Anthropology of Science and Technology: Final Project
Part 1: Discourses on G.I.F.T., Racism, and the Internet
This first image represents only a single example in an ocean of racist, bigoted, and outright offensive content on the Internet that is facilitated by its users. One theme of the anthropological study of science and technology is understanding why and how modern online social platforms — Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. — facilitate behavior. In this case, horrible behavior. One theory within the field which seeks to explain why such behavior is pervasive on the Internet is known as the “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory”, more appropriately known by its acronym GIFT. This vernacular theory is discussed in an article by Lisa Nakamura, titled “Glitch Racism”, and goes on to explain the phenomenon of Internet awfulness in terms of GIFT. The theory itself emphasizes how the anonymity of online spaces, in combination with an audience that, through agreement or offense, fuel the drive to act out, creates individuals that express horrid views through aggressive or offensive language. This language includes threats, slurs, and other harassment that in any normal social situation would be completely unacceptable; however, Nakamura does not herself belief this theory to be accurate. Nonetheless, this phenomenon is a strangely unique one for our time, which makes its prevalence so important for discussion in the field of anthropology.
One aspect of online culture that has very recently been gaining steam in the scholarly community, due to the rise in its presence over the past few years, is online dating. The reason some anthropologists of science and technology are interested in the online dating realm is due to the commonality of racial biases in the online dating sphere. Some scholars have focused specifically on the biases and preferences of men within homosexual hookup spaces like Grindr, as these spaces seem to make the most of its clientele concerned about the prevalence of racial bias. For instance, Dr. Senthorun Raj of the University of Sydney wrote an article titled “Grindring Bodies”, in which a large portion was focused on the value of “whiteness” within the online space of Grindr. There is, apparently, a heavy bias towards white people and “white” norms that homosexuals on the site value more often than any other group, which is surprising within a democratic space that has a limited clientele. While some suggest that this too is an example of racism within the online space, it is also simply interesting due to the youth of the phenomenon. Its a new area of human sociology that has yet to be thoroughly explored, and as such it is important to address when thinking about anthropology of technology.
Part 2: Discrimination in Education and STEM Careers
This image, as stated in the caption, depicts the “leaky pipeline” metaphor, which generally expresses how women, and students more generally, throughout their educational careers tend to abandon or not even take interest in science, technology, engineering, or math before they finish schooling. The disparity between the number of women within STEM and the number of men in STEM is cause for concern for men and women within and outside of the field. Ideally, there should be little-to-no disparity, yet there exists one. Most observations suggest that decades of prevailing stigma against women in science, coupled with the lack of support for interested women and the harassment women face once in the STEM field all indicate an explanation as to why these “leaks” exist. In an article for the Journal of Geophysical Research, by Kathryn B. H. Clancy et. al., titled “Double Jeopardy in Astronomy and Planetary Science”, the authors address a significant amount of data pertaining to the amount and extent of harassment for all men and women within an astronomy occupation. Their study’s findings indicate strongly that women, and women of color in particular, face the most harassment and emotional trauma within their working environments. This is absolutely a symptom of a greater issue within STEM, and it is the in part the job of anthropologists to determine the root causes of this kind of harassment so “leaks” can be prevented in the future.
One article that I read this semester focused on “geeks” and, more generally, computer science. “Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics” by Kristopher Kelty discussed the discrepancy between the complicated nature of the Internet and the limited vocabulary that we have to describe it. But what is related within this article to the previous paragraph of this part is actually from a passage in the footnotes, where the author addresses questions of gender with respect to geeks. It is within this passage that the author acknowledges that men dominate the field of computer science, and that programs exist that aid to put women into the field to diversify and improve it. There is a clear gendering of the “geek” type in all forms of media, with a few exceptions, as well as a stigma within academia around women in computer science. Fortunately, with the work of social anthropologists and activists within STEM, we may see an increase in the number of women in the field.
Part 3: Eugenics and Genetic Data
As it has very much to do with anthropology, given it relates to physical human specimens both alive and long dead, the field of genetics has always been a space of contention. An aspect of this contention is derived from eugenics, the “‘applied science’ to improve the genetic composition of a population through controlling reproduction”, as put by the sociologist Banu Subramaniam. In chapter two of her book Ghost Stories for Darwin, she discusses the shameful and often ignored history of “science” as a tool for inflicting suffering onto entire populations of people. Discussing the history of eugenics in the modern era is important because it is a dangerous philosophy and practice that still persists despite the glaring ethical drawbacks it brings. Within the realm of anthropology, discussing this past “science” as something that a) absolutely happened and b) is indefensibly immoral is something that the anthropology of science and technology allows us to do. In order to better understand the complicated sociological defiance against modern science and medicines, we must approach the discourse with a full understanding that up until incredibly recently have we (by we I mean Euro-centric science) come close enough to legitimacy that we can have this conversation. As such, we cannot afford to be any less direct with the awful past of European medicine and science.
In the same vein as the discourse on eugenics is the conversation about the ethics of collecting genetic data. The most common sort of collection is through blood samples that, when analyzed, can determine medical problems as well as genetic heritage. Often times issues arise when genomic scientists value the possible data they could collect from a specimen more than the rights of the specimen or the owners of the specimen themselves. Of the many examples of this being an issue within recent American history, one such case which came into the public eye in 2017 when the Kennewick man, a skeleton from a Native American burial site in Washington, was allowed to be reburied after years of protest from the claimed owners of the remains. This case, and the issue of consent with DNA extraction, appeared in an article that was read at the beginning of the semester, titled “ The Ethical Battle Over Ancient DNA” by Michael Balter. This type of issue occurs far too often due to a general disconnect of values between the Native Peoples of the United States and the scientists that wish to extract information from their remains. Anthropologists are partially responsible for this disconnect, and the issues that surround the lack of adequate consent and communication between these Native American groups and the United States. For an anthropologist of science and technology, one might expect them to take a critical eye to the practices of these scientists, and hold them accountable for unethical practices that, ultimately, are conducted for the sake of saving time at the expense of entire peoples’ traditions and values.
Part 4: Evolution of the Social Purpose of Technologies
While during this semester it seemed to me that we had an awful lot to talk about concerning our social and cultural relationship with science and technology, I feel like we did not cover much of anything about the actual technology itself affecting our society and culture. Just as in most cases, as we have discussed in this course, we as both scientific and social actors develop certain technologies and sciences that reflect our own social or cultural background, so too do we develop technologies that impact our social and cultural background. A great example of the impact of technology on culture is the shift in purpose that a camera has undergone in the digital age, as expressed in an article by Jose Van Dijck titled “Digital Photography: Communication, Identity, Memory”. Van Dijck addresses the phenomenon of digital photography being used in the modern age much more exclusively as a means of communication and identity construction, rather than its counterpart, film photography, which was historically used primarily as a means of maintaining in a physical form some memory of the past.
Especially when using anecdotal evidence from nearly any individual who uses digital technology in the present day, it is undoubtedly the case that this observation by Van Dijck is accurate. Millions of people from all over the world utilize digital technology in order to communicate and construct identity. It is for this pervasive aspect of our culture that apps like Snapchat and Instagram even exist, as there was incredible demand for platforms that would allow for quick and easy distribution of visual communications. This is a phenomenon that could not have existed if not for digital technologies, and the ease of access to photograph acquisition that it provides. It is for this reason that I concur with the author of the article mentioned above, whereby the existence and use of digital technology has altered the cultural context in which we take photographs. This is just one of many examples of how science and technology impacts us as humans just as humans impact science and technology.
Here is a link to the article by Jose Van Dijck:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470357207084865
