I noticed a little while ago that the entry for
cyberfeminism in Wikipedia is, well, brief at best, you may even say superficial, you could even say that they just said ‘cyberfeminism is when feminists use the internet’ without any real understanding of the history and meaning of cyberfeminism.
From Wikipedia 5/6/2007:
“Cyberfeminism is a sub-movement of feminism that deals with female identity and feminist theory in the domain of 'cyberspace', i.e. computers, the internet and information technology. Women who choose to use communication technology as a means of organizing or activism. 'Definition as a political strategy Linking the terms "cyber" and "feminism" produces a crucial new formation in the history of feminism(s) and of the e-media. Each part of the term necessarily modifies the meaning of the other. "Feminism" (or more properly, "feminisms") has been understood as a historical--and contemporary--transnational movement for justice and freedom for women, which depends on women's activist participation in networked local, national, and international groups.”
Yep, that is the entire entry, it is what Wikipedia refers to as a
stub. Much better than nothing of course, kudos for having a cyberfeminism entry at all and all that, but it did lead me to think about systemic gender imbalance in Wikipedia topics and contribution. And it was good to see I
wasn’t the first one to think about this.
To take a cyberfeminist approach to this systemic gender imbalance it is important that we not only explore the theory and consider why this is so, but that we actually get in there and do something about it, get our hands dirty and have a little fun along the way.
My recent
proposal for my thesis on cyberfeminism and web 2.0 has a good overview of the history of cyberfeminism, so let’s use that as a starting point.
Despite my love of Web 2.0 this is the first time I have edited an entry in Wikipedia, and I can see where much of the systemic imbalance comes from – the feeling is daunting. I suspect that it is the same unseen force that creates the gender imbalance often seen in convention panels, and indeed in the bloggesphere, the feeling that one needs to be the top expert in ones field before one dares to open ones mouth – even though this is not actually required. I have come to the conclusion that what participation really requires is a passion and a willingness to research.
Okay, so this is what I am starting with:
A Cyberfeminist History
The term Cyberfeminism was first used by the Australian collective VNS Matrix (pronounced Venus Matrix) in their 1991 cyberfeminist manifesto for the 21st century [2]. In this manifesto VNS Matrix famously proclaimed “The clitoris is a direct line to the matrix”[3]. Julienne Pierce from VNS Matrix explained:
“four bored girls decided to have some fun with art and French feminist theory… with homage to Donna Haraway they began to play around with the idea of cyberfeminism… Beginning as if by spontaneous combustion, from a few hot nodes in Europe, America and Australia, cyberfeminism became a viral meme infecting theory, art and the academy [4]. “
At around the same time in Europe, Sadie Plant independently started using the term cyberfeminism, and a few years later the first Cyberfeminist International was held as part of the Document X conference in Kassel, Germany, in 1997.
Put simply cyberfeminism refers to feminism(s) applied to and/or performed in cyberspace. An authoritative definition of cyberfeminism is difficult to find in written works due to the fact that early cyberfeminists deliberately evaded a rigid elucidation. At the first international cyberfeminist conference, delegates avoided stating what cyberfeminism was and instead devised with 100 anti-theses and defined what cyberfeminism was not. The idea of defining/not defining it through several overlapping ideas (anti-theses) is appropriate to post-modern feminist ideals of a fluid worldview rather than a rigid binary oppositional view and refects the diversity of theoretical positions in contemporary feminism. The 100 anti-theses range from the serious and instructional, for example “Cyberfeminism is not just using words with no knowledge of numbers” (i.e. cyberfeminism requires active engagement with technology in addition to theory), to the whimsical, for example “Cyberfeminismo es no una banana”. The 100 Anti-theses is written primarily in English but includes several other languages in line with the 100th anti-thesis “cyberfeminism has not only one language” denoting cyberfeminism as an international movement. This combination of serious real world action mixed with a good dose of irony and sense of fun is also evident in many cyberfeminist artworks.
Cyberfeminism arose partly as a reaction to “the pessimism of the 1980s feminist approaches that stressed the inherently masculine nature of techno-science”[5], a counter movement against the ‘toys for boys’ perception of new Internet technologies[6]. As cyberfeminist artist Faith Wilding argued:
“If feminism is to be adequate to its cyberpotential then it must mutate to keep up with the shifting complexities of social realities and life conditions as they are changed by the profound impact communications technologies and techno science have on all our lives. It is up to cyberfeminists to use feminist theoretical insights and strategic tools and join them with cybertechniques to battle the very real sexism, racism, and militarism encoded in the software and hardware of the Net, thus politicizing this environment.[7]”
Yet cyberfeminists do not choose to boycott this male dominated technology, but to embrace the technology, and use it with a mixture of irony, humour, seriousness and subversion for their own feminist ends. It is for this reason that cyberfeminist practice often takes the form of Internet art.
Cyberfeminist Art
“Cyberfeminism in its very nature necessitates a decentered, multiple, participatory practice in which many lines of flight coexist.[8]”
Alex Galloway
The practice of cyberfeminist art is inextricably intertwined with cyberfeminist theory. The 100 anti-theses make clear that cyberfeminism is not just about theory, while theory is extremely important, cyberfeminism requires participation. As one member of the cyberfeminist collective the Old Boys Network writes, cyberfeminism is “linked to aesthetic and ironic strategies as intrinsic tools within the growing importance of design and aesthetics in the new world order of flowing pancapitalism” [6]. Cyberfeminism also has strong connections with the DIY feminism movement, as noted in the seminal text DIY Feminism[9], a grass roots movement that encourages active participation, especially as a solo practitioner or a small collective.
Around the late nineties several cyberfeminist artists and theorists gained a measure of recognition for their works, including the above mentioned VNS Matrix and their Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century [3], and Faith Wilding and Critical Art Ensemble. Some of the better known examples of cyberfeminist work include Olia Lialina’s My Boyfriend Came Back From the War [10] a browser based art work that plays with the conventions of HTML; Linda Dement’s Cyberflesh Girlmonster [11] a hypertext work that incorporates images of women’s body parts and remixes them to create new monstrous yet beautiful shapes; and Shu Lea Cheang with the 1998 work Brandon [12] which was the first Internet based artwork to be commissioned and collected by the Guggenheim.
The decline in volume of cyberfeminist literature in recent years would suggest that cyberfeminism has somewhat lost momentum as a movement, however, in terms of artists and artworks cyberfeminism is still taking place. Recent artworks of note include Evelin Stermitz’s World of Female Avatars [13] in which the artist has collected quotes and images from women over the world and displayed them in an interactive browser based format, and Regina Pinto’s Many Faces of Eve [14].
The Goals of Cyberfeminism
The goals of cyberfeminist artists are varied, as there is no one ‘feminism’ but rather many feminisms, and cyberfeminist artists are as likely to draw on any one particular feminist school of thought (for example socialist feminism) as they are to work without acknowledgment of any theoretical background. However, Faith Wilding in her account of the first Cyberfeminist International listed several areas that were agreed upon as areas in which more research and further work was considered desirable, including: promotion of cyberfeminist artists theorists and speakers; publishing of cyberfeminist theory and criticism; cyberfeminist education projects; creating coalitions with female technical professionals; and creating new self-representations and avatars that “disrupt and recode the gender biases usual in current commercially available ones” [7].
With the public acceptance of the Internet came a utopian belief that in this new neutral territory users would be able to shed their gendered bodies and be androgynus equals in cyberspace. Unsurprisingly, this has not turned out to be the case – “every social issue that we are familiar with in the real world will now have its counter-part in the virtual one” [15].
Although there was a surge of art and research happening in the cyberfeminist field in the late nineties, that surge has subsided and many may conclude we are living in a post-cyberfeminist world (wide web). This backlash is evident in real-world feminism also, with many young women believing that feminism is either for ‘unattractive hairy arm-pitted lesbians’ or that it has succeeded in providing equality for the sexes and is no longer needed [16]. Yet inequality remains both on-line and in the world and thus the objectives of neither cyberfeminism nor real-world feminism have been fully realised.
(references sited will be listed in wikipedia, but for the sake of brevity in this already very long post can be found
here)
***
I think this is probably not as objective as Wikipedia aims for, so I look to the rest of you BannanaGrrls to edit it and make it work. Get in there and get dirty, and have fun!
