Feminism and Programming Languages
128 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam Foltzer
Dec 13, 2013, 8:19:52 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
The discussion in the comments is thoughtful and interesting. That the discussion focuses heavily on object orientation should come as no surprise to this list, but it's illuminating to view it through this lens.
Cheers,
Adam
Peat Bakke
Dec 13, 2013, 8:38:34 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
Given the highly charged subject, would you be willing to link to some definitions of feminism that might set the context for this issue? There are a lot of different interpretations of the word -- first through fourth wave, intersectionality, etc. etc -- and I don't think it's obvious which definition lends itself to a reasonable discussion of the topic of a feminist programming language. :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philosophy in a time of Software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to philosophy-in-a-time-o...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Peat Bakke
http://peat.org/
(503) 701-4135
@peat
Adam Foltzer
Dec 13, 2013, 8:52:27 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
I hate to show up empty-handed, but I'd make the same request myself. I am unashamedly sympathetic to causes labeled "feminist", but am still (and will always be) learning what that means. Many of the terms thrown around in this post and its comments are beyond my experience, but I hope it's of interest to the list nonetheless: I hope to learn from the discussion.
Alex Payne
Dec 13, 2013, 9:07:10 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
The post mentions in its introductory paragraphs:
- "The idea came about while discussing normative and feminist subject object theory.”
From there, possible starting points include:
- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/#NorDesCom
- http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3345935?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103208342953
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory#Feminist_standpoint_theories
- https://afeministtheorydictionary.wordpress.com/category/object/
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-epis/#SH3c
On Friday, December 13, 2013 5:38:34 PM UTC-8, Peat Bakke wrote:
Given the highly charged subject, would you be willing to link to some definitions of feminism that might set the context for this issue? There are a lot of different interpretations of the word -- first through fourth wave, intersectionality, etc. etc -- and I don't think it's obvious which definition lends itself to a reasonable discussion of the topic of a feminist programming language. :-)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Adam Foltzer <acfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the wake of today's sexist "C Plus Equality" post, I came across this post via Manuel Simoni on what a feminist programming language (and by extension, a feminist logic) might be.The discussion in the comments is thoughtful and interesting. That the discussion focuses heavily on object orientation should come as no surprise to this list, but it's illuminating to view it through this lens.Cheers,Adam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philosophy in a time of Software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to philosophy-in-a-time-of-software+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Peat Bakke
Dec 13, 2013, 9:10:04 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to philosophy-in-a-time-o...@googlegroups.com.
Peat Bakke
Dec 13, 2013, 10:03:12 PM12/13/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
Alright, I've taken my lightning tour and I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing, but my take away is that languages are designed to address the problems of computation from certain perspectives -- for example, OO theory attempts to address computation from the perspective of interactions between discrete, state encapsulating objects.
It seems like the thrust of the exploration is around figuring out what "feminist logic" is, and how it can be applied to computation.
The only concrete nugget I was able to pull out of the discussion was about paraconsistent logic, a significant concept in feminism that revolves around how to deal with contradictory statements.
That's an idea I can latch on to, regardless of the social abstractions built on top. Being able to resolve contradiction, or at least accommodate some forms of contradiction without crashing ... That seems like an extremely valuable idea, especially when dealing with that hairy boundary between analog sensory input and digital decision making.
That's an idea I can latch on to, regardless of the social abstractions built on top. Being able to resolve contradiction, or at least accommodate some forms of contradiction without crashing ... That seems like an extremely valuable idea, especially when dealing with that hairy boundary between analog sensory input and digital decision making.
I'm intrigued, but that's all I have at this point. :)
I'll have to revisit the broader discussion after I get a good night's sleep ...
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to philosophy-in-a-time-o...@googlegroups.com.
Dave Sims
Dec 14, 2013, 12:03:08 PM12/14/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
The critiques of OO in the comment thread, referencing for example the classic problem of object/relational impedence (the Vietnam of CS!) reminds me of some of the postmodern critiques of logocentrism (made famous but not invented by Derrida), which leverage some of the same species of problems in set theory/incompleteness, in order to emphasize the subjectivity of knowledge and the fluidity of borders between substances and so forth.
A little Pomo 101, for my remedial benefit more than anything: The Platonic Ideal, in which the Logos (the original 'Word' or 'Reason') grounds and comprehensively justifies language and abstractions, is shown to be impossible even in theory, much less in practice. Where the natural standpoint (for instance, of classic structuralism) with regards to language is to assume that a 'sign' ('word') actually presences and mediates the thing signified, the underlying 'play of difference,' or 'impedance mismatch' to borrow from CS theory, shows how this is a lie. In order to ground and validate any system of signs and signifieds, we must assume there is some Ideal outside the system (outside "the text") that is not subject to the play of difference. Without this, all systems of signs are fundamentally malleable, and this malleability is what makes prejudice and oppression possible.
One of the problems I can see with introducing this line of thinking is that there is a historic tension between the post-structuralist critiques of Derrida and his followers, and feminist theory. While both share a common goal of critiquing Western hegemonic language, there is not a 1:1 sympathy, and there has often been antagonism between various feminist camps and various postmodern camps. Some feminism affirms the post-structuralist program, others see it as introducing a value-neutrality that actually makes it more difficult to critique patriarchy. "Non-normative" is a two-edged sword when you're talking about social justice.
So to my mind, there's nothing specifically feminist about introducing 'non-normative' into the question. It's also worth noting that feminists may value and emphasize qualities like fluidity, openness, and ambiguity as a function of their critique of patriarchy/male hegemony, but those qualities are also emphasized in process-oriented philosophies like that of Bergson, Whitehead and Deleuze. If the ideas of 'non-normativity' and set incompleteness are not peculiarly 'feminist', how could a programming paradigm that incorporates them be referred to as 'feminist' in any meaningful way?
Additional questions:
* Are we rejecting (as many post-structuralists advocate) the principles of identity, antithesis and excluded middle? If so, what grounding is left for logic itself, much less a robust core CS theory? It's one thing to talk about how "object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory," it's another altogether to follow through to the level of CPU instructions and the logocentrism inherent in logic gates.
A little Pomo 101, for my remedial benefit more than anything: The Platonic Ideal, in which the Logos (the original 'Word' or 'Reason') grounds and comprehensively justifies language and abstractions, is shown to be impossible even in theory, much less in practice. Where the natural standpoint (for instance, of classic structuralism) with regards to language is to assume that a 'sign' ('word') actually presences and mediates the thing signified, the underlying 'play of difference,' or 'impedance mismatch' to borrow from CS theory, shows how this is a lie. In order to ground and validate any system of signs and signifieds, we must assume there is some Ideal outside the system (outside "the text") that is not subject to the play of difference. Without this, all systems of signs are fundamentally malleable, and this malleability is what makes prejudice and oppression possible.
One of the problems I can see with introducing this line of thinking is that there is a historic tension between the post-structuralist critiques of Derrida and his followers, and feminist theory. While both share a common goal of critiquing Western hegemonic language, there is not a 1:1 sympathy, and there has often been antagonism between various feminist camps and various postmodern camps. Some feminism affirms the post-structuralist program, others see it as introducing a value-neutrality that actually makes it more difficult to critique patriarchy. "Non-normative" is a two-edged sword when you're talking about social justice.
So to my mind, there's nothing specifically feminist about introducing 'non-normative' into the question. It's also worth noting that feminists may value and emphasize qualities like fluidity, openness, and ambiguity as a function of their critique of patriarchy/male hegemony, but those qualities are also emphasized in process-oriented philosophies like that of Bergson, Whitehead and Deleuze. If the ideas of 'non-normativity' and set incompleteness are not peculiarly 'feminist', how could a programming paradigm that incorporates them be referred to as 'feminist' in any meaningful way?
Additional questions:
* Are we rejecting (as many post-structuralists advocate) the principles of identity, antithesis and excluded middle? If so, what grounding is left for logic itself, much less a robust core CS theory? It's one thing to talk about how "object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory," it's another altogether to follow through to the level of CPU instructions and the logocentrism inherent in logic gates.
* How does introducing the language of feminism or post-structuralism advance CS theory? Things like O/R impedance, set theory (database) incompleteness and so forth are already very prominent questions in the CS world and have been for decades. You could argue that few domains are more aware of the practical limitations of logocentrism than CS theory.
* Which feminism is to be preferred? This is a huge question. There are nearly as many feminisms as there are feminists, some sympathetic to 'non-normative' approaches, others -- and it could be argued most -- demand a normative standpoint in order to identify, judge and correct social inequalities.
* Which feminism is to be preferred? This is a huge question. There are nearly as many feminisms as there are feminists, some sympathetic to 'non-normative' approaches, others -- and it could be argued most -- demand a normative standpoint in order to identify, judge and correct social inequalities.
It doesn't seem to me from Arielle's abstract that she has really grappled with these kinds of problems, and doesn't have a trajectory in place that is very promising. Maybe I missed something, but without a more serious engagement she's open to being caricatured (as we saw in that puerile and painfully unfunny parody.)
Dave
Steve Klabnik
Dec 31, 2013, 5:01:27 PM12/31/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
> Being able to resolve contradiction, or at least accommodate some forms
> of contradiction without crashing ... That seems like an extremely valuable
> idea, especially when dealing with that hairy boundary between analog
> sensory input and digital decision making.
Agreed, especially since so much of our word is inherently contradictory.
> of contradiction without crashing ... That seems like an extremely valuable
> idea, especially when dealing with that hairy boundary between analog
> sensory input and digital decision making.
Hegel is hard to escape. :/
Steve Klabnik
Dec 31, 2013, 5:05:32 PM12/31/13
to philosophy-in-a-...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the excellent points, Dave. These tensions are absolutely
important, for example, when my Marxist side tells me to simply reject
social justice out of hand, due to the divergence between the two.
> Maybe I missed something, but without a more serious engagement she's open to being caricatured
This is one of the reasons why I tried to get more software people
involved in dialogue over on HASTAC, but I fear that I ended up
causing C+= instead. :/
important, for example, when my Marxist side tells me to simply reject
social justice out of hand, due to the divergence between the two.
> Maybe I missed something, but without a more serious engagement she's open to being caricatured
involved in dialogue over on HASTAC, but I fear that I ended up
causing C+= instead. :/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages