Writing the Feminist Internet: Reimagining Internet Sovereignty as Feminist Laissez-Faire

This is an excerpt from a larger forthcoming publication (2022) that  responds to the collaborative performance work Writing the Feminist Internet (2020) WtFI as a motif of fourth wave feminism. It probes at the edge of Internet dark spaces that are often occupied by those who point to complacency in engagement with networking systems by drawing auxiliary attention to the apparatus (Gehl 2014, 2017). Further examination sheds light on the valences and anarchy of technopolitics that transpired and reflects on the call for hybrid of feminist activist efforts by Emma A. Jane.

The findings reveal that the potency of a chthonic feminist internet theory lies in its indeterminate stance. In conclusion it is proposed that ambivalence and prominence in obscurity in such expansive ‘dark social spaces’ is where new meanings and enunciations can brew and be read as a source of critical and aesthetic ambiguity, amongst the highly revered principles of disarray, pandemonium and incompleteness.

Positing towards ‘a recalibrated approach to collectivism’ (2015, 285) Jane continues to give rise to a vast communal realm for the expression of alternative behaviours. In building upon the feminist ‘wave’ metaphor there is acknowledgement that the undercurrents of nautical lineages come to endure through ‘debt, or inheritance’ (Clarke Mane 2012, 78) more often than a confluence of flows.

Reimagining Internet Sovereignty as Feminist Laissez-Faire

Writing the Feminist Internet WtFI (2020) was a tryptic of two-hour experimental writing sessions that invited the public to engage in editing and expanding upon a draft set of ‘10 working points’. In collaboration with three festivals and symposiums each iteration of subsequent sessions intended to enfold all the ‘feminist waves *waves* \0\ \0/ /0/’ .

  1. ‘Next Wave Festival’ Version 1, 30 May 2020, 1400-1600 AEST
  2. ‘Hackers and Designers Amsterdam Summer School Academy’ Version 2. 25 July 2020, 18:00-20:00 AEST.
  3. ‘Digital Intimacies 6 Connection in Crisis Symposium’ Version 3, 27 November 2020, 1600-1800 AEST.

The working points were then provided as a springboard for participants to erase, contest, remap, reconfigure in the performative writing act of ontological positioning in relation to one another. Collaborators irreverently augmented the numeric stability of the 10 principles. For instance, in Figure 1 we can see additions of ‘-1’ and ‘0 zero’. The principles were adapted from a pamphlet ‘10 working points for artists in the new divisions of labour’ by Schneider (2020), in turn, yet another derivative – a zealous translation of Petty’s (1899) manuscript on the consignment of labour.

Notably, one of main proponents of this laissez-faire theory of economy was Charles Babbage, the engineer who, assisted by Ada Lovelace, conceived an early version of a mechanical computer known as the Difference and Analytical Engine. An indication of Babbage obliviousness to the enormous density of this machine, Lovelace’s note’s observe, ‘just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves. Here, it seems to us, resides much more of originality than the Difference Engine can be fairly entitled to claim’ (cited in Menabrea [1842] n.d). Erasure in the realm of writing and technopolitics is not apolitical, nor ahistorical. Elaborating upon the spurious nature of property, ownership and proprietary software, feminist historian Hanna Musial bears witness to: ‘The forgotten female laborers, whose removal from that history is paralleled by the erasure of the work of ethnic or indigenous…coders… technology itself becomes a medium of critical theory… not only as a tool of “social dreaming” …but also as a vehicle for a radical critical… practice… often as a remedy to legal and political disempowerment (Musial 2018, 166–7).’

Concentrating on gendered racial and socio-cultural inequalities, Bailey and Trudy ‘reflect how misogynoir functions in social and institutional settings’ (2018, 766). They discuss racial injustice through lack of citational practice (and hence eradication), particularly in social media platforms such as Twitter by popular culture figures. In this spirit, a chthonic feminist internet theory is posed as a means of taking back, salvaging and recovering previously appropriated antidotes, anecdotes and other undetermined offerings by women that have been erroneously diminished.

Contributors of WtFI (2020) were invited to initially meet on Jitsi (an open-source video conferencing platform) which served as antechamber before ‘opting in’ to the performance. There was acknowledgment of those present via a speech with accompanying cue cards, ‘to the gests, hosts and ghosts – ancestors past, present and emerging. The space the feminist server sits on, and the spaces we are all occupying which are in themselves colonised, written, programmed and ruled by dominant other’ (Mauro-Flude 2020, n.p.). Subsequently the hosts ushered the participants from the antechamber through to main stage, by the instruction to copy the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) that had been placed the chat element of the Jitsi, in their own browser address bar. One example of a URL provided. To arrive at the location of the main event a purposely configured Ether pad, an open-source text editor for real time multiple authoring.

To facilitate the exploration of a cacophony of voices and decentring authorship through cross-over writing methods alongside the development of overlapping individual pieces ( see related screen capture videos). Further clarification was made when more users start to edit in the document there may be many colours according to who is writing into the text, a process that enables the individual subject to be seen as part of the broader collective.

Comments such as: ‘I just adjusted by colour to differentiate myself… weird…Unnecessary?’, ‘its so quiet but also frenetic’, ‘I got kicked off mid-sentence and can’t find where I was writing lol’, substantiate how contributors were reflexive of their experience, as they simultaneously engaged with the ephemeral practise of reading and writing in communion (s ‘-1’ lime green, dark green, orange and purple); substantiating how beliefs are embedded in acts of writing and how language is implicated in behaviour. In line with Jane (2016), I also will not be writing ‘sic’ after ‘grammatical, spelling and syntax errors in cited electronic communications and online material in recognition of the informality and colloquialism commonly found in such contexts’(2016, 293).

The default text background hue was the one chosen by the most recent participant configuration. Participants who self-allocated a colour also began to change their initial colour palate, causing the majority of individual statements to transmogrify into a collective transcription. Dislocated from its source, the text became awash with a chaotic bricolage of tints as a result of the performative encounter of writing – acts of editing, elaborating, correcting, challenging, echoing, repeating, expanding, clarifying, summarising, distilling, nuancing – all of which produced different hues that were anarchically braided around letters or lines of text.

Moreover, contributors who by default (or by choice) selected the same author colour as another could resemble a form of Xenoglossia, which is analogous to the more commonly known form of  ventriloquy, for example, an intertextual weaving of thinking in relation to the infrastructures in and of colonisation. These examples contain a panoply of characteristics of dark social spaces (Gehl 2018, Heemsbergen et al., 2021) by way of identity theft (ventriloquy), and also the misappropriation of working points as a kind of phishing act (imitation of institutions). Wilful collaborative acts of improvisation altered the working points, scrambling verity to be molten and authorship became kaleidoscopic, deranged, abundant and chthonian.

The performance events attracted an array of participants – writers of fiction and non-fiction, artists, poets, critics, curators, and transdisciplinary researchers who predominantly identified as womxn – from varied racial-socio-cultural backgrounds and different skill sets. ‘By participating in the spelling of ‘womxn’ feminists acknowledge the diverse identities of women that are not defined in relation to men’ (Oxfam, 2016).

Individual details relating to the event were entwined with notions of feminist solidarity. Some partakers embraced a ‘peripatetic stance’ (Mauro-Flude 2020a, 91) and others noted the profoundness of play within the limits a given system:

 

… [child name redacted] started typing into the etherpad hahaha and i only added like 2 sentences as i just couldnt quite figure out what i wanted to say (also the original manifesto read rly well to me), but listened to the relaxing typing noises! (WtFI participant).

...it's a beautiful thing to create dynamic/organic flow within fairly rigid technological constraint (document formatting tech etc.). Lots of familiar faces (names) in there! (WtFI participant)

 


Among other participants, it is notable that the performance gathered different generations of cyberfeminists, the inception of the movement is described by Dement:

‘coagulated and sparked in the reject-outsider mutiny, trauma-jouissance and fast hard beat of queer punk. It found visible existence and a manifesto, through VNS Matrix in the (typical) Adelaide heat wave of 1991…Cyberfeminism, as blurred edge range, entangles carnality with code; machines, blood and bad language; poetry and disdain; executables, theft and creative fabrication. It incites and follows lines of flight powered by contradiction, relatedness, transgression, and misbehaviour. It simultaneously embraces logic and unreason, giving the finger to binaries as it ravishes them.’

Abandoning received, given a priori assumptions of neutrality raging against the complete neglect of specificity, sentiments like these move beyond the putative constraints of discursive, structural norms, corroded by stakeholder commerce. The provocative unruly punk tactics of cyberfeminism serve as a productive entry point into the analyses of contested terrains and provenance of computers and promiscuous computing such as chthonian social spaces. The act of writing as an entombed annotation, contrasted with the act of performing bound to an ephemeral shape is described by poet laureate and punk rocker Patti Smith:

‘I love writing because there are acoustic typewriters and electric ones. It’s a physical act but the word is still trapped on the page… performing … keeps the act of creation alive. I love the process of creation, although the end product is in itself a necessary evil. Still, I’m glad it’s there, otherwise I wouldn’t have …records, …Burroughs or Rimbaud books to enjoy (1995, 282).’

peeped at the femnet link...how cool you screencapped the process as it unfurled, perfect and yes, it's interesting the editing that we can do …we identity_runnerz … one reserves the right to be the word-boss...im sometimes conflicted about the rightness of that..but sheesh, u wanna be happy with the ballet in the poems/manifestos in the end..and that means some harsh cutting and sensitive line spacing
and i felt your rearranging today! think that's enough housework for the day! (WtFI participant [my italics]).

Conferring to the subterranean ‘cut-and-paste’ nonlinear plots of Virginia Woolf, postmodern literary critic N. Katherine Hayles (2005) considers the inter/intrasubjective inscriptions from the typewriter to the computer, drawing upon imbroglios and intermediaries appealing for a counter narrative approach to remedy to techno-determinism: ‘amid the uncertainties, potentialities and dangers created by the Regime of Computation, simulations, computational and narrative- can serve as potent resources with which to explore and understand the entanglement of language with code… the potential to inspire another kind of narrative in which humans are not seen as subjects manipulating objects in the world (2005, 242).’

This reveals an acute need to conceive computing practices as dynamic forms and processes, and also to acknowledge the assemblage of networks and systems that perform around and act through us (Mauro-Flude and Geck 2020).

In this way a chthonic feminist theory envisions the Internet as a ‘cauldron’ of happenings, a host for inexplicable asemic brews (see Figure 2-3). Because asemic writing is often illegible, vivid and/or open ended, it has no fixed meaning (evidenced in concrete poetry), and where the reader as writer, as conjurer, is faced to think not of communication but rather performances with materialities and related knowledge production in collaboration with the paraphernalia of writerly technologies.

Chthonian feminist processes like these can not only delegitimate authorial authority but compost knowledge production. An exemplar of this is artistic research with datasets trained from conversational machine learning modelling agents by Linda Dement.  Contributing in WtFi (2020) she generated a text that responded to the prompts ‘A Feminist Internet…’.GPT-2 AI developed by Open AI. 

In the figure below we see how other participants (denoted by colour and syntax) began to riff upon the output from ‘The Feminist Internet is …’ above and below. Transfigure pluralities of ‘Feminists internets are…’;  ‘Feminists internets’ which ‘refuses, excels, connects, disseminates, is a bitch mutant, refuses, rejects, WILL EAT YOU’ and so on. The bedlam in the browser was in line with the errant, formidable and fecund characteristics of chthonic Stygian deities (Dillon 2001).

Figure Detail: Screenshot Session 1 WtFI where colour play highlights represent the mélange of individual and collective participation. v.1 30 May 2020, 1400–1600 AEST. Image: Nancy Mauro-Flude.

 

Typically, the definition of ‘Feminist Internet’ is motivated by the confluence of activism and artistic research in a bid to offer digital literacy and to spread awareness of alternative computation methods. One initial version of the ‘Feminist Internet’ manifested on 18 December 2017, during a residency ‘Doing Feminism / Sharing the World’ hosted by the Favour Economy and facilitated by yours truly. In a bid to acquaint a broader artistic community with feminist traditions of technical knowledge production, the starting point for the workshop was to discuss the ‘The Feminist Principles of the Internet (2014)’, an evolving document that was developed by the Association for Progressive Communications a global Non-Government Organisation (NGO) largely active in South East Asia, Africa and South America. Proceeding this a draught Feminist Internet Lore Manifesto: 10 working points for the twenty-first century’ (Mauro-Flude 2018, n.p.) was published on -empire- a community who participates in monthly thematic discussions via an e-mail list active since 2002 (founded by Melinda Rackham an Australian cyberfeminist artist, curator, and writer) with the objective to trace ‘the emergence of new media theory, practice, and networked culture

Likewise, a ‘Feminist Internet manifesto’ was distributed 19 March 2018 by Feminist Internet, an arts activist collective who conduct public outreach and advocacy to foreground gender inequalities and programmed bias in digital environments mainly operating in the United Kingdom.

In the debate to widen the aperture of ‘affective temporality’ fourth wave feminist Prudence Chamberlain examines how the fundamental shifts of the principles of equality, to the beliefs and actions of autonomy have dismayed some feminists (2016, 462). In fact, the valences of technopolitics akin to the chthonic deities in antediluvian parables are capable of anything except unilateralism, are met with a call to arms of Jane (2015) to ‘forge hybrid activist strategies which involve temporary allegiances between various theories, tactics and feminist generations’ (2015, 292). A candidness to the world of ideas, possibilities and experiences makes WtFI (2020) both resonant and contestable for its current moment – asking its own questions, re-examining its own past and envisaging other futures.

Shining a light on how a processual understanding of feminist computing methodologies is able to be more bountiful and wide-ranging, Rök Jóns (2013) enquires ‘is the 4th wave of feminism digital?’. Jóns further surmises that if it faithfully is to be so it ‘would have to be in part discursive and would require a restructuring of legal, institutional, educational, economic, social, religious, geographical, corporeal and cultural barriers…’ (2013, n.p.). In this way WtFi (2020) was activated by low bandwidth, user friendly software from ‘The augmented homes of shared laboratories, of communal media and technical facilities’ (Laboria Cuboniks 2015, n.p.). Founding member of the collaborative group Laboria Cuboniks (2015) and feminist writer Helen Hester (2018) contribute to the fourth wave through a manifesto entitled Xenofeminism. Thus, Xenofeminist’s describe themselves as ‘…a labour of bricolage, synthesizing cyberfeminism, posthumanism, accelerationism, neorationalism, materialist feminism and so on, in an attempt to forge a project suited to contemporary political conditions…a project for which the future remains open as a site of radical recomposition (2018, 1)’. Untangling the constructions of supremacy, gender, race, class, opinions’ that logically flatten the veracities of aesthetic properties where ‘fog-shrouded literary minefields…full of barbed wire and stumps of dead’ (Le Guin 1989, 104).

Intense debates propel the motivation for engaging in discourse that is consistently rendered to be equivocal. The energies of these feminist waves must ‘move forward with the kind of generosity and commitment to ambiguity…remembering the utopian thought and solidarity politics that allowed feminists of the past to think beyond gender, to a world of possibility’ (Nicholas 2021, 18). Navigating over (and across) notional feminist waves and ‘e-bile’ (Jane 2016, 289), audaciously the cyberfeminist (as defined by VNS Matrix 1991; Dement 2017) floats over these commonplace issues, to retrieve what Lovelace (1842) envisioned for her engine – the infinite ability to weave new configurations – to remain adrift, so as not to become ensnared in the undercurrents.

 

References                          

 

-empyre-: soft-skinned space. 2007–. Collective online artist community, e-mail listserv, https://empyre.library.cornell.edu/

 

APC. 2014. ‘The Feminist Principles of the Internet’, Association for Progressive Communities (APC), https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/feminist-principles-internet-version-20

 

Ahmed. S. 2016. Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press.

 

Bailey, M, and Trudy. 2018. ‘On Misogynoir: Citation, Erasure, and Plagiarism.’ Feminist Media Studies 18, no. 4 (2018): 762–768. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2018.1447395.

 

Barad, K. 2012. ‘On Touching—The Inhuman That Therefore I Am,’ differences 23 (3): 206–223. doi: 10.1215/10407391-1892943.

 

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham; London: Duke University Press.

 

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Bratton, B. H. 2015. The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 

Chamberlain, P. 2016. ‘Affective temporality: towards a fourth wave,’ Gender and Education 28 (3): 458–464. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1169249.

 

Clark Mane, R. L. 2012. ‘Transmuting Grammars of Whiteness in Third-Wave Feminism: Interrogating Postrace Histories, Postmodern Abstraction, and the Proliferation of Difference in Third-Wave Texts.’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38 (1): 71–98. doi: 10.1086/665810

 

Cuboniks, L. 2015. Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation, Laboria Cuboniks, Accessed 21 October 2020. https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation/.

 

Dement, L. 2017. Cyberfeminist Bedsheet. Artlink 37 (4), 1 December,

https://www.artlink.com.au/articles/4647/cyberfeminist-bedsheet/

 

Dillon, M. 2001. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion London: Routledge.

Dulchinos, D. 2011. Forbidden Sacraments: The Survival of Shamanism in Western Civilization, New York: Autonomedia.

Elliott, Jane, and Seb Franklin. 2018. ‘”The Synthesis Is in the Machine”: An Interview with Silvia Federici.” Australian feminist studies 33, (96):172–177.

Feminist Internet Manifesto, 19 March 2018, UAL Futures, http://web.archive.org/web/20180319084648/feministinternet.com/manifesto. Accessed 21 October 2020.

Gehl, R. W., and F. McKelvey. 2019. ‘Bugging out: Darknets as Parasites of Large-Scale Media Objects’. Media, Culture & Society 41 (2): 219–235. doi:10.1177/0163443718818379.

 

Gehl, R. W. 2018. Weaving the Dark Web: Legitimacy on Freenet, Tor, and I2P. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 

Gehl, R. W. 2016. ’Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network’. New Media & Society 18 (7): 1219–1235. doi:10.1177/1461444814554900.

 

Gehl, R.W. 2014. Reverse Engineering Social Media. Philadelphia: Temple Press.

 

Harrison, J. 1900. ‘Pandora’s Box’. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 20:99-114

doi: 10.2307/623745.

 

Hayles, K. N. 2005. My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. London; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Heemsbergen, L. J., Maddox, A., Cinque, T., Johns, A., & Gehl, R. (2021). ‘Dark’. M/C Journal 24 (2). doi:10.5204/mcj.2791

 

Hester, H. 2018. Xenofeminism, Cambridge: Polity Press.

 

Irigaray, L. 1980 ‘When Our Two Lips Speak Together’ Signs 6 (1):69-79.

 

Le Guin, U. 1976. Left Hand of Darkness. New York: Ace Books.

 

Le Guin, U. 1989. Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on Words, Women, Places. New York: Grove Press.

 

Jane, E. A. 2016. ‘Online misogyny and feminist digilantism,’ Continuum 30 (3): 284–297. doi: 10.1080/10304312.2016.1166560.

 

Menabrea, L. F. [1842] n.d. ‘Sketch of The Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage’, In Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève 82, translated by Ada Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, located at The Analytical Engine emulator developed by Stephan Adams (MIT),  www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html. Accessed 17 May 2021.

 

Favour Economy, feminist collective website, https://www.favoureconomy.com. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Favour Economy. 2018. ‘Doing Feminism / Sharing the World,’ https://doingfeminism-sharingtheworld.tumblr.com/FEres. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Feminist Internet. 2021.  https://www.feministinternet.com/. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Fontelieu, Sukey. “Chthonic Deities.” In Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, 445–446. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.

 

Mauro-Flude, N. 2018. ‘Feminist Internet Lore Manifesto: 10 working points for the 21 Century’, Rehearsal of a network –empyre-, 5 June, http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2018-June/date.html

 

Mauro-Flude, N. 2020a. “Performing with the Aether: An Aesthetics of Tactical Feminist Practice”. In Routledge Companion to Mobile Media Art, edited by Larissa Hjorth, Adriana de Souza e Silva, and Klare Lanson, 95–81. New York; London: Routledge.

 

Mauro-Flude, N. 2020b. ‘working points for writing the feminist internet’,

https://www.miss-hack.org/?Writing_the-feminist_interent.

 

Mauro-Flude, N., and K. Geck. 2020. ‘Taxonomy for the Contiguous Spectrum: Corporeal Computing futures and the Performance of Signal Transmission,’ WHY SENTIENCE? Montreal: ISEA2020 (2020): 275–282. https://isea2020.isea-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PROCEEDING_271020.pdf?mc_cid=c716641caf&mc_eid=30328f3362. Accessed 17 May 2021.

 

Menkman, R. 2014. ‘Benchmarking the Deranged’, Network Art Forms Tactical Magick Faerie Circuits. https://www.tacticalmagick.net/?rosamenkman. | https://beyondresolution.info. Accessed 17 May 2021.

 

Musial, H. 2018. ‘Metaphors of Decryption: Designs, Poetics, Collaborations’. In Decrypting Power, the Global Critical Caribbean Thought Series, edited by Ricardo Sanín-Restrepo. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

Nelson, T. 1987 [1974]. Computer lib/dream machines. Revised edition. Redmond: Tempus Books; Microsoft Press.

 

Nicholas, L. 2021. ‘Remembering Simone de Beauvoir’s “Ethics of Ambiguity” to Challenge Contemporary Divides: Feminism beyond Both Sex and Gender.’ Feminist Theory 22 (2): 226–47. doi: 10.1177/1464700120988641.

 

Patai, R. 1983 Jewish folklore. Detroit, Michigan. Wayne State University Press. https://digital.library.wayne.edu/item/wayne:WayneStateUniversityPress4426/file/HTML_FULL. Accessed 10 May 2020.

 

Petty. W. 1899. ‘The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty.’ In Bibliography of the Printed Writings of Sir William Petty, edited by Hull, 633—652. London: Nabu Press. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Economic_Writings_of_Sir_William_Petty. Accessed 17 May 2021.

 

Rök Jóns, R. 2013. ‘Is the 4th wave of Feminism Digital?’ Blue Stocking Magazine. August 19, http://bluestockingsmag.com/2013/08/19/is-the-4th-wave-of-feminism-digital/. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Shapiro, S. 1995. ‘Patti Smith: Somewhere, Over the Rimbaud.’ In Rock She Wrote, edited by Evelyn McDonnell and Ann Powers. New York: Dell Publishing.

 

Schneider, F. 2010. ‘Immaterial Labour in Performance’ Journal des Laboratoires and TkH Journal for Performing Arts Theory 17, http://fls.kein.org/view/33. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Stein, D. K. ‘Lady Lovelace’s Notes: Technical Text and Cultural Context.’ Victorian Studies 28, no. 1 (1984): 33-67.

 

VNS Matrix. Artist Collective website. https://vnsmatrix.net/. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Wright, T. 2017. ‘The modest spy and Monterey, Australia’s Bletchley Park’. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 2017, https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/tony-wright-column-the-modest-spy-and-monterey-australias-bletchley-park-20170706-gx5mxu.html. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Woolf. V. 1926. The Movies and Reality August 4,

https://newrepublic.com/article/120389/movies-reality. Accessed 21 October 2020.

 

Van Der Tuin, I. 2015. Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach. London: Lexington Books.

 

Van Der Tuin, I.  and Nocek, A.J. 2015. Philosophy Today 63, Issue 4 (Fall 2019).