Adventures, in Theory

Kim TallBear (2013: 122), from Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science

the question of exclusivity/technicality is very important to what I want to do with academia in future, namely to work to make my and others' academic work accessible beyond the ivory tower. on the one hand, TallBear is right: the fact that the humanities and social sciences have developed their own technical vocabularies to discuss the complicated issues they engage with is no different from the fact that the sciences have specialized technical vocabularies. the only reason people see it as different is because people (incorrectly) perceive the humanities and social sciences to be in some way illegitimate, "made up", or (less charitably) "bs". from this perspective, technical language obscures the fact that humanities and social science scholarship says nothing meaningful.

obviously as a comp lit person I disagree, but I do think at the same time that getting too caught up in the technical language of the humanities can obscure important work that's being done in a way that perpetuates views of the humanities as "useless". in much the same way that I think it's important for scientists to make an effort to explain their science in ways that are comprehensible (and factually correct — contrast a lot of popular science reporting) without a long technical background in a scientific field, it's important for the humanities to be able to express itself in ways that make clear what it's actually doing and why that matters.

Thomas Doherty, "The Paratext's the Thing", from The Chronicle of Higher Education

Undoubtedly if I were better-versed in contemporary media theory, Doherty's article would seem simplistic to me, and as it is I can feel a certain dismissiveness or skepticism throughout the article — as he notes at the beginning, Doherty is not himself a believer in the interest of paratexts: "What the heck do I want with distracting digital clutter? One screen is plenty." But having no background in this area, this article is an intriguing introduction.

# Creation

Gabrielle Coleman is a cultural anthropologist whose research and teaching focuses on hacker culture, technology, and digital activism. She works at McGill University as the Wolfe Chair of Scientific and Technological Literacy.

Coding Freedom "Introduction: A Tale of Two Worlds" Summary

Free and open source software (F/OSS) and the hackers who create it adhere to ideals of freedom, evoking and invoking a liberal philosophy of individual autonomy, free press, meritocracy, and so on. Hackers are concerned with "productive freedom" and use the liberal tenant of free speech to fight/critique the liberal tenant of intellectual property.

Conducting ethnographic field work among hackers in San Francisco and online had particular challenges: it was viewed as potentially illegitimate or overly easy by colleagues and was uncomfortable at first among hackers, though understanding their humor provided a pleasure and sense of progress.

Legally, copyright law "represents an acceptable restriction on free speech because it is the basis of what is designated 'the marketplace of ideas'", but F/OSS code/projects and viewing code as speech challenge this assertion and the increasingly strict intellectual property laws and practices.

Hackers experience frustration, but they also experience deep pleasure and connection to their work, often subliminating the liberal self to the technology when they are in the "flow" or in "Deep Hack Mode".

Ideals of expressive individualism has often lead to possessive individualism or turning the individual into the ideal consumer, but F/OSS hackers offer another way of expressing individualism that rejects consumption.

Anita Sarkeesian, writer for Feminist Frequency and creator of a YouTube series called "Tropes vs. Women", became something of an internet celebrity after she started a Kickstarter hoping money for a video games version of Tropes vs. Women. Misogynistic 'trolls' quickly jumped onto the situation, inundating Sarkeesian and the internet with sexist and offensive images and language about Sarkeesian, including rape and death threats. Sarkeesian fought back, documenting her harassment in a similar way to that advocated by fatuglyorslutty.com and Hollaback!, and her Kickstarted project eventually generated far more money than she had originally requested. Sarkeesian talks about her experiences in this video.

Lisa Nakamura is a professor of Media and Cinema Studies, Gender and Women's Studies, and Asian American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her research has focused on how race is presented and treated in digital media, particularly in video games/gaming culture.

"'It's a Nigger in Here! Kill the Nigger!': User-Generated Media Campaigns Against Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Digital Games" Summary

Games studies, like video games rating systems, has generally analyzed games only by taking into account the programmed experience, but networked games mean that user interactions are as much a part of the experience as visuals, storyline, etc.

Many players agree that "trash talk" is an inevitable (even necessary) part of networked games, but there is debate as to whether there's a line between trash talk and inappropriate racism, sexism, and homophobia. Many users seem to believe trash talk should be "shaken off" or should not count past the original interaction.

While games studies work on racism, sexism, and homophobia in user interactions has been lacking, users themselves have forums designed to promote solidarity and speaking up for marginalized groups.