A Queer History of Computing

Links
#1

This series of posts talks about some queer figures in the history of computing: Rhizome > blog > A Queer History of Computing

Two of the people covered: Christopher Strachey (part 3) and Peter Landin (part 4), have a strong connection to Haskell (See A History of Haskell: Being Lazy with Class).

Strachey helped found the field of denotational semantics, and was one of David Turner’s D.Phil supervisors. David Turner’s Miranda programming language was highly influential in the design of Haskell.

Landin is known for inventing the off-side rule, where indentation determines the scope of blocks. He also developed the SECD abstract machine, which was influential in the development of functional languages.

14 Likes
#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

6 Likes
#3

[a human who really should know better ] hopes to suggest that [some attribute of a particular group of humans] is itself inherent within [something or other ]

I think I’ve seen something like this before…yes - there it is:

#4

It’s true, but:

  1. I’ve witnessed first-hand people expanding their views on what’s normal by learning that somebody respected by them did “controversial” things. Visibility is important in that regard.
  2. The author is in their right to look at the history of computing from any angle they want, the existence of this article doesn’t take anything from the overall effort to document history, on the contrary it adds to it.

That being said, this:

I hope to suggest that queerness is itself inherent within computational logic

doesn’t make any sense to me either.

1 Like
#5

Then I look forward to the author’s forthcoming ‘A Straight History of Computing’: the vast majority of Logic/Maths/computing luminaries are family men (they are mostly men, sadly) with wive(s) and children [**]. Most mentionable in the Haskell-o-sphere: Haskell Curry, Alonzo Church. The notable exception would be Bertrand Russell: randy goat with many wives/mistresses and several ménages-à-trois.

[**] Of course not incontrovertible evidence: vide Oscar Wilde.

#6

As somebody who writes posts about a programming language that is as represented in the dev community as queers are represented in the history of anything, I have no idea what you’re trying to convey. Are you saying I should be writing posts about JavaScript because I write Haskell ones?

1 Like
#7

I am a part of the Haskell and academic PL community not just because I like the technology and all the joy that I get from the intellectual challenges, but also because it is such a welcoming community which puts so much emphasis on mentoring and ensuring that everyone feels welcome. And I cannot be the only one for which this is the case, because I have met and befriended more queer people in these spaces than in any other community that I am a part of. And that our communities are so welcoming is due to the conscious and deliberate effort that people put into making it so. So sure, specifically highlighting contributions of queer people in our communities is a symbolic gesture. But since we live in a world where a lot of queer and especially trans people are currently facing increasing hostility it is important to make such symbolic gestures and to emphasize that we try to be a welcoming community.

16 Likes
#8 
I hope to suggest that queerness is itself inherent within computational logic

I think the point the author is making in that paragraph is that you can’t separate these people’s personal and technical lives, and you can’t separate computational logic from these foundational figures. In particular, I think this is a common view about Turing and there’s some further references in the footnotes.

I wouldn’t get too hung up on this paragraph from the introduction though. I would recommend reading some of the later posts, which talk about these figures.

3 Likes
#9

[a human who really should know better ] hopes to suggest that [some attribute of a particular group of humans] is itself inherent within [something or other ]

…here’s something more recent:

#10

This has very little to do with the article. I think you are misreading what the author is saying, and just making the same point again.

1 Like
#11

Yes: that was my precise intention. There are already more than enough stereotypes out there (and mostly bad ones at that).

Like it or not, that statement by the author suggests yet another (possibly new) stereotype, which then risks being seen as further legitimising all other stereotypes.

#12

The article is not that single statement.

Even in the first part of the series has some words by Heather Love that suggests not everything is cut and dried and that from the same biographical facts, many different conclusions can be reached.

I am reading part two and there are for sure some interesting facts about Wittgenstein. I don’t necessary agree with some of the research, nobody is forcing you to do so. Let’s keep an open mind.

2 Likes
#13

It isn’t my mind you should be worried about - it’s (collectively) those of certain “other” minorities out there that will use (the making of) this particular stereotype to argue the legitimacy of their preferred stereotypes: “one in, all in”.

We all would like the world (and humanity in it) to be better that it is, but we cannot pretend that either are better - we must remain vigilant.

#14

We are both off-topic to the OP.

I suggest we and anyone else take off-topic discussion to PM and leave this thread to people who have comments and thoughts specific to the series of articles.

3 Likes
#15

Thanks for the links, quite an interesting read! From a footnote:

Turing is dealt with most explicitly as a queer subject in Jeremy Douglass’ Machine Writing and the Turing Test which explores the implications of the Turing test in terms of gender “passing.”

I would like to read “Machine Writing and the Turing Test” but, annoyingly, it doesn’t seem to available online.

I’ve sometimes wondered how the Turing Test could be understood the in the light of “performativity”, the concept developed by philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble. I’ve found this YouTube video from 2013 about the possible connection.

5 Likes
#16

Appearing soon:

A Woman’s History of Computing

https://web.archive.org/web/20090327073325/https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/03/ada-lovelace-day.html

#17

I’m glad you enjoyed it!

I think I’ve tracked that down using the wayback machine: Untitled Document

Via the link from Grand Text Auto » Christopher Strachey: The first digital artist?

There’s also this from the same author as the series of posts: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jcms/images/13_61.4gaboury.pdf

3 Likes
#18

To be clear: I’d read (or at least skimmed) all of the posts before I made a response. I didn’t mention the later ones because they got even more biased and unrepresentative. That’s what prompted my “series is one-dimensional and wrong-headed” comment.

#19

I find the proposed connection between Turings life experiences and their impact on his internal thinking bizarre, unless there’s evidence that Turing himself expressed this relationship. At least the article doesn’t provide such evidence.

I say this not because I find any of those experiences odd (quite the contrary… “The imitation game” made me cry, in fact). I say this because I doubt anyone without immense intimate knowledge about a person should make such statements.

When it comes to scientific and technological creations and discoveries, I prefer the approach of Karl Popper, who refused to care about the question of how an idea or theory came to be. He said handwavy something along the lines of “let’s just assume it was an ‘irrational’ moment”. It’s a sacred moment. We don’t have to understand it and we can much less reason about it. All that matters is the theory itself.

There is no need for the Queer movement to derive such interpretations. I believe the Haskell community and other tech communities are welcoming diversity.

The pain and horrors that Turing and other gay people experienced is in itself a stark reminder of why the cause matters. But that’s not really what the article is about. And I’m unable to find it insightful.

3 Likes
#20

Surprisingly, there are few serious treatments of Turing as a queer figure,[ix] perhaps due to the difficulty in applying anachronistic language to historical figures such as Turing, or because in many ways Turing’s work does not immediately lend itself to a radical queering.

What does the phrase “radical queering” mean in this context?