Contextualizing Standpoints
In the previous Kim’s corner I promised to speak more about intersectionality and present more about our manifesto. Rest assured, this is coming. However, given my recent travels and conversations with our collaborators in Hawaiʻi, I am taking this opportunity to write about something that is integral to the work of CGEST and timely for our Hawaiʻian brothers and sisters. Rather than present the first, or even all seven, tenets that we implement at the center, I will focus on one: Standpoints need to be contextualized.
This sentence packs a lot in a few words. First, what do I mean by standpoints? Second, why do standpoints need to be contextualized? Standpoints refer to a person’s point of view, attitude, or outlook on issues. They are usually informed by a person’s lived experience and, for many people of color, those experiences are informed by their intersectional identities. To contextualize means to analyze a word or event in terms of the words or concepts surrounding it. An example of contextualization is to keep feminist and/or critical race perspective in mind when reading a novel written during the civil rights movement or about current cultural or social struggles disproportionately affecting the Indigenous peoples of an area.
A person’s gender, race, class as well as where they come from, where they live, what language(s) they speak, history, how they are connected to others around them, and their personal and cultural needs, values, and beliefs can all help shape and inform their standpoint. Accessing marginalized groups’ voices is insufficient; simply hearing to what a person says is not the same as listening or truly understanding what shapes their standpoint. If we are to truly understand and support one another we must contextualize their experience so we can better understand their standpoint and, when it comes to particular issues, we must listen to those who would be directly affected by decisions. In order to do that, demonstrating how their lived experiences emerge within a sociohistorical context is critical.
In preparation of our upcoming 4th Women of Color in STEM Entrepreneurship Conference, I am grateful to work with many phenomenal individuals from Hawaiʻi. Building a coalition and collaborating with multiple partners in the mainland and Hawaiʻi requires considerable time. And, in the end, has been well worth it. Over the past several months, I have met, walked, eaten, and listened to leaders from the Big Island of Hawaiʻi and Oahu. Humbly, I have learned a great many lessons including how important it is to understand standpoints as contextualized narratives.
Recently, I was on the Big Island during the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) protests at Mauna Kea – the most sacred mountain of Native Hawiʻian religion and culture. Countless times, I heard visitors to Kona provide their standpoints regarding the controversy. Many were incredibly passionate but none were locals or Native Hawaiʻian (and there is a difference as locals can represent any combination of various ethnicities and have lived on the island for decades while Native Hawaiʻians are those who trace some part of their lineage to Hawaiʻi). Indeed, one person asked me my standpoint on the issue. Didn’t I believe that building the world’s largest telescope on Mauna Kea was a desecration of Native lands?
I found this question odd. My standpoint reflects my experiences as a Black female from the mainland.
While I endure countless microaggressions thanks to my double (and at times multiple) jeopardy status, my perspective is not the same as Native Hawaiʻians. Therefore, accessing my standpoints about TMT is not the same as accessing the standpoints of Native Hawaiʻian’s or even locals. African Americans and Native Hawaiʻians may both be marginalized but there may be just as many differences as there are commonalities in the way our disenfranchisement appears. To ask my standpoint and assume because of my mainland status my reflections are on par with other marginalized individuals or groups makes the same mistake many women-focused efforts maintain. Initiatives (and funding) dedicated to women and technology do not necessarily include or even consider the standpoints of women of color. And even those that use the phrase “women of color” in their mission statements, the question remains, which women of color?
As we prepare for this year’s conference, we are forever mindful that convening different voices to tell stories is only one piece of intersectional work. Fostering a space that respectfully but critically analyzes how our stories came to be, what structures nurtured our standpoints privileging some women in computing while oppressing others remain critical. Moreover, more than including, we must highlight the voices of our Native Hawiʻian brothers and sisters as we convene on their lands. Listen to their experiences and try to understand their standpoint. Consequently, this conference will not be a “chat and chew.” Instead, participants will attend a series of working sessions creating system maps. Maps will be grounded in attendees’ contextualized standpoints. And it is from these standpoints that we will craft viable solutions inspiring transformation of the computing science system for women of color. Intersectionality as a construct is at the core of our work and will shape the contours of the conference and the emergent solutions from this convening.
Executive Director
Center for Gender Equity in Science and Technology
Professor School of Social Transformation
Arizona State University
