populations. It really becomes difficult to locate causality and responsibility in any one individual, type, technology, idea, institution or any other vital force of scientific research.

Finally Fortun has defined what good science is. “Only a relationship of care – an openness to the data avalanche, a welcoming of it, respecting its alterity and mutability, attempting to grasp it in its entirety in order to shake it, querying and rattling the whole fragile yet sturdy structure to find its play, its surprises, its excess – can produce good science.”
 * Deconstructing Feminism: Some Thoughts (2nd contribution)**

Derrida argues that valuing ethnic origin or purity is ‘appropriative madness’. He is more apprehensive about the explanations of self, identity or experience by referencing one’s historical and cultural origin. It pre-supposes that one’s origins are fixed and often fails to interrogate certain existing gaps. Derrida confirms that the “responsibility lies in negotiating contradiction without the promise of resolution” (p 47). Derrida rejects the concept of an umbrella of secured values or ideals.

In politics, authorities either try to justify the price paid by one group or to justify the price of maintaining the hierarchy of the accompanying progress. Both are questionable in the lights of deconstruction. An on-going negotiation is a constant improvement on the authoritarian self-justification. So, we are left with the constant deconstruction of concepts that we have inherited.

Derrida warns that social activists, people involved in feminism, race, national or cultural politics, should be careful of this inherent threat. In order to raise the status of the devalued activists often tend to create another opposite ideal. Deconstruction is the mechanism of disrupting ideals of identity not to fix them. “I resist this movement that tends towards a narcissism of minorities that is developing everywhere – including within feminist movements (p 47).

Derrida cautioned that feminists have to be careful in affirming that the movement is going from a less feminist past to a more feminist future. Many of his deconstruction studies have analyzed the phallocentrism of classical philosophers, for example, the power, privilege and authority associated with masculinity. But feminism has to be free from idealization and the very debasements that is criticized of phallocentric tradition.

This constant negotiation and deconstruction has given feminism a new course in its progressive path. Many writers have started self-criticism of feminism’s failure to integrate perspectives and priorities of women of different backgrounds, classes and cultures. The homogeneous notions of rights and entitlements of the white, middle class women finally opened its doors to women of color, women of different races and even women from different continents.

Any movement (including feminism) once institutionalized has the threat of becoming as authoritarian as any other institution. The approach Derrida suggests is a constant process of negotiation. He adopts a process otherwise known as “both and”. In feminism it would be to support gender studies and be critical of it simultaneously.

Deutscher, P. 2005. How to Read Derrida? Granta Books, London**
 * Reference

We were out on a cruise on the Hudson last Sunday. It was chilly out on the deck but cool to be with a girl from Language Department. Not the right place to start a conversation on post-structuralism and deconstruction but Maria was unstoppable. How to read Derrida was her favorite topic. In between our puffs and some rounds of black coffee Maria continued with some occasional interruptions from me. I could never make out how the three hours passed off without even realizing it. Maria: There is always a threat to the purity of the inside. The heritage of ideas that we have inherited from writers and philosophers needs constant inventions and reinventions. Once you understand Derrida you will find this job easy. Although much of his later works can be applied in the everyday problems and politics, Derrida’s career began with new interpretations from history of philosophy and twentieth-century literature. The problem with Derrida is that you have to understand both Derrida and Plato at the same time when he is interpreting Plato. SS: Do you mean that Derrida’s ideas can be appropriated in all the fields? Maria: Yes, Derrida can be applied in many of the domains like religion, philosophy, public policy and even biology and genetics. The idea of purity can be applied in the war on drugs quite well. The authorities everywhere have a tendency to constitute the ideal body or the true body. Derrida would encourage us to scrutinize the validity of this concept ‘ideal’. What is the meaning of “organic and originary naturalness”? Our bodies are full of toxins from the environment. It is full of ‘unnatural’ materials from various sources. If we tend to forget this then we will incorporate the elevation of a phantom ideal – a drug-free body. But we must never have the illusion that a purely idealized body is achievable. SS: So, you mean that a pure body has no meaning? Maria: Exactly. It is a false notion of the authorities to restore the purity of inside by bringing in charges against the exteriority as a supplement. Purity can never be restored. By this prohibition of drugs or by devaluing other external toxins we only create an idea of purity. It only tries to avert the question whether there could be any natural body? SS: But Maria, how do you apply all these ideas in other contexts? Maria: You will find this concept of potentially pure ideas in defining God, nature, cultural identity, etc. In our society we often tend to bring in the idea of purity in order to undermine some acts as unnatural or threatening. Derrida calls these threats as ‘other’. He wants to interrogate this devaluation of the unnatural at the same time questioning the argument of pure and natural. This is what deconstruction is all about. This deconstruction can also be understood as the process of breaking down or exposing the weakness of idealizing that will never stand up to scrutiny. SS: Can you give me another example? I don’t think I have understood you completely. Maria: Of course. Let’s take the controversy on speech and writing. In the history and philosophy of language there is a particular hierarchy of speech over writing. Aristotle, Plato and others prefer speech as closer to logos or knowledge and reason than written words. SS: You mean that is why Plato has used the term orphaned son metaphorically for writing as if out of control of the father or the author? Maria: Yes, exactly. Plato claims in //Phaedrus// speech is closer to the physical presence of individuals conveying ideas. Derrida countered it by saying that speech is a kind of writing as well. If writing is the inscription of a communicated idea of the mind so it is secondary. But speech does not have ‘guarantee of immediacy with consciousness’ either. In that case don’t you think that speech has the same attributes as writing? SS: You mean there might be some slips? I might not say what I mean? So Derrida is challenging the devaluation of writing and the ideation of speech here? Maria: Yes, you have got the point right. But be very careful here. People think Derrida prefers writing to speech. Not at all, he is only suspicious about the ideation of speech in the form of phantom promise of the natural, the pure or the original. In order to draw our attention to such phantom promises he is only giving this complex definition of writing.
 * __Derrida, Coffee and Cigarettes (1st Contribution)__**
 * The moral of the story is:**
 * Three hours with a lady is not enough, if she is a Derrida enthusiast.**

Reference Deutscher, P. 2005. How to Read Derrida? Granta Books, London.