Think Piece: Postcolonial Histories of Computing
Fabián Prieto, Bradley Fidler · IEEE Annals of the History of Computing · 2016
Think PiecePostcolonial Histories of Computing Fabian Prieto-Ñañez (bio) and Bradley Fidler, Editor: In the early 1990s, Indian historian Dipesh Chakrabarty proposed an agenda for “provincializing Europe.”1 According to Chakrabarty, philosophers, historians, and other scholars who shaped the nature of western social science developed their theoretical and empirical projects to embrace the entirety of humanity. However, they also produced this knowledge in relative, and sometimes absolute, ignorance of the histories and experiences of those living outside of the western world. In his response, Chakrabarty sought to demonstrate how our categories may be more contingent, and less universal, than we have accepted—often without evidence. In other words, this historical method promotes a more limited and thus accurate use of core concepts that usually are translated without any problem, making the provincialization of Europe a cautious engagement with historical research. Since that time we have seen a rise in what is called postcolonial studies of science and technology. Ultimately this field seeks to reevaluate our theories and systems of society and technology in light of the ways that they are influenced by the long history of colonialism. Here I want to continue and encourage a discussion on what postcolonial science and technology studies mean for historians of computing. Beyond Dichotomies and Divides In the field of human-computer interaction, Kavita Philip, Paul Dourish, and Lilly Irani developed the concept of postcolonial computing.2 Bringing elements of science and technology studies (STS) and postcolonial theory, the authors suggested that postcolonial science studies can do more than expand answers to questions already posed. Instead, STS can generate different issues and, more importantly, different ways of looking at the world. They brought histories and anthropologies of colonial technoscience together to map the production of knowledge and experiences of computing across the globe, allowing us, for example, to look for work that is out of the bounds of this regime.3 In that sense, their approach guides histories of computing by reconsidering spatial divides, such as east/west or here/there, or by how in a world of uneven power relations the very presence of an observer can impact what is being observed. Considerations of the importance of geography,4 attempts to destabilize or queer our approach,5 and efforts to form a global understanding of the larger systems of material production and distribution essential to computing6 converge with a postcolonial approach to imagining other narratives. According to Warwick Anderson, postcolonial intervention “offers us a chance of disconcerting conventional accounts of so-called ‘global’ technoscience” by considering how dichotomies emerged under colonial regimes.7 On the one hand, as expressed by Amit Prasad, postcolonial science and technology studies can offer useful analytical tools to move beyond older ways of doing history that relied on artificially inflated west/non-west or developed/developing dichotomies, as well as north/south technocultural divides.8 In the place of these dichotomies and divides, Chakrabarty and others encourage us to be better scholars and investigate the actual relationships. On the other hand, we can put into broad relief the uneven terrains of technoscience networks and flows. Here we can move past an established map of national histories of computing to the flows and exchanges that characterize the actual production of scientific and engineering knowledge. Postcolonial contributions to the history of computing may help us better understand the impact of diasporas on the traditional concept of the nation-state and national histories and, moreover, to replace the mechanical “adoption and impact” with translation. We can use the role of the nation-state and national histories as an example of potential postcolonial contributions. Mary Louise Pratt coined the term contact zone to describe social spaces where “disparate cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of dominance and subordination.”9 Such a phenomenon draws attention to Downey’s claim on the associated human labor that is central for the processes of translation in the establishment of any technology.4 This also extends to processes like migration, media flows, extraction, and trade and what interactions in contact zones generate as it urges us to consider processes of “brain drain” and “brain circulation.”10 In...