Håpnes and Sørensen have an article in Keith Grint and Rosalind Gill's anthology about the production and performance of masculinity in hax0r culture. Of course the venerable Turkle has argued about the role of mastery and control in defining male hax0rs. From my notes:
In this chapter, Håpnes and Sørensen examine a male Norwegian hacker culture to "explore the interrelationship between gender and technology… [and] maleness and computing."(p.175) They are curious as to whether it is possible to view the gender identity of hackers as autonomous from their mode of computing.
Identifying some theoretical roots, Håpnes and Sørensen note some problems in much of the theory on gender and technology. First, there is the difficulty of "reflexivity… reduction and reification" in ascribing certain kinds of masculinity to the creation and use of technology. Second, "there are the preconditions of arguing the translation of masculinity into the artefact or system being designed"; this is reminiscent of feminist postmodernists arguing against the designation of sexual difference as the difference.
In choosing their research subjects, Håpnes and Sørensen set out to examine a group who stood for everything problematic about gender and technology. In their deviance and marginality, they represent some extremes of the intersection between masculinity and technology. Håpnes and Sørensen's project was threefold: "first, to analyse this particular culture to learn about the interaction between gender and computers; second, to improve our understanding of how users of an artefact construct the artefact, so to speak, as an ensemble of technical and cultural elements through processes of negotiations with human and nonhuman actors; and third, to assess the notions of a universal hacker culture…"(p.179)
Interestingly, despite the construction of this group as an extreme of macho culture, Håpnes and Sørensen noted some disparities between models of masculinity and positivist technology use and actual cultural practice. For example, they noted combinations of "competition and collaboration, individualism and caring"(p.186) which were inherent to the imagining of the community. In fact the culture was quite complex, evidence of both the fluidity of masculinity and the flexibility of computers as a cultural medium.
no subject
In this chapter, Håpnes and Sørensen examine a male Norwegian hacker culture to "explore the interrelationship between gender and technology… [and] maleness and computing."(p.175) They are curious as to whether it is possible to view the gender identity of hackers as autonomous from their mode of computing.
Identifying some theoretical roots, Håpnes and Sørensen note some problems in much of the theory on gender and technology. First, there is the difficulty of "reflexivity… reduction and reification" in ascribing certain kinds of masculinity to the creation and use of technology. Second, "there are the preconditions of arguing the translation of masculinity into the artefact or system being designed"; this is reminiscent of feminist postmodernists arguing against the designation of sexual difference as the difference.
In choosing their research subjects, Håpnes and Sørensen set out to examine a group who stood for everything problematic about gender and technology. In their deviance and marginality, they represent some extremes of the intersection between masculinity and technology. Håpnes and Sørensen's project was threefold: "first, to analyse this particular culture to learn about the interaction between gender and computers; second, to improve our understanding of how users of an artefact construct the artefact, so to speak, as an ensemble of technical and cultural elements through processes of negotiations with human and nonhuman actors; and third, to assess the notions of a universal hacker culture…"(p.179)
Interestingly, despite the construction of this group as an extreme of macho culture, Håpnes and Sørensen noted some disparities between models of masculinity and positivist technology use and actual cultural practice. For example, they noted combinations of "competition and collaboration, individualism and caring"(p.186) which were inherent to the imagining of the community. In fact the culture was quite complex, evidence of both the fluidity of masculinity and the flexibility of computers as a cultural medium.