I am not sure if I would want a “feminine” version of the cyberspace (which is not to say that am happy with it in its current masculine form). I would rather it was a space that was more egalitarian for not just women and men, but also for LGBTs.
The question however of how to “take away the authorship of cyber-culture from male hands”, is still paramount.
How does one go about the process of “resignification”, ensuring that the existing power structures don’t get duplicated? The question is not just about the extent of power or space new technologies offer us. Considering the difficulty in demarcating the boundaries between the “real” and the “virtual”, how does one make sure that the hangovers of the “real” world, with its existing power structures don’t get translated into the “virtual” as well? And, is an alteration of power relations in the “virtual” world alone enough? Is it even possible to think of such changes without sufficient progress of the same in the “real”?
Haraway’s answer is that science and technology with the “fresh power” they bring with them should move towards creating “effective progressive politics”. She approaches the question from the other end, saying that “Some of the rearrangements of race, sex, and class rooted in high-tech-facilitated social relations can make socialist-feminism more relevant to effective progressive politics.” The question “how…” then is answered…. We need to look more closely at science and technology not as “technological determinism,” but more as a “historical system depending upon structured relations among people”, because, be it communication sciences or modern biologies, it’s all ultimately “The translation of the world into a problem of coding” where there is a constant search for a “common language” that satisfactorily dissolves differences and resistance to “instrumental control".
Considering all this, I think we need to dwell more upon a “feminine cyborg identity”. If a resignification of the entire space is possible so that the hierarchies of gender are disregarded, if it is impossible to “essentialise” the self into one single identity, doesn’t the umbrella term “feminine cyborg identity” become redundant? Don’t we need to think more in the lines of “affinity” that Haraway mentions rather than crystallize identities? If so, how then will we locate a cyborg self?
This blog has kindled my interest in the topic of cyberspace, cyberblog etc. Till I read this I didn't know the 'war of the sexes' has reached the cyberworld! I agree with you - I won't want a 'feminine' version and a 'masculine' version of the cyberspace. It will only confuse the user. One version is more than enough for users like me, be it feminine or masculine so long as it works.
ReplyDeleteThe point about existing power structures getting duplicated is very well-taken and indeed a very relevant one in today's context, where one finds 'aggressive feminism' wants supremacy over the other gender and not equality. In such a situation can there ever be ' an effective progressive politics?'
But frankly what is in a name? Does calling something by a masculine or a feminine name make any difference (as long as it is not derogatory) provided equal access to the 'virtual' world is available without discrimination to both genders inhabiting this 'real' world?
What is in a nomenclature?
In my opinion this whole issue seems to be contrived by those who obviously have more time and less work in their hands.
But thanks for this ‘blog’ for it has set me thinking on various issues. I am sure those who read will certainly be drawn into this debate; they may agree or disagree and side with either one or the other view but will find it difficult to ignore this and remain neutral.
Wow...how much thinking women are capable of...amazed. But some things can't be demasculinated, no matter how u feel about it... should we call a 'man hole' a 'person hole'...david letterman becomes david letterperson...u get my drift.
ReplyDeleteBut mind blowing...my mom I mean. She's really mind blowing.
- ARUN SUKUMAR