Article Published in "Are you talking to me? Discussions on Knowledge Production, Gender politics and feminist strategies"

Dones­Tech/Código Lela (Lela Code), an acti­vist rese­arch about the current rela­ti­ons between womyn and tech­no­lo­gies: www.dones­tech.net

Dones­Tech is an infor­mal group crea­ted in June 2006 in Barce­lona. It is compo­sed of womyn and men that share some common back­ground in rela­tion to acti­vist rese­arch, medi­ac­ti­vism, tech­no­lo­gi­cal prac­tice and gender/femi­nist pers­pec­tive.

From the start, we have been rese­ar­ching and taking acti­ons to know how womyn access tech­no­lo­gies, which soft­ware and hard­ware they use, under which condi­ti­ons they work, which prac­ti­ces they deve­lop with tech­no­lo­gies and, finally, what are their main wishes and dreams for the future.

Our rese­arch and prac­tice inscri­bes itself inside a cyber­fe­mi­nism that challen­ges and inter­ro­ga­tes the sexism embed­ded inside scien­ti­fi­cally and tech­no­lo­gi­cal prac­ti­ces and theo­ries (Gonzá­lez García, M y Pérez Sedeño, E, 2002). We reveal again the non-neutral charac­ter of tech­no­lo­gies as arti­facts that medi­a­tes our rela­tion to the world by esta­blis­hing possi­ble ways of buil­ding upon it, and at the same time their deve­lop­ment impe­des the emer­gence of possi­ble alter­na­tive path­ways. In that sense, our rese­arch meet with a set of cyber­fe­mi­nist reflec­ti­ons stating that through this inter­ro­ga­tion we challenge the control and power mecha­nisms rooted inside tech­no­lo­gies, and we contri­bute to a common empo­wer­ment of womyn by trying to subvert the gender rela­ti­ons at one of its core.

We intro­duce below the basic ideas we agreed to be part of our mani­festo, a text that works as a short­cut to explain how and why we enga­ged inside this acti­vist rese­arch about the current rela­ti­ons and repre­sen­ta­ti­ons between women and tech­no­lo­gies. After­wards we expose a brief summary of thedata we manage to found, gather and create oursel­ves on womyn and tech­no­lo­gies. Finally, we are glad to present some of our main results regar­ding the collec­tive and indi­vi­dual memo­ries pers­pec­ti­ves gathe­red throug­hout the rese­arch and that inclu­des the dreams and wishes of the womyn that have parti­ci­pa­ted to it.

Lela’s Code Mani­festo

“An inves­ti­ga­tion that arises from the desire to eluci­date certain ques­ti­ons to trans­form rese­arch into a useful know­ledge reserve to all those people worried about inequa­li­ties among genders and for  people orien­ted to social and poli­ti­cal trans­for­ma­tion.

A space to rethink tech­no­logy and its repre­sen­ta­ti­ons, its connec­tion with the body and subjec­ti­vi­ties and its rela­tion with new forms of produc­tion, work, affec­ti­ons, iden­ti­ties, know­ledge, desi­res, feelings, acti­ons…

A study that comes from the analy­sis of data, infor­ma­tion and exis­ting rese­arch at an inter­na­ti­o­nal level and that appro­a­ches real and every­day prac­ti­ces

A rese­arch that wants to echo projects, inici­a­ti­ves, perso­nal and collec­tive prac­ti­ces in rela­tion with tech­no­lo­gies, but above all from womyn who currently parti­ci­pate and deve­lop tools for infor­ma­tion and commu­ni­ca­tion tecno­lo­gies

A criti­cal atti­tude because we want to know and have access to the running and mecha­nisms of the tools which we work with. For that reason we opt to use free soft­ware, open tools that faci­li­tate collec­tive lear­ning and give auto­nomy in colla­bo­ra­tive work and with the machi­nes

A crea­tion that is spread under free licen­ses because we beli­eve that freely sharing and distri­bu­ting infor­ma­tion and know­ledge faci­li­ta­tes social and poli­ti­cal trans­for­ma­tion

An inter­est to iden­tify atti­tu­des, repre­sen­ta­ti­ons and prac­ti­ces that discri­mi­nate womyn in the world of ICT from the expe­ri­ence of womyn that have mana­ged to over­come those inequa­li­ties.

A visual, sono­rous and carto­grap­hic path of the routes, acti­ons, looks and reports as an active poli­ti­cal work form.

A way to entan­gle us more…­mo­re…and more”

From Data…

For most of under-studied subjects one common deno­mi­na­tor is the lack of avai­la­ble data, that is why our first step has been to esta­blish which was the actual pano­rama of avai­la­ble sour­ces of statis­tics rela­ted to the uses and prac­ti­ces of women with ICTs. We concen­tra­ted on the Cata­lan and Spanish state¹ but also took in account some Euro­pean and World­wide statis­tics. All studies would show a lower access and rate of parti­ci­pa­tion of women with ICTs, inside tech­no­lo­gi­cal studies and in rela­tion to working occu­pa­tion defi­ned as tech­no­lo­gi­cal. This over­view conducts us to seve­ral reflec­ti­ons: How those statis­tics were built?, Which visi­ons and defi­ni­ti­ons were they carrying out?, Which aspects where they avoi­ding?

Throug­hout their analy­sis we saw that the gathe­ring of data lack of open­ness in their consi­de­ra­tion of “other” tech­no­lo­gi­cal profes­si­ons and acti­vi­ties, and they “stran­gely” invi­si­ble­ness the ones that are less soci­ally consi­de­red, and gene­rally, less mone­tary valu­a­ted. We could also see that those statis­tics stic­ked into a quan­ti­ta­tive vision of ICT use (number of compu­ters, broad­band access, number of hours spent..) but gene­rally didn’t take in account the quali­ta­tive aspects of such uses and prac­ti­ces. So we felt that we had to create our own data, in order to coun­ter-balan­cer and expe­ri­ment around this issue, consi­de­ring the crea­tion of data as a perfor­ma­tive prac­tice to empo­wer our subject of study.

So besi­des “setting the scene” we inten­ded by descy­fe­ring the “lela code” to shed light on other patterns of access and use of tech­no­lo­gies by women. We inti­ma­tely knew about “alter-reali­ties” that didn’t appe­a­red in those data, and thus we were surroun­ded by women that were doing great things with tech­no­lo­gies, all this was harshly known and was under-repre­sen­ted inside our daily chan­nels of infor­ma­tion and commu­ni­ca­tion, and inside our imagi­na­ries and collec­tive memo­ries.

to Memo­ri­es…

The rese­arch tried to deli­ver collec­tive know­ledge about past refe­rents, inspi­ring women and groups which used tech­no­lo­gies to empo­wer them­sel­ves, to improve their profes­si­o­nal prac­ti­ces, to deve­lop their crea­ti­vity and/or to achi­eve social trans­for­ma­tion for justice and equity. We felt how neces­sary it was to make visi­ble those prac­ti­ces, memo­ries, narra­ti­ves driven by the women doing and inter­es­ted by tech­no­lo­gies.

Adop­ting a vast unders­tan­ding of what stood behind the concept of “tech­no­lo­gies” helped us to re-inter­pret its speci­fi­ci­ties in rela­tion to gender issues. We inten­ded to deter­mine the charac­te­ris­tics of those arti­facts relaying upon the inti­ma­tes expe­ri­en­ces of the women that did parti­ci­pate and contri­bute to this rese­arch. In that sense, the Lela code tried to twis­ted the gene­ric pers­pec­tive deve­lo­ped by most cultu­ral studies devo­ted to this issue. It tried to trans­form the unders­tan­ding of the lack of women inside tech­no­lo­gi­cal fields by avoi­ding an appro­ach begin­ning by “why aren’t women parti­ci­pa­ting?”, towards a view that would insist in the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of “women alre­ady doing, contri­bu­ting and parti­ci­pa­ting” to those fields.

This mapping has used seve­ral methods to insure its deve­lop­ment. In one hand, it has sett­led its strength in a conti­nu­ous iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of events being deve­lo­ped around the world and rela­ting some­how, women, tech­no­lo­gies, femi­nisms and acti­visms. On the other hand, we have tried to rein­force this mapping by the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the infor­mal groups, networks and formal orga­ni­za­ti­ons that were deve­lo­ping those events, driving us to settle a book­mark account on those initi­a­ti­ves and groups. Finally, we have orga­ni­zed, or taken part, to discus­sion groups and other events where our rese­arch has been presen­ted and that allo­wed us to gather in-depth inter­vi­ews with women present over there. All this, has conce­ded us an amount of preci­ous audio and video mate­rial that we have used in seve­ral ways: it has cons­ti­tu­ted our primary mate­ria to deve­lop our analy­sis, its has been trans­for­med in online inter­vi­ews and in a docu­men­tary on this issue, it has cons­ti­tu­ted roar subs­tance to create geopo­e­tic maps about perso­nal and collec­tive memo­ries, and about the seve­ral exis­ting patterns that women deve­lo­ped in order to learn and get enga­ged with ICTs and tech­no­lo­gies.

Metho­do­lo­gi­es… results…

All this mapping and analy­ti­cal exer­ci­ses have been deve­lo­ped taking in account acti­vist rese­arch guide­li­nes, willing through this collect of narra­ti­ves to iden­tify some keys, and path­ways, that could be used by other women willing to parti­ci­pate and engage more with tech­no­lo­gies. In that sense, the rese­arch process in itself had to create waves of social and poli­ti­cal trans­for­ma­tion in oursel­ves and also in the womyn we would come across. This would be the speci­fi­city of the <lela code>: descyp­he­ring receipts and metho­do­lo­gies that have worked for women, try to deli­ver them by taking in account their local and contex­tual speci­fi­ci­ties, condu­cive to empo­wer oursel­ves, and improve our capa­city to empo­wer others, in order to accom­plish more gender equity, and justice for all.

Even if we prio­ri­tize to bunch up subjec­tive narra­ti­ves, we don’t stage that the unders­tan­ding of how and why women initi­ate their inter­est, and tech­no­lo­gi­cal prac­tice, is enough to unders­tand how they succeed. We have addi­ti­o­nally to take in account factors such as the social, cultu­ral and econo­mi­cal charac­te­ris­tics of each women. That is why we inclu­ded inside our online survey some ques­ti­ons about their socio-demo­grap­hic profi­les. Our statis­ti­cal analy­sis was based on a sample of 302 women and the profile esta­blis­hed upon them made visi­ble a “techie women”: “that leaves in a city upon 100.000 inha­bi­tants, with an average of 35 years old and who had a first expe­ri­ence with tech­no­lo­gies before being 20 years old. She has an occu­pa­tion and her income is around 1000 euros. Half of hers have cursed a tech­ni­cal career, half, haven’t. Gene­rally she is single, without persons at her charge, with some free time which she highly dedi­ca­ted to tech­no­lo­gies prac­ti­ces. She uses propri­e­tary hard­ware, and at least half of hers also uses free and open source soft­ware. Half of those women consi­der them­sel­ves as deve­lo­pers and crea­tors as well as users of tech­no­lo­gies, and gene­rally they don’t prac­tice with tech­no­lo­gies strictly alone”.

Besi­des this we have to relate this profile to the exis­tent top-down poli­cies deve­lo­ped by the public insti­tu­ti­ons, as much as, to the emer­ging self-orga­ni­zed grass-roots initi­a­ti­ves coming bottom-up. Both intend to attain a better inclu­sion and empo­wer­ment of women through their grea­ter parti­ci­pa­tion to the fields of tech­no­logy and science. Taken in account all toget­her they draw the current pano­ra­mas of inclu­sion/exclu­sion expe­ri­en­ced by womyn in their possi­bi­lity to accede, use and improve their tech­no­lo­gi­cal skills and know­ledge.

We deci­ded to don’t engage in this rese­arch from a pre-quoting of tech­no­lo­gies avoi­ding a locked concep­tion of what is a “techie womyn (and there­fore who might not be). Even if our survey high­lights a socio-demo­grap­hic profile, we unders­tand that it is biased in seve­ral ways but never­the­less, and maybe in a para­do­xic way, it is useful as it provi­des with “unex­pec­ted” results, such as the amount of womyn alre­ady using FLOSS, or at least strongly inter­es­ted with them. Inas­much as our study aimed to include all women that did consi­der them­sel­ves as “techies” it lent to shed light on the “invi­si­bi­li­zed” prac­ti­ces that womyn were carrying. This was made possi­ble by our initial inten­tion to avoid any segre­ga­tion or exclu­sion of speci­fic areas, domains or tools. This posi­ti­o­ning has poin­ted out a diver­si­fied set of uses and prac­ti­ces taking place with womyn and infor­ma­tion and commu­ni­ca­tion tech­no­lo­gies, but also with biote­ch­no­lo­gies, audi­o­vi­sual, educa­ti­o­nal and domes­tic tech­no­lo­gies also.

This exer­cise of “refra­ming” and “resha­ping” the prac­ti­ces of womyn and tech­no­lo­gies as also showed us, at least in what refers to the sample² of womyn that parti­ci­pa­ted in the descyp­he­ring of lela code, that it exists a high hete­ro­ge­neity between hers. They come from a vari­ety of back­grounds and are linked in seve­ral ways, they are nati­o­nal resi­dents, immi­grants, nomads, they are young and old, they come from urban and rural places, they are students and also used DIY know­ledge proces­ses, they are acti­vists, scien­ti­fic, rese­ar­chers, desig­ners, djs and vjs, deve­lo­pers, jour­na­lists, produ­cers… But they do also share some pers­pec­ti­ves and views: they are curi­ous, they want to empo­wer them­sel­ves in order to gain auto­nomy, they gene­rally distrust and dislike power rela­ti­ons being embed­ded inside tech­no­lo­gi­cal and scien­ti­fic advan­ces, they intend to have a criti­cal atti­tude and a crea­tive rela­tion to tech­no­lo­gies, they will to share their know­ledge with others. They are the vari­ous aspects compo­sing our lela code, a receipt for common empo­wer­ment by adap­ting grass-roots rese­arch to the crea­tion and sharing of know­ledge by all, for all.

> (2008) Lela’s Code Arti­cle Publis­hed in a colla­bo­ra­tive book " Are you talking to me? Discus­si­ons on Know­ledge Produc­tion, Gender Poli­tics and Femi­nist Stra­te­gies

h.arta and Katha­rina Mora­wek (eds.)

Loec­ker Verlag, Vienna

2008" Edited by: harta (Maria Christa, Anca Gyemant, Rodica Tache) and Katha­rina Mora­wek (english). Loec­ker Verlag, Vienna