May 6th, 2008
by
tycho garen
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the singularity. Of all the great concepts (tropes?) in science fiction, it’s never been one that has really spoken to me, but as I was falling asleep the other night I was thinking about other philosophical uses for the concept of the singularity, at which point I said, “ah, now there’s something interesting.” And though a poor sleep strategy, I’d like to think about some things with you.
First, the singularity. We’ll hand the originating citation to Vernor Vinge, who described a technological singularity, the point where humans are able to design artificial intelligences that are more intelligent than humans and thus able to improve themselves without human intervention.1 That’s sort of specific though, and I think the concept of singularity speaks to the point of “ultimate progress,” or perfection beyond which, all future progress is meaningless.
So this is one of those SF concept that really dredges up the “hardest” elements of the genre, and doesn’t typically have a lot of feminist content (that I’m aware of, though I’m alright being proven wrong in this regard.) while this is an appropriate criticism, I don’t think it’s something that’s unique to singularity literature.
But here’s what woke me up when I was thinking about this. Feminist SF deals with gender and sexuality (and race and … ) in much the same way that hard SF deals with technology, which predictably lead me to “well then, what would the feminist singularity be?”
Which is dangerous, because it forces us to answer “what’s the goal of feminism,” which isn’t a particularly productive discussion in context of activism/theory or the singularity as “it depends on your perspective,” won’t help you very much if you’re looking for the singularity.
Maybe technology isn’t subject to this sort of thing (I doubt it,) but by looking for signs of other singularity–the point of ultimate progress, beyond which all other progress is irrelevant–I’m beginning to think that the entire concept of the singularity is flawed. It’s based upon that the paradigm shift is the normal mode of technological (or any other) development, which doesn’t tend to hold up. Change in it’s continuos, and regular forms–be it in the way we think about gender or about microprocessors–changes slowly and regularly. And sometimes we can look back at a couple of distinct and separate changes and see a “paradigm shift” but while we have moment to moment change, there are probably no movement to moment paradigm shifts.
So I guess this leaves me, and us with the following question: do we object to the notion of singularity as feminists because the feminist singularity isn’t clear, or do we as feminists oppose singularity because it’s not a politically productive conception of the future, or the present? I think that’s a pretty important question.
At the same time I don’t think that the concept of the singularity is without use. For starters, it is a fundamentally optimistic theory which assumes that change is a constant and holds at it’s core the idea that “things are always going to get better,” not “things are going to get worse before they get better,” and not “things are just going to get worse.” While we can have some debate about the bounds of progress (is there necessarily a point where things can’t physically get any better?), the social and technological assumption of progress is productive.
I don’t have thoughts collected on this, but it strikes me that it might be interesting and productive to think about “the revolution,” not in terms of what happens when things get “so bad that it can’t be tolerated any more,” as revolutions in the 18th century were (so American and French revolutions) and we might think about the struggles over fascism and communism in the 20th as being similar in this regard. Rather, what does the revolution look like when it’s progressive in this sense, or “the singularity?” Seems like there is room there for some pretty interesting thought.
![[Slashdot]](http://slashdot.org/favicon.ico)
![[Digg]](http://digg.com/favicon.ico)
![[Reddit]](http://reddit.com/favicon.ico)
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif)
![[Facebook]](http://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico)
![[Technorati]](http://technorati.com/favicon.ico)
![[Google]](http://www.google.com/favicon.ico)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.stumbleupon.com/favicon.ico)
- More blogging by
tycho garen at
http://www.tychoish.com/
Previous:
17.948%: Best of Best New SF --- Next:
Cheat sheet to L. Timmel Duchamp’s work, for WisCon
Filed under Theory, feminism, science | Comments (19)
[...] What is the feminist singularity? [...]
History about the 18th C Era of Revolution leans toward the “we can’t take it any longer” isn’t what creates the successful revolution. More often than not, history shows those ultimately fail and usually sooner than later.
A successful revolution is more than a military action, or the seizing of power. A successful revolution is one that sets in place an administrative structure that can survive and develop in all the sectors that a working society needs in order to be healthy.
This is why the Cuban Revolution, for instance, is still a survivorm, and is again, currently undergoing many changes in response to the world as it currently is. There were enough talented and educated and devoted Cubans to do that. And for some reason, unlike any other figure in his position that I can think of, Fidel changed with the times, and was able to communicate those changed times within the context of HIS revolution to the Cuban people.
This is one reason the Haitian Revolution, though successful as a Slave Revolution, was not successful in setting up a fully functioning economy and state — plus the very significant refusal of the new United States (run by slave owner President Thomas Jefferson) to recognize the new nation, trade with it, or in any way support it, but rather do what it could to subvert it — just as with the Cuban Revolution. The rest of the world went along with it.
The American Revolution is really more a war of independence than it was a Revolution. It didn’t change the status and ranks of people — unless they were the side of the colonizer. It didn’t change institutions or the legal system, except very slowly, over time. Even so, the number of people who were capable of forming and administering all the institutions necessary to make a successful government were so few it was very iffy that they would succeed. Which just goes to show what brilliant individuals those 18th century figures were, including the brilliant women some of them were smart enough to have married, like John Adams, and to whom they took advice. The foundering point was economics. And it was also a very dividing point — one of the many reasons Burr and Hamiliton were at each other’s throats — and we all know what a lousy financial manger Thomas Jefferson was. Without slaves to sell he would have lost Monticello very quickly. As it was, when he died, he was in debt so deeply that the slaves needed to be sold to pay them off.
However, there is a modern day revolution that worked otherwise, and that was the revolution that overthrew the Shah, as marvelously told in the history, Shah of Shahs by Ryszard Kapuscinski, the brilliant Polish journalist.
All of these revolutions involve military action.
One might think perhaps a feminist singularity would work otherwise? I’d love to see what others think and know about this subject.
Love, C.
I think I see where you’re going with this, but I think it would probably be better to think of feminism as a meme. Because feminism will never mature to a point where it can begin to develop independently of human intervention. Rather, feminism evolves in concert with human concerns, beliefs, and needs, and it will continue to evolve, sometimes in surprising, often contradictory ways. For example, look at the various, sometimes opposing, views that feminists have in regards to issues like pornography, or the conflicting views about whether or not a woman sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives should be called a ‘Congressman’ or a ‘Congresswoman.’ It can also explain some of the ridiculous caricatures of feminism that appear in society. Anyway, those are just my thoughts, so take them for what they’re worth.
I think your point about developen is well made DoveArrow, and I think this might be a good line for the operationalization of singularity: the possibility of development without human intervention. Then again, my gut feeling is that it isn’t really incredibly relevant.
the technological singularity relies on humanity until the point where AIs become smarter than humans. after that point, it’s post-singular and all new rules start to develop without human interaction.
we might also imagine how a post-singular AI might continue to find some relevance in feminism. If binary thinking is a concern of post modern feminism, we can imagine that this is an issue that AIs, though technically post singular, might have to continue to deal with.
Also, if post-singular intelligences are derivatives of human mind, feminism wouldn’t die either, I mean maybe it would.
Though at the same time, I agree with you that I have no notion of what “post-singular feminism” would be like, either post technological-singularity feminism or post feminist-singularity feminism. (I don’t think this is a discussion of what “post-feminism” is which always strikes me as absurd and pointless. And maybe because I can’t think of what “post feminism” is, it’s hard to think of what “post singularity feminism” would be.
Just thoughts after all…
Manwhat. This article is a mess. First, your definitions of “singularity” are both quite distinct from the definitions I generally see: basic singularity = point beyond which something changes such that we can’t really forecast what things will be like; hard takeoff singularity = point where humans are either absorbed into or destroyed by exponential machine intelligence/grey goo, “the rapture of the geeks”. You also have a kind of odd view of Feminist SF as that which deals with bigotry, instead of just SF that isn’t sexist, but I suppose that’s a less unusual definition. Then you contrast Feminist SF with hard SF… To no real purpose? Except doing so backs up the old canard of “women can’t hack science” so it annoys me.
Anyway, shouldn’t you step back a bit and figure out what the hell you’re trying to say before you make bizarre assumptions like “feminists oppose singularity.” Do we? Why do you think so? What do you suppose we intend to gain by opposing singularity?
Me personally, I think the hard takeoff is an exceedingly unlikely idea, and the only proponents of it who have come to my attention are reactionary sexist fools hoping for an excape from this interesting current world of greater equality. On the other hand, the basic idea of a singularity might happen in the feminist sphere with the development of artifical wombs we could schluff embryos into; perhaps the legalization of birth control was another technological advance no one could have seen the outcome of. There are plenty of options for developments that change the balance of power in unforseeable ways.
seems that “the point at which things change such that we cant forecast what things will be like,” is really just a “paradigm shift,” in a more Kuhnian sort of sense. i’ve always understood the concept of singularity to be more of an “ultimate paradigm shift,” or “the last paradigm shift.”
Of course the singularity is “made up” in that it’s just a device that science fiction writers have taken and sued as a way of talking about progress and development. Just as cyberpunk was the way to talk about the digital revolution, and space opera has been to “trope” that facilitates the discussion of nationalism and war.
And you’re right, I omitted the “maybe I’m full of shit and raising concerns that aren’t relevant regarding this” option when I posed the questions in the post, but I’ve always figured that the willfully opposed will raise those objections without my encouragement. If you think that the singularity is a a productive model or topic of discussion, I’d love to hear why *as well*. In the end this is all just theoretical musing and speculation, and I wouldn’t want to suggest that it was anything more…
To clarify my hard/feminist/etc definition. I belive I was thinking topically, so that when I said hard I was thinking of “SF that is about science” and feminist sf invoked a notion of a literature that dealt with feminist issues and ideas (eg. difference, activism, embodiment, identity, etc.). This isn’t to say that the who are incompatible as surely they aren’t I was just being arbitrary. Clearly people could write (or attempt) non-myogynistic/non-racist/non-homophobic Hard SF that we might think of as “hard feminist SF,” or write (by my definition) feminist sf that was scientifically rigorous, so in a lot of ways it’s a false distinction as all disciplinary/genre terms are in the end. But I think it’s more productive to stake out some territory to have a discussion in, rather than be perpetually stuck in defining our boundaries and terms. That said, you make a good point, and I should have been more clear.
I’d be interested in hearing what you mean by “hard takeoff.” I thought that being able do away with child-bearing as being one possible “feminist singularity,” but this doesn’t seem to be a particularly new idea, and I think focus concentrates too much on the specific at risk of sacrificing the general: the specific problem that childbearing serves as an optical for the social and political involvement of women, for the general: we don’t have a conceptual framework for valuing/supporting/encouraging difference and collaboration. Or something along those lines. Interesting thoughts in any case.
Well first off I do have an instantly bristly reaction of “what do you mean feminists/women don’t care about the singularity”. Whose singularity? Just cause I don’t want to sit around kissing Vernor Vinge’s butt? The man has issues.
Okay so, several more reactions.
- Some of the books cited as being post singularity are still sexist as all get out and you just have to wonder.
- I can think of books by women or that are feminist or that we can do interesting feminist readings of, that are about sort of post human societies. Or that are about moments of great change where humans confront some unknowablility. For instance, an easy one, how about Mindscape. Or something like White Queen, or the aliens in the Marq’ssan cycle. If we want to think of those examples, we can do that.
- I have had it brought up to me before that “women aren’t interested in the singularity” as sort of more evidence of why women can’t be interesting in their SF, or aren’t hard-sciencey, or just can’t hack it somehow. And, it makes me wonder if male obsession with this concept has not partly to do with white male loss of power. So, they are experiencing the loss of power already, and are trying to cope with that, by obsessing about unknowablity, and the sudden acquisition of Agency and Thought by formerly non-human creatures. In other words the fetishization of the Singularity is an attempt to process the already-in-progress loss of power and control that feminism and other social movements are in the process of achieving.
Clarification:
I mean to suggest that: _feminists_ might not have a lot of use for “the singularity,” because it’s a flawed notion (and because it’s grounded in dated philosophy of science) even if I’m totally fascinated by it at the moment.
- I don’t mean to suggest that women (or feminists for that) shouldn’t/can’t/don’t/do/should write particular kinds of conceptual fiction.
And again, what the fuck. I’m not saying that you needlessly omitted the “I’m full of shit” option from your post, I’m saying that for no apparent reason you tendentiously assumed stuff that stabs feminism in the back. And now you’re pointing out that we’re free to object because you know we’re so willful? Boy, you’re a real magnanimous guy, aintcha? So careful to point out to everyone that those who disagree with your phrasing are “willfully opposed”.
“Clearly people could write feminist SF that was scientifically rigorous”… Oh, how generous of you to allow this possibility. What a shame if this flamebait BS statement of yours diverted the thread into yet another list of all the feminist authors who can and have and do write “hard” SF… Diverted it away from your abject flailing. But no, you’re just defining your terms, here, so that discussion of whatever your point was can continue.
And your terms are: feminists and their SF is unscientific, unlike the singularity (the embodiment of the modern ethos, unlike feminism), which is why they hate it.
Look, I’m seriously not happy to be so mean to you, because you seem like you’ve got a chemical imbalance that is keeping you from communicating. But your underlying assumptions are poisonous and wrong.
Madeline F: I want to thank you, from the bottom of my boggled brainpain, for directly taking on the lunatic mess that’s going on here. (I’m working on a more general entry relating to it.)
[...] And I radically, viscerally resent the liberal ally who wastes my time with a lunatic objectification of…. [...]
I’m glad I’m not the only one who didn’t get the point of the post.
So I guess this leaves me, and us with the following question: do we object to the notion of singularity as feminists because the feminist singularity isn’t clear, or do we as feminists oppose singularity because it’s not a politically productive conception of the future, or the present? I think that’s a pretty important question.
I consider myself a feminist, and I don’t object to the notion of the technical singularity. I do have a problem with the seemingly biggest fans of the idea, though, who, as Liz points out, tend to be white males, and often sexist (at least the vocal ones).
I do have a problem with the idea that the technological singularity is particularly “hard science”. What I’ve read seems to be highly speculative, and seems to underestimate the technical innovations that would be required to create an artificial intelligence that is able to mimic or surpass the workings of the human brain.
I do think it would be interesting to look at transhumanism – both in SF and the actual movement – and how it relates to gender roles. If we humans are eventually able to upload our minds into computers, would we expect to have notions of “gender” included too, or would the lack or corporeal bodies (or ability to don any type of body at will) eliminate gender distinctions?
I consider myself a feminist, and I don’t object to the notion of the technical singularity. I do have a problem with the seemingly biggest fans of the idea, though, who, as Liz points out, tend to be white males, and often sexist (at least the vocal ones).
On the second point, you’ll see no disagreement from me, and I fear that I’ve stepped through a previous argument that I’m mostly unaware of regarding this. Eek. Sorry.
Regarding the first point, fair enough. I guess my complaint is more with the idea of “a final/ultimate change,” (and with the idea of paradigm shifts as well) rather than with an specific kind of singluarity. It’s fascinating, that’s for sure, I’m just not convinced that it’s productive. But that’s me, doncha know.
I do have a problem with the idea that the technological singularity is particularly “hard science”. What I’ve read seems to be highly speculative, and seems to underestimate the technical innovations that would be required to create an artificial intelligence that is able to mimic or surpass the workings of the human brain.
Well, this is the thing about science fiction, after all, isn’t it? And singularity fic is aging at this point so like all hard stuff hindsight isn’t particularly kind to it. In an almost previous life I studied a lot of psychology/cognitive science and while, there’s some interesting sort of bottom up AI work being done, AI work seems to be pretty stalled at the moment, so. yeah.
Maybe I should correct and try and use “technological SF” rather than “hard sf” as it seems closer to my intention, I’m not sure that that would be less confusing, even if it is less infuriating.
would the lack or corporeal bodies (or ability to don any type of body at will) eliminate gender distinctions?
If we didn’t have corporeal bodies, wouldn’t the idea of “work” sort of evaporate? I mean we’d do things, surely, but might disparity evaporate a bit? But then this gets us back to “what should feminism accomplish,” and “what’s our goal” and “what’s the real problem” kinds of question/sideas, which don’t have conveniently singular answers.
I’ve been following this thread, mostly trying to figure out what the heck you’re all talking about. I would’ve chimed in before with a question, but I couldn’t even come up with a coherent question other than ‘What the heck are you all talking about?’
But I’ve got one now.
What does ‘work’ or the lack of it have to do with feminism?
J. Andrews: everything. The division of labour along gender lines and the exploitation of the labour of one gender by another are central to the oppression of women, and hence, at the heart of feminism.
‘What the heck are you all talking about?’
I’ve learned to stop asking that question when it involves discussions that occur on the internet. :)
If we didn’t have corporeal bodies, wouldn’t the idea of “work” sort of evaporate? I mean we’d do things, surely, but might disparity evaporate a bit?
It might, if we assume a situation where access to the technology is equally available to all and that once “uploaded” individuals discard their meatspace biases. But I don’t think either is a fair assumption.
Reading this again… seems to me like tycho is doing some late night rambling into territory where he is not sure what he’s talking about or how to talk about it, which is something I like to do too, and on blogs in public, because there might be a seed of a good idea in there someone will take out of it.
I also still have a bit of the same reaction and objection that I am pretty tired of things being framed as feminist vs. hard sf or feminist vs. technology. That in itself just makes me instantly mad as a hornet. Even when it is diffidently framed.
Also, am not seeing how singularity = hard sf.
So while I see why (Madeline) you went off like a pistol, I gotta say now that I read the comments, that I think you are being a bit harsh and taking it too far into personal attack, especially with your “chemical imbalance” comment. I get it that a guy on a feminist blog lining up feminist vs. hardsf/singularity etc, feels like hostility too.
But, let’s roll our eyes and disagree with the wrong stuff and try to see where the point is in there – as I think there are several. and tycho’s got some questions trying to break out of their eggs in there.
With this question ” do we as feminists oppose singularity because it’s not a politically productive conception of the future, or the present? ”
Well again I am left thinking there isn’t a “we as feminists” opinion on this. And, if I were your editor or prof I would be very curious where you would go with these ideas if you tied them closely to a text or two. Pick a book where some feminists oppose the singularity and talk about what happens in there. Or source it – where are you getting the impression that feminists oppose singularity?
Oh also to a comment above about transhumanists, have I *ever* in northen california met a transhumanist who did not try to get me to come to some sleazy transhuman orgy festival? Seriously, transhumanism is all about the 50 year old beard strokers picking out the ditziest looking young chicks they can to invite them to naked Transhuman retreats at Harbin Hot Springs. So I just can’t even hear the world without snickering. it’s like hearing someone talk seriously about the Order of the Golden Dawn, ie just silly!