A fatuous musing about Haraway and Hall
About a week ago, I turned in a short response paper for my theory class about Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto. In it, I wrote the following:
In her critique of the ways that technology/scientism has marginalized certain groups and individuals, Haraway proposes that we can shift our relationship to technology and empower these communities to create their own meaning within these power structures. This reminded me of Stuart Hall’s belief that the “struggle over meaning” implicit in a cultural artifact occurs not only ideologically, but also in the mode of its representation. As he notes, “there was also a struggle over access to the very means of signification: the difference between those accredited witnesses…who had a privileged access…as contrasted with those who had to struggle to gain access…at all…[who] had to perform with the established terms of the problematic at play” (1991, 81). The discourse around a media object is controlled at a fundamental level by those who design it, and it thus "re-presents" the cultural baggage implicit in its creation.The notion that those that create/control a particular technology can make certain choices that serve their own, often limited, understanding of the world is readily apparent in many of the common words used to describe computer processes. For example, the words “master” and “slave” are used to describe a relationship between two hard drives and computer operating systems. These terms are laden with racist implications, and certainly reflect the homogenous (and relatively white!) group of individuals responsible for creating these naming standards.
Today, I read an article in the Chicago Tribune that suggests that someone is finally taking notice of the offensiveness of these terms.
It's weird...so rarely am I ever this on top of things - even if I can't seem to find a synonym for "implicit."
Comments
I would like to know how "Master" and "Slave" are racist. Despite the attempt of revisionist historians to demonize the first 200 years of this country's existence, slavery was not/is not limited to the United States, and was not/is not limited to a single race of people.
Would "Lord" and "Peasant" somehow be more acceptible? Or would that harbor classist tendencies.
The fact is, the use of Master and Slave is actually an attempt to make technology more accessible to the population, but using metaphors they are already familiar with and capable of understanding. If the terminology was along the lines of "PMDA-SMDA hierarchal drive relationship", it would be far more obscure, and probably cause people to be less inclined to embrace technological concepts. In chess, the pieces are White and Black, and White always goes first. However, nobody complains and writes articles, because chess isn't something enough people care about to raise a sufficient stink.
I would like to see an article discussing as more and more laws are passed in an effort to encourage less division between races, people who have made a living being incensed have to reach farther and farther into the absurd to find something offensive.
Slave has been part of technology for a long time, almost one hundred years. There are circuits called "slave circuits" that basically are being given commands from a master circuit. Generally, your rear lights of your automobile function on a slave circuit to your headlights. However, for almost 100 years, nobody has complained about this terminology. I think there is a segment of society that fulfills itself by crying out against injustice...and when all the good injustices are already being fought for, instead of being willing to be a foot soldier in the fight against that injustice, they would much rather be general in their fight against ridiculous causes.
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who are throwing money and time to try and change a 100 year old term would instead devote their time to showing support for Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage?
Maybe?
ps. I clearly need a nap :).
Posted by: Jake | November 30, 2003 4:16 PM
ok, jake, i'll bite. ;) while you're right that these terms have been in use for some time, that doesn't make me automatically accept that they're apolitical labels. i think it's important that we consider how their usage calls forth/reinscribes certain power structures that are clearly loaded. you might check out judith butler's book, "excitable speech" for more on this (not that i agree with everything she says, but it's thought provoking).
you seem to suggest that without using terminology like "master" and "slave" we'd be stuck with the far more obtuse "PMDA-SMDA hierarchal drive relationship." are there no other alternatives? i'm sure we could come up with some descriptive terms that are far less controversial. for example, some have suggested we change these terms to primary and secondary, which seems fair to me.
anyway, what all of these theorists are suggesting is that we need to stop seeing such choices as "natural." technology is a product of culture, and, as such, it reflects certain ideological values (and hall would say these values are necessarily hegemonic because the control of the media resides in the hands of the powerful).
it's a hard row to hoe. i'm not in favor of entirely revising all of the words we use for everything, but i think that there's a pretty good reason for changing the terminology in this case.
thanks for the comment. maybe we can talk more about this f2f sometime.
Posted by: adrienne | November 30, 2003 6:37 PM