- Sep 2017
-
Local file Local file
-
Open source smartphone operating systems (including Android, Tizen, or Firefox OS) open up greater potential for creolization practices.
Lo cual puede ser extendido para todas las código abierto.
-
Creolization, however, does not seek or avoid conflict but aims to transform tech-nology or come up with new practices so that the technical systems better serves user needs. Creolization draws on bricolage practices (Lévi-Strauss, 1966), identifying the components of the technology that can be re-used, modified, or recombined to create something new. Creolization finds users more deeply involved in transforming technol-ogy than baroquization.
En el caso de Grafoscopio, el bricolage combina partes de Leo, con Jupyter, con Pharo, del lado técnico y el objeto activista, la investigación reproducible, las narrativas, la visualización ágil y el activismo de datos, la escritura estructurada. Dichas combinaciones crean algo nuevo, tanto en el caso de los artefactos tecnológicos, como de las prácticas que se entrecruzan alrededor de ellos.
-
for analytic purposes we next order them from the less confrontational baroque to the more radical cannibalism, with creolization somewhere “in-between” (Santiago, 2001). While they are second nature for Latin Americans, we observe them throughout the world. Together, these modes offer a powerful taxonomy to understand innovation through mul-tiple appropriation strategies.
Dónde cae el Data Week? Pareciera ser confrontacional en lugar de integrado o colarse en los intersticios.
-
Born in the Plantation, the Hacienda, the Latifundio, and the Mine, creolization is now “scattered in those sheet plates and concrete mazes where our common becoming is adventuring itself, in favellas and mega-cities” (Glissant, 1995: 87). Alive and well, cre-olization can be found where Latin Americans live, in the spaces where they are exposed to new technologies. Born of avoidance (like Internet Protocol (IP) packets that find a route around obstacles) and mixing (like mashups and re-mix), creolization fits the realm of ICTs.
-
Latin Americans often resort to mixing and re-mixing in a process of “creolization.” The Americas are the con-tinent of mestisaje and hybridization. A reality that implies a process, hybridization can become an identity and the basis for appropriation.
“We know the other is within us,” Glissant (1997a) writes, “and affects how we evolve and the bulk of our conceptions and the development of our sen-sibility” (p. 27)
Creolization is crossbreeding plus unpredictability. More important still, it is, and should be seen as a process. Started in the at Plantation, creolization manifests through the evolution of the creole language: “thisunpredictable construction based on heterogeneous elements” (Glissant, 1997b: 37).
En la Wikipedia se diferencia Creole de los lenguajes mixtos y los pidgin:
A creole language[1][2][3] is a stable natural language developed from a mixture of different languages. While the concept is similar to that of a mixed or hybrid language, in the strict sense of the term, a mixed/hybrid language has derived from two or more languages, to such an extent that it is no longer closely related to the source languages. Creoles also differ from pidgins in that, while a pidgin has a highly simplified linguistic structure that develops as a means of establishing communication between two or more disparate language groups, a creole language is more complex, used for day-to-day purposes in a community, and acquired by children as a native language. Creole languages, therefore, have a fully developed vocabulary and system of grammar.
[...]
The English term creole comes from French créole, which is cognate with the Spanish term criollo and Portuguese crioulo, all descending from the verb criar ('to breed' or 'to raise'), all coming from Latin creare ('to produce, create').[18] The specific sense of the term was coined in the 16th and 17th century, during the great expansion in European maritime power and trade that led to the establishment of European colonies in other continents.
Mufwene (2000) and Wittmann (2001) have argued further that Creole languages are structurally no different from any other language, and that Creole is in fact a sociohistoric concept (and not a linguistic one), encompassing displaced population and slavery. DeGraff & Walicek (2005) discuss creolistics in relation to colonialist ideologies, rejecting the notion that Creoles can be responsibly defined in terms of specific grammatical characteristics. They discuss the history of linguistics and nineteenth-century work that argues for the consideration of the sociohistorical contexts in which Creole languages emerged.
Ver también:
-
Three strategies deserve particular attention for their symbolic value: cannibalism, baroque, and creolization. Cannibalism is appropriation trough dismembering, absorption, and chemical transformation. Baroque—an infiltration strategy—is the artistic appropria-tion of spaces through filling and layering. In-between, creolization is appropriatio
through miscegenation and unpredictable mixing. While inspired by Latin American cul-ture, these prove useful in other cultural, geographical, and historical settings.
-
-
journals.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com
-
François Bar, Matthew Weber, and Francis Pisani advocate for a cul-tural model of technological appropriation drawn from Latin America. Appropriation draws attention to how users interpret, manipulate, and repurpose technology in creative and unexpected ways. Their cycle of evolution suggests cultural mechanisms of appro-priation: baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism. This new vocabulary to understand technological appropriation un-moors the notion of “hacking” from Western modernity. It encourages us to think about how users and cultures are central to a technology’s life-cycle. Beyond just signaling difference, Bar, Weber, and Pisani suggest that innovation on the periphery is a powerful process that merits consideration.
-