Cyberfeminism
is not a recent phenomenon. During the 80s most feminist voices referred to Dona
Haraway, the author of A Cyborg Manifesto,
as one of the first academic writers in establishing a relationship between
women, technology and virtuality and the potentialities of it. In the early 90s
feminist artists thought that inequalities could be diluted in and by the
virtual world. Australian collective Venus Matrix was one of the first initiatives to experiment
with cyber feminism. Describing themselves as irreverent, the collective was
known for its manifestos and for the collective nature of its initiatives.
Since
those early conceptions of cyberfeminism, this field of thought has been connecting
women, machines and utopia for more than twenty years. This feminist movement,
highly motivated by the ICTs, was producing valuable contributions in the artist
sphere and platforms for feminist activism. All of the aforementioned efforts were
further fueled by the advent of the web 2.0 and the boom of social networks
during the 2000s. Thus, cyberfeminism set a series of primary goals that aimed,
in the first place, to create a less violent and more inclusive web, and expand
women’s participation.
As
Haraway claimed in her essay A Cyborg
Manifesto (1985) “in early twenty-first century there is now a breakthrough
in knowledge, with new technologies opening up the possibility of questioning
the body in new ways (p.112).” This optimistic view also “sees the new
communication and bio technologies as fresh sources of power to be harnessed by
feminists” (Harcourt, 2009, p.22). In the following map you can find the
various groups and projects that undertook the challenge of connecting hemispheres
to try to build a more humane and inclusive web usage.
In
the 21st century, Internet is a significant space of expression of
feminist practices and “a tool for creating a communicative space that when
embedded in a political reality can be an empowering mechanism for women”
(Harcourt, 1999, p.219). Within this current context, cyberfeminisms include a
wide range of feminisms and diversity. There are woman who cause chaos in the
networks; initiate virtual campaigns to denounce sexism or sexual harassment on
the streets; who develop and share software, apps and games; artists who
through installations, videos or performance challenge
heteronormativity,
motherhood, menstruation, domestic and other social norms imposed on us women;
individuals who bring experiences of lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals,
intersexuals and queers thinkers; writers who analyze and write the experiences
of women in the network; and grassroots collectives that challenge notions of
patriarchy through its art. The list is unending.
As
I am reading about cyberfeminism I can’t help thinking that amidst the
diversity of methods, goals and processes of these feminist activists,
sometimes there seems to be a lack of a clear political project that appeals
beyond the boundaries of their individual efforts. As I reckon the
potentialities of the net to create bonds and strengthen feminist movements, to
sustain and nurture global feminist causes, for knowledge sharing, for raising
consciousness about other women’s struggle, I think that the challenge at this
point is to explore how to establish an articulated techno-political agenda
with a common goal.
Without
disregarding the efforts of this contemporary feminist community, there is a
knowledge gap concerning the role, impact, and potential of cyberfeminism in the
task of creating sustainable ties among women worldwide. In this regard, my
question would be how can cyber feminists use Internet to create a cohesive,
inclusive and powerful political movement toward gender equality that can simultaneously develop political solidarity and commitment among women
worldwide.
Belen, I think your post on cyberfeminism is very interesting, thank you for brining this topic up. Recently I have been excited seeing the ways that the Internet and social media provide a platform for feminist activism. For example, the distractinlysexy hashtag (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/12/413986529/-distractinglysexy-tweets-are-female-scientists-retort-to-disappointing-comments) comes to mind, as well as the body positive movement, and the ways that women who have experienced sexual assault have been able to spread awareness and come together across physical distance.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit of the Internet specifically is that people can find a wide network of support worldwide when they may not receive that same support within their own local social networks. Another aspect that I like about feminist activism via ICTs/social media is that because people can incorporate visual images with video, audio, and words, and in doing this, it seems like feminists have been able to focus on embodied experiences. I am thinking about Harcourt’s (2009) book Body Politics in Development, and I see some of this played out through cyberfeminism. Women showing their breast cancer scars or scars from cesarean sections through social media or feminist websites. People putting names and faces to the transgender movement or as victims of sexual assault. Most of my connections to cyberfeminism have been through Western feminist perspectives, so I would be curious and interested to see how this is playing out more globally.
Furthermore, I agree that these communication technologies have helped women come together worldwide, but I also wonder who is excluded from cyberfeminism? More people are adopting ICTs and other technologies than ever before, and Internet connectivity seems to become increasingly more widespread. Despite this, there may be a significant number of voices that are not heard through these platforms because they do not have access. I think what you said is still true—that cyberfeminism is and can be a powerful political force and it can become a place for people to come together across difference and distance. I wonder what cyberfeminists can do, then, to be more inclusive or aware of who it may be leaving out?
Transnational feminist organizing utilizes various methods to achieve its goals and objectives. The internet is now a part of international solidarity actions to disseminate information to large and diverse mass audiences. The ease of sharing and quick dissemination can work to enfranchise individuals and organizations that are typically left out of discussions of international issues. Furthermore, the internet allows organizations or causes to mobilize individuals, rally for support, and leverage political power in some cases. It also proves to be a great tool or organizing social movements through frequent contact with networks that are geographically spread apart.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the use of ICTs allows activists to express their opinions/perspectives on issues without being taken out of context by mainstream media. Activists can assert editorial control over their own words and images, countering mainstream media’s account of certain issues. It is important to note, that due to the nature of creating an online space to discuss transnational feminist agendas and sharing them that it can yield increased accountability for both the
individuals/organizations discussing the issues and the opposing force that is perceived to be involved in creating the issue.
Moreover, there are risks that ICTs pose that coincide with its advantages. Although activists can have some control of their own words by publishing them themselves, they also may face a loss of control of their usage and associated images. Individuals that may not be directly associated with the group or cause may adopt certain features from a transnational social movement and change the meaning and objectives. Therefore, the voice of those directly involved in organizing can be overshadowed, then possibly discredited based on who “adopted” the cause and how their actions are perceived on the international stage.
Furthermore, the voices of the marginalized can be silenced by individuals that are supposedly being a voice for them. This is evidenced in the discourse surrounding the Syrian Activist group Refugees Not Captives. According to Alhayek, “…the disconnection between online representations and offline realities in relation to Syrian refugee women’s issues in Jordan is significant…and ignore[s] the broader context of the power relations that rule refugee women and activists’ lives in both their home and host countries” (Alhayek, 2014, 698). In addition, it is important to note that narrowcasting can be an issue. Access doesn’t necessarily mean people that come from varying backgrounds throughout the world will seek out information on a certain cause.
Alhayek, K. 2014. Double Marginalization: The Invisibility of Syrian Refugee Women’s Perspectives in Mainstream Online Activism and Global Media. Feminist Media Studies. Vol. 14, 4.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBelen, really interesting post. I am glad you brought this up as lately I feel like I have seen a lot of social media posts focused on feminist issues. Like Sonia, I have followed the body positivity movement as well as the free the nipple movement through hashtags on instagram and other social media platforms.
ReplyDeleteI think Ashley and Sonia both make great points about the silences that can exist in online activism. I too am interested in seeing different feminist perspectives outside of the western online activists.
Very interest posts and comments. I have to point out the connection between Haraway and cyberfeminism. Her cyberg work predated cyberfreminism by about a decade. Also "cyberfeminism" and the "cy" in cyborg denotes very different things from the "cy" in cyberfeminism. I love Haraway, but she is no cyberfeminist. I just wanted to make that clear. Haraway's work helped justify the goals and interests of cyberfeminists in a similar way that Carl Marx is no marxist but his writings are the foundation of Marxism. This parallel is not rock solid, but I think it helps make my point.
ReplyDeleteSonia, I suspect that cyberfeminism is the opposite of embodied feminist inquiry, by definition. Women have done a great deal of organizing and communicating on the Internet but is that what makes them cyberfeminists?
I want to note that I agree strongly with Ashley's comment that highlights how power influences who has access to communication technology and who is oppressed by communication technology. The digital divide has material consequences in ways that make me skeptical of any methods and ideologies that overlook the very white middle-classness of the Internet. If someone can read English easily and quickly, afford computers and a fairly stable access to the web their understanding of what information means and what information can do is going to be very different for people who have a different lived reality. I think the consciousness raising and collaboration Belen noted happens but it is often occuring among people who already have a great deal of economic privilege.