Wanted- Feminists to create new and improved society!

I have recently come across a story featured on The Nature
of Things about an exciting new technological development called
Nanotechnology, also named the Nano Revolution. It is difficult to define and
after searching the web for more information I am still a little hazy but it is
basically a technology that has been developed to control and produce matter at
a scale of one to one-hundred-billionths of a meter. With this new ability
scientists are able to create revolutionary material, automate routine lab tests,
and some believe that this new technology will be the answer to our
environmental problems.

I found this very intriguing so I dove a bit deeper into the
subject.

What I found was the overwhelming agreement amongst
scientists that this Nanotechnology is going to enhance technology in the same
way that electricity did. In other words, this new phenomena will develop into the
third Industrial Revolution!

You might think, so what? How does this concern our class?

Well my feminist friends if we look back at the last
Industrial Revolution we will note that with each revolution came a forever
change in social and economic norms. Furthermore, professionals on this topic
are convinced that there will be no aspect of our daily lives that will not be
touched by nanotechnology. As a result there has been tons of research on how
nanotechnology will affect the economy and the environment. Specifically, I
looked at one article written by Steven E. Holley that discussed these specific
risks. However, I found little about how this revolution will affect us
socially.

I couldn’t stop asking myself -How is this going to affect
the lives of marginalized groups?

Or

Who is designing this technology and who are they designing
it for? Who will be the primary beneficiary of this revolution?

If we look at this issue through the theories of Nancy Baym
we will see how this could develop into technological determinism. Baym states
that “technologies change history by transferring ‘their essential qualities’
to their users, imprinting themselves on users’ individual and collective
psyches”, this could be an explanation of what nanotechnology will eventually
do to us. Thus, it is important to discuss who is creating this technologies
characteristics and how is it going to eventually shape our society.

Also, Baym writes “direct effects of technology may be
strongest when a technology is new because people do not yet understand it.”
This is an important concept to consider because what Holley noted in his
survey was that the majority of the American public do not understand nanotech
but they are optimistic about its abilities. Therefore, our unknowing society
today is at a perfect point for nanotechnology to ‘imprint’ us before we even
realize it.

Furthermore, there have been projects working towards
introducing this technology into the school system from K-12 grades. This way
they can develop skills early on to further the advancement (Yet another reason
why gender studies should be introduced to children at a young age).

My conclusion is that we need to get in on the development
of this new technology. If nanotechnology is going to shape our future then
feminists need to start demanding inclusions. Right now we are living in a
society that has already been developed and we are constantly trying to unlearn
and deconstruct aspects of it. Imagine though, what if we were part of the
design process for this new world?

How could this revolution effect social norms?

Would it improve the lives of the oppressed?

Or would it only further the digital divide?

Hmmm…

Education is the Answer!

For my blog I couldn’t help but combine our discussions from
the last two weeks. Last week we were shown three very different examples of
“tech savvy” groups trying to introduce and incorporate technology to people
who have less access to it. I believe we agreed that these groups had the best
intentions but unfortunately each attempt was unsuccessful. These attempts did
not fail because the technology itself was faulty, but because they were not
able to foresee the social complications that would arise. I would presume that
had these groups been trained by social scientists or more specifically
Feminists about the complex settings of these people’s lives, they may have
been able to develop more efficient projects.

Thus, the answer I propose to each of these groups would be
more education! To be specific, more education regarding diversity, differences
and the effects that social structures have on marginalized people.

The fact is that these “tech savvy” individuals spend more
time with computers then they do interacting with people who will one day be
using these machines. So if we want them to start designing programs that are
available to everyone then we have to start teaching them a thing or two about
diversity.

You might ask, “But when and where do we introduce this type
of education?”

This brings me to this week’s discussion. One of my
classmates made a comment stating that until she came to University, she had no
idea what gender studies was. I have to agree, as a girl from a small town I
had no idea what gender studies or even what a feminist was. We do however,
have some sense that there is inequality in our world and we want to address
it. This brings us together in classrooms such as this to discuss the ways we
can acknowledge and change patriarchy. But let us be honest, most of the time
we are preaching to the choir. We all recognize the inequalities in society and
we all pretty much agree with ways to deconstruct it. Which is great! Yet,
sometimes I feel that the people who would benefit the most out of these
discussions, are the last ones to ever choose “Introduction to Women’s Studies”
as an elective. Therefore, we must provide this education through one of the
most influential and patriarchal social institutions of all…High School!

Much like technology, the school system has historically
been used as a patriarchal tool of power. Thus, we must start using the school
system in the same way that cyberfeminists are using technology to gain some of
this power back. Haraway states that cyborgs are offspring of militarism and
patriarchal capitalism, but that offspring are often unfaithful. This is what
needs to happen in the school systems, we need to be unfaithful offspring and
start using this tool against them. If we can introduce gender studies at a
young age we can affect the people who will be designing and controlling the
social structures that we are forced to live within.

Furthermore, if we believe what Nancy Baym says about society
and people shaping technology then we must agree that in order to increase accessibilities
it is necessary to educate those who are doing the shaping.

One group who is working towards this goal and finding
tremendous success is the Miss G Project. The Miss G Project is an organization
fighting to introduce education concerned with combating all forms of
oppression to secondary school kids. The organization has only been around for
five years and all ready will be introducing gender studies courses to many
high schools in Toronto this fall!

To read more about this success you can check out an article written about it in the Toronto Star (I suggest reading the comments at the bottom to
really get your blood boiling)

This makes me feel optimistic about the change coming for
the generation of tomorrow. However, we cannot stop here. We have to keep
supporting and pushing for more schools across Canada to introduce gender
studies to their students. With any hope gender studies can be introduced to
children even younger than high school students. Talking about diversity needs
to be a discussion that kids start having at a very young age.

Who knows, maybe one day when I’m watching Sesame Street with
my kids the episode might read “today is the letter F, F is for Feminism.”