Gender and Technology

Abstract

The praxis-oriented interdisciplinary field of feminist technology studies (FTS) has done most among the social sciences to build a vibrant and coherent school of gender and technology studies. Given their shared commitment to exploring emergent forms of power in the contemporary world, there is surprisingly little dialogue between FTS and mainstream cultural anthropology. This review begins by outlining FTS and its concepts and methods. I then turn to the anthropology of technology, which also offers useful conceptual frameworks and methods for exploring gender regimes. Then, to highlight the ideological and methodological contrasts between social and cultural analyses of technology and the implications for gender analysis, I discuss the treatment of technology in two leading theoretical fields in the cultural anthropology of modernity and globalization: the anthropology of technoscience, and material culture studies. I conclude by asking which forms of engagement might be envisaged between the fields.

Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Ev Teknolojilerinin Kullanımına Etkisi

“…Sonuç olarak teknoloji üretme işi öncelikle erkek işi olarak kabul edilmekle beraber ev içi işlere yönelik olarak geliştirilen teknolojiler, toplumsal cinsiyetçi iş bölümü çerçevesinde kadınların sorumluluğuna bırakılmış olan ev işlerini basitleştirmekle birlikte, bu işleri kadınların sorumluluk alanından da çıkarmamaktadır (Bray, 2007;Gökbayrak, 2007). Ev teknolojilerinin kullanımındaki değişim, ancak biyolojik kökeni olmayan toplumsal cinsiyetçi kalıp yargıların değişimine bağlıdır.…”

Sociality and electricity in the United Kingdom: The influence of household dynamics on everyday consumption

“…The development of cheaper washing machines enabling them to achieve the status of ordinary items in households, even among lower income groups, has not necessarily made women's lives easier, with mechanization serving merely "to raise cultural standards of cleanliness rather than freeing women from domestic drudgery" (Bray 2007:39-40, citing Cowan 1983.…”

Symbolic Appropriation of the Internet: Modernity, Peasant Bodies, and the Image of Familial Intimacy in China’s Nongjiale Tourism Online Advertisements

“…There has been much scholarly endeavor in current academic circles to refine conceptual tools for effectively deciphering the complex ways in which technology and its use or consumption are engrained in and articulated with culture and society (see Silverstone and Hirsch 1996;Miller 1995;Miller and Slater 2000;Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003;Bray 2007). One of its significant corollaries is the transition of analytic emphasis from "the consumer" to "the user" so as to empower the consuming and/or using subjects with agency and capture their significant diversification in different social-cultural settings.…”

“…Some critical commentators, however, would argue that this line of approach fails to capture the deeper symbolic orders, social processes, and power dynamics inscribed in the use of technologies (e.g. Silverstone and Hirsch 1992;Douglas and Isherwood 1996;Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003;Miller and Slater 2000;Bray 2007). In what follows, I demonstrate that the process of selective representation manifested in the virtual space of NIAs is deeply embedded in the unique construction of modernity and rural-urban fault-lines in contemporary Chinese society.…”