02-cyber

[jakobzhao]

No description provided.

[jennylee719]

Think Piece
04/05
Jenny

Drawing upon constructivist and hermeneutic frameworks, Feenberg (1992) describes technology as a social object and challenges the deterministic understanding of technological advancement as a unilinear process and technology as a mere artifact fulfilling its technical utility. While a deterministic understanding of technology would perceive technical function as the essence of technology, Feenberg (1992) forwards a hermeneutically interpretive meaning of technology at its center and provides space to examine its social meaning and significance.

Zhao and Huang’s (2020) study on the encrypted monument attests to Feenberg’s observation of technological development. While blockchain technologies have been built to build cryptocurrencies, Zhao and Huang (2020) found an unexpected creation of space on the virtual platform: an encrypted virtual monument for Dr. Li. In this example, social meaning of crypto space departs from the ‘goals’ and ‘rational use’ of the virtual space envisioned by the inventors of blockchain. In other words, the encrypted virtual monument for Dr. Li is one of the “surpluses of workable solutions” (Feenberg, 1992, p. 305) of technology, illuminating technology as a sociotechnical system constructed at the intersection of imagined affordances, user’s participation, technology, and the inventors. Accordingly, the sociopolitical contexts in which users of technology are situated in also become an integral aspect of the technology’s social meaning. This is also echoed in Zhao and Huang’s (2020) study as Ethereum users found the crypto space using Ethereum blockchain and took advantage of its “socio-politically decentralized and geospatially distributed” (p. 152) affordances to commemorate Dr. Li away from the government’s scrutiny. Following Feenberg’s assertion that “technology has many unexplored potentialities” (p. 307), we arrive at the idea of subversive rationalization, which is defined as technological advancement that challenges dominant hegemony. While crypto space opens up myriad of possibilities to challenge the dominant ideology and practices embedded in technology as natural, such as by creating space for the preservation of marginalized cultures and groups, Zhao and Huang also note that the affordances of the space can be exploited. In this aspect, technology can be said to be a place of meaning contestation, a place for competing values and ideologies that responds to the “cultural horizon of society” (Feenberg, 1992, p. 313).

[larissa-soc]

A quote that has stuck with me for years now is from Audre Lorde: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house”(Lorde, 2018). She was referencing social structures and paradigms, and since reading it, I halfway agreed and halfway disagreed. I will return to this quote and its relevance later in the thinkpiece.
Wang (2010) explains that geographic computation has a variety of capabilities that are not combined because the central processing unit limits the interface to single users. The difficulties of increasing computational intensity and the need for steady workflow are intensified without a suitable middle-ground. Introducing the GISolve is a practical innovation to address these issues, and it seems evident that it is the product of cultural forces. Freenberg explains that our dystopian modernity is partial to efficiency, considering it a central parameter in gauging progress. Remnants of this viewpoint are clearly present in Wang (2010), who defends the value of GISolve by first pointing to the increased efficiency the change would bring (p. 542). However, one can also observe the influence of democratization. GISolve would make things more efficient, but it also opens the world to more collaborative and innovative work, democratizing knowledge production.
The democratization made possible by Wang’s proposal is even more significant when we think of that digital space in the context of Zhao and Huang (2020). While the birth of crypto place on the blockchain is distinctly different than a middle-ground program, it serves as a perfect example of society shaping the digital and the digital shaping society. For example, the establishment of a permanent monument on the digital blockchain was only made possible by the original capacity of the blockchain, and the utilization of those capacities for a monument is the most intrinsically human action one could take, affirming Freenberg: technology is intimately linked to the social and is neither deterministic nor passive.
With all of that said, these readings have changed my understanding of the Audre Lorde quote I introduced earlier. She may be correct that original structures as they existed cannot be changed. Still, it seems she didn’t give the continuous involvement of human innovation and creativity the credit it deserves. The same tools can be used in different ways; they are not deterministic in using them. Assuming that the product of a tool is the essence of that tool is philosophically and practically unfounded. As we advance technologically, witnessing ideological shifts in our pursuit of knowledge and human presence in the digital space, we ought to recognize the potential for that same kind of innovation in the areas we thought were already settled.

Lorde, A. (2018). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Penguin Classics.

[stevenBXQ]

04/05
Steven Bao

As one who studies geography, I would like to connect this week’s readings with the three categories of geographies introduced by Ash et al. (2018).

The CyberGIS framework proposed by Wang (2010) could be viewed as a result of the rapidly developing “geographies through the digital” and is subsequently adopted to assist in forming the ever-increasing “geographies produced by the digital” defined by (Ash et al., 2018). The discovery of increasingly more complicated and nuanced geographies through the digital usually requires larger amounts of data and more complex computations, as Wang (2010) mentioned that about one terabyte of data and dozens of hours of processing time (for traditional GIS hardware) were needed in his case study related to climate change. The integration of CyberGIS technologies effectively reduces the processing time, increases resource utilization, and, in the meantime, enables collaboration among multiple parties. With CyberGIS helping “the collaborative geographic problem solving and decision making” based on the new geographies through the digital made available by it, scholars and policy makers from different fields can then make decisions that create new geographies produced by the digital. Therefore, CyberGIS well interrelates the two types of geographies in the modern, data-intensive world. At the same time, it is worthful to mention that these capabilities both operate under the “rationalization” of GIS technologies mentioned by Feenberg (1992), as those are the intended goals of CyberGIS.

The “crypto place” crafted by Zhao and Huang (2020) is an example of the “geographies of the digital” (Ash et al., 2018). According to Zhao and Huang (2020), the virtual monument for Dr. Li in the Ethereum blockchain, without being located in the physical world, has all the attributes, including locations, locales, and sense of place, of being a “legitimate place.” Unlike a virtual game environment indicated by Ash et al. (2018) that is designed to operate as space, this “crypto place” is created by users in a technological system designed for recording transaction information. The altered use of blockchain is unexpected by the designers and thereby corresponds with the notion of “subversive rationalization” stated by Feenberg (1992), as Jenny mentioned.

References:
Ash J, Kitchin R and Leszczynski A (2018) Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography 42(1): 25--43. DOI: 10.1177/0309132516664800.
Feenberg A (1992) Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy 1. Inquiry 35(3–4): 301–322. DOI: 10.1080/00201749208602296.
Wang S (2010) A CyberGIS Framework for the Synthesis of Cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(3): 535–557. DOI: 10.1080/00045601003791243.
Zhao B and Huang X (2020) Encrypted monument: The birth of crypto place on the blockchain. Geoforum 116: 149–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.08.011.

[shuangw1]

Shuang Wu
Zhao and Huang's paper (2020) discussed a quintessential concept in human geography which is "place". And they studied a new place, which is not physical but a decrypted monument in the blockchain. I think the argument they stated about "most of the physical monuments will be damaged as time goes by" trigger a lot of thinking in my field as a historic preservationist. We have long discussed the 'sense of place' and the 'value of place'. The field of historic preservation has moved from preserving tangible heritage to include more intangible heritage. And the value-based approach is also shifting from "brick and mortar" to more spiritual value. Some scholars argue that what we want to preserve is "information", not the physical part, but it is also challenging when you think of the Notre-dame cathedral when it was burned a few years ago – what if it is really gone? Can it really inherit all the values if it were burned into ashes?
I have resonated well with the argument by Wang (2010) in his article about the collab and scalability problem posted by traditional GIS platforms. The author mentioned that "conventional GIS algorithms and analytical tools are often based on single CPU and single-user interfaces, therefore cannot effectively exploit the utility of immerging of cyberstructure". Many of us have experienced this single user interface in GIS, in which you cannot really collaborate with someone and become very slow when dealing with large datasets. The synthesis problem is something I guess we need to all deal with shortly. In the US Department of Agriculture example, he mentioned this study tried to understand the climatic variables' trends and crop fields' large-scale patterns. As a complex problem, it has multiple stakeholders, many researchers, and large datasets. In the newly proposed platform, this problem can be solved and there is undoubtedly more project like this that a singer user interface will not be enough.

[nvwynn]

Natalie Vaughan-Wynn
April 5, 2021

This week’s readings expanded my imagination concerning what can even be considered a technical object. First, through Feenberg’s discussion of labor in a capitalist system as a “technical system,” and then through Zhao and Huang’s description of a crypto place, which can be understood as a technical process, object, and place. Through the expansion of our understanding of what technology even is, we can then apply conceptual frameworks to technologies that reveal some truths: that technology is neither determining nor neutral, that technical systems don’t have to be undemocratic or hegemonic, and that technology and society are co-constituted, all facets argued by Feenberg. Related to the latter, Feenberg’s assertion that “technologies of conquest pretend to an unprecedented autonomy” can serve as a call to action for scholars to work to uncover the social dimensions of technologies in a constructivist way, thereby refuting the idea of technological determinism (and all of the false dichotomies that reside within its framework). I was also struck by Feenberg’s point that the “dichotomy of goal and meaning is a product of functionalist professional culture, which is itself rooted in the structure of the modern economy.” For me, this connected to Larissa’s reference to Audre Lorde’s quote and the ideas embedded in the different theories laid out (of what technology can or cannot be (i.e. “technically explainable function” or “hermeneutically interpretable meaning”).
Zhao and Huang take this idea of hermeneutically interpretable meaning to the scale of a case study by examining the “complicated social implications of blockchain technology much beyond purely serving as an alternative cryptocurrency.” (p. 149) However, this is not the only interesting intersection between these papers. In a sense, the idea that “the specific meanings of a monument evolve continuously rather than being inscribed permanently” (Zhao and Huang, 2020, p 150) parallels Pinch and Bijker notion of 'interpretive flexibility’ (Feenberg, 1992 p. 305)
This week, I’m left with these questions: What would it mean for technology to operate democratically? What would it mean for technology to be anarchistic? How do anarchistic and democratic approaches to developing and operationalizing technology intersect? How are they different? Also, in the Western context, where technology’s default position is positivist and thus escapes scrutiny, how do we heed the call of sociological examination of scientific theories?

[reconjohn]

Yohan Min

Technology is a public power source. That means democratization of society needs not only political change but also radical technical advances. Before, the concept of technological and economic determinism was prevalent, which did not take into account to reference to society. This dominant hegemony seemed to determine modern society. However, constructivism and hermeneutic approach in regard to social meaning and cultural horizon discovered that humans, in fact, can control and determine technology. In other words, once human used to be subordinated to technology, now advances technology further. This process is "subversive rationalization." For example, a desire of avoiding supervision from sovereign administration and commemoration of the hero of the coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Li illustrates blockchain technology to have a crypto place. This virtual place features decentralized location, immutable locales, transaction-based sense of place. This example shows how technology can be advanced expanding geographic studies to another dimensional place while undesirable consequences may exist as the lack of surveillance leads to the dissemination of false information, provocation, and confusion. Furthermore, CyberGIS framework was introduced using GISolve integrating Cyberinfrastructure (CI) and spatial middleware (GIS, and spatial analysis). This is another example of technological advance through active participation of research encouraged by society. In the meantime, in the context of the coupled human and natural system, the rationalization of technology could be different based on its cultural and social contexts.

References
Feenberg A (1992) Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy 1. Inquiry 35(3–4): 301–322.
Wang S (2010) A CyberGIS Framework for the Synthesis of Cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(3): 535–557.
Zhao B and Huang X (2020) Encrypted monument: The birth of crypto place on the blockchain. Geoforum 116: 149–152.

[gracejia513]

Wang (2010) proposed the CyberGIS framework for synthesizing geographic information systems (GIS), spatial analysis, and cyberinfrastructure (CI). The urge of such a framework originates from the incompatibility between solving computationally intensive and collaborative problems and the single central processing unit (CPU) and single user interface in many fields. Under this circumstance, the author presented GISolve Toolkit that incorporates high-performance and distributed spatial analysis, data and visualization, and collaboration support. The GISolve workflow demonstrates its potential in handling large-scale spatial analysis through a case study analyzing the impact of climate change on US crop yields. From a transportation engineering perspective, I personally resonate with the author’s argument about the limitations of single CPU and single user interface when transportation mobility data are generally enormous and cover a wide geographic area. We seek a high-performance workflow paradigm, quite similar to the ones mentioned in Wang’s paper, that can remove the computational barrier.

The other reading material (Zhao and Huang, 2020) introduced the encrypted monument in memory of Dr. Li. The transformation of a physical and tangible memorial space to a virtual crypto space is evidence of Feenberg’s statement that technological objects have both social meaning dimension and cultural horizon. Using encrypted technology in this way is “a surplus of workable solutions” where the social factor and user shape technology usage. I would also like to touch on how urban planners view the relationship between the built environment and society. People have a set of social norms and practices, which they adhere to while interacting with the physical environment. Generally speaking, the physical environment can be divided into realized and exploited potential, recognized but unexploited potential, and possible unexploited potential. The boundaries are dynamic when the interaction takes place under a different context. For example, many streets and pedestrian walking zone are solely used for transit purposes. But given the social distancing rule during COVID-19, these open spaces are converted to outdoor dining areas for restaurants to utilize. Converting outdoor space into dining areas is either recognized but unexploited potential or possible unexploited potentials to many of us before COVID-19. Zhao and Huang’s article strikes me deeply to think how researchers can apply this way of thinking to virtual spaces.

[JerryLiu-96]

[S-Arnone]

For Zhao, Huang and some of those critical to Crypto development and proselytization, it seems that a lack of government interference in social relations and the matters of the individual is central to a vision for the future. Indeed, the authors note that “blockchain technologies own a strong theoretical root in Anarchism [as a form of techno-utopian rebellion]” (Zhao and Huang, 149). This would seem to suggest a complete transformation of social relations on the basis of equality (at least among human beings) and a resulting transformation of individuals’ and groups’ relationship to place. Yet, while on some level crypto-monuments and crypto-place construct an independence from organization – they seem to construct their foundation on the foundation of power imbalance. Where modern social relations developed from the relationship between material surplus and social organization, blockchain users seem unable to escape this cultural horizon of mediating relation through exchange. This can range from banal communication where a scalable ‘gas fee’ places an immediate cost on communication, to the ability to exercise control over place at a fundamental level. Physical infrastructure, the roads we walk on for instance, are not neutral in their function but still represent a place on which contention can take place between state and non-state actors. It is noted, however, that when it comes to crypto-place contention is something dependent on resource possession. To both “[destroy and] rebuild all the involved blocks and the subsequent transactions” (Zhao and Huang, 149) related to place, one must be a highly resourced actor. It would seem then, that unless the hurdles of cyberinfrastructure networking discussed by Wang can be overcome, violence in crypto relations is something on which states continue to hold a monopoly and social relations generally will continue to be mediated by real-world resource access.

As regards Feenberg, while I found his core argument compelling – that being that our relationship with technology is not deterministic – I believed that his arguments would benefit from an interaction with ecological principles. While technological development is integral to the ease of production and distribution in many ways, it would also seem that it has a role to play in reinforcing the domination of nature by man. Yes, in many ways this reflects the bounds of a cultural horizon and relies on the bias of technological development; but it also reflects the enhanced material demands of technology. If “technology is a scene of social struggle, a ‘parliament of things’ on which civilizational alternatives contend” (Feenberg, 307) then it seems reasonable to expect this critical issue to be addressed. What is ethical development in an ecological context and when is its price too great to pay? For example, though I am not one of them, many people maintain a principled objection to the use of nuclear power generation on account of its waste – how are issues such as this to be addressed? If we adapt a position relying on democratization and flexibility, we can leave this to others to determine – but should we not also maintain a core philosophical position on something so integral on our relationship to nature? This is not a proposition to regulation, which Feenberg addresses with the statement that, “Regulation defines the cultural framework of the economy” (Feenberg 315) – instead this is a question of biological necessity. I object to Feenberg’s assumption on this same page that ecology is a matter of code, like boiler design or child labor and see the possibility for a much deeper engagement with ecology and technology.

Feenberg A (1992) Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy 1. Inquiry 35(3–4): 301–322. DOI: 10.1080/00201749208602296.
Wang S (2010) A CyberGIS Framework for the Synthesis of Cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(3): 535–557. DOI: 10.1080/00045601003791243.
Zhao B and Huang X (2020) Encrypted monument: The birth of crypto place on the blockchain. Geoforum 116: 149–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.08.011.

[skytruine]

Yifan Sun
Technology and society are intertwined with each other. Unlike the science and technology debate of GIS. CyberGIS is undoubtedly an example of technology. It’s first proposed by Wang in 2010, which means the integration of cyberinfrastructures, GIS, and spatial analysis in conducting cloud and distributed high-performance geospatial computing. To my understanding CyberGIS as technology is driven by the social reality: sharply increasing data traffic and computational complexity. When it comes to Zhao et al.’s crypto place enabled by the blockchain, the blockchain shaped the society more than its original functionality as cryptocurrency. The encrypted monument for Li without being located in the physical world, has all the attributes, including locations, locales, and sense of place, of being a “legitimate place”. The altered use of blockchain corresponds with the notion of “subversive rationalization” by Feenberg.

The traditional advance of technology is mainly driven by the pursuit of efficiency and productivity. But I agree with Feenberg — technology can also be driven by democracy participation and resistance towards technology hegemony. The Minitel example just brings my mind to location spoofing. When big companies collect and use users’ personal location data for marketing, the user resists by disguising their hometown, current city, and location. When the content flow is limited by location in the LBS application, the user creatively spoofs their location to get access to the external world. The examples of location spoofing just reflect the democracy of technology.

• Wang, S., 2010. A CyberGIS framework for the synthesis of cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and spatial analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(3), pp.535-557.
• Andrew Feenberg,“Democratic [originally “Subversive”] Rationalization: Technology, Power, and Democracy,” revised version of an article in Inquiry, 35 (1992), pp. 301–322. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis.
• Zhao, B. and Huang, X., 2020. Encrypted monument: The birth of crypto place on the blockchain. Geoforum, 116, pp.149-152.

[Jxdaydayup]

The connotations of virtual place, a relatively new concept, became clearer to me after reading Zhao and Huang’s piece (2020). Agnew (2011) proposed place contains three elements: physical location - indicated by a geographic coordinate system, locale - material and non-material aspects of a place, and sense of place - one’s subjective sentiments toward a place. This piece used the encrypted monument of Dr. Li, an unforgettable whistleblower of the outbreak of pandemic which still continues today with no end in sight, to help explain what crypto place is, and more broadly, virtual pace. It is interesting to read contract address works as a virtual location. As for the discussion of political power and decentralized location, “Although crypto place is still influenced by the existing political powers, its decentralized location makes it difficult for any single user, organization, or sovereign state to control the entire ownership of the crypto place (cf., Di Masso and Dixon, 2015).” Although crypto place is free of less surveillance from any central authorities, what about the team and organization who design and manage blockchain and other authorities directly or indirectly influencing the team and organization, whose power is invisible but prone to be ignored? As for the transaction-based sense of place, while it is interesting to read the value-laden nature of transaction and its sense of place given and embodied, I felt a bit uncomfortable reading the example piece of eulogy to Dr. Li, especially given that it was written with a first-person wording. No one can truly know the mind of Dr. Li. “Please give me some eths, I want to feel be loved and blessed” in the example piece reads quite greedy and utilitarian, which may demean Dr. Li, to people who do not fully or truly know the story or this person. This also reminds me of misinformation, fake geography, and post-truth geography.

While Feenberg (1992) saw technology as neither determining nor as neutral, I think of a viewpoint that views technology as a hollow cube. Technology is not determining. It is given purposes and influences by its users. It is not positive or negative. It depends on how its users utilize it. Technology can be viewed as a cube in the sense that there can be multiple ways to interpret the role of technology in society and space. When relating technology with hegemony and dominance, I think of Emotiv, a privately held bio-informatics and technology company developing and manufacturing wearable electroencephalography (EEG) products. Brain waves collected by EEG of Emotiv will be first uploaded to the cloud database of the company before users have access to and download them. Status quo alike seems to be hard to change, but Feenberg’s suggestions – “These movements alert us to the need to take technological externalities into account and demand design changes responsive to the enlarged context revealed in that accounting” - may point out a direction.

[yohaoyu]

Thinkpiece: CyberGIS - GEOG 595 Humanistic GIS (SPR 2023)

When talking about CyberGIS, my initial imagination is a network of cyberinfrastructure and its associated algorithm for geoinformation collection, analysis, storage, and management, which are exactly the CyberGIS framework provided by Wang in his paper (Wang, 2009). The framework employs spatial middleware to connect geoinformation, spatial services and components (GISolve), and cyberinfrastructure (high-performance computers) through a human interactive platform. However, a comprehensive understanding of CyberGIS in society should not be limited by the scope of technology itself, which reflects Ihde’s idea of examining technology in use and in a larger context (Verbeek, 2001).

Zhao and Huang’s work (2020) highlights that CyberGIS is not only a toolkit for geoinformation analysis, but also could produce virtual places for social activities. They discuss the specific ‘crypto place’ on blockchain where people mourn Dr. Wenliang Li without censorship from the government as well as the configuration, mechanism, and operation of the ‘place’. These ‘places’ make use of the advantages of both CyberGIS and blockchain technologies and provide a new option for certain public activities, albeit not all. The design-based places and people’s gatherings could give us the unique sense and feeling, which cannot be fully replaced by virtual experiences now. The uniqueness of blockchain-based places empowers everyone and give them freedom without withstanding any control from the government or other organization while introducing chaos.

We can see technology is not neutral but rather shaped by power relationships from the previous article, which is discussed more in Feeberg’s (1992) paper on the democratic power of technology. His idea may sound conventional nowadays because of the increasing awareness of technology intertwined with politics, such as from the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Back to ‘crypto place’, the radical new form of decentralized, unchangeable ‘place’ may have the potential to be opposite with dominant hegemony and contribute to the democratization of society.

Reference:

• Feenberg A (1992) Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and democracy 1. Inquiry 35(3–4): 301–322. DOI: 10.1080/00201749208602296.
• Wang S (2010) A CyberGIS Framework for the Synthesis of Cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(3): 535–557. DOI: 10.1080/00045601003791243.
• Zhao B and Huang X (2020) Encrypted monument: The birth of crypto place on the blockchain. Geoforum 116: 149–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.08.011.