One could argue that perhaps what we see in this history is not the creation ofobjects as an ontological element but rather the development of a language to such alevel of complexity that it is finally able to describe objects that already exist in theworld outside of language. Against this objection, it must be noted that what we witnessin this history, what drives it forward, is the difficulty of relating language to world,whether it is a simulated world or a new world of computer graphics. Moreover, theexamples presented here and in the textbooks and manuals for object-oriented pro-gramming demonstrate the often-difficult art of defining the objects that will constitutea given system

None of these objects, e.g., bits, functions, classes, and even the object thatSmalltalk invented, exist as objects outside of language. This is not to say that they areonly linguistic or that they do not really exist. The digital real exists and exerts itselfwithin its ossification into object form, but in the real, there are no objects, merely avast field of electric difference. Likewise, it is not to say that everything is language orthat everything is material. A discourse that does not affect the electronic system withinthe machine can never flip a bit. Conversely, for electric difference to mean anything, itmust be delimited as an object, process, or other data type within language. Program-ming is a process and system of representing and simultaneously hiding the real inlanguage.

These developments were not only a change in metaphors but also produced changes inthe underlying code of the compiler

IusethetermBreal^to describe the material aspects of computation following Kittler’s Lacanian-influencedmedia-historic materialism (Kittler1999).

En el mundo de los insectos esta transformación se produce como el resultado de una auto-digestión, un fundirse total (meltdown) de la oruga en la que sólo permanecen intactos unos pocos focos de tejido vivo, los discos imaginales. Es a partir de ellos que emergen piernas, alas, antenas, segmentos corporales y otras estructuras de la forma adulta como un ser transformado e integrado, la mariposa. Sólo podemos especular qué pueden significar las correspondencias culturales de esta metáfora (2

Dentro de esta propuesta, bien llamada ‘investigación desde la acción colectiva’ (IAC), “las comunidades hacen parte de la producción del conocimiento como investigadoras y los investigadores e investigadoras hacen parte de las acciones colectivas [de transformación social]”

La pregunta sigue siendo, sin embargo, cómo hacer explícita la política onto-epistémica de la traducción que ocurre entren mundos bajo condiciones de conexión parcial que son, al mismo tiempo, relaciones asimétricas

‘existir por fuera del diseño’ es una posibilidad ya históricamente inviable, al menos por el momento.

Tal vez, en última instancia, este esfuerzo fue mi intento imperfecto para hacer una declaración político-ontológica, aprovechando los espacios ultra diseñados de aquello que llamamos la academia, el libro y el proceso de pensamiento.

un sistema de investigación o aprendizaje sobre sí misma

‘caminar la palabra’, un concepto desarrollado por la minga social y comunitaria de los nasa para señalar la necesidad de hacerse visible, denunciar y tejer conocimientos, resistencias y estrategias de manera colectiva con otros movimientos. Las alianzas requieren la creación de inter-conocimiento y traducción entre movimientos y mundos para permitir la inteligibilidad y una medida de coordinación (

(a) la reorganización de la sociedad sobre la base de las autonomías locales y regionales; (b) poner en movimiento formas no capitalistas y no liberales de organización, sobre todo en las zonas urbanas; (c) introducir formas de autogestión de la economía, organizadas en principios comunales, incluso si están articuladas con el mercado; (d) articularse con el Estado pero sólo para desmantelar su racionalidad colonial e imaginar otro tipo de racionalidad social. El objetivo no era controlar el Estado sino organizarse como los poderes de una sociedad otra

el diseño ontológico tiene como objetivo contribuir a un entendimiento relacional de lo material porque apunta a desmaterializar la sociedad a través de una nueva conciencia de la materialidad y porque innova con nuevas formas para que la sociedad pueda ‘autoabastecerse’. Esto también implica una renovada atención a la práctica (incluyendo la articulación del diseño y la etnografía); una recuperació

La acústica une forma y evento, convocando a un replanteamiento de la relación entre proceso, diseño y materialidad.

En todos estos casos los aparatos asertivos de diálogo (occidentales, supuestamente racionales) operan como tecnologías políticas para someter otras visiones de paz, diálogo y vida. En todos estos discursos se encuentra la falta de justicia cognitiva que Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014) considera esencial para la transformación social duradera. Este es uno de los ejes más importantes para discutir el renovado interés por las visiones culturales, las civilizaciones y el diálogo intercultural como proyectos ontológicos y políticos complejos

Es importante destacar que ninguno de los autores que estoy revisando está llamando a un rechazo total de la racionalidad cartesiana ni de la razón centrada en el sujeto, tan discutidas por los filósofos intramodernos de la modernidad (e.g., Habermas 1987); más bien, piden el debilitamiento de su posición dominante y el desplazamiento de su centralidad en el diseño del mundo y nuestras vidas. Est

“tenemos que ampliar nuestro horizonte para abarcar tradiciones no Occidentales de reflexión sobre la experiencia” (

En Decolonizing methodologies [Metodologías descolonizadoras] la pensadora Maori Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999: 36) reflexiona sobre los riesgos que surgen cuando los pueblos indígenas utilizan la escritura académica para discutir su historia y su situación de opresión; al hacerlo, ella pregunta: ¿no corren el riesgo de escribir sobre los pueblos indígenas “como si realmente estuviéramos ‘ahí’, como el ‘Otro’, con todo lo que esto conlleva”? (Smith 1999: 36). En otras palabras, ¿este tipo de pensamiento dualista y logocéntrico no permea, inevitablemente, nuestras representaciones? Como Smith añadiera: “la escritura académica es una forma de seleccionar, organizar y presentar el conocimiento... [Refuerza y mantiene] un estilo de discurso que nunca es inocente” (1999: 36). Me parece que esta preocupación con la escritura logocéntrica es similar a la de Varela. La condición de posibilidad de la escritura académica todavía es una cierta ratio occidental, un rasgo que caracteriza a todo el sistema de las ciencias humanas y sociales dentro de la episteme moderna (F

Como hipótesis provisional sostengo que la dependencia de formas de racionalidad y análisis logocéntrico de larga data sigue siendo fundamental para la producción académica crítica (¡incluyendo este libro!) y que, a pesar de su notable productividad, tiene consecuencias para ir más allá de las ontologías dualistas. Para desarrollar esta hipótesis, aunque de forma rudimentaria, comienzo recordando el argumento de Varela y sus colegas sobre los límites de la racionalidad abstracta y su insistencia en unir la reflexión y la experiencia. Esto es precisamente lo que trató de hacer la fenomenología; sin embargo —argumentan Varela, Thomson y Rosch— no pudo contestar, completamente, las preguntas radicales que planteaba. ¿Por qué? Su respuesta es relativamente simple pero las consecuencias son de largo alcance. La fenomenología se estancó, precisamente, porque su análisis de la experiencia sigue estando “dentro de la corriente principal de la filosofía Occidental [...] hizo hincapié en el contexto pragmático y encarnado de la experiencia humana, pero de una manera puramente teórica” (Varela et al. 1991: 19). ¿Puede esta afirmación17ser aplicable a la teoría social en su conjunto, tal vez incluso a aquellas tendencias que problematizan sus dualismos estructurantes?

differentplatformsproducedifferentsociotechnicalarrangements—rules,norms,procedures,protocols,code,andalgorithms—inordertocreateaneffectivepresentationfortheirusers.Thesearrangements,orwhatwecallconventions,accomplishnotonlyasenseoffairnessbutalsostronghierarchiesthroughwhichnewsisproduced.[19]Thereisnoreasontobelievethattheseplatformsfeatureflathierarchiesorsmoothspacesofdialogue;rather,theyarehierarchicalandstriated.Theissuesofstatusandgatekeepingareasprominentintheseplatformsastheyareelsewhere.

Forexample,whatresourcesofcyberspacedodigitallyequippedsubjectshavetheauthorizationtoaccessasaresultoftheworkingsofsearchalgorithmsandfiltersortheprotocolsthatgovernandnormalizetheretention,storage,sharing,anddiscoverabilityofinformation?[36]Iflegalityandimaginaryconfigurethecitizenasasubjectofpowerandplacedemandsonhertoparticipatedigitally(submission),whatwefindinterestinghereandinrelationtohowwehaveunderstoodbeingdigitalcitizensistheperformativityofparticipatingthatprovidesaglimpseofthecitizenasalsoapotentialsubjectofsubversion.How,forexample,doesparticipatinggiverisetosubversiveactions,suchasthoseofcriticalcitizenscience?[37]Or,asMatthewFullerandAndrewGoffeyputit,howdoinjunctionssuchasGoogle’s‘Don’tbeevil’maximbeliethepropensitiesthatareactivatedbyrelativelyunstablesociotechnicalarrangementsthataregenerativeof‘unintendedorsecondaryeffects’?

The acclaimed and bestselling novelist, who denies himself access to the internet when writing, was talking at the Hay festival in Cartagena, Colombia. "Maybe nobody will care about printed books 50 years from now, but I do. When I read a book, I'm handling a specific object in a specific time and place. The fact that when I take the book off the shelf it still says the same thing – that's reassuring," said Franzen

Deleuzewasnowconvincedthat‘[w]e’removingtowardcontrolsocietiesthatnolongeroperatebyconfiningpeoplebutthroughcontinuouscontrolandinstantcommunication.’[65]Thespaceofcontrolsocietieswasdiffuseanddispersedanddecisivelycyberneticinitsmodesofgovernment.

Thespacesthatsovereignpowerproducescorrespondtosuchstrategiesandtechnologiesofexclusion:expulsion,prohibition,banishment,eviction,exile,anddeportationaresuchexamples.Bycontrast,beingasubjectofpowermobilizesstrategiesandtechnologiesofdiscipline,whichrequiresubmissionbutopenuppossibilitiesofsubversion.Thespacesthatdisciplinarypowerproducesareappropriatetosuchstrategiesandtechnologiesofdiscipline:asylums,camps,andbarracksbutalsohospitals,prisons,schools,andmuseumsasspacesofconfinement.Eachofthesespacesisaspaceofcontestation,competitiveandsocialstrugglesinandthroughwhichcertainformsofknowledgeareproducedinenunciationsthatperformsubjects.Neitherspacesofexclusionnorspacesofdisciplinearestaticorcontainerspaces.Theyaredynamicandrelationalspaces.Thereareno‘physical’spacesseparatefrompowerrelationsandnopowerrelationsthatarenotembeddedinspatializingstrategiesandtechnologiesofpower.

Deibertrightlyarguesthat‘althoughcyberspacemayseemlikevirtualreality,it’snot.EverydeviceweusetoconnecttotheInternet,everycable,machine,application,andpointalongthefibre-opticandwirelessspectrumthroughwhichdatapassesisapossiblefilteror“chokepoint,”agreyareathatcanbemonitoredandthatcanconstrainwhatwecancommunicate,thatcansurveilandchokeoffthefreeflowofcommunicationandinformation.’[59]NotonlydoesthismeanthattheInternethasmaterialeffectssuchasdatacentres,serverclusters,andcode,thoughthisiscertainlytrueandtherearestudiesaboutthesematerialforms.

Wedisagreewiththisviewofcode.AlthoughwegatherfromLessigandotherscholarssuchasRonDeibertandJulieCohentheimportanceofcode,wecannotagreethatcodecanordoeshavesuchadetermininginfluence.[45]Wewill,however,explainthislaterinchapter3,wherewediscussinmoredetailtheimportanceoflanguageandtheirreducibledifferencesbetweenspeech,writing,andcode.Fornow,wewanttoemphasizethatifweareboundtousetheconcept‘cyberspace’andcompareittosomethingcalled‘real’space,we’dbetterunderstandthecomplexregistersinwhichcyberspaceexistsratherthanbeingopposedtoanostensible‘real’space.

First,performingcitizenshipbothinvokesandbreaksconventions.Weshallcharacterizeconventionsbroadlyassociotechnicalarrangementsthatembodynorms,values,affects,laws,ideologies,andtechnologies.Associotechnicalarrangements,conventionsinvolveagreementorevenconsent—eitherdeliberateoroftenimplicit—thatconstitutesthelogicofanycustom,institution,opinion,ritual,andindeedlaworembodiesanyacceptedconduct.Sinceboththelogicandembodimentofconventionsareobjectsofagreement,performingtheseconventionsalsoproducesdisagreement.Anotherwayofsayingthisisthattheperformativityofconductsuchasmakingrightsclaimsoftenexceedsconventions

Moreover,withthedevelopmentoftheInternetofthings—ourphones,watches,dishwashers,fridges,cars,andmanyotherdevicesbeingalwaysalreadyconnectedtotheInternet—wenotonlydothingswithwordsbutalsodowordswiththings.

Projects were vital to linking personal interests to sharing and collaboration, with one member, echoing the overall pragmatism of the space, describing them as "education in disguise."

Jordan stipulates that the commonality of various perspectives on hacking (Himanen, 2001; Wark, 2004) is the hack, or the "ability to create new things, to make alterations, to produce differences" (Jordan, 2008, p. 7). These differences are linked with what Steven Levy (1984) called a "hands-on imperative" (p. 28) and enjoyment from deep concentration. By this line of thinking, the prerogative of hacking is that people should encounter technology not just to gain experience but for the enjoyment of pushing boundaries of what it was meant to do. Taylor (1999) describes the "kick" of hacking as "satisfying the technological urge of curiosity" (p. 17). This transgressing of the internal logic of systems lends a thrill that is difficult to pin down but is understood by those who have experienced it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Tim Jordan's (2008) assertion that "hacking both demands and refutes technological determinism" (p. 133) gestures at a blending of material and social agencies in specific contexts. In other words, hackers see systems as malleable even as they rely on them to accomplish goals. Jordan saw this as paradoxical perhaps because technological determinism tends to be only viewed in the negative (Peters, 2011 ). Viewing his statements as a reflection on enabling and constraining (Giddens, 1986) engagements with materialities, rather than "determinism" per se, brings us towards a more productive theoretical framework for thinking about the connection of HMSs to informal learning.

For example, Leonardi's (2011) theory of imbrication, drawing on Latour, posits that individuals and technologies both have agency. Investigating the interplay between the two requires micro-interactionist investigations of everyday routines. The most prominent example of imbrication in HMSs comes from an influential presentation at the 2007 Chaos Computer Congress (CCC) where Haas, Ohlig & Weiler presented "design patterns" to create a hackerspace. This PowerPoint turned into a widely-circulated PDF describing socio-material "patterns" to bring about changes to routines for better sustainability, independence, regularity and conflict resolution (Haas, Ohlig & Weiler, 2007). Their invoking of design patterns recalls similar efforts in software (Gamma, Helm, Johnson & Vlissides, 1995) and architecture (Alexander, 1979) to combine social and material agencies to bring about a beneficial goal. The presenters were eager to stress that these were not blueprints, only practices that could be reflexively modified as needed. They were no determinists, but were utterly pragmatic in the sense of relying on implementation, failure, and modification to solve problems in a given system.

Scholars drawing on a constructivist line of scholarship (Papert, 1993) draw attention to the self-discovery that comes from encounters with objects (Cetina, 1997). This argument has been extended to technical learning, as free encounters with technical objects and systems are argued to encourage epistemological pluralism (Turkle & Papert, 1990). Experiential learning originates from Lewin, Piaget, and Dewey, and focuses on a continuous process of learning grounded in experiences that arise from an interplay between individual and environment (Kolb, 1984). The spatial nature of HMSs can be seen as a way to negotiate different learning styles

Specifically, members encouraged learning and collaboration predominantly through a belief in materialities, particularly as GeekSpace's collective identity shifted from hacker to maker. Members altered the space to serve individual and collective goals rather than employing deliberation or strong organizational methods.

Material forms give coherence to the civic imagination. For example, Ross (2013) proposed that cultural practices of viewing the city “from above” in plans stimulated city planners’ civic imagination while they applied expertise in the planning process.

Dunne and Raby’s (2013) notion of speculative design helps outline how future-oriented thought works at civic hackathons. They suggest that speculative design on “wicked problems” creates “spaces for discussion and debate about alternative ways of being, and to inspire and encourage people’s imaginations to flow freely” (Dunne & Raby, 2013, p. 2). They find merit in dreaming, as the future is an “aid imaginative thought” (p. 3). Materialities assist development of ideas and approaches to collectively thinking about possible futures. For them, critique has a place in design, particularly humor. Designers can “pull new technological developments into imaginary but believable everyday situations so that we can explore possible consequences before they happen” (p. 57). Speculative design is a helpful bridge to the civic imagination.

“performance of innovation” (Balsamo, 2011) described how individuals collaboratively design technology in public settings. According to Balsamo, technology design emerges from a collaborative and cultural process that she terms "technoculture." Innovations are not objects, but like technology they are, “assemblages of practices, materialities, and affordances” (Balsamo, 2011, p. 8). Through performance and embodied action, technocultural innovation has a “dual logic”: the expression of the technological imagination and cultural reproduction.

A more diverse range of participants attended, as civic hackathons were more frequented by community organizers, activists, and students than seasoned software engineers. Those who turned up were also more diverse in ways other than occupation – racially, ethnically, and by gender. These events were largely run by Hack for LA with a wide range of partners. Rarely did sponsors emphasize working code

the civic hackathon violated the very conventions of hackathons. It had “no hacking” in the traditional sense of creating or modifying working software. This curious disappearing act of code in hackathons over the last several years was controversial among programmers. Thea Aldrich of Random Hacks of Kindness wondered aloud when I interviewed her in 2013, “don’t community organizers already have ways to engage politically?” To Thea “civic hacking” was a form of civic engagement particular to the technically adept.

Simply diversifying participantion is no guarantee that outcomes benefit diverse communities, and declaring an event civically important does not make it so. After years of participating in and running civic hackathons I noticed a new turn. This new type of civic hackathon was intentionally run to foster performance, spectacle, and communicative activities around a loose shell of technology-oriented activities. Technology became more talked about than materially captured.

civic hackathons in Los Angeles were rich spaces for observing communication about technology throughspeeches, group collaboration, and pitches.

Civic hackathons have been hotly debated in recent years. Critical studies scholars have lambasted civic hackathons for aligning with middle-class citizenship(Irani, 2015)and co-opting participant labor (Gregg, 2014a). Silicon Valley is often the fait accompliin these perspectives, bringing a flawed ideology that seduces organizers and participants into transposing technological language onto civic issues (Also see: Barbrook & Cameron, 1996; Morozov, 2013). In this paper I refer to this perspective as an “imposed civic ideology.” The second perspective comes from design scholars interested in material participation (Marres, 2012) as cohering publics to work on particular social issues. Lodato and DiSalvo (2016) suggested that civic hackathons served two purposes. First, they help people think through civic issues using props — “objects, services, and systems that engage with issues” (p. 16). Second, they cohere ephemeral proto-publics for short-term engagement on issues of public concern. As they summarized, "what is important is not the inventiveness of a particular prototype product or service, but rather, how the event fosters opportunities for collaborative or collective issue articulation" (p. 15). They drew attention to how outcomes of civic hackathons may more likely be social and cultural than functional material objects. I refer to this design perspective as an “emergent civic subjectivity.”

The icebreaker for meetings became what they called craft aperitifs, small projects that kept their hands moving. These events invoked a particular idea of “craft” that we elaborate later, one that drew connec-tions between women’s contemporary milestones and feminist histories of handwork.

Individual agency is the core of do-ocracy, fostered and filtered through projects, objects, and tools in the space itself.

The hands-on nature of the work to her resonated with her family history, love of tactile assembly, and disdain of consumerism. Vicki, like many members, came to view hackerspaces as sites that rejected consumerism, even as they paradoxically engaged in consumer culture by purchasing kits and materials.

hackerspace members’ relationship with materialities. In response, this chapter advances an idea about how interactions between individuals and things (Hodder, 2012) can shape collective action. Hackerspaces’ horizontalist mode of organizing is oriented around material forms of participation and communication.