Don’t Touch My MIDI Cables: Gender, Technology and Sound in Live Coding

IF 0.9 2区 社会学 Q3 WOMENS STUDIES
Joanne L. Armitage, H. Thornham
{"title":"Don’t Touch My MIDI Cables: Gender, Technology and Sound in Live Coding","authors":"Joanne L. Armitage, H. Thornham","doi":"10.1177/0141778920973221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Live coding is an embodied, sensorial and live technological–human relationship that is recursively iterated through sonic and visual outputs based on what we argue are kinship relations between and through bodies and technology. At the same time, and in a familiar moment of déjà vu for feminist scholars, live coding is most often discussed not in relation to the lived and sensory human–technology kinship, but in terms of fetishised code or software, output and agency. As feminist scholars have long argued, emphasising and fetishising code or software, and celebrating output and agency are normatively masculine, white and Western conceptions of technology that feed into the growing valorisation of accelerationist logic whilst also negating embodied, not to mention other (non-white, Western, masculine) bodies, expertise or histories per se. In this article, we want to redress this by drawing on our empirical material on live coding to focus on human–technology kinship and, in so doing, think about failure, slowness and embodiment and about human–technology relations that are more akin to what Alison Kafer (drawing on the work of Donna Haraway) has termed ‘becoming with’ or ‘making kin’. This, we argue, has the potential to shift the focus from the potentialities of technologies on or through the body, towards the generative capacities of mediation (including failure), which are caught up in lived experiences. The question is not only about how the relations of bodies and technologies are played out in certain circumstances but about what might be played out if we reconceptualise these relations in these terms.","PeriodicalId":47487,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Review","volume":"127 1","pages":"90 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0141778920973221","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0141778920973221","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Live coding is an embodied, sensorial and live technological–human relationship that is recursively iterated through sonic and visual outputs based on what we argue are kinship relations between and through bodies and technology. At the same time, and in a familiar moment of déjà vu for feminist scholars, live coding is most often discussed not in relation to the lived and sensory human–technology kinship, but in terms of fetishised code or software, output and agency. As feminist scholars have long argued, emphasising and fetishising code or software, and celebrating output and agency are normatively masculine, white and Western conceptions of technology that feed into the growing valorisation of accelerationist logic whilst also negating embodied, not to mention other (non-white, Western, masculine) bodies, expertise or histories per se. In this article, we want to redress this by drawing on our empirical material on live coding to focus on human–technology kinship and, in so doing, think about failure, slowness and embodiment and about human–technology relations that are more akin to what Alison Kafer (drawing on the work of Donna Haraway) has termed ‘becoming with’ or ‘making kin’. This, we argue, has the potential to shift the focus from the potentialities of technologies on or through the body, towards the generative capacities of mediation (including failure), which are caught up in lived experiences. The question is not only about how the relations of bodies and technologies are played out in certain circumstances but about what might be played out if we reconceptualise these relations in these terms.
不要碰我的MIDI电缆:性别,技术和声音在现场编码
实时编码是一种具体的、感官的、实时的技术-人类关系,它通过声音和视觉输出递归地迭代,基于我们所说的身体和技术之间的亲缘关系。与此同时,对于女权主义学者来说,在一个熟悉的时刻,现场编码最常被讨论的不是与生活和感性的人类-技术亲属关系,而是在拜物教的代码或软件,输出和代理方面。正如女权主义学者长期以来所争论的那样,强调和迷恋代码或软件,颂扬输出和代理,在规范上是男性化的,白人和西方的技术概念,这些概念助长了加速主义逻辑的日益增值,同时也否定了具体化,更不用说其他(非白人,西方,男性化)身体,专业知识或历史本身。在这篇文章中,我们想要纠正这一点,通过我们的经验材料,现场编码,专注于人与技术的亲缘关系,并在这样做,思考失败,缓慢和具体化,以及人类与技术的关系,更类似于艾莉森·卡弗(借鉴唐娜·哈拉威的工作)所说的“成为”或“制造亲属”。我们认为,这有可能将焦点从技术对身体或通过身体的潜力转移到调解(包括失败)的生成能力,这在生活经验中被捕获。问题不仅在于身体和技术的关系在特定情况下是如何发挥的,而且在于如果我们用这些术语重新定义这些关系,可能会产生什么结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Feminist Review
Feminist Review WOMENS STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Feminist Review is a peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal setting new agendas for the analysis of the social world. Currently based in London with an international scope, FR invites critical reflection on the relationship between materiality and representation, theory and practice, subjectivity and communities, contemporary and historical formations. The FR Collective is committed to exploring gender in its multiple forms and interrelationships. As well as academic articles we publish experimental pieces, visual and textual media and political interventions, including, for example, interviews, short stories, poems and photographic essays.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信