[This dis­cus­sion is the con­clu­sion of a series of talks: Designing Energy Transformation: From the Modern Infrastructure Ideal to Liberatory Technologies; Design Justice for the Green New Deal; and Amniotechnics (not transcribed)]

Kai Bosworth: Okay. So, ques­tions from the audi­ence? Or oth­er­wise I have one. [very long pause] Silence.

Okay. So, I think that one thing that I was think­ing about while both of your pre­sen­ta­tions were hap­pen­ing is the degree to which a ques­tion of not only design or tech­nol­o­gy but the lim­its of what we can design or hold pow­er over is at stake in pre­cise­ly think­ing about how to make a bet­ter future. And I’m won­der­ing if you agree or disagree with me, and if so does that throw a wrench in think­ing about a sort of broad-scale trans­for­ma­tion of the planet? 

Sophie Lewis: I under­stand you to be…partly— Just to check on the sort of ques­tion, you’re kind of talk­ing about the pre­scrip­tive ele­ment in what I would—in—yeah. I was say­ing. Sasha’s pre­sen­ta­tion was all about the demo­c­ra­t­ic process, and mine was very much about what I…what I want. It’s an inter­est­ing ten­sion to have highlighted. 

Yes. Well, that’s a real­ly great ques­tion. I sup­pose I’d like to hear what you think your­self, Kai and also— [indi­cates Costanza-Chock] But I sup­pose my…my defense,” if that’s required, is that I tru­ly think that the sorts of nor­ma­tive claims and req­ui­si­tions and demands and…you know, to some peo­ple slight­ly inde­fen­si­ble sort of utopi­an asser­tions in my book are very gen­uine­ly a process of inter­pre­ta­tion and read­ing the strug­gles that have gone before. I don’t real­ly think any of the ideas are orig­i­nal.” They have emerged from kind of full-spectrum doulas, mid­wifery strug­gles, black fem­i­nist poly­ma­ter­nal­ist prac­tices… Yeah, it’s going to be com­pli­cat­ed to pros­e­cute the ide­al of fam­i­ly abo­li­tion giv­en that lots of people…not just Tucker Carlson, but—who’s not a fan of mine. But many peo­ple are extremely…you know. We are ene­mies on this issue. Family comes first is an idea that…it has vast pop­u­lar­i­ty across the polit­i­cal spec­trum. I would argue it is anti-ecological idea. Family comes first is not an eco­log­i­cal way of think­ing. But… Yeah, we’re gonna have a prob­lem I sup­pose. I think there is a role for a cer­tain kind of uni­ver­sal­ist dis­course. I say that kind of polem­i­cal­ly. If you want com­mu­nism, you know, you have to say what you want. And that’s going to abut, and pro­duce antag­o­nisms. And that’s not a very great answer. Yeah. 

Sasha Constanza-Chock: I mean, I haven’t read your book, yet. But I’m cer­tain­ly going to now. I feel like…you know, com­ing from queer and trans com­mu­ni­ties, a lot of the dis­course is right around the fam­i­lies that we have to cre­ate. So we talk about cho­sen fam­i­ly, we talk about pos­si­bly refig­ur­ing, rethink­ing, and maybe even destroy­ing or abol­ish­ing the hetero- and cis­nor­ma­tive tra­di­tion­al idea of the fam­i­ly in favor of oth­er fig­u­ra­tions, includ­ing you know frankly the fig­u­ra­tions of fam­i­ly and com­mu­ni­ty that exist­ed through most of human his­to­ry and large­ly were vio­lent­ly dis­placed, destroyed, erased through process­es of set­tler colo­nial­ism and the arrival of cap­i­tal­ism and the need to pro­duce urban spaces in cer­tain types of ways, pro­duce units of work­ers, pro­duce demand for you know, family-level or indi­vid­u­al­ized goods, con­sump­tion. So I think there’s a lot in there that I agree with. You know I’m cer­tain­ly… I’m not that into top-down any­thing. So, abo­li­tion of the fam­i­ly as some­thing that’s com­ing as a state project would­n’t be some­thing that I’d sup­port but I cer­tain­ly think that we do need to think about eco­log­i­cal sur­viv­abil­i­ty, some­thing that’s going to require sig­nif­i­cant restruc­tur­ing of and return to some of these oth­er forms of cho­sen fam­i­ly and com­mu­ni­ty to replace…or community-esque family. 

And I think that for design­ers— And it’s inter­est­ing because I don’t come from urban plan­ning and archi­tec­ture, or land­scape. You know, I come more from HCI—human com­put­er interaction—and from the design of soft­ware? And in the Design Justice Network we’ve cre­at­ed sort of some shared strate­gies and prin­ci­ples, but also there are ten­sions between… We’re lump­ing a lot togeth­er when we say design,” and part of one of our tasks right now is for sub­groups with­in the Design Justice Network to kind of think about what does design jus­tice mean for X, where X” is a dif­fer­ent design­er­ly prac­tice. But yeah, I mean I think all of the sub­fields of design will have to think about what it means to recre­ate a future that isn’t built around that nuclear unit with the trans­porta­tion, liv­ing, and con­sump­tion pat­terns that we’re sup­posed to be social­ized into. So I’m into that. 

Audience 1: Thank you for the pan­el. This is kind of a…I guess a ques­tion for Sophie. I haven’t read your book but I look for­ward to doing that right away. I’m fas­ci­nat­ed by your ideas, I just have a ques­tion about the move to tech­nol­o­gize the idea of water. And the way that Sasha was just his­tori­ciz­ing the idea of fam­i­ly and say­ing that we have a his­to­ry that we can refer to in which fam­i­ly was abol­ished or you know, it did­n’t exist in the way that it exists now for many of us. So in the same way, we have kind of a ref­er­ence to water not being rede­fined or some­thing. So I think you get what I’m say­ing. I mean, is it a— So, think­ing about water as tech­nol­o­gized or cyborg-ized, is that a move away essen­tial­iz­ing a rela­tion­ship to water? Or I guess I’m just ask­ing about tech­nol­o­giza­tion of water and cyborg…why that has to fit into your vision. 

Bosworth: Let’s gath­er the oth­er ques­tion and then we’ll respond.

Audience 2: Thank all three of you. I kind of was think­ing about the con­cept of design­ing for dis­com­fort at the begin­ning, and some of the ten­sions in all of your pre­sen­ta­tions between what makes you come alive as an indi­vid­ual and like, makes us feel bright, and makes our com­mu­ni­ties in the per­fect wind farm con­fig­u­ra­tion feel per­fect; ver­sus what when we’re in the big space of what our world in a big­ger pic­ture needs to func­tion and com­bat cli­mate change at the speed that we need to com­bat it. Those things seem inten­tioned in a lot of ways. So just think­ing through that I won­der what your thoughts are. 

Lewis: You go first.

Bosworth: I should go first. Okay. Yeah, so I guess I’m a geo­g­ra­ph­er and so we’re sup­posed to know things about scale? And one of the things that’s real­ly dif­fi­cult about scale is pre­cise­ly this ques­tion of how do dif­fer­ent col­lec­tives inter­face with each oth­er and inter­face as part of one anoth­er. One of the things that I think has been inter­est­ing about some of the con­ver­sa­tions I’ve been hav­ing around design­ing ener­gy trans­for­ma­tion as well as think­ing about both of my col­leagues up here, their com­ments today, is how that is also strange­ly a kind of…we get into these recur­sive forms of design, right, where we have to also design inter­faces that scale up from our kind of face-to-face meet­ings to the inter­na­tion­al and plan­e­tary scale. 

So that’s cer­tain­ly a dif­fi­cult propo­si­tion. And yet, you think that there’s a lot of exam­ples from both his­tor­i­cal­ly and from the present of dif­fer­ent kinds of inter­na­tion­al­ist move­ments that were both capa­ble of hold­ing at the same time their sort of pro­vi­sion­al cho­sen com­mu­ni­ty around them in a sort of local­ized or a sort of place-based way, at the same time as they were able to bring those con­cerns to a broad­er scale and scales through and beyond the sup­posed nation-state sort of orientation. 

And so, I would hope that that would be one thing that—I mean I think is absolute­ly nec­es­sary in any con­ver­sa­tion around a Green New Deal or around eco­log­i­cal futures, is that there isn’t one sort of des­ignable scale that is supe­ri­or in some kind of way, but it’s real­ly the ongo­ing inter­faces between and among var­i­ous dif­fer­ent kinds of scales that are kind of you know, best-shotting pro­duc­ing a just envi­ront­ment future. 

Costanza-Chock I’m gonna get in on this one because you know, at MIT the stu­dents are con­stant­ly taught from the day they arrive that they need to scale, they need to build some­thing for a bil­lion peo­ple, or it’s mean­ing­less to do. And I think that that’s…personally I think that’s the oppo­site of what we need. I don’t think that design jus­tice prin­ci­ples sup­port that. I think that that very prin­ci­ple, that’s about the pro­duc­tion of mono­cul­tures, and by mono­cul­tures we could talk about that in terms of organ­isms, and we would talk about that in agri­cul­ture, but we could also talk about it in terms of human cul­tures. We could talk about it in terms of lan­guages and lan­guage death that’s hap­pen­ing now. We could talk about it in terms of even infor­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy sys­tems, where we’ve start­ed with the promise of the decen­tral­ized Web and the lib­er­a­to­ry poten­tial of you know— I remem­ber it was actu­al­ly just last week twen­ty years ago today that Indymedia was born in the tear gas clouds in Seattle out of the fem­i­nist, indige­nous, and labor, and green coali­tion that came togeth­er to say no to the one world vision of the World Trade Organization and we used the nascent net and open pub­lish­ing and free soft­ware to try and doc­u­ment and cir­cu­late strug­gles. And now fast for­ward twen­ty years, and that’s been replaced by a cor­po­rate mono­cul­ture of a hand­ful of infor­ma­tion com­pa­nies that are…you know frankly even just in the ener­gy that they… We need to talk about ener­gy jus­tice and infor­ma­tion pro­cess­ing pow­er. There are increas­ing­ly reports com­ing out around the amount of ener­gy that’s con­sumed by this hand­ful of firms in the con­struc­tion of the Internet infra­struc­ture, but also in terms of the new move towards arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and the amount of ener­gy that it takes to pro­duce new AI mod­els which them­selves are monoculture-producing data sur­veil­lance and pro­tec­tion sys­tems that are about elim­i­nat­ing any­one who is an out­lier or does­n’t fall with­in the range that a data mod­el has been trained on. And I’ve writ­ten about this elsewhere. 

So I’m not into big scale. I into like, rede­cen­tral­iza­tion and small, local com­mu­ni­ty con­trol, and the Detroit Community Technology Project that’s build­ing community-owned wire­less, mesh net­works, with dig­i­tal stew­ards who come from the com­mu­ni­ties and are installing that infra­struc­ture them­selves and learn­ing how to do that. Yeah. 

Bosworth: Sophie, last word.

Lewis: Sometimes at the end of dis­cus­sions I have about this sort of…formerly real­ly quite famil­iar on the left but now almost unthink­able, kind of makes your brain explode kind of phrase, fam­i­ly abo­li­tion, is that you know, peo­ple say some­thing along the lines of, Oh. Well you know, hav­ing his­tori­cized it like this, I guess my take­away is I would love to abol­ish the fam­i­ly except it does­n’t real­ly exist,” the sort of para­dox is that families have in prac­tice already sort of abol­ished in a sense…families against The Family is a way… Although I don’t want to go too far in that direc­tion and try and claim that we’ve already sort of got there, we’ve already got to the… But you glimpse in real­i­ty com­rade­ly modes of social repro­duc­tion because that’s how peo­ple who were not meant to sur­vive, in Audre Lorde’s phrase, have actu­al­ly stayed around. And the knowl­edge and the skill of how to sort of not just sur­vive but thrive under con­di­tions of kind of exclu­sion from the prop­er­ty form of the fam­i­ly, and that white image of the nuclear pri­vate house­hold is how sort of like, fam­i­ly against fam­i­ly has evolved. So, you know in a sense some peo­ple would make the polem­i­cal claim that like, the phrase black fam­i­ly” is an oxy­moron, you don’t— You know, the peo­ple being put in cages for instance at the bor­der of the United States are not being treat­ed as The Family, even though they’re…fam­i­lies and they’re being bio­genet­i­cal­ly test­ed to see if they are bio­log­i­cal­ly linked to one another. 

Anyway. But your ques­tion about water is some­thing I want­ed to briefly come back on about… So I per­haps would dis­pute the term…not crit­i­cal­ly, but tech­nol­o­gize” is not per­haps what I would describe… The pro­pos­al of a cyborg con­cept of water is, to go back to the Cyborg Manifesto, not about a sort of received notion of tech­nol­o­gy. It’s more about under­stand­ing the both­ness and the non-purity of this medi­um. So, my broad­er project has a lot to do with ques­tion­ing the idea that roman­ti­ciza­tions of things is good, is lov­ing. You know, can we have a kind of lib­er­a­to­ry eco­log­i­cal prac­tice that sets up cer­tain things as kind of just good, like water. Which I was try­ing to say— I mean, so care” as well is one of these words. People say care, you know, we need care, we need…you know, just care. 

And you know, to under­stand some­thing real­ly deeply and respect­ful­ly, you have to under­stand the mor­bid­i­ty, the vio­lence, the bru­tal­i­ty even, inside it, and that includes the pla­cen­tal sort of worksite—the way that a fetus and and a ges­ta­tor inter­act is not very…pretty, and you can’t sim­ply describe it as gen­eros­i­ty. There’s a lot of kind of no, and antag­o­nism in this kind of rela­tion of bod­i­ly care. Perhaps we could even dis­pense with it and have lit­tle biobags filled with slur­ry that we pass off to one anoth­er in a low-tech DIY way that like, resem­bles Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time sce­nario, with Mattapoisett’s sort of cen­tral­ized brood­er, which is sort of tac­tile and…

But you know, an anti-work approach to sort of biol­o­gy but also informed by the i— You know, in an ultra­sound image, you don’t see the water. You see this kind of space­man. [laugh­ter] Which Donna Haraway point­ed out… Donna Haraway point­ed out that the image of the Earth, decon­tex­tu­al­ized, was born at the same time as the image of the fetus that seems to not be in a rela­tion of pro­duc­tion, pro­duced­ness, and sort of ges­tat­ing back the ges­ta­tor. And that’s part­ly because you don’t see the water. And water is not just nice. I’m try­ing to point out it drowns us, and it nour­ish­es us. And med­i­cine too is not just nice, that’s the whole notion of like, the cure, right. Like it— [inaudi­ble com­ment from Bosworth] Yeah, okay. But like the dual­i­ty of like…you know, the poi­son and the and the life-bringing sub­stance, you know. To under­stand that the sort of nature of the world around us I’m attract­ed still—I’m still a lit­tle bit loy­al to the con­cept of the cyborg because of its abil­i­ty to show us that there’s no pure. And so it makes sense to talk about water as a tech­nol­o­gy for that rea­son. Because care is messy and sometimes…brutal

Audience 3: I have a ques­tion for Sophie, is that— So, I am very— I loved your talk, I’m look­ing for­ward to read­ing your book. I’m very aligned with the things that you espouse. But I have a lit­tle prob­lem with some of what feels to me as the polemi­cism of this lan­guage, the idea of abol­ish­ing the fam­i­ly. My prob­lem with the polemi­cism, or what I per­ceive to be the polemi­cism of it, is that for bet­ter or for worse, you don’t need to sell me on the prob­lem­at­ics of the domes­tic unit of the fam­i­ly. But for bet­ter or for worse, that dis­course is a part of our real­i­ty and as such it has been appro­pri­at­ed by com­mu­ni­ties that have been on the vio­lent receiv­ing end of that term, right. The idea of fam­i­ly is so impor­tant in com­mu­ni­ties of col­or. It’s so impor­tant for the sur­vival and for the resilience of peo­ple that have faced direct­ly the vio­lence done by the patri­ar­chal sys­tems that the fam­i­ly is metonymic for. And so, how do we leave space for that appro­pri­a­tion? The fact that that… You don’t—again, don’t need to reit­er­ate the impor­tance of the cri­tiques but that dis­course is impor­tant. Is there any way in which we can retain the fam­i­ly, and not abol­ish the fam­i­ly, but do that rad­i­cal impor­tant work that you’re call­ing for?

Lewis: Yes. Um… This is the nub of the issue. So, eh… I don’t think it’s face­tious to say it kind of returns us to the the impos­si­bil­i­ty of the word fa— I mean the lived real­i­ty of fam­i­ly is in a sense only his­tor­i­cal­ly active in com­mu­ni­ties that are not, in an insti­tu­tion­al sense, The Family. I mean it’s as though the only place where there has beens some­thing wor­thy of the name, in a pos­i­tive sense, is where it does not exist in the sense of rela­tions of cap­i­tal­ist accu­mu­la­tion and sort of reproduction. 

So, you know—and I someti—yeah. I should some­times make this per­haps more clear at the begin­ning of talks. I don’t have a kind of… I know, for instance in the black church the lan­guage of broth­er, sis­ter, etc., or not—beyond the black church as well. It’s sort of foun­da­tion­al and it’s anti-familial, you know. To referred to one anoth­er as kin, it’s not some­thing I’m try­ing to argue against, per se. A lot of the time when that is hap­pen­ing, there is no metaphor active in the ide­ol­o­gy dri­ving that that has to do with bio­genet­ic kind of, or blood-based, or inside or out­group kind of puri­ty, right. It’s kind of the oppo­site. So I guess…yeah, I don’t know if that— Yeah. I think fam­i­ly abo­li­tion para­dox­i­cal­ly is kind of about uplift­ing black fam­i­lies against the state? And per­haps that’s some­thing that I should not be say­ing, sit­u­at­ed as I am, but my sense is that the inspi­ra­tion for this project come—you know, from peo­ple like Alexis Pauline Gumbs, for instance, whose con­tention is that black sin­gle moth­ers have always been queer and out­side. Sort of refugees from the insti­tu­tion of the fam­i­ly, right. But there’s a lot more to speak about. I’d love to talk to you lat­er about it. 

Bosworth: Okay. So thanks every­one. This is a fas­ci­nat­ing con­ver­sa­tion­al. I’ll just remind us how impor­tant some kind of utopi­an project is to it the Green New Deal. And if we want to pro­duce some kind of just future it’s going to require prob­a­bly upset­ting our notions of what utopi­anism is or means or how it can be designed. So, thanks for this con­ver­sa­tion, for stick­ing around. We’ll see you all after lunch at…whatever time Damian says.

Further Reference

Climate Futures II event page

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.