I’m at EduCon today, skipping the opening keynote. The thing I like about EduCon is that it always makes you think. On the train ride in yesterday, I checked the Twitter stream fro the #educon hashtag and noticed a link to an article called “I Am Not a Maker”. As a self-proclaimed maker myself, I had to see it. I was expecting an argument about rejecting tech for say, meditation, walking in the wilderness or something along those lines. I could handle that. Making isn’t for everyone, though I would argue it doesn’t have to be all about the tech. Instead, it was an argument about making as a masculine domain, one that was fairly deliberately hiding the behind the scenes work of primarily women.
Of course making rises from our current culture; it’s not separate from it. So that means it takes with it the racism, sexism, classism and other -isms inherent in our existing culture. But claiming to be a maker does not mean that you’re advocating for some kind of return to a 1950s masculine-dominated mindset. Chachra puts it this way:
Describing oneself as a maker—regardless of what one actually or mostly does—is a way of accruing to oneself the gendered, capitalist benefits of being a person who makes products.
I just don’t think that’s true. First of all, I would say that makers are not interested in making products. Most makers I know are interested in the process of making and what they learn from it, and empowering themselves not be beholden to the marketplace. They want to make stuff for themselves that doesn’t exist in the market. They want to fix the things they have so they don’t have to buy something. So, I see makers as running counter to capitalism. Now, I do think making has been somewhat commodified, but I think many makers are uncomfortable with that.
Just prior to the quote above, Chachra says this:
The cultural primacy of making, especially in tech culture—that it is intrinsically superior to not-making, to repair, analysis, and especially caregiving—is informed by the gendered history of who made things, and in particular, who made things that were shared with the world, not merely for hearth and home.
Making is not a rebel movement, scrappy individuals going up against the system. While the shift might be from the corporate to the individual (supported, mind, by a different set of companies selling a different set of things), it mostly re-inscribes familiar values, in slightly different form: that artifacts are important, and people are not.
Now, yes, I do think we should be critical of the world of making and to be thoughtful about how it does or does not reinscribe cultural norms. And indeed, there are ways that it does, certainly if Make Magazine is your primary insight into this culture. And, I think it’s important to have a conversation about that. I teach Computer Science and I’m always having a conversation about the male domination of the field and how it got there and how it affects the tools we use every day.
And maybe because I’m approaching making from the angle of education, I think making is all about the people; it’s about using the maker process to engender a mindset that is resilient, independent, and thoughtful. And I also don’t devalue caregiving and other “non-making” activities, but as an educator who teaches “making”, making has to happen in my classroom. It’s just like a math teacher who might value English as a subject, but they’re not going to include much, if any, in their classes. Education and learning is about having students be a little uncomfortable and try things they wouldn’t. If my students leave my class and don’t become “makers”, I’m not only okay with that, I fully support it and often suggest careers and fields to my students that fall into the “non-making” category. But I do hope that being a maker, or if people prefer, participating in the process of making, for a while in my class has some kind of impact.
I understand Chachra’s discomfort with the maker movement as a cultural phenomenon and especially the connections that have been made with Silicon Valley. What I don’t understand is her complete rejection of it, instead of pushing for change within it. Her field, engineering, is extremely skewed gender wise and maybe doesn’t have the hype of the maker movement, but certainly has issues, issues similar to CS. It’soften unfriendly to females, certainly privileges certain kinds of work over others, and yet, she doesn’t reject it and say, I’m not doing that. If female scientists had said that science was male-dominated and capitalist and unfriendly to women, so I’m not going to do it, we’d have no female scientists.
The maker movement deserves our critical eye, for sure, but it should be changed and not rejected. Its focus can’t be on what makes white middle aged men happy–robots, cool gadgets, cars–but we need to point out when this is happening and correct it. Fix it from within, I say.