21 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
  2. Oct 2018
  3. Jan 2018
    1. Como hipótesis provisional sostengo que la dependencia de formas de racionalidad y análisis logocéntrico de larga data sigue siendo fundamental para la producción académica crítica (¡incluyendo este libro!) y que, a pesar de su notable productividad, tiene consecuencias para ir más allá de las ontologías dualistas. Para desarrollar esta hipótesis, aunque de forma rudimentaria, comienzo recordando el argumento de Varela y sus colegas sobre los límites de la racionalidad abstracta y su insistencia en unir la reflexión y la experiencia. Esto es precisamente lo que trató de hacer la fenomenología; sin embargo —argumentan Varela, Thomson y Rosch— no pudo contestar, completamente, las preguntas radicales que planteaba. ¿Por qué? Su respuesta es relativamente simple pero las consecuencias son de largo alcance. La fenomenología se estancó, precisamente, porque su análisis de la experiencia sigue estando “dentro de la corriente principal de la filosofía Occidental [...] hizo hincapié en el contexto pragmático y encarnado de la experiencia humana, pero de una manera puramente teórica” (Varela et al. 1991: 19). ¿Puede esta afirmación17ser aplicable a la teoría social en su conjunto, tal vez incluso a aquellas tendencias que problematizan sus dualismos estructurantes?

      [...] [...] Lo que esta formulación quiere transmitir es que la reflexión no es sólo sobre la experiencia; la reflexión es una forma de la experiencia [...] Cuando la reflexión se hace de esa manera puede cortar la cadena de patrones y percepciones habituales de pensamiento para que pueda ser una reflexión abierta a posibilidades distintas de las contenidas en la representación actual que tenemos del espacio de la vida

      Quizás se requieren materialidades nuevas para romper estas lógicas que hacen academia crítica desde los logos, métricas y formas de la academia clásica. En ese sentido la experiencia, que está en el centro de lo hacker, artítistico y activista es clave, pues enactua en discursos no siempre logocéntricos. Es decir, esas reflexiones (usualmente escritas) que son también una experiencia, atravesadas por otras materialidades que dan cuenta de ellas pueden ayudar a deconstruir su expresión logocéntrica.

  4. Dec 2017
    1. en together, recent theoriza-tion and research highlights the ever more substantial role hackers play for contemporary social and political arrangements. overall, it can be said that recent investigations of hacker cultures bring forward a multi-layered and revealing characterization of hackers by looking closely at who they are, what they do and why they do it, instead of preserving ste-reotypes or proclaiming generalizations. It is this latter conceptual posi-tioning of hackers, hacking and hacktivism that this research is drawing on and aims to expand by adapting a figurational approach
    2. . Tim Jordan (2013) characterizes hacktivism as an explicitly political form of computing. Leah Lievrouw (2011) pictures hacking as ‘alternative computing’ to describe a range of activities that focus on constructive political, social and cultural purposes
  5. Nov 2017
    1. Remarkably,thepublicimageofhackershasaninverserelationshiptotheiracts.

      Remarkably, the public image of hackers has an inverse relationship to their acts. When hackers were more intent on ‘we do because we can’ politics, their public image was mysterious, revered, and appreciated. Yet once hackers turned into hacktivists with political subjectivity, their public image suffered, and it became tainted with criminality.

    2. Whataretheeffectsofdigitalactsofhacking?Whatconventionsdotheseactsbreak?Whatconventionsdotheseactsresignify?Theyareasbroadastherearetypesofhackers

      [...] We want to consider these combined and diffuse effects of acts of hacking in terms of actions against closings such as filtering, tracking, and normalizing. These actions that feed the imaginary force of acts of hacking perhaps explain the joy of the deep hack mode that Coleman documents. Yet a generalized conclusion cannot be reached since hackers can create dangerous effects that also participate in closings of the Internet.

      Valdría la pena mantener la definición de Hacker como diversa y abierta, (Coleman), pero también como cotidiana (Schrock), pero con algún acto distintivo que la haga valiosa (no todo es "hackear"). La ruptura y resignificación de la convención a través de la técnica sería el acto determinante de Hackear. Dicho entrenamiento en la técnica ocurre de manera cotidiana, apreciando y apropiando otras técnicas (licenciamiento, programación, instalación de software, trabajo con arduino, activismo político, etc). Es la diversidad de dicha técnica y la posibilidad de romper o rehacer la condición la que le da el caracter diverso al acto del hacking a la vez que lo mantiene abierto y sin embargo no lo hace corresponder a cualquier cosa.

    3. Levydrewamorenuancedandpanoramicviewofhackersyetstillpracticallyreproducedtheclandestineimage.Critiquingthisimage,TimJordanandPaulTaylorarguethatvariousclassesofhackersemergedovertimeandneedtobedistinguished.

      Coleman (Coding Freedom) dice lo mismo.

      [...] By the 1990s, hackers were already functioning in at least four ways: original hackers (dissident and libertarian), microserfs (subservient and submissive), a growing group of open-source software developers (critical and resilient), and politically motivated hacktivists (political and subversive).[44] These two last groups—open-source developers and hacktivists—constitute the most significant groups for understanding the emergence of citizen subjects in cyberspace.

    4. whatdifferentiateshackersfromprogrammersisthatinorbysayingsomethingthroughcode,hackerschallenge,ifnotsubvert,conventionsinwhichtheyfindthemselves.Hackersarethosewhoseactssubvertconventionsgoverningthemselvesanddigitalcitizens.Colemanrecognizesthat‘manyhackersarecitizensofliberaldemocracies,andhavedrawnonthetypesofaccessibleliberaltropes—notablyfreespeech—asameanstoconceptualizetheirtechnicalpracticeandsecurenovelpoliticalclaims.’ButgiventheextensityoftheInternet,whilethisstatementmayhavebeentrueinthepast,itwouldbehardtosubstantiatetodaythathackersareonlycitizensofliberaldemocracies,meaningtheyarelegalholdersofcitizenshipstatusinliberaldemocraticstates.
    5. OneaspectofhackerculturethatColemanhighlightsistheslogan‘codeisspeech’.[46]CodeisindeedthelanguageoftheInternet.Butisitspeech?FollowingAustin,wearguethatthroughspeechactswedosomethinginorbysayingsomething.Similarly,wewouldarguethatprogrammersaredoingsomethinginorbycodingsomething.Yet,toarticulatethismoreprecisely,codeisnotspeech:itisalanguageinorbywhichspeechactsareperformed.Justasinhumanlanguages,thedecisivethingsherearenotonlythelinguisticconventionsthatanimatespeechactsbutalsothesocialconventionsthattheybringabout
    6. Colemanarguesthatbymostlycircumventingcopyrightlawswiththeircommitmenttothefreecirculationofintellectualproperty,hackerscontradicttheexistingliberalconceptionofintellectualpropertyastherighttoexcludeandcontrol.Yetbyadvancingvaluesofcivillibertiesandpromotingindividualautonomyand,aboveall,acommitmenttofreespeech,hackersarethemostardentpromotersofliberalvalues.Thus,forColeman,hackersoccupybothacentralandmarginal—wemightsayaparadoxical—placewithintheliberaltradition.

      [...] Coleman says that hackers ‘tend to value a set of liberal principles: freedom, privacy, and access.’ It is difficult for us to see freedom, privacy, and access as either values or principles, though they express certain values. From our point of view, things such as freedom, privacy, and access are rights, and, like all rights, they are born of social and political struggles, and these struggles both predate and are wider than what liberalism implies. Thus, we wonder whether it is possible to understand hacking cultures in ethical and aesthetic terms without also considering their broader politics. The joy (deep hack mode) that hackers experience in creating a collaborative culture by sharing their skills and talents is wonderful, but understanding the ways in which this joy can be assimilated into obedient, submissive, or subversive ways of being hackers requires a broader perspective.

    7. Forus,probablythemostpertinentdistinctionisbetweenprogrammersandhackers.Inorbysayingsomethingincodeperformsbothillocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts.

      The difference between programmers and hackers is, however, the effects of their acts, which have dramatically changed over time. Programmers are those— either employed by software companies or working independently—who make a living by writing code, which includes anything between snippets (short code) and apps. Hackers may also program code in this fashion, but the culture that gives them the name emanates from a distinct set of ethical and aesthetic values that combine to create a different kind of politics than programming does. This difference is hard to express, but it is also the difference that is of interest to us. It is hard to express perhaps because so much has been said and written about hackers—mostly negative. As a consequence, a unified, typically clandestine, selfish, young, male, and outlaw image has become dominant, which more recent studies have shown is grotesquely simplified. We want to argue that hackers are those whose acts break conventions of programming.

  6. Sep 2017
    1. Doug Thomas (2002) concluded that "hacker culture, in shifting away from the traditional norms of subculture formation, forces us to rethink the basic relationships between parent culture and subculture" (p. 171). Similarly, such a splintering of meanings draws into question how conveniently a lineage by generations can be identified (Coleman, 2012; Taylor, 2005). Hacker and maker space members draw on the "shared background of cultural references, values, and ideas" (Soderberg, 2013, p. 3) of a more accessible hacker culture that is social, everyday, and lived (Williams, 1995). The culture of HMSs is made visible through interactions as members draw on hacker and maker culture at large as an explanation for what it is that goes on there

      Esto tiene que ver con la idea de popularización de la cultura hacker (me recuerda la noción de lo popular como un lugar donde se perpetúa y reta la cultura). Una cultura hacker, informada por tradiciones anteriores, pero que encarna de maneras particulares en los contextos en los que se da.

    2. This popularization is well captured by Brian Alleyne's (2011) observation that "we are all hackers now," a far cry from the insularity of the late 1980s (Meyer, 1989). The term hacker is freely applied to contexts as diverse as data-driven journalism (Lewis & Usher, 2013), urban exploration (Garrett, 2012), and creative use of IKEA products (Rosner & Bean, 2009). I frame hacking as "popular" to underscore its accessible, immediate, and participatory aspects (Jenkins, 2006), even if it is not popular in the same way as "fan cultures" (Jenkins, McPherson & Shattuc, 2002). Rather than media, the popular tum in hacking is linked to interactions with objects, platforms, and practices that invite participation and thereby increase the scope of who have typically considered themselves hackers in new and unforeseen ways.

      Sin embargo puede pasar que con la popularización se pierda la noción de hacker. La idea de un quehacer artesanal parece más apropiada en este contexto.

    3. I retain hacker because hackers pace members draw upon hacker culture, broadly considered, even though the sites that identify as HMSs vary widely.

      Estos términos son auto-denotativos. Es una manera en que los miembros de la comunidad se refieren a sí mismos.

    4. Matt Ratto (2011) defines "critical making" as a combination of critical thinking and material production. His contribution for the current discussion is: if critical makers can "reintegrate technical and social work and thereby innovate both" (p. 258). Design appears a fertile inroad for thinking about empowerment and politics, as particular genres of technology are created through complex social, economic, and cultural processes, leading to literacies that can be drawn on and reconfigured (Balsamo, 2011 ). DiSalvo's (2009) notion of critical making involves users in the design process through practices such as tracing and projection, resulting in the creation of new publics. This was later developed into "adversarial design" (DiSalvo, 2012), which confronts the politics of technologies of objects with an intent to encourage participation. Rafi Santo's (2011, 2013) "hacker literacies" similarly positions hacking as enabling critical thinking within a framework of media literacies.

      Rafi Santo's (2011, 2013) "hacker literacies" similarly positions hacking as enabling critical thinking within a framework of media literacies.

    1. In conclusion, these articles highlight elements of a broader story of increasing democ-ratization of hacking and making. This plurality will likely continue to grow and confront global, structural, and technological challenges worldwide.
    2. We have framed the theme of this issue as “The Democratization of Hacking and Making” to draw attention to the relationships between action, knowledge, and power. Particularly, hacking and making are about how practices of creation and transforma-tion generate knowledge and influence institutions. These acts concentrate and distrib-ute power through publics and counterpublics. Yet, the very mutability of hacker and maker relations makes them a challenge to identify and research. Hacking and making collectives have proven capable of constituting and reconstituting themselves in physi-cal and virtual spaces. They integrate across infrastructures, collaborative systems, socio-economic divides, and international boundaries.
    1. Eventually she became more entangled with social relationships, which helped her work on technical projects that brought a comfort of similarity from previous work. Initially she didn’t identify with the term “hacker.” Only later did she came to understand herself as oriented around self-sufficiency and creative problem-solving. For her, the resonance with hacking as an identity came after participation and a deeper entanglement.

    Tags

    Annotators

  7. Aug 2015