We will begin this seminar with a selection of artifacts that invite us to consider what might constitute feminist and queer engagements with art, architecture, and design in history and theory. In doing so, we will orient ourselves to sites and embodiments of queer-feminism as resistance (Puar), refusals (Ahmed), and renewal (Muñoz) for collective worldmaking through time. We will hold these materials together and in conversation with each other to understand how the relationship between power and knowledge is imagined and mobilized for dignity, joy, and justice. The weekly sessions will interrelate cross-disciplinary texts, technologies, archives, and practices to further an intersectional analytic for naming and aligning with debates and desires viewed as peripheral—and even excessive—to everyday life. Framed and structured as a seminar to further reading, writing, and critical discourse building, this course will enable doctoral students to work individually and collaboratively through questions of gender, sexuality, as well as the body in connection to academic and creative scholarship, and toward making their attendant anti-patriarchal and anti-colonial worldmaking strategies both public and difficult to ignore.

This course iteration of the Future of Human and Digital will engage scholarship on practices connected to Prototyping; Producing Speculative Fiction/Non-Fiction; Art Making; Archiving; Coding; Teaching and Learning; and Writing and Publishing. Each of these practices will cover a week and be read against three interrelated framings of the Future as Techno-Utopia; Community; and Technological Self. Individually and cumulatively, the reading assignments, I expect, will enable us—you and me—to conclude each week’s discussion with a deepened understanding of futures research at the intersection of technology, culture, and society. Reading materials will include texts, multimedia content, and creative projects—and together, we will ground an understanding of the human and digital relationship in such concerns as datafied subjects, privacy, climate emergency, information ethics, law, data sovereignty, liberatory worlds, and ethnic histories.

This course is an opportunity to come together to highlight and learn from the scholarly, creative, and community-centered contributions of women and gender minorities to the study and practice of technology-society interrelationships. Over the course of 10 weeks, and as a seminar, we will: 1_center projects and methods involving, but not limited to, queer and intersectional feminist digital humanities (DH); 2_cover critical technological discourses and practices led and laboured by women and gender minorities through time and towards justice-oriented goals; and 3_address structural challenges, gender discourses, and socio-technical critiques connected to each of these works—and specifically, examine how colonialism, casteism, racism, ableism, sexism, and cis-heteropatriarchy overlap as historical-contextual supremacies as well as how Indigenous, caste-oppressed, Black, disabled, women, queer, and trans scholars are showing us other ways of thinking with and relating to technology.

The 2021 studio invited students to produce care work biographies of their interactions with technology during, but not exclusive to, the then raging COVID-19 pandemic. The studio assumed a hybrid form and resulted in 10 individual interactive stories with Twine. The 2022 studio furthered this care work focus by grounding itself more deeply into humanistic questions of biographical writing and storytelling, resulting in the production of individually written essays, interactive Twine narratives, and a collective studio book. Together, both of these iterations asked: How might you—and we—ensure that our current and future interactions with technologies and each other are rooted in and emerge from places and acts of care? What are the embodied, situated, and material forms of such care-based interactions? And how might your care work biographies inform technology-enabled descriptions, expectations, and measurements of self away from their positivist, disembodied, and surveilled notions?

For the 2023 iteration of Care Matters and Justice Dreams studio, we located ourselves in the overlaps between personal data, digital technologies, and the becoming of a human subject connected to workplace surveillance. Specifically, by engaging with gendered stories of technology involving wearable GPS trackers, CCTV cameras, biometric scanners, and even remote electronic monitoring softwares among others, we asked: What leads to the adoption and perpetuation of these systems in a given context? How might we name, contend with, and address socio-technical hegemonies and the power and politics embedded in their operations? Who can be authorial about labouring bodies and the labour itself in these workplaces? How is design implicated in such technological systems? And how might we center alternative and care-based responsibilities, accountabilities, principles, and counter-practices in design and across our workplaces?

The Just Futures Co-lab opens itself to pedagogy- and project-based discourses on technology-society interrelationships at the intersections of arts, humanities, and design. The lab brings together inquiries into intersectional feminist histories and futures with another on critical digital humanities pedagogy, and locates the integrated project spaces of Queer Futurities and Futures with the Peripheries in their overlaps. Since its inception in October 2021, the Just Futures Co-lab has fostered a transdisciplinary learning community on campus by integrating MA studios, theory seminars, and workshops into its intellectual life. Read more about the lab on SMI website or via its letters.

Over the course of two academic cycles, this seminar joined the rallying call of techwontsave.us to inquire into the integration of technology and politics along socially just and anti-oppression lines. In conversation with the vision, orientation, and approaches of the Just Futures Co-lab, and working against prevalent instrumentalist, corporate-capitalist, surveillance-centered, ableist, patriarchal, cis-heteronormative, and white and upper caste supremacists’ imaginations of digital technologies, this seminar invited students to engage with critiques, pedagogies, and projects of design and digital systems, platforms, and communities from distinct subject positions with urgency, heart, and precision. 

This weeklong course introduced participants to anti-colonial digital humanities, focusing particularly on how to practice digital storytelling committed to anti-colonialism from a queer and feminist lens. We collectively read and annotated selected digital storytelling projects to address distinct colonial histories and legacies pervading the contemporary technoscape, and drew out the ethics and politics of engaging with digital tools for sustained accountability in community-centered storytelling work. Specifically, through a selection of interconnected digital media involving 1) digital images; 2) digital videos; and 3) digital games, as well as their corresponding tools and texts, we asked: How might we approach and consider the contested meanings of the term “digital storytelling”? How have communities responded to the growing pull towards digital storytelling across academic and non-academic contexts? What are the ethics of engaging with digital tools for sustained accountability in community-centered storytelling work? 

Over the course of two academic cycles, this seminar utilized the form and practice of writing letters both as case-studies in and a semester-long assignment on organizing for socially just futures of the human and digital. The seminar acknowledged that the study of the future of (non)human and digital is: 1) inextricably bound up with the interlocking systems of gender, race, caste, class, indigeneity, sexuality, and disability; 2) that such a study for the design of digital systems, platforms, and communities is deeply connected to land and land-based infrastructures; and 3) that together these interlocking connections nurture an imagination of the future as an ever intersectional, collectivist, and justice-oriented analytic for surviving in the present. 

If coloniality is about the violence and politics of power that determine what constitutes knowledge and with which cultures, peoples, spaces, and technologies do we come to know, to be, and to become in the world, then how might we write a description of the relationship between decolonization and design in terms of power, knowledge, being, and becoming? This graduate theory and understanding seminar invited students to engage texts and contexts for approaching decolonizing design, or for even considering its possibility with these questions. The course foregrounded the ethic of always remembering Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s writings on “Decolonization Is Not A Metaphor” (2012), that is, decolonization is neither a substitute for some other term nor a concept that can be used interchangeably with other movements. 

In this reading and making seminar, students worked with selected artifacts to claim an understanding of materiality as an expression and a lived provocation, exhibiting alternative historiographies of the constructed environment. Specifically, by structuring the course around five thematic matters—making, caring, repairing, maintaining, and dismantling—we discussed the situated and studied approaches to modernist architectural history and their social and everyday significance.

In this reading seminar, students reviewed socio-political debates in 20th century architecture and urbanism alongside notions of expertise and ethics connected to Indian modernity to claim well-defined positions for their thesis projects. The course culminated with edited proceedings, “Social Space/Spatial Practice,” from CEPT University Press (2012).

In year 02 (see the 2019 studio abstract below), students and I deepened our engagements with the overlapping infrastructures of equity, access, economy, waste, and climate change on land and in the sea; oriented ourselves explicitly around questions of community protection; and began with questions of the digital archive. The architectural resolutions during this completely remote and online semester covered critical spatial and infrastructural insights as well as neighborhood-level projects specific to community protection and even public health, bringing into discourse micro-infrastructures without whom there can be no city and with whom we can realize the possibility of a socially and an environmentally just city.

This undergraduate elective provided students a theoretical and thematic foundation for the development of research topics and inquiries in architecture. Starting with unpacking the very definition of research in architecture through a range of epistemological positions, the course guided students to make claims about the relationship between design and research as relevant for studio-based projects, including design thesis, as well as for future pursuits in architecture academia and professional practice.

This course gave students the opportunity to produce an independent thesis in the field of architectural design under the guidance of a faculty advisor and within a supportive community of student peers and faculty mentors, which we called a design inquiry cluster. The three clusters that resulted from a review of students’ preliminary inquiries were: a) Politics of Architecture (focusing on inclusive, the invisible, the marginalised in society, spaces, discourses, and knowledge); b) Emergent Futures (focusing on shaping utopias through sustainable materialities and technologies); and c) Critical Urbanities (focusing on questions of urbanism, heritage, justice, and environmental traumas). Over the length of a semester, the course guided students to integrate both conceptual and practical dimensions of architectural design through a deep, systematic, and rigorous methodological inquiry that not only culminates into a design project, but also contributes to building discourse within its corresponding cluster. Mutually, the advisor-student pairing determined the feasibility of each thesis project not by the question of whether or not they are buildable, but rather by the possibilities that they open up in imagining and reimagining our past or present.

This course surveyed the history of architecture and urbanism in relation to colonial and postcolonial theories of modern India, covering developments connected to the following three chronological and epistemological moments: 1) the origins and movement of British colonialism in India; 2) questions and formations of architecture and post-independence; and 3) contemporary pluralities.

Situated within the communities of Madhipuram and Kottapuram in Vizhinjam, the year 01 studio made visible the otherwise palpable infrastructures of access, equity, waste, economy, and climate change involving the local fisherfolk’s lived realities. Vizhinjam is a port community near Trivandrum with a well-documented history of growth and displacement since the 1960s. Today, the livelihoods of these fisherfolks are under new uncertainties from the construction of another big project: The International Transshipment Terminal, currently being built near the villages towards the south. By the end of four months, the studio shared deep insights into how these infrastructures are shaped by the people in-situ and in relation to the port project. Students in groups also produced critical transects, oral transcripts, photo essays, individual poems, and a group song. During the final stage, students in pairs made a set of spatial drawings and a corresponding set of process and policy documents to depict how the design processes might differ from convention or how to sustain the proposals.

This elective surveyed the field of modern urban design from a range of perspectives and shifting paradigms to enable students to understand the contested meanings of the term “urban” in the context of professional expertise and everyday modernity. The course provided a basis for discussions about topics such as Space, Politics, Representation, and Publics to explore and complicate the relationships between design intention, social engagement, and project realization; architectural rhetoric, official stories, and community perspectives; material spaces, human activities, and lived overlays. Throughout the seminar, we grappled with the questions and challenges of shaping urban conditions in relation to both established and radical protocols of design. Our learning goal was raise the question of what is at stake and how might architects and urban designers contribute to, and collaborate in, building both socially and environmentally just futures.

Focusing on a range of figures, movements, and propositions from over the course of twentieth and twenty-first centuries, this course provided an overview of critical theories in relation to the built environment that have variously informed, challenged, and constituted the limits and possibilities of contemporary architectural practice.

In this course, students and I partnered with the Oakland Avenue Urban Farm in Detroit’s North End to study their participatory practices of land stewardship, food production, and community development. Specifically, we engaged with our partners’ stories—distinct in race, class, and gender—and placed them in conversation with relevant theoretical and historical perspectives on space, politics, and justice. As we explored these accounts, we discussed how our partners are imagining the city for themselves and their communities, and the extent to which they are building an infrastructure to support those visions through agriculture, art, and architecture. At its core, the course served as a space of reflection for students and an opportunity for us to collaboratively and critically inform the Smithsonian’s “Community of Gardens” digital public archive.

In ​each of these ​courses, we ​considered ​the ​question ​of ​cultural ​citizenship ​as ​advanced ​by ​the critical, ​creative, ​and ​collaborative ​work ​of ​Arts ​of ​Citizenship, ​an ​interdisciplinary ​public ​scholarship program ​at ​the ​University ​of ​Michigan. ​Teaching and learning with the program’s archive at the Bentley Historical Library, we ​engaged ​key ​projects and ​figures ​from ​the ​1990s ​to ​the present ​who ​have ​integrated community ​engagement ​into ​the ​humanities ​and ​arts, ​as well as collaborative education ​at ​the ​undergraduate ​and ​graduate ​levels with ​this ​program. ​Our ​goal ​was ​to ​examine how ​the ​practice ​of community-engaged ​learning ​in ​the ​humanities ​has ​evolved ​on campus ​and transformed ​both ​university ​and ​public ​life ​along democratic ​lines. The ​classes ​met ​in ​a ​seminar ​format ​to ​discuss assigned ​readings, ​report ​on ​findings ​from ​the ​archive, reflect ​on ​the larger ​themes ​of ​public ​scholarship ​and ​community ​engaged ​work, and ​discuss ​the progress ​of ​group ​projects.

In​ ​this​ course, we explore​d ​key​ ​experiences​ ​of​ ​public humanities work ​(from​ ​pedagogy​ ​and community​ ​engagement​ ​to​ ​education​ ​policy​ ​and​ ​political action) ​to​ ​understand​ ​its​ ​role​ ​in​ ​describing​ ​and​ ​envisioning​ ​what​ ​it​ ​means​ ​to practice​ ​citizenship​ ​today.​ ​We​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​U-M​ ​based​ ​initiatives​ ​and​ ​another​ ​based​ outside​ ​of Michigan,​ ​and​ ​worked​ ​through​ ​these​ ​issues​ ​in​ ​a​ ​comparative​ ​light​ ​to​ ​trace​ ​how​ citizenship​ ​is​ ​enacted​ ​within and​ ​across​ ​geographical​ ​difference.​​ ​We​ ​were also​ ​joined​ ​by​ ​guest​ ​speakers​ ​who​ are​ shaping​ ​the​ ​practice​ ​of​ ​citizenship​ ​through interrelated​ ​scholarly,​ ​pedagogical​ and/or​ ​activist​ ​formations.​ ​Each​ ​guest​ ​speaker​ ​or ​public​ ​scholar ​talked​ ​about​ ​their​ ​approach​ ​to​ ​the public​ ​humanities​​ ​and​ ​specific​ ​contributions to ​a​ ​given​ ​project.​ ​They also elaborate​d ​on​ ​how​ ​we​ ​might​ ​assess​ ​publicly​ ​engaged​ ​works​ ​and​ ​make​ ​claims​ ​for​ the​ ​value​ ​of scholarship​ ​and​ ​pedagogy​ ​in​ ​transforming​ ​our​ ​institutions​ ​and​  communities.

Following Henri Lefebvre’s theory of production of space, many scholars have come to view space as a distinct social and political category, actively produced at the intersection of mental, material, and experiential phenomena. The ensuing argument that space has political meaning and that it should be conceived of as a social product has provided a valuable framework for architectural theorists and environmental design researchers interested in examining questions of human agency and social agenda in architecture. At the same time, however, the conception of everyday nature of power in practices of space without the agency of any specific community has become popular. How might we study the narrative about social space within architecture, whilst also investigating the meaning of agency towards greater clarity? How might we examine material responses to questions of social space involving divergent expectations? Is it possible to reconcile spatial strategies that raise social questions and those that work with them through direct action? This course investigated notions of space, agency, and practice and their interrelationships from a range of theoretical perspectives and design juxtapositions. We worked through the writings of late 20th century social theorists who discuss the relationship between space and society in terms of agency and
materiality of everyday life. We contrasted writings and design practices that battle issues of social inclusivity and autonomy with those that encourage critical explorations of space through participation. The syllabus also included texts on urban practices that focus on space and subjectivities such as women and loitering, youth and skateboarding to help connect specific renderings to a wider context of social theory and spatial scholarship.