logo
  • Home
  • About
search
top
Nov 7th 09 Posted by justin in CCR691

CCR691 – Final Project – Hunter

Hunter, Shona. “Oscillating Politics and Shifting Agencies: Equalities and Diversity Work and Actor Network Theory.” Equal Opportunities International 26 5 (2007): 402-19. Print.

  • This essay uses ANT to develop an analysis of Iopia, a Black woman equalities educator working in a prison in the UK in an education context.  The article hopes to demonstrate how the actor-network interacts with both human and non human objects to “challenge racism” in this particular context (402).
  • The study found that Iopia moved from an initial position of being marginalized to one central to the “new” network for quality and diversity.  This network challenges and sustains narrow exclusionary definitions of diversity.
  • The authors consider this a “feminist ANT analysis” and see their work interacting with more fully developed and integrated versions of critical race and critical culture theories to analyze equalities work.
  • The article places an emphasis on the act of translation to see how folks can use “material objects to draw in multiple ‘others’ into their own networks.
  • A fundamental tension for this article is the one that develops between the “real” work of equality and the work that many folks do – sometimes begrudgingly – toward diversity.
  • ANT is used in this article to “illuminate the formalized and less formalized processes through which equality and diversity gets taken up and not taken up in organizations” (404).
  • ANT is taken up by some feminist science studies.  A list includes:  Singleton 1996, 1998; Star 1991; Haraway 1991, 1997).  Perhaps you should look to these to see how feminism and ANT work together.
  • This article points out some fundamental problems/debates in ANT : 1) the colonizing policy of ANT in relation to the “other,” 2) the politics of ANT, 3) the importance of ambivalence (amorality), and as a result, extensive embellishments on the original work.  (405)
  • Much like Latour, the authors of the piece rely on Callon (1986) to demonstrate that the objects of the world are constituted by their relations with objects, not vice versa.  Callon’s work also demonstrates that there is no analytic distinction between human and non human actors.  Notions such as “institutions, state, class, ‘race’ or gender’ are constituted as ‘coherent, consistent, uniform across time and space’ through networks of people, ideas and objects” (406).
  • Great lay definitions of the processes of gaining allies:
    • Interessement:  This is what you really want to be
    • Translation:  We are the ones who can help you become that.
    • Enrollment:  Grant your obedience by your own consent.
    • Displacement:  Ignore or pay less attention to other scenarios, make this network more durable
  • Feminists such as Susa Leigh Star “suggests that one powerful way in which feminist analysis and ANT can be joined is in linking the outsider or marginalized actors characteristic of feminist work with the translation model of ANT to explore ‘the point of view that which cannot be translated:  the monstrous, the Other, the wild’” (408).  In this way, ANT can help analysts understand what “marginal actors achieve through day-to-day work and the novel ways in which organizational future may get play out as a result” (ibid).
  • This article really uses ANT to demonstrate how to “coerce” or “persuade” actors through translation toward enrollment.
  • This ANT work underscores the multiplicity of identities involved in ANT work by highlighting how the networks we engage in are multilayered and intersectional.  While being an enroller of different actors, one is also always enrolled in other networks.  These multiplicities point to how a single conception of the object is always woefully inadequate.  The study also highlights how non-human actors (policies in this case) have the ability to enroll actors and make things happen (they have agency).
Sep 21st 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – Textual Machinery – Kennedy

Kennedy, Krista. “Textual Machinery:  Authorial Agency and Bot-Written Texts in Wikipedia.” The Responsibilities of Rhetoric. Ed. Michelle Smith and Barbara Warnick. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2010. 303-309.

Executive Summary:

Kennedy discusses the notion of authorship and authorial agency in the context of theoretical and legalistic arguments about authorship in bot-driven encyclopedic texts (Wikipedia).  Theoretically speaking, if one applies both pragmatic and theoretical senses of agency (the agency possesses the agent vs. the agent possesses agency as an instrument/substance – 306), bot-written texts do have authors.  Legally however, this isn’t the case.  In the case of Aalmuhammed v. Lee, “the court ruled that the status of ‘coauthor’ required not only a mutual initial intention to enter into joint authorship but also that both parties have superintendence, or decision-making authority” (307).  In this sense, since a bot cannot enter into a relationship of mutual superintendence – because it lacks decisional agency – it cannot legally be considered an author.  Yet, we prosecute people who make viruses. . . . hmmmmmm. . .

Key Influences:

Geisler, Cheryl.  “How Ought We To Understand the Concept of Rhetorical Agency?”  Report from the ARS.”  Rhetoric Society Quarterly 34.3 (2004): 9-17.

Miller, Carolyn R.  “Expertise and Agency:  Transformations of Ethos in Human Computer Interaction.”  The Ethos of Rhetoric.  Ed. Michael Hyde.  Columbia:  U of South Carolina P, 2004.  197-218

Wu, Andrew J.  “From Video Games to AI:  Assigning Copyright Ownership to Works Generated by Increasingly Sophisticated Computer Programs.”  AIPLA Quarterly Journal 131 (1997):  133-178.

search search search search search
what is this place?
Ceci n'est pas une blog.
Blogroll
  • . . . and other anxieties
  • a good woman speaking tolerably
  • A.L.'s Blog
  • Bibliography of My Life
  • Bogglish Huderon
  • Comp/Rhet
  • Compelling Methods
  • East Coast – West Coast
  • M.K.'s Blog
  • M.W.'s Blog
  • Rachel's Bookshelf
  • S.K.'s Blog
  • The Laughing Man's Weblog
recent posts
  • Information Design – 3.8.2010
  • Brooke – Lingua Fracta – Ch. 1 “Interface”
  • Webb, Schirato, and Danaher – Understanding Bourdieu
  • Ripeanu et. al. – “Gifting Technologies: A Bittorrent Case Study”
  • Ng – Rational Sharing and Its Limits
  • Milioni – Probing the Online Counterpublic Sphere
  • Kobayashi, Ikeda, and Kakuko – Social Capital Online
  • DeVoss and Porter – Why Napster Matters to Writing
  • Best and Krueger – Online Interactions and Social Capital: Distinguishing between New and Existing Ties
  • Shirky – File-Sharing Goes Social
comments
  • Luce on Information Design – 3.8.2010
  • mike on Information Design – 3.8.2010
  • Luce on CCR760 – Datacloud – My Indictment: Dug the Book, What About that Broader Context?
  • Luce on CCR760 – A World Without Bosses? : Distributed Capitalism & Net Work
  • Missy on Network – Spinuzzi
tag cloud
ancient rhetoric ANT arrangement black feminist Black Feminist Rhetoric brooke Callon cannon CCR601 CCR691 CCR751 CMC copyright critical ethnography cushman digital public sphere ethnography feminist research gilyard habermas heidegger hypertext informed consent interface IRB latour marxism method methodology miller narrative network networks p2p piracy public sphere publishing qualitative research race research ethics social capital spinuzzi technical communication technology womanism
categories
archives
picasa albums

Anti-War PostersAnti-Facism PostersHamas Propaganda
Feminist Posters & PropagandaAnti-US PostersCzech Propaganda
Spanish Civil War PropagandaUS PropagandaAllied Forces WWII Propaganda
Japanese WWII PropagandaCuban PropagandaFrench Propaganda
North Korean PropagandaChinese PropagandaSocialist East German (DDR) Propaganda
Anti-Capitalism Propaganda & PostersSoviet Union (USSR) PropagandaSoviet Union Propaganda Pt. II

log-in
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
top
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Someone Great