January 28, 2000

"Technology" is a deceptively simple catch-all term for an extremely wide range of material and cultural objects, practices, and discourses. As Wajcman notes, before embarking on any investigation of "technology", one must first determine how "technology" is to be understood, and understand that "technology"'s incarnations are highly varied and diverse. Horowitz and Mohun point out in their introduction to His and Hers that what is included in definitions of "technology" is in itself gendered and open to negotiation. Additionally, Adam indicates that "technology" should include not just objects, practices, and discourses of use, but also of creation, design, and development.

When we speak of "technology", what we tend to mean are machines or, more recently, some association with so-called cyberspace, and related academic/professional disciplines such as engineering and computer science. The works on the list encourage one to remember that a precise definition of "technology" must take into account technology's heritage in philosophy, science, engineering, computing, medicine, and so forth, as well as how certain objects, practices, and discourses come to be coded as "male" and "female", "public" and "private", "political" or "neutral". Sundin, in her article "Gender and Technology: Mutually Constituting and Limiting" (in Berner's Gendered Practices), presents several definitions of "technology" used in both research and educational texts. She argues that given the variety of ways in which "technology" is understood in relation to so-called "male" and "female" identities and activities, gender constructs technology. Other theorists, such as Massey ("Masculinity, Dualisms and High Technology"), or Jenkins and Cassell (From Barbie to Mortal Kombat) are concerned with precisely the opposite proposition: that technology produces gendered spaces and identities. I believe the best approach here is a "both-and" position in which gender and technology are seen as mutually constitutive.

As well, given the present pace of change and development, it is important to situate "technology" within specific historical, social, political, and economic contexts, rather than attempting to create a kind of metatheory of "technology" (or feminist theory, for that matter). As many theorists on this list have noted, "technology" shifts in its meaning and practices over time and across cultural contexts.

"Gender" is similarly a somewhat slippery concept in its usage in these works. In some cases, gender is taken as an ontological given despite a nod to its social basis (as in the ecofeminist-based position on technology, or studies of occupational segregation); in other cases, gender is seen as entirely produced and performed through practices and discourse (as, for example, Turkle would argue). The element of "virtuality" that technology accords us further complicates the issue, since (as, for example, Stone and Turkle note) it involves the creation of worlds and realities which are not necessarily bound by the same rules as "real life" (RL); however, as theorists such as Millar note, despite its protestations of identity-innocence, "virtuality" tends to be governed by many of the same restrictive and problematic cultural anxieties and codes which inform RL.

(I have starred the ones which I would prefer to answer)

1. *What is the "causal" relationship between gender and technology? What I mean by this question is, does gender create technology as, for example, Sundin proposes, or does technology produce gender, as, for example, Balsamo would argue? In answering this question, discuss the arguments on either side, as well as how "gender" is understood in the context of technology (for example, who is seen as a "user" or "object" of technology?). I am inclined to argue that gender and technology are mutually constitutive, and that to propose a one-way causality is too limited an analysis.
2. Salminen-Karlsson uses Hirdman's model of "gender contract" (i.e. of gender segregation and male normativity) in her article "Reforming a Masculine Bastion" (Gendered Practices), to examine how assumptions around gender and technology shape educational policy. Berner and Mellstrom, in "Looking for Mister Engineer" (Gendered Practices), do not explicitly use this model, but also analyze technology and gender in relation to institutional educational practices and discourses to show how engineering academies were preoccupied with notions of masculinity. The role of technology in educational practices and discourses is a central concern raised in many of the works on this list. What feminist concerns do the works identify, and what solutions are proposed? In answering this question I will develop my own position on the issue.
3. As mentioned above, Berner and Mellstrom look at how masculinity is constructed within the field of engineering education. Massey notes how notions of masculinity construct particular forms of technological space in the computer industry. Millar critically dissects Wired magazine to show how masculinity is presented as a kind of heroic consumerism. How do these and other theorists on the list understand the construction of masculinity through technological discourse and practice? What models do they identify, and how are these models shaped by their context? What critiques do they make of these models?
4. *The majority of gender-and-technology theorists do not work with the issue of race, though some on this list do, such as Millar, who is careful to note in her discussion of masculinity that the computer "heroes" are implicitly coded as white; and Hammonds, who discusses the omnipotent "racial manipulation" in "New Technologies of Race" (Processed Lives). The theorists who identify race as a significant issue in terms of technology use are explicit in their proposal that race/ethnicity matters. Other theorists, such as Turkle, would argue in favour of the identity-neutrality/identity-pluralism of technology (and information technology in particular). What are the central themes of both sides of this debate? How, for example, is race made both visible and invisible through technology? How does race intersect with gender in relation to technology discourse and practice? I will argue that race, gender, and technology are mutually constitutive.
5. In both Reconstructing Babylon and Technologies of the Gendered Body, the authors note that though the act of mothering is ostensibly "natural", it has been significantly affected discursively and concretely through technology. What concerns do these and other theorists on the list raise in terms of the female body in relation to technology use and discourse, in particular the maternal body? How are maternal bodies marked by gender, race, and other identity signposts in relation to technology? How is the maternal body both erased and made hypervisible through technology?
6. Many interventions into technology by women have been of the liberal feminist variety, i.e. largely geared towards increasing the percentage of women in so-called "nontraditional" occupations. What are the central tenets of this strategy? What are the advantages of this position, and what critiques do the theorists on the list make of this strategy? Are the problems identified inherent to technology or to liberal feminism (or both)? I would argue that although it has, at first glance, some advantages, ultimately the liberal feminist position does not provide a satisfactory model for feminist intervention.
7. Many of the theorists, such as Eisenstein, have noted linkages between capitalism and technology in terms of producing gendered users and objects of technology. What arguments do the theorists on this list make to support their proposition of intersection? What forms does this intersection assume, and how have they changed in relation to changing forms of capital organization and of gender identities (as, for example, articles in the Mohun and Horowitz anthology examine)? What are the central critiques of the theorists in terms of the issues raised, such as consumerism (Millar), access (Heywood), and control (Eisenstein)? I would argue that as forms of capitalism/industrialization/economic organization have changed, they have both restructured and recapitulated forms of technological and gender relations.
8. *Cyberutopianists argue that radical changes in the organization of work through technology will result in all of us having more freedom from drudgery, while cyberpessimists (cyber-realists?) argue that technological change in the workplace results in job loss, deskilling and reskilling. What are the central concepts in each side of this debate as outlined by the works on this list? How does the issue of gender structure this discussion? For example, Webster argues in her article, "Information Technology, Women and Their Work", that despite technological change, it is business as usual in terms of gendered occupational segregation. How does the intersection of technology and gender (as well as race and class) structure workplaces at present, and what challenges exist for feminists in terms of future intervention?
9. *Theorists such as Adams, Grint and Gill, and Wajcman identify a variety of feminist responses to technology which differ in terms of central questions, methodological approach, and conclusions. What are these main forms of feminist response that they (and other works on the list) identify, what do they see as the central assumptions in each position, and which position do they find the most useful for informing their discussion? In asking this question, what I am looking for are theories of technology that are clearly developed from and engage with feminist theories, rather than works which only tangentially mention gender. In answering this question I will outline my own position on which feminist strategies and theoretical stances I find most theoretically and practically useful.
10. Many theorists of technology turn to Donna Haraway's work on the cyborg as a fruitful metaphor to inform their work. What is her cyborg metaphor as I interpret it, and in what way do the theorists on the list use her work?
11. *Many theorists on this list, such as Herring and Millar, have found the subject of language and technology a useful point of entry for critique. How do the works on this list engage with discourse and language "around" and "within" technology (in the case of the latter, I mean things like online conversations) in relation to gender? How does "gender" come to acquire meaning within technological discourse, and technology acquire meaning in relation to gendered "rhetorical spaces"?
12. Some theorists, such as Adam, Wajcman, and Landstrom (in Gendered Practices), point out that feminist study of technology must be grounded in observation of specific concrete practices and processes, while other theorists, such as Spender, Balsamo, and (in part) Haraway prefer to critique technology through investigating its discursive and epistemological/philosophical premises. What are the central arguments of each position, bearing in mind that this is both a methodological and political question? What implications does the adoption of each position have for feminist strategy?