University of Glasgow | 22-25 August 2023
At the end of August, the University of Glasgow hosted this year’s ECER (European Conference on Educational Research) on the theme The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research, at which I was able to give a talk as well as act as a discussant (see next post). My stay there was financially supported by the internal research funding of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.
Together with Juliane Ahlborn and Dan Verständig (both Bielefeld University) I organized the Symposium Normalizing the Body. Addressing the Lack of Diversity in Digital Technologies and What It Means for Educational Science. It consisted of three talks and a commentary by Aline Nardo (University of Edinburgh) and was chaired by Klaus Rummler (PH Zurich):
- Normalizing the Menstruating Body. Self-Measurement, Algorithmic Recommendation and Little Tools of Knowledge (Lilli Riettiens | University of Mainz)
- Damn Data! On the Explorative Role of AI in Artistic Processes (Juliane Ahlborn | Bielefeld University)
- Beauty and the Biased: How Content Regulation on TikTok Diminishes Diversity and What Media Education Can Do About It (Dan Verständig | Bielefeld University)
The Starting Point of our Idea for this symposium was the critical questioning of the initially widespread promise that digitization and, specifically, the internet and social media platforms, will make participation and representation more diverse. Our thesis was that the interference of algorithmic systems does not lead to a diversification of body images and representations, but rather to normalization and standardization.
Normalizing the Menstruating Body
In my talk, I theorized menstrual cycle apps as Little Tools of Knowledge (Becker/Clark 2001) insofar as the entry options presented to the users contain and re-produce miniaturised ›knowledge‹ about menstruating bodies that is discursively pre-negotiated. When choosing the analytical perspective of the small forms, formats and the little tools of knowledge a paradoxical field of tension between supposed universality and objectivity on the one hand and supposed individuality on the other opens up. Here I was referring to Donna Haraway’s idea of situated knowledges and the God trick (Haraway 1988) and Paul Preciado’s speech to his »beloved binary friends« (Preciado 2021: 18): Against the backdrop of those Queer Feminist Considerations objectivity and universalism appear as the result of that process within which the respective signifiers seem to be free from a particular and situated position – as if they had no body, as if they were free from »an inevitably disqualifying and polluting bias«, according to Haraway (Haraway 1988: 575) – and their »great little tool« (Becker/Clark 2001: 5) are forms, protocols, lists, graphs and tables … and apps?
By reconstructing (historically) the ›knowledge‹ about menstruation at the intersection of medical-psychiatric, gender-theoretical and educational discourses, I was able to point out continuities in the negotiation of menstruating bodies, which can be read as a/normalizations and standardizations, and which become even more potent when technical systems interfere.
Thinking further
My talk ended with ideas on the relationship between Body, Leib and Bildung, because: if we assume with Robert Gugutzer that »the knowledge I have of the body« dictates »[w]hat I sense« (Gugutzer 2015: 22), then »one’s own Leib experience […] [also] proves to be socioculturally shaped« (Götte 2017: 91) and dependent on »the respective historical knowledge about the body« (Kalthoff/Rieger-Ladich/Alkemeyer 2015: 19; Riettiens 2022). I think of this further in (at least) two directions:
(1) In view of the little tools of knowledge and their ›ability‹ to re-produce, objectify and universalise knowledge, their significance becomes particularly clear when we ask ourselves questions about the effects of these processes on the ›knowledge‹ of one’s own body and thus on one’s own body image and the Leib.
(2) With regard to Bildungstheory, we must assume that people are never completely subsumed in these miniaturisations and reductions. Accordingly, a paradox opens up, on one side of which there is an almost affirmative socio-technical action that is driven by the fear of illness or of being marked as ›abnormal‹. On the other side, there is a possibly productive irritation, since it is not only the bodily sensing that is »sometimes stubborn and resistant« (Gugutzer 2015: 102), but also the human being in its confrontation with the small forms and formats in which it does not fit.
Bibliography
Becker, Peter/Clark, William (2001): Introduction, in: Little Tools of Knowledge. Historical Essays on Academic and Bureaucratic Practices. Michigan, pp. 1-34.
Götte, Petra (2017): Inszenierung von Familie im Medium privater Fotografie. Deutsche Auswanderinnen und Auswanderer in den USA in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Unveröffentlichte Habilitationsschrift (Monografie) zur Erlangung der Lehrbefähigung und der Lehrbefugnis im Fach Erziehungswissenschaft, Köln.
Gugutzer, Robert (2015): Soziologie des Körpers, 5th edition. Bielefeld.
Haraway, Donna (1988): Situated Knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, in: Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 575-599.
Kalthoff, Herbert/Rieger-Ladich, Markus/Alkemeyer, Thomas (2015): »Bil- dungspraxis – eine Einleitung«, in: Thomas Alkemeyer/Herbert Kalthoff/Markus Rieger-Ladich (eds.): Bildungspraxis – Körper. Räume. Objekte. Weilerswist, pp. 9-33.
Preciado, Paul (2021): Can the monster speak? Report to an Academy of Psychoanalysts. London.
Riettiens, Lilli (2022): Doing Journeys. Transatlantische Reisen von Lateinamerika nach Europa schreiben (1839-1910). Bielefeld.
