Segnalo dissertazione recentemente difesa all'università di Eindhoven,
su argomenti cari a questa lista.
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/217797547/20221019_Sanvitale_hf.pdf
Può interessare anche l'uso di archivi digitali come l'archivio Primo
Moroni e Grafton9.
Federico
== Abstract ==
Emotions and politics are often considered an hindrance to technological
development. Even more,
technology is promised to simplify political processes, and to overcome
emotional distress. Yet,
after a century of these promises, the contemporary world looks more
politically complex and
emotionally demanding than ever. What if we change perspective, by
looking at our tech-centered
world from other dimensions of human experience? In this PhD
dissertation, I show that
“emotions,” “technology,” and “politics” are always profoundly
interrelated, by presenting an in
depth historical investigation of the role played by emotions in the
re-politicization and de-
politicization of computer technologies in Cold War Italy (1965-1990). I
developed a novel
methodological and conceptual approach centered on the notion of
“Technopolitical Resonance,” to
understand how emotions contributed to make specific technopolitical
configurations more or less
popular through history. This approach provides an actor-centered
framework to investigate
emotions’ significance in the History of Technology, currently lacking
in the field. It is based on
literature from the History and Anthropology of Emotions, stressing the
epistemic and performative
significance of emotions. The dissertation is centered on the
reproduction and the rejection of a
technopolitical configuration which I call “the Black Box Entanglement”.
This configuration, I
claim, relied on the “fear of falling behind” in the Cold War to promote
computer use, and their
design as “black boxes,” that users could not study nor modify. The
dissertation critically analyzes
the diffusion of black-boxed computers as a de-politicizing design
choice, because the design
process includes only a limited number of actors, namely the engineers
and software developers,
thus reducing the space for democratic participation. The dissertation
also offers a critical
perspective on “fear of falling behind” as a de-politicizing discourse
on the societal significance of
computers, because it flattens the political debate favoring a
phenomenological approach (how can
technology solve our problem? -Because it certainly will) over a
dialectical one (why will
technology -and not something else- solve our problem?). Several
re-politicizing counter-narratives
are also analyzed, based on different emotions (i.e. hope, anger, pride)
and different political visions
on the societal significance of computers and their design.
== Preface (and acknowledgments) ==
How I learned to stop worrying, and love the history of technology
I am at home in Bologna, working on my doctoral project about the
history of computing. My
partner, a software developer, is playing a part in unfolding this
history from the other room. Our
house is full of computer parts, computer books, and conversations about
computers. What a
modern couple we are, how fit for the Computer Age! But, every now and
then, our day is
interrupted by a computerized voice, which neither of us has programmed.
“Linea 37” it says. It
comes from an automatic speaker, announcing this bus’s arrival at the
stop down in the street.
Bus 37 is not like any other bus in Bologna. It is a memento, a window
into a past which I have not
lived, but can’t be forgotten. On August 2, 1980, bus 37 was temporarily
converted into a hearse. At
10:25 that morning, a bomb exploded in Bologna’s central train station,
killing 85 people and
wounding hundreds. Bus 37 was used to transport the victims’ bodies to
the morgue. Far from being
an isolated episode, the Bologna Massacre was the most recent event in a
decade-long period of
bombings and other violent acts perpetrated by Neo-fascist groups, with
the more or less tacit
approval of the Italian secret services and armed forces. This was the
so-called “Strategy of
Tension,” aimed at destabilizing Italian public morale in order to shift
the government to the farright. Today, most historians agree that such a
plan had no chance of success, and this was already
clear to many people at the time. However, the deaths caused by these
attacks were very real, and
disturbing events undeniably took place during the period known as the
“Italian first republic”
(1948-1994).
Bus 37’s arrival has interrupted my work, so I decide to take a break
and read something about the
present. “Facebook broke democracy!” claim news outlets reporting on the
Cambridge Analytica
scandal, or some other wrongdoing by Mark Zuckerberg’s company. When 10
years ago the “Arab
Spring” prompted an opposite claim, that social media could “make”
democracy, a terrible delusion
was around the corner. The Cambridge Analytica scandal and the Arab
Spring delusion have indeed
something in common: people lost sight of extremely complex societal and
political processes in
favor of a technology-centered, de-politicized vision. But, if it was
true that a website could “break”
or “make” a democracy, then perhaps our democracies were not so strong
in the first place. This
would make it even more imperative to address such events from a
political, not technological
perspective. What if it is never technology, but always politics that
makes or breaks democracies?
This dissertation is grounded in the idea that we, European scholars and
citizens, 1 need to repoliticize public debates on technology, otherwise
we will never be able to mend our democracies—
which, if not broken, are certainly crooked. The word “politics” has
acquired a negative connotation
nowadays. You should not “discuss politics” at dinner parties, and take
care not to look “too
political” at work. But this word has been in our vocabularies for
centuries, and the concept it
describes has existed even longer. The fact that we don’t talk about
politics, won’t make it
disappear: only make it more difficult to understand how it works. And
this is a problem for
democracy, because if political processes are not based on transparency,
and accountability, and
participation, then perhaps we are not in a functioning democracy.
Even in settings devoted to political decision making,
technology-related choices seem to lack a
coherent and explicit political rationale. European Union policymakers
dream of “technological
sovereignty,”2 but they also produce a “Digital Economy and Society
Index” 3 which generically
drives greater use of digital technologies, regardless of their
provenance and software license.
Things are no better when we look at grassroots political movements:
recent years have seen the
emergence of a transnational environmentalist movement, famously
exemplified by the Fridays For
Future activists, and a feminist “fourth wave” has apparently begun.
However, technology-critical
movements today are the Cinderella of grassroots politics, and the
“fourth feminist wave” is one
example: in the 1990s, the combination of feminism and technology meant
cyborgs and selfmanaged servers, whereas now it means #hashtags on
corporate-managed social media. Is this a
feminist Arab Spring, or will the change last longer in this case? And I
am still into “third wave”
feminism: what does this make me? Am I already a #boomer, 4 in my early
30s? I start wondering,
anxiously.
But bus 37 is here again, shifting my thoughts back to the past. Had the
Bologna massacre
happened today, there would be hundreds of pictures and videos (and
hashtags) about the event. The
trials might have been over in a few years, with all the additional
evidence available on Instagram.
Perhaps my fourth wave feminist sisters are right, I am a #boomer. Maybe
I should learn to stop
worrying, and start loving Mark Zuckerberg.
No, I should not. Because if there is something that all generations of
feminists have in common is a
unique emotional attitude, described by Sara Ahmed in her “Killjoy
Manifesto.” 5 And this attitude is
not exclusive to feminists: every individual wishing to engage
critically with societal and political
issues must be prepared to cause some degree of joy-killing. During my
research, I encountered
many killjoys. They critically examined “this circularity of
illusions-delusions which follows each
technological cycle, probably from the wheel to the steam machine,
electricity, and automation.” 6
Killjoys who challenged the idea that a computer could “make” or “break”
democracy, and
therefore debated how to use this technology without falling for yet
another “depressingly
uninspiring”7 utopian (or dystopian) plan. Killjoys who knew very well
that the Computer Age was
the same “Age” when bombs exploded inside train stations, and bus 37
became a hearse. At times, I
even felt overwhelmed by my sources: historical actors knew much more
than me, about both
politics and technology. Despite being so knowledgeable, they failed to
produce a long-lasting repoliticization of computer debates: what made
me think I could be more successful?
While entangled in this unsolvable question, I also learned one
certainty, as the Killjoy Manifesto’s
5th principle states: “I am not willing to get over histories that are
not over.” There is a political and
emotional history of the Computer Age which is certainly not over. It is
a fragmented history,
because the actors who made it were at times in conflict with each
other. But it is also a contiguous
history: these actors often had the same feelings and the same thoughts
about computers’ political
significance. It is a Resonant history, as I call it in this
dissertation. Recomposing this history,
looking at emotions as a shared space of understanding, is what I can
add to the knowledgeable
debates and analysis of the past.
No, Facebook did not break democracy, and it won’t fix it. Forgetting is
what broke democracy.
And politics is what can fix it. Today we have many expectations about
digital technologies, but
sometimes we find comfort in these expectations to avoid tackling
difficult and uncomfortable
political issues. The road to the re-politicization of computer debates
seems long and impervious,
however we already have the intellectual and practical tools to aid us
with this process. This is why
I learned to stop worrying, and start loving the history of technology.
***
Whereas learning how to love the history of technology was a very
enjoyable process, I often
wondered whether the history of technology would love me back, and this
has been a frequent
source of methodological anxieties and theoretical conundrums. I started
this PhD project as a
trained anthropologist. This proved to be an asset because I was drawn
to actors and sources that are
currently under-represented in the history of computing. But I
frequently asked myself how the
personal engagement required in anthropology could be reconciled with
the distancing from
historical actors often required by historiography. I am thus very
grateful for the support and the
encouragement I have received from my PhD promotor Erik van der Vleuten,
my supervisor and
initiator of the “Fearful technologies” project Karena Kalmbach, and my
co-supervisor, Andreas
Spahn. They provided stimulating questions and insights, while leaving
me free to explore my own
path and interests. I could not have asked for better mentors. Doctoral
committee members Paul
Edwards, Anna Guagnini, Ruth Oldenziel, and Valérie Schafer provided
constructive and critical
comments which greatly improved this manuscript.
My first encounters with the research field happened during my years as
a master student at the
University of Bologna: I will always be grateful to Anna Guagnini and
Giuliano Pancaldi, for
introducing me to the fascinating world of the History of Science and
Technology. The History Lab
at Eindhoven University of Technology did the rest, providing engaging
conversations and
perspectives. I would like to thank Ruth Oldenziel, Mila Davis, Frank
Veraart, Harry Lintsen, Eric
Berkers, Jonas van der Straeten and Jan Korsten for the History Lab
reading seminars (as well as
the coffee breaks), and for their insights in studying, researching, and
teaching the History of
Technology. Through the Eindhoven History Lab I had the opportunity to
discuss my work with
colleagues who offered valuable comments on my drafts and research
plans: Dick van Lente, Peter
Norton, Arwen Mohun, Frank Schipper. A special mention to my PhD
colleagues in the History
Lab, Patrick Bek and Henk-Jan Dekker, with whom I shared the incredible
adventure that is
achieving a PhD (and during a pandemic!). Patrick’s intellectual
insights and emotional support
have been particularly important in the final months, when it seemed the
project would never end.
During my PhD project, I also had the opportunity to attend workshops,
summer schools, and
conferences. Three of these were particularly important for shaping this
dissertation and I am
indebted to the organizers and participants. I am particularly grateful
to Martina Hessler and Bettina
Hitzler for the workshop “The Multifacted Relationship between Fear and
Technology,” held at the
Max Planck Institute for Human Development in October 2018, and the
resulting publication; to
Valérie Schafer and Paul Edwards for the insights gained at the Tensions
of Europe summer school
“Towards Digital Science and Technology Studies: Challenges and
Opportunities,” held at the
Centre for Contemporary and Digital History (C²DH) at the University of
Luxembourg in June
2019; to Aristotle Tympas for the Tensions of Europe workshop
“Computing, Artificial Intelligence,
Big Data, Algorithms, Internet of Things, Social Media, Automation,
Robotics and Cybernetics:
Historical and STS Perspectives from Mediterranean/Southern/Southeastern
Europe,” held online in
June 2021, as well as our conversations on the history of computing. I
would also like to thank
Anna Åberg, Andreas Marklund, Anique Hommels (and again Karena Kalmbach)
for the panels on
technology and crises we organized during Tensions of Europe conferences.
Not only historians helped to shape my work. The Technology, Innovation
and Society group at
Eindhoven University of Technology provided a welcoming and stimulating
environment during my
PhD studies. The Thursday seminars offered very valuable
interdisciplinary exchanges, as did the
many informal gatherings with PhD and postdoc colleagues at TU/e. I am
especially indebted to
Ankit, Darja, Edgar, Matthew, Minha, Tanja and our visiting colleagues
from abroad, Aske and
Michal. My pre-doctoral years have been equally important for this
dissertation. Professor Davide
Domenici was the first to show me there was an incredibly fascinating
world beyond the histoire
événementielle I had been studying before taking his classes. This is
the first dissertation I have
written without his supervision. Other fundamental learning came from
classes by Ivo Quaranta
(Cultural and Medical Anthropology), Luca Jourdan (Social and Political
Anthropology), Cristiana
Natali and Gateano Mangiameli (Research Methodology).
Furthermore, I would like to express my deep gratitude to the people and
institutions who provided
oral accounts and source materials for this dissertation. Paola
Manacorda, Fiorella De Cindio,
Filippo Demonte, IBM labor unionists Francesco Fiaccadori, Alfio Riboni,
Giovanni Talpone,
Valeria Bernardi and Renato Pomari, all graciously agreed to be
interviewed, sharing precious
information on Italy’s history of computing. I am grateful to the many
archivists and cultural
institutions that provided materials: staff at Archivio Gramsci
Emilia-Romagna; Archivio RSU
IBM; Centro di documentazione dei movimenti “F. Lorusso – C. Giuliani”;
Centro Studi Libertari –
Archivio Giuseppe Pinelli; Archivio Grafton9; Biblioteca Libertaria
Armando Borghi; Biblioteca
“Elio Xerri” – Circolo Anarchico “C. Berneri.” Deserving a special
mention is Nicola, at Centro
Lorusso – Giuliani, whose captivating enthusiasm and commitment made it
very difficult to move
on to a different archive.
A researcher’s life is not only about doing research. Writing about your
research is an equally
fundamental task. It would be much more difficult for you to understand
this manuscript if it wasn’t
for the amazing editing work done by Val Kidd. I am also indebted to
Anne Schuler, who introduced
me to English academic writing. TIS secretariat support was fundamental
to avoid succumbing to
the intricacies of university regulations: thank you Letty Calame, Sonia
Parker, and Iris Houx for
your support and your patience.
There is one emotion that most researchers share: a love of knowledge. I
had the privilege to meet
many people who encouraged and nurtured my love of knowledge. I would
like to acknowledge,
and honor some of those who saw the beginning of this research project
but not its end. Professor
Maria Maddalena Mené introduced me to Natalia Ginzburg and to cultural
geography (I now realize
this was the first step toward my anthropology degree). Professor Lucio
Carugno taught me how to
find the beauty and relevance of literary texts from the past. My uncle,
professor Mario Bressan, did
not succeed in turning my love for science into a chemistry degree, but
he might have found some
resonance in this PhD dissertation and I would have loved to discuss it
with him. My grandmother,
Gloria Papa, an expert in literature and an excellent writer: she would
have been a great PhD
candidate, if she had had the opportunity. My mother, Fabrizia Arduini,
who always found time to
take me to the public library as a kid, and loved this research project.
Last but not least, I am deeply indebted to my family and friends, for
their enduring patience, love,
and encouragement. My family gave me great support over these years,
especially my father,
Alberto Sanvitale, my aunts, Alessandra and Sylvia Arduini, my cousin
Elena Caputi, my “fairy
godmothers” Annamaria Properzi, Laura Florani and Stefania De Carlo.
Gaia, Giacomo, Giorgia,
Margherita, Marta: you are “my people,” as Dr. Cristina Yang would say.
Thank you for being such
amazing human beings and friends. Barbara, Cristina, Noemi: our
conversations on technology,
politics, and feminism nurtured my intellectual life, as much as our
friendship nurtured my days.
Andrea, Mirna, Mauro, Nicola (and the other players mentioned here):
thank you for our amazing
Dungeons&Dragons adventures. With you I learned how it feels to have a
class enemy and what
can be achieved with the right party. About my real-life political
education, there are too many
people I should be thanking: from Pavia to Bologna, from the Wikiverse
to the Fediverse, I have
learned and grown a lot thanks to you—and hopefully helped to bring
about some societal change in
the process. Finally, my partner Cek, software developer, but also my
sci-fi literature advisor and
technical consultant. We went from a long-distance relationship to being
stuck in the same
apartment together during lockdown. I could imagine no better person by
my side in these beautiful
but also difficult years. Thank you for enduring my 24/7 listening to
Italian political songs or
Blondie, and for making sure I always had my morning coffee.
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
