A liminaridade da cultura maker e o hardware de fonte (na ciência)
em vez de fazer algo ser grande de novo, continue experimentando!
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v13i1.3875Palavras-chave:
Cultura maker, Hardware de fonte aberta, Política e design, Sul GlobalResumo
A cultura maker, definida como um conjunto de experiências que agrupam ferramentas de hardware de código aberto (Weiss 2008; Mellis & Buechley 2011; Ames et al. 2014), de práticas faça-você-mesmo (Ratto & Boler 2014; Ames et al. 2014; Lindtner et al. 2016), promesas da fabricação digital, automática e distribuída (Gershenfeld et al. 2004; Ratto & Ree 2012), e equipamentos para a democratização da ciência (Pearce 2014; Pearce 2012), persiste como um objeto ambiguo de nossas recentes fantasias do design e da política. De um lado, há o surgimento de políticas e interesses governamentais nos EUA, China, Cingapura, Taiwam e Europa, sobre o tal “movimento maker”, levando diretamente ao atual chamado nacionalista do tipo “Faça (o país XYZ) Grande Novamente”. De outro lado, os projetos e atividades maker (experimentações com Arduino, construção de impressoras 3D, montagem de infraestruturas de laboratórios de biologia faça-voçê-mesmo), continuam restritos a um nicho exploratório e privado, mesmo quando são parte de redes informais e transnacionais (Vertesi et al. 2011; Kaiying & Lindtner 2016) que eu denomino “diplomacia geek” (Kera 2015). Sem afirmar claramente qualquer agenda local ou transnacional, os makers faça-você-mesmo negociam de maneira produtiva e criativa várias dicotomias entre o individualismo e o coletivismo, entre os interesses locais e globais, nacionalismo e cosmopolitismo. Eles conectam politica e design através da liminaridade, em experiencias individuais e exploratórias de prototipagem e tinkering, que diferem muito das formas de aquisição de conhecimentos, habilidades e prototipagem típicas dos contextos industriais e acadêmicos. Para explicar a liminaridade na cultura maker, eu expando o trabalho pioneiro de Gabriela Coleman sobre os paradoxos do movimento hacker (e do movimento de software aberto). As redes descentralizadas e transnacionais de makers e hackers são exemplos (tecnológicos) de comunidades e liminaridades (Turner, 1969), que negociam vários objetivos e agendas conflitantes por trás da fabricação, tecnologia e globalização. A cultura maker pode servir a agendas isolacionistas ou cosmopolitas ao mesmo tempo, e ainda abraçar a retórica do código aberto enquanto segue parcialmente patenteada, pirateada e híbrida. Ela mobiliza as esperanças do Sul Global de tecnologias de baixo custo, enquanto performatiza clichés do Vale do Silício e se utiliza do trabalho escravo e migrante na China, ou ainda de algum conflito africano sobre recursos minerais. Ao invés de empoderar alguma noção idealizada de sujeito, comunidade ou mesmo nação, ela demarca os limites e as condições do nosso entendimento sobre governança e sua relação com a produção, a fabricação e o design.
Referências
Ames, M.G. et al., 2014. Making cultures. In Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’14. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 1087–1092. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2559206.2579405 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S. & Toombs, A., 2014. "now that’s definitely a proper hack" In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’14. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 473–476. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2556288.2557221 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Baudot, L., 2012. An Air of History: Joseph Wright’s and Robert Boyle’s Air Pump Narratives. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 46(1), pp.1–28. Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eighteenth-century_studies/v046/46.1.baudot.html [Accessed November 8, 2015].
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. Smart Cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), pp.65–82.
Carver, T. ed., 1991. The Cambridge Companion to Marx Cambridge., Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, E.G., 2013. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking, Princeton University Press.
Dantec, C.A.L. & DiSalvo, C., 2013. Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), pp.241–264. Available at: http://sss.sagepub.com/content/43/2/241.abstract [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Davies, S.R., 2017. Hackerspaces : making the maker movement Polity.,
Dickel, S., Ferdinand, J.-P. & Petschow, U., 2014. Shared Machine Shops as Real-life Laboratories » Journal of Peer Production. Journal of Peer Production. Available at: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/shared-machine-shops-as-real-life-laboratories/ [Accessed December 14, 2014].
DiSalvo, C., 2012. Adversarial Design, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
DiSalvo, C., 2014. Critical Making as Materializing the Politics of Design. The Information Society, 30(2), pp.96–105. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875770 [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Dunne, A., 2008. Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design, The MIT Press. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=yGZTPgAACAAJ&pgis=1 [Accessed October 31, 2011].
Dunne, A. & Raby, F., 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Feenberg, A., 1994. The technocracy thesis revisited: On the critique of power. Available at: http://philpapers.org/rec/FEETTT [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Frayne, S., Mantis Shrimp Invention – confluence. Mantis Shrimp Invention blog. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20130210092328/http://manilamantis.com/tag/confluence/ [Accessed December 15, 2014].
Fuchs, C. & Dyer-Witheford, N., 2012. Karl Marx @ Internet Studies. New Media & Society, 15(5), pp.782–796. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/15/5/782.abstract.
Gershenfeld, N., Krikorian, R. & Cohen, D., 2004. The Internet of things. Scientific American, 291(4), pp.76–81. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2465004&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Habermas, J., 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
van Helden, A.C., 1991. The Age of the Air-Pump. Tractrix. Yearbook for the history of science, medicine, technology and mathematics, 3, pp.149–172. Available at: http://www.gewina.nl/journals/tractrix/vanhelden91.pdf.
Hendrickson, K.E., 1997. Biancamaria Fontana, ed. — The Invention of the Modern Republic. Histoire sociale / Social History, 30(59). Available at: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/hssh/article/view/4738 [Accessed December 14, 2014].
Hornstein, A., Kickstarter >> The Solar Pocket Factory: an Invention Adventure by Alex Hornstein. The Solar Pocket Factory: an Invention Adventure Blog. Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/alex9000/the-solar-pocket-factory-an-invention-adventure/posts?page=3 [Accessed December 15, 2014].
Hurley, D., 2016. Artificial Pancreas Makers Race to Market. Discovery Magazine. Available at: http://discovermagazine.com/2016/may/13-priming-the-pump?webSyncID=7d872ecc-697c-dab7-565a-ab4970be7d15&sessionGUID=83159e0b-8aad-e8a7-7813-5c5652493c17.
Jeffery, L., 2011. IFTF: Innovation spaces of the future: research notes on China’s shanzhai meeting the Makers. Future Now. Available at: http://www.iftf.org/future-now/article-detail/innovation-spaces-of-the-future-research-notes-on-chinas-shanzhai-meeting-the-makers/ [Accessed December 6, 2014].
Kaiying, C.L. & Lindtner, S., 2016. Legitimacy, boundary objects & participation in transnational DIY biology. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference on Full papers - PDC ’16. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 171–180. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2940299.2940307 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Kelty, C.M., 2008. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software, Duke University Press.
Kera, D., 2013. Can There Be a Republic of Coders? The Aesthetics, Ethics, and Metaphysics of Coding Freedom | Mobilizing Ideas. Available at: https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/can-there-be-a-republic-of-coders-the-aesthetics-ethics-and-metaphysics-of-coding-freedom/ [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Kera, D., 2015. Open Source Hardware (OSHW) for Open Science in the Global South: Geek Diplomacy? In S. Albagli, L. Maciel, & H. A. Abdo, eds. Open Science, Open Issues. Brasilia: Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (IBICT), pp. 133–157. Available at: http://livroaberto.ibict.br/handle/1/1061 [Accessed November 24, 2015].
Kera, D., Rod, J. & Peterova, R., 2013. Post-Apocalyptic Citizenship and Humanitarian Hardware. In Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi : social, political and environmental issues. New York: Routledge, pp. 97–116.
Kirby, D., 2009. The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), pp.41–70. Available at: http://sss.sagepub.com/content/40/1/41.short [Accessed November 20, 2014].
LeCompte, C., Introducing the Ocean Invention Network, a super lab trying to save the world — Tech News and Analysis. Gigaom. Available at: https://gigaom.com/2013/01/07/introducing-the-ocean-invention-network-a-super-lab-trying-to-save-the-world/ [Accessed December 15, 2014].
Lindtner, S., 2014. Hackerspaces and the Internet of Things in China: How makers are reinventing industrial production, innovation, and the self. China Information, 28(2), pp.145–167. Available at: http://cin.sagepub.com/content/28/2/145.short.
Lindtner, S., Bardzell, S. & Bardzell, J., 2016. Reconstituting the Utopian Vision of Making. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 1390–1402. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2858036.2858506 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Lindtner, S. & Lee, D., 2012. Created in China. interactions, 19(6), p.18. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2377789&type=html [Accessed November 25, 2014].
LIU, H., 2010. Open Innovation in China. Economy, Culture & History Japan Spotlight Bimonthly, 29(1), pp.16–17. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=49028858&site=ehost-live.
Longyi, L. & Lihua, T., 2009. Study of open innovation on electronic information industry in Shenzhen of China. In Proceedings - International Conference on Management and Service Science, MASS 2009.
Marres, N., 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics, Available at: http://books.google.co.il/books/about/Material_Participation_Technology_the_En.html?id=Xjg4uPiahA4C&pgis=1 [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Marres, N., 2013. Why political ontology must be experimentalized: On eco-show homes as devices of participation. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), pp.417–443. Available at: http://sss.sagepub.com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/content/43/3/417.abstract [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Marres, N. & Lezaun, J., 2011. Materials and Devices of the Public: An Introduction. Economy and Society. Available at: http://research.gold.ac.uk/6133/1/Marres_Lezaun_introduction___preprint.pdf [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Marx, K. & Engels, F., 1998. The German ideology : including Theses on Feuerbach and introduction to The critique of political economy, Prometheus Books.
Mellis, D.A. & Buechley, L., 2011. Scaffolding creativity with open-source hardware. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition - C&C ’11. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 373. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2069618.2069702 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Moilanen, J., 2012. Emerging hackerspaces - Peer-production generation. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. pp. 94–111.
Mol, A., 1999. Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), pp.74–89. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Molitch-Hou, M., 2014. Has MakerBot Become TakerBot? - 3D Printing Industry. 3D Printing Industry. Available at: http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/05/28/makerbot-become-takerbot/ [Accessed December 11, 2014].
Muro, M. & Hirshberg, P., 2017. Five ways the Maker Movement can help catalyze a manufacturing renaissance | Brookings Institution, Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/01/04/the-maker-movement-can-catalyze-a-manufacturing-renaissance/ [Accessed February 2, 2017].
Oliver, J., Savičić, G. & Vasiliev, D., The Critical Engineering Manifesto. 2011. Available at: http://criticalengineering.org/ [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Paulos, E., Manifesto of Open Disruption and Participation by Eric Paulos. 2009. Available at: http://www.paulos.net/papers/2009/manifesto2009.html [Accessed December 16, 2014].
Pearce, J.M., 2012. Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware. Science, 337(6100), pp.1303–1304.
Pearce, J.M., 2014. Open-Source Lab, Elsevier. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124104624000044 [Accessed December 23, 2014].
Pettis, B., 2014. Let’s try that again. MakerBot Blog. Available at: http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/24/lets-try-that-again/ [Accessed December 11, 2014].
Plato, Republic, Medford MA: Tufts University. Available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:corpus:perseus,work,Plato, Republic [Accessed December 14, 2014a].
Plato, Timaeus, Medford MA: Tufts University. Available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0180%253Atext%253DTim. [Accessed December 15, 2014b].
Ratto, M., 2011. Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life. The Information Society, 27(4), pp.252–260. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819 [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Ratto, M. & Boler, M. eds., 2014. DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Ratto, M. & Ree, R., 2012. Materializing information: 3D printing and social change. First Monday, 17(7). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3968/3273 [Accessed December 17, 2013].
Ratto, M., Wylie, S.A. & Jalbert, K., 2014. Introduction to the Special Forum on Critical Making as Research Program. The Information Society, 30(2), pp.85–95. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875767 [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Rosen, S., 2005. Plato’s Republic: a study, Yale University Press.
Salkever, S.G., 1992. Plato On Practices: The “Technai” And The Socratic Question In Republic I. Proc Boston Colloq Anc Phil, 8, pp.243–267.
Schlesinger, J., Islam, M.M. & MacNeill, K., 2010. Founding a Hackerspace, Available at: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-122210-154836/unrestricted/Founding_a_Hackerspace.pdf.
Shapiro, J.S., 2015. “Maker Movement” promises to help U.S. declare independence from Chinese goods - Washington Times. The Washington Times. Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/8/maker-movement-promises-to-help-us-declare-indepen/ [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Simon, N., 2010. The Participatory Museum, Museum 2.0.
Sivek, S.C., 2011. "We Need a Showing of All Hands": Technological Utopianism in MAKE Magazine. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 35(3), pp.187–209. Available at: http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0196859911410317 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Smith, N.D., 1999. Plato’s Analogy of Soul and State. The Journal Of Ethics, 3(1), pp.31–49. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115599.
Stewart, I., Men of Class: Aristotle, Montesquieu and Dicey on “Separation of Powers” and “The Rule of Law.” Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1098424 [Accessed December 14, 2014].
Taylor, C., 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Turner, V., 1985. Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage. In A. Leymann & J. Myers, eds. Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion: An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural. pp. 46–55.
Turner, V., 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Vertesi, J., Lindtner, S. & Shklovski, I., 2011. Transnational HCI. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’11. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 61. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1979742.1979584 [Accessed February 5, 2017].
Weibel, P. & Latour, B. eds., 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Weiss, A., 2008. Open source hardware. netWorker, 12(3), p.26.
Wilkie, A., 2010. Prototypes in design: materializing futures. Available at: http://research.gold.ac.uk/4664/1/ARCEpisode3-Prototyping.pdf [Accessed December 5, 2014].
Wilkie, A. & Ward, M., 2009. Made in Criticalland: Designing Matters of Concern. Society, (February), pp.1–7. Available at: http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/4657/.
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Denisa Kera
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam na Liinc em Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Consulte a Política de Acesso Livre e Autoarquivamento para informações permissão de depósitos de versões pré-print de manuscritos e artigos submetidos ou publicados à/pela Liinc em Revista.
Liinc em Revista, publicada pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, é licenciada sob os termos da Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional – CC BY 4.0 
