Genealogy, Culture and Technomyth

Abstract

Western-derived maker movements and their associated fab labs and hackerspaces are being lauded by some as a global industrial revolution, responsible for groundbreaking digital “entanglements” that transform identities, practices and cultures at an unprecedented rate (Anderson 2014; Hills 2016). Assertions proliferate regarding the societal and entrepreneurial benefits of these “new” innovations, with positive impacts ascribed to everything, from poverty to connectivity. However, contradictory evidence has started to emerge, suggesting that a heterogeneous set of global cultural practices have been homogenized. This paper employs a materialist genealogical framework to deconstruct three dominant narratives about information technologies, which we call “technomyths” in the tradition of McGregor et al. After outlining the maker movement, its assumptions are examined through three lesser-cited examples: One Laptop per Child in Peru, jugaad in India and shanzhai copyleft in China. We then explore two preceding technomyths: Open Source and Web 2.0. In conclusion, we identify three key aspects as constitutive to all three technomyths: technological determinism of information technologies, neoliberal capitalism and its “ideal future” subjectivities and the absence and/or invisibility of the non-Western.

Controlling the uncontrollable: the public discourse on artificial intelligence between the positions of social and technological determinism

“…Using the example of AI, Floridi (2019) noted that depending on the actor, ideas about society's future with new technologies can be either positive or negative. Society and the media can disseminate narratives about technology that are not based on factual analysis and that instead construct a "technomyth" (Braybrooke and Jordan 2017). The varying views on the extent to which technological development can be controlled by social actors influence the dominant narratives on the future of a society under the influence of AI (Williams 2006).…”

A Pharmacological Perspective on Technology-Induced Organised Immaturity: The Care-giving Role of the Arts

“…The recent surge in usage of the terms maker and making, as well as the rise of “makerspaces,” “fab labs,” and DIY collectives, testifies to the dawn of a new era of arts-based technology customisation, citizen-led creative engagements with technologies, and practice-based accumulation of tech knowledge (Bradbury & O’Hara, 2019). Makerspaces are organised as a means of providing shared learning, access to otherwise prohibitively expensive equipment, and—critically—sites for enhancing our digital literacy (Braybrooke & Jordan, 2017; Richterich & Wenz, 2017). Arts-based hacking in makerspaces has thus far resisted pressures to turn these spaces into commercial venues and start-up enterprises, which would clearly be contrary to their aim of “enhancing and extending conceptual understandings of critical sociotechnical issues” (Ratto, 2011: 254) and of fostering a form of hands-on care through developing more equitable, fair, and inclusive anti-corporate digital technologies (Bradbury & O’Hara, 2019; Tronto, 1993).…”

Researching the digital economy and the creative economy: Free gaming shards and commercialised making at the intersection of digitality and creativity

“…The maker movement refers to a revival of DIY facilitated by digital technology, often involving means of digital fabrication and electronics devices. While there certainly have been precursors, maker culture and the maker movement have been popularised since the early 2000s (Braybrooke and Jordan, 2017; Richterich and Wenz, 2017), and the maker movement stresses not only ideals of creativity but also of inclusivity, as illustrated in slogans such as ‘Everyone can be a maker’. ‘Making’ has been established as a notion aspiring to civic, creative and hands-on, DIY practices as well as a means of developing digital expertise (Richterich, 2022a).…”