[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Prototyping



Hi Colin,

Thanks for the article.  This article suggests that the Maker movement is indeed very litertarian in nature.  Kevin Kelley and Chris Anderson are very libertarian in their thinking and are probably behind the role of this thinking among computer enthusiasts (through Wired).  I'm not sure I agree with some of Morozov's other ideas though.  Stuart Brand was peripheral to the personal computer movement (he was actually mostly out of it from 1972-77 when much of it was going on).  He did organize the first Hacker conference, but that was in response to Steven Levy's book about the Homebrew Computer Club and the emergence of gaming on the West Coast where he called many of the people involved hackers).  But the characters involved in the beginnings of the Maker movement convince that the Vossoughi, Escude and Hooper's article was really on the mark.

Michael




-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Dixon
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 2:20 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Prototyping

Linked here is a read of the maker movement and related moments in history.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/13/making-it-2. It came to mind because it connects some of the pieces that Michael Glassman and others have put on the table.

I work with some "maker" funded education efforts, and think that nearly all of the critiques described here stick. The characterizations of resources, values and politics don't ring true everywhere, but enough places to worry.

However, to Shirin's concern, I'll share a reflection. When working today with a 'maker club' in a high school (albeit one with a somewhat alternative structure, if not a lot of resources), one thing that struck me was the degree to which the students saw in their 'maker club' an opportunity to make types of relationships they didn't feel they could establish in other parts of the school. Many of them described it, and aspired for it, to be a place where they could relate to peers - across grades, interests, and cliques - as well as teachers, in ways that felt different and important. This was primary goal - that seemed to be more important than the objects they were interested in creating. At least that's what they told an educator/researcher. I have also seen the importance of maker spaces in schools as places that allow young people to keep working in school on things they do or are interested in outside of school - which is, i think, mostly about subject-subject, even when disguised as subject-object.

I don't know that these phenomena have to do with the activity of 'making'
or a connection to 'maker movement', (and maybe they happen despite the maker movement, given it's rhetorical focus). It may just be about sneaking open-ended work and less hierarchical structures into school, under the hood of a laser cutter.  Therefore, the claim isn't that 'making' is anything new, but that it may be able, currently, to create a place to retain some of the old that's being squeezed out elsewhere (whether that's creative species being, or just just friendship).  It's no excuse to stop advocating for and creating this space in other parts of schools, of course.

As Vossoughi, Escude and Hooper's article shows, what constitutes 'making'
is still being contested. In schools (or afterschool programs - many of which, with STEM at the bow, are looking more and more schoolish),  I think there are people working to do with prototyping what Zaza's describes above as the power of prototyping: create spaces where the learners "realize there are alternative subject positions" and start to see a role for themselves in producing the environments (like schools) in which they are positioned as (coerced) consumers. That's an optimistic take. Producing those environments through the manufacture of objects is perhaps not the appropriate place to start, given the abundance and history of objects in US society. But political structures social relations can feel impenetrable when looked at head on - as Zaza's great article makes clear.

usually just listening,
- Colin


On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Shirin Vossoughi < shirinvossoughi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Phillip and all
>
> I was very happy to come across the Chachra as I think she draws 
> attention to these other forms of making (mending, repair, caring) 
> that may be undervalued by the "maker movement", but also that making 
> itself as an umbrella term that other forms of human activity are now 
> somehow accountable to is too narrow. Here is her piece for those who 
> might be
> interested:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/why-i-
> am-not-a-maker/384767/
>
> One of the things that continues to worry me is the focus on 
> subject-object relations over and above subject-subject relations 
> within making. Or that subject-subject relations become valued in so 
> far as they lead to the generation of more innovative products, but 
> not as ends in themselves (maybe this is more along the lines of 
> conviviality?). This relates in my mind to the ways teaching is often 
> positioned as inherently didactic and problematic rather than as a 
> potentially powerful, beautiful (and
> bi-directional) relation.
>
> Zaza I am very much looking forward to reading your paper. Thank you 
> for sharing it here.
>
> Shirin
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:16 PM, White, Phillip < 
> Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > to further support for the case that more is being consumed than 
> > information, and conviviality, i quote Jean Lave, from Teaching as
> Learning
> > - "I began to inquire into just what was being learned by the
> apprentices,
> > and found that the apprentices were learning many complex "lessons" 
> > at once. To name a few: they were learning relations among the major 
> > social identities and divisions in Liberian society which they were 
> > in the business of dressing. They were learning to make a life, to 
> > make a
> living,
> > to make clothes, to grow old enough, and mature enough to become 
> > master tailors, and to see the truth of the respect due to a master 
> > of their trade. It seems trivially true that they were never doing 
> > only one of
> these
> > things at a time."
> >
> >
> > Teaching, as Learning. in Practice
> >
> > Jean Lave
> >
> >
> > phillip
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com 
> > <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:10:01 AM
> > To: Zaza Kabayadondo; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Prototyping
> >
> > Phillip, Michael, Mike
> > To say: Consumed can be an example of full engagement and what is 
> > being consumed is more than information, what is also being consumed 
> > is (shared
> > feelings) to my ears can be related to Michael’s reminder and return 
> > to *tools of conviviality* and also to Franklin who with the 
> > guidance of Vivian is learning (and developing) democratic spirit.
> >
> > On page 212 of the article by Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escude is also 
> > explored when they reference Chachra (2015) who juxtaposes the KINDS 
> > of human activity that *tend to be* (intend, intentional, 
> > intentional/ity as multiple lines) VALUED by the maker movement with 
> > the everyday practices that have been the practices of  women.
> >
> > These historically practiced ways of making such as:
> > Mending, repairing, teaching, caregoving.
> >
> > The case the article presents is that the making movement may be
> devaluing
> > and delegitimizing  these tools of conviviality. Self-identifying 
> > with
> the
> > maker movement may develop through ones *gestures* (meaning making) 
> > a gendered way of moving that exemplifies possible gendered forms of 
> > engineering design and educational *products* and *productivity* 
> > (notice the ity that to my ears calls forth *inner* meaning)
> >
> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >
> > From: Zaza Kabayadondo
> > Sent: October 19, 2016 7:32 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Prototyping
> >
> > Thank you for sharing Vossoughi, Harper and Escudé's paper on the 
> > appropriation of "making" in schools. I'm adding this to my syllabus 
> > for next semester!
> >
> > I agree with Mike, Peg and Molly's suggestion that there seems to be 
> > a natural affinity between the AT in CHAT and prototyping.
> >
> > On the topic of production and consumption: the potency in 
> > prototyping
> lies
> > in the contexts for prototyping where learners/prototypers realize 
> > there are alternative subject positions for them to occupy. Through 
> > prototyping they start to shift from seeing their relationship to 
> > the material world
> as
> > one of consumption to seeing the role they can play as producers. 
> > Often this role is subversive, and therein lies the difference 
> > between kukiya-kiya (and the glossary of similar terms, jailbreaking 
> > etc) and
> maker
> > movement. So I guess, what I'm concerned with here is the difference 
> > in subject positions associated with consumption and production.
> >
> > Kukiya-kiya is a situated, emergent, form of activity that responds 
> > to
> and
> > evolves with political context of subjects who are excluded or
> disinherited
> > (kukiya-kiya) while Maker movement (making as a form of club 
> > activity celebrated for its liberatory potential) at least in its 
> > present form, mostly entails activity that is sanitized from all 
> > political inflection
> and
> > with little proffered in the form of recourse for justice, equity,
> access,
> > ownership of the material. If both are meant to equip learners with 
> > a way of thinking about materials as a form of access to things, 
> > processes, systems they do not have access to, kukiya-kiya does so 
> > without making to much of itself while making (of the maker 
> > movement) is all pomp and
> little
> > sense of "how is this useful to me in my situation [of disinheritance]"
> for
> > individual learners.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:15 PM, White, Phillip < 
> > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > My off the top of my head, Michael, is that in part information is
> being
> > > consumed - as well as shared feelings of success, or frustration, 
> > > or
> good
> > > cheer.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, even in a Batesonian-way. Imminent mind is being both 
> > > produced and consumed.
> > >
> > > And of course, to consume can also be an example of full 
> > > engagement (consumed with interest) and the root is "to take up".
> > >
> > > Some thoughts.
> > >
> > > Phillip
> > >
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> > >   Original Message
> > > From: mike cole
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:45 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Reply To: eXtended Mind, 
> > > Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Prototyping
> > >
> > >
> > > Hell, Peg -- I cannot get my tomatoes to grow in the odd weather 
> > > we
> have
> > > had this summer, let alone get them to market. Pretty much can be 
> > > said
> > for
> > > my scholarly efforts as well!
> > >
> > > I have been mulling over why prototyping and CHAT appear to have a 
> > > kind
> > of
> > > natural affinity. I am speculating at the moment that both are 
> > > focused
> on
> > > production, and the AT part of CHAT is very clearly focused on
> > production.
> > > Just think of the activities of those who attend, say, ISCAR.
> > >
> > > But production is intimately (dare I say dialectically?) related 
> > > to consumption. Where is the good CHAT scholarship on the Foodie movement?
> > > What is being consumed in an activity-centered classroom or a
> > developmental
> > > work research change lab? Seems worth inquiring about.
> > > mike
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Greg Thompson <
> > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks to Philip White for pointing me to the alternative (and
> > preferred)
> > > > spelling "jury-rigged". In looking that up, I also found
> "jerry-built"
> > as
> > > > another term.
> > > > (My dad was from Indiana and he always pronounced it "jerry-rigged").
> > > >
> > > > These all differ from the term "hack" which, for me, 
> > > > simultaneously
> has
> > > > connotations of elitism and cultural critique but I'm not sure I
> could
> > > say
> > > > why (maybe because I've heard it frequently used with Ikea - 
> > > > Ikea
> > > hacking).
> > > >
> > > > "Jailbreaking" is an interesting one too - as in "jailbreaking 
> > > > your iPhone." That is where you take an existing technology and 
> > > > rebuild it
> > for
> > > > some design other than what it was intended. (I had a friend who 
> > > > was building an online educational credentialing website that 
> > > > used the
> > phrase
> > > > "jailbreaking the college degree" - some real trouble there, but 
> > > > I
> > > support
> > > > the idea in principle).
> > > >
> > > > Really appreciate Zaza's paper as well as Shirin et al's paper...
> > > >
> > > > -greg
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Greg Thompson <
> > > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Oops, I sent this directly to Zaza and not to the listserve 
> > > > > and it
> > > seems
> > > > > relevant to the Vossoughi et al paper that Mike just posted. 
> > > > > It is
> in
> > > > > response to Zaza's list of kukiya-kiya equivalents in other
> > languages:
> > > > >
> > > > > A personal favorite in English is "jerry-rig". Although I 
> > > > > should
> add
> > > that
> > > > > this has slightly more of a sense of hasty and perhaps a 
> > > > > little bit
> > > > clumsy
> > > > > assembly - suggested to have originated in WWII as somewhat
> derisive
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > > refer to equipment slapped together by the Germans. Somewhat
> > different
> > > > from
> > > > > other contexts where the sense of necessity is emphasized and 
> > > > > haste
> > and
> > > > > clumsiness are less emphasized - if at all. Maybe has 
> > > > > something to
> do
> > > > with
> > > > > the tendency in the U.S. to (be able to) rely on "expert"
> manufacture
> > > in
> > > > > the U.S.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, I wonder if this might have something to do with 
> > > > > different cultural-ideological contexts of the maker movement vs.
> kukiya-kiya.
> > > > > Whereas kukiya-kiya is an act born of necessity, the maker 
> > > > > movement
> > has
> > > > > more of a leisure-class bougie feel to it - an attempt to 
> > > > > recover
> > one's
> > > > > creative species being - if you'll allow the drive-by Marx
> reference
> > > (and
> > > > > Mike's earlier example seems some mix of the two - a 
> > > > > kukiya-kiya
> > > attempt
> > > > to
> > > > > make ("Engineering") makers out of these kids (something that 
> > > > > they certainly already are in many non strictly "Engineering" ways)).
> > > > >
> > > > > Zaza, I wonder if this kind of distinction between innovation 
> > > > > of
> > > > necessity
> > > > > and innovation for pleasure makes any sense for what you see 
> > > > > there
> on
> > > the
> > > > > ground in the kukiya-kiya case as compared to the maker case? 
> > > > > Or if
> > > this
> > > > > distinction is perhaps a bit overdetermined and are there 
> > > > > actually
> > both
> > > > > things happening in both cases? (e.g., is there a sense of joy 
> > > > > in creativity and making in the kukiya-kiya case?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoying your lovely paper as well as the conversation around it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Very best,
> > > > > greg
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> For those interested in pursuing the implications of Zaza's 
> > > > >> work
> on
> > > > Kukiya
> > > > >> kiya and the maker movement fashionable in affluent 
> > > > >> societies, I
> > > > suggest a
> > > > >> new thread with the title, prototyping.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Attached is the paper by Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé 
> > > > >> suggested
> by
> > > > Molly.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> mike
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science 
> > > > >> with
> an
> > > > >> object
> > > > >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > > Assistant Professor
> > > > > Department of Anthropology
> > > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > > > Brigham Young University
> > > > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > Assistant Professor
> > > > Department of Anthropology
> > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > > Brigham Young University
> > > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with 
> > > an
> > object
> > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>