Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 150 references

Human-Computer Insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that HCI's failure to state its politics produces an implicit market-first politics that re-inscribes systemic oppression, and it proposes an anarchist HCI—centered on autonomy and prefigurative counterpower—as the remedy.

desk verdict A clear, honest position paper that makes a real contribution to critical HCI; the diagnostic hook is shakier than the program it leads into. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06167 v1 pith:YRIKSYA6 submitted 2019-08-10 cs.CY cs.HC

Os Keyes , Josephine Hoy , Margaret Drouhard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords anarchistHCIprefigurativecounterpowerautonomypowerrelationsimplicitneoliberalismanti-oppressivedesignsocialanarchismaccountabilitymechanisms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that human-computer interaction, despite decades of socially conscious work, has never articulated its political foundation, and that this silence functions as an implicit market-first politics that re-inscribes and amplifies systemic oppression. It proposes an explicitly anarchist HCI, grounded in social anarchism's core values of autonomy and dignity, that treats every concentration of power as something to be suspected and continuously justified. The goal is prefigurative counterpower: building systems and spaces in the here and now that embody the anti-oppressive world the field claims to want, rather than waiting for a future revolution. The paper also sketches accountability mechanisms—participant right of response, community peer review, situated knowledge sharing—to make that reorientation concrete. A sympathetic reader would care because it moves HCI's longstanding critique of power from the margins to the center of the field's stated purpose.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the concept of prefigurative counterpower: designing systems and spaces that work like the world the authors want to build, so that the means of change embody its ends. It is coupled with two principles from social anarchism—autonomy as the basis of dignity, and the constant suspicion and justification of all power relations—and a trio of relational commitments governing HCI's dealings with the global infrastructure it depends on, the communities it studies, and its own internal institutions. Together these turn "anarchist HCI" from a label into a test: does a given research practice or technology make power more consensual and less oppressive, and does it do so in a way community members themselves control?

What would settle it

One could code a sample of HCI projects for whether they state their political commitments explicitly, then measure documented harms or benefits to marginalized communities in each; if explicit-politics projects do not differ from implicit-politics ones on those outcomes, the paper's causal diagnosis would be falsified. A simpler test would be whether community members report more control over research decisions after the field adopts participant right of response and community review.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HCI has no explicitly articulated politics, and that absence is not neutrality but an implicit neoliberalism that reinforces the very hierarchies the field's critical work claims to oppose. To correct this, the paper offers an anarchist HCI: a framework that places autonomy and the justification or elimination of power at the center of design, research, and community engagement. This framework would require researchers to state what worlds their work presupposes and advances, to treat impacted communities as accomplices rather than subjects, to avoid centralised and unaccountable infrastructure, and to organize the field's own institutions along the same anti-oppressive principles. It explicitly declines to prescribe a single implementation, on anarchist grounds, treating the articulation of specifics as the province of the communities involved.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that HCI's unstated politics causes it to absorb market-first values that re-inscribe and amplify oppression; if making politics explicit does not change the harms HCI produces, the field's reorientation loses its empirical basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HCI researchers would be obligated to state, for every project, what state of the world is necessary for the work to succeed and what worlds its execution advances.
  • Communities affected by a design or study would gain a formal right of response, with their judgments treated as inherently valid in any dissemination of the work.
  • Peer review would include compensated community reviewers who assess a work's methods, outcomes, and consequences from lived experience.
  • The field would avoid building or legitimising centralised infrastructure, preferring local, modifiable, repairable, and consent-based alternatives.
  • Conference and publication practices would be restructured so that access and participation do not depend on wealth, English fluency, or the ability to travel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The diagnosis implies a comparative empirical claim the paper does not test: if HCI subfields with explicit emancipatory politics show systematically different harm patterns to marginalized groups than those with implicit politics, the silence-cause linkage gains support; if not, the framework stands or falls on values alone.
  • The same logic could be carried into adjacent fields such as software engineering education, data science ethics, and AI governance, where neutrality is similarly treated as a safe default, though the paper limits its claims to HCI.
  • A concrete audit marker would be whether adopting these accountability mechanisms actually shifts decision-making about research questions, resources, and publication to community members, since prefiguration demands internal consistency.
  • The authors' insistence that the field may be unsalvageable suggests a stress test: if HCI's funding and prestige structures cannot support community control, an anarchist HCI would have to leave those institutional forms behind rather than reform them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that despite a growing 'turn to the social' in HCI, the field lacks an explicitly articulated political stance, and that this absence produces an 'implicit neoliberalism' which re-inscribes and amplifies systemic oppression. The authors propose an anarchist HCI, grounded in social anarchism and centered on autonomy, suspicion of imbalanced power, and prefigurative counterpower. They outline three domains of transformation—global relations, inter-community relations, and intra-community relations—and propose accountability mechanisms including participant response rights, community reviewers, and compensated review labor. The paper closes by acknowledging that the consequences of adopting an anarchist HCI are uncertain and that the proposed mechanisms are necessary but not sufficient.

Significance. If the paper's central causal claim were established, it would offer a coherent political grounding for a large body of critical HCI work and a concrete agenda for reorienting the field away from corporate and institutional incentives. The manuscript is valuable as a synthesis: it draws together feminist, postcolonial, queer, anti-oppressive, and design-justice scholarship into a single political frame, and it is unusually honest about the limits of its own proposals, explicitly stating that the accountability mechanisms are not sufficient and that the outcome of adoption is unknown. The paper does not offer machine-checked proofs or new empirical evidence, but as a position piece its main contribution is the clarity and breadth of the political argument. The stress-test concern about the unsupported causal premise is real and is the main barrier to accepting the paper's prescriptive conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2; Section 4 (Global relations, Intra-community relations)] The load-bearing diagnostic claim is that HCI's lack of an explicitly articulated politic 're-inscribes and amplifies systemic oppression' (Abstract; Section 2) and that making politics explicit will therefore reduce harm. This causal premise is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the paper's own examples cut against it: Gender HCI is explicitly committed to gender equity yet is criticized for reproducing a binary universalism; the maker movement is accompanied by 'emancipatory rhetoric'; and SIGCHI's diversity-and-inclusion initiatives are explicit while the cited budgets and priority rankings show marginal investment. These examples show explicit political commitments coexisting with, or failing to prevent, harmful practices, so they do not establish that implicitness is the operative cause. For the argument to carry its prescriptive weight, the paper needs a comparative or historical case in which explicit anarchist politics changed design outcomes, or a clearer account of the mechanism by which implicitness, rather than funding, corporate control, or institutional incentives, produces harm.
  2. [Section 3; Section 4 (summary points 1-4)] There is a definitional circularity in the route from anarchism to anti-oppression. Section 3 defines anarchism principally as a concern with power and autonomy, Section 4's summary point 2 treats any imbalanced power relationship as suspect, and the paper throughout equates oppression with imbalanced power. If oppression is defined as imbalanced power and anarchism as suspicion of imbalanced power, then the conclusion that an anarchist HCI opposes oppression follows by construction; this does not independently establish that the proposed reorientation addresses the concrete harms the paper names, such as binary gender assumptions, exploitative mining infrastructure, or paywalled conferences. The paper would be stronger if it provided an independent criterion for which power imbalances are oppressive and harm dignity, rather than treating imbalance itself as the harm.
  3. [Section 5; Section 7] The proposed accountability mechanisms are described as necessary but not sufficient, and Section 7 concedes 'we have no certainty as to what happens upon the adoption of an anarchist HCI.' This is appropriately honest for a position paper, but it leaves the central remedy without an empirical or historical test: the reader never learns whether mechanisms such as the right of participant response, community reviewers, or compensated review have been tried at any scale, or what observable change they produced. The paper should either provide such cases or explicitly reframe the contribution from 'this will reduce harm' to 'this is a coherent normative stance we should adopt on principled grounds.' The latter is defensible, but the Abstract's wording promises the former.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, footnote 1] The dismissal of anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-primitivists in footnote 1 is rhetorically loaded; a neutral explanation of why these traditions fall outside the paper's chosen definition of social anarchism would be more consistent with the otherwise careful scholarly tone.
  2. [Section 4 (Intra-community relations); Section 5] The term 'accomplice' is used as a key concept ('accomplices rather than overseers') but is never defined or contrasted with related terms such as 'ally'; a brief definition would improve accessibility for readers outside activist contexts.
  3. [Section 4 (Global relations)] The copper-mining example asserts a chain from making to 'acts of genocide' more strongly than the cited sources support; marking this as an illustrative warning rather than an established causal conclusion would prevent overreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly normative proposal, not an empirical derivation, and its only self-citation is peripheral.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive a prediction from a fitted input. It is a position piece that proposes an explicitly political HCI. Its central diagnostic claim—that HCI's unstated politics take the form of 'implicit neoliberalism' and thereby re-inscribe oppression—is argued from external citations (e.g., [41,47]) and concrete examples (Gender HCI, maker culture, SIGCHI budgeting), not derived from the definition of anarchism. The proposal that an anarchist HCI should build 'prefigurative counterpower' is presented as a normative aim, and the authors explicitly disclaim certainty about consequences: 'we have no certainty as to what happens upon the adoption of an anarchist HCI.' The only self-citation (Keyes, ref [84]) is used to note that progress on trans inclusion remains incomplete; it is not load-bearing. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Whether the causal premise about implicitness is well supported is a correctness question, not a circularity question. Under the stated rules, unsupported causal premises should not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a normative argument, not an empirical study. It has no free parameters fit to data. Its central claims rest on a set of political premises adopted from social anarchism and on a causal claim about the effects of political silence in HCI. These premises are clearly stated, which is a strength, but they are not independently demonstrated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Human dignity is greatest when human autonomy is greatest.
    Section 3 states this as a core principle of anarchist thought, and the paper adopts social anarchism as its lens.
  • domain assumption The state is inherently coercive and involuntary, necessarily creating an underclass and shifting toward self-preservation.
    Section 3, citing [151] and [138]. This premise supports the paper's opposition to centralized infrastructure in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Capitalism guarantees inequality and lack of essential resources by design.
    Section 3: 'this is not just an incidental or occasional side-effect... it is both inevitable and by design' [59].
  • domain assumption Power relationships should be held in suspicion and must be justified consensually.
    Section 3: two core principles; the paper uses this as the normative basis for 'anarchist HCI'.
  • domain assumption Prefigurative politics, building the revolution through incremental autonomous spaces, is an effective strategy for change.
    Sections 3 and 4 rely on this (citations [75,147]) to argue HCI should build prefigurative counterpower.
  • domain assumption Making political stances explicit will change the field's capacity to question consequences and accountability.
    Section 2 claims 'Allowing our political stances to remain unspoken has constrained our ability...' This causal claim is load-bearing but not empirically established.
  • domain assumption An unarticulated politic in HCI results in an 'implicit neoliberalism' that re-inscribes systemic oppression.
    Section 2, citing [41,47]; this is the paper's diagnostic premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Computer Insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YRIKSYA6

@misc{pith2026190806167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Computer Insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YRIKSYA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06167}
}
read the original abstract

The HCI community has worked to expand and improve our consideration of the societal implications of our work and our corresponding responsibilities. Despite this increased engagement, HCI continues to lack an explicitly articulated politic, which we argue re-inscribes and amplifies systemic oppression. In this paper, we set out an explicit political vision of an HCI grounded in emancipatory autonomy - an anarchist HCI, aimed at dismantling all oppressive systems by mandating suspicion of and a reckoning with imbalanced distributions of power. We outline some of the principles and accountability mechanisms that constitute an anarchist HCI. We offer a potential framework for radically reorienting the field towards creating prefigurative counterpower - systems and spaces that exemplify the world we wish to see, as we go about building the revolution in increment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martha Ackelsberg. 2013. Queering Anarchism: Addressing and un- dressing power and desire . AK Press

    2013

  2. [2]

    Philip Agre. 1997. Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to reform AI. Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide. Erlbaum (1997)

    1997

  3. [3]

    Alex Ahmed. 2018. Beyond diversity. Commun. ACM 61, 7 (June 2018), 30–32

    2018

  4. [4]

    Alex A Ahmed. 2017. Trans Competent Interaction Design: A Qual- itative Study on Voice, Identity, and Technology. Interacting with Computers 30, 1 (Nov. 2017), 53–71

    2017

  5. [5]

    Ahmed, Teresa Almeida, Judeth Oden Choi, Jon Pin- cus, and Kelly Ireland

    Alex A. Ahmed, Teresa Almeida, Judeth Oden Choi, Jon Pin- cus, and Kelly Ireland. 2018. What’s at Issue: Sex, Stigma, and Politics in ACM Publishing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article alt07, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188400

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Sara Ahmed. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in insti- tutional life. Duke University Press

    2012

  7. [7]

    Jack- son

    Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Nusrat Jahan Mim, and Steven J. Jack- son. 2015. Residual Mobilities: Infrastructural Displacement and Post-Colonial Computing in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’15) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702573

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Yoko Akama, Seth Keen, and Peter West. 2016. Specula- tive Design and Heterogeneity in Indigenous Nation Building. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Inter- active Systems (DIS ’16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 895–899. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901852

    arXiv 2016

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Tamara Alsheikh, Jennifer A Rode, and Siân E Lindley. 2011. (Whose) value-sensitive design - a study of long-distance relationships in an Arabic cultural context. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co- operative Work (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Gustavo Amagno. 2012. The Role of HCI in the Construction of D is- ability. BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (Aug. 2012), 1– 4

    2012

  3. [11]

    Panayotis Antoniadis. 2016. Local networks for local interactions : Four reasons why and a way forward. First Monday 21, 12 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Le Dantec, Becky Nielsen, and Kate Diedrick

    Mariam Asad, Christopher A. Le Dantec, Becky Nielsen, and Kate Diedrick. 2017. Creating a Sociotechnical API: Designing City-Scale Community Engagement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2295–230...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Seyram Avle, Silvia Lindtner, and Kaiton Williams. 2017. How Meth - ods Make Designers. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 472–483

    2017

  6. [14]

    Normand Baillargeon. 2014. Order Without Power . Seven Stories Press

    2014

  7. [15]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2015. Humanistic HCI . Syn- thesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 8, 4 (2015), 1–185

    2015

  8. [16]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Humanistic HCI . inter- actions 23, 2 (Feb. 2016), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2888576

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    Baumer and M

    Eric P.S. Baumer and M. Six Silberman. 2011. When the Implication is Not to Design (Technology). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2271–2274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.197 9275

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    Laura Beckwith and Margaret M Burnett. 2004. Gender - An Im- portant Factor in End-User Programming Environments?.. In 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Compu t- ing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 107–114

    2004

  11. [20]

    Niko Besnier and Kalissa Alexeyeff. 2014. Gender on the Edge . Uni- versity of Hawaii Press

    2014

  12. [21]

    Saugata Bhaduri and Indrani Mukherjee. 2015. Transcultural Negoti- ations of Gender . Springer, New Delhi

    2015

  13. [22]

    Nicola J Bidwell. 2016. Decolonising HCI and interaction design dis- course. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 22, 4 (June 2016), 22–27

    2016

  14. [23]

    Wiebe E Bijker. 1997. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change . MIT press

    1997

  15. [24]

    Murray Bookchin. 1995. Social anarchism or lifestyle anarchism: an unbridgeable chasm. AK Press Edinburgh

    1995

  16. [25]

    Chiara Bottici. 2017. Bodies in plural: Towards an anarcha-fe minist manifesto. Thesis Eleven 142, 1 (Oct. 2017), 91–111

    2017

  17. [26]

    Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Invisible Mediators of Action: Classification and the Ubiquity of Standards. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7, 1-2 (May 2000), 147–163

    2000

  18. [27]

    Samantha Breslin and Bimlesh Wadhwa. 2014. Exploring Nuanced Gender Perspectives Within the HCI Community. In Proceedings of the India HCI 2014 Conference on Human Computer Interacti on (IndiaHCI ’14) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 45, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676...

    2014

  19. [28]

    Émilie Breton, Sandra Jeppesen, Anna Kruzynski, and Rachel Sar- rasin. 2012. Prefigurative self-governance and self-organization: th e influence of antiauthoritarian (pro) feminist, radical queer and an- tiracist networks in Quebec. Organize (2012), 156–173

    2012

  20. [29]

    Meredith Broussard. 2018. Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. MIT Press

    2018

  21. [30]

    Margaret Burnett, Robin Counts, Ronette Lawrence, and Hannah Hanson. 2017. Gender HCl and microsoft: Highlights from a lon- gitudinal study. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 139–143

    2017

  22. [31]

    Margaret Burnett, Anicia Peters, Charles Hill, and Noha Elarie f. 2016. Finding Gender-Inclusiveness Software Issues with GenderMag: A Field Investigation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 258...

    2016

  23. [32]

    Judith Butler. 2005. Giving an account of oneself . Oxford University Press

    2005

  24. [34]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design Justice, AI, and Escape from the Matrix of Domination. Journal of Design and Science (2018)

    2018

  25. [35]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design Justice: towards an inte rsec- tional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Design Research Society (March 2018), 1–14

    2018

  26. [36]

    Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler. 2018. Anatomy of an AI Syst em. Retrieved September 18, 2018 from https://anatomyof.ai/

    2018

  27. [37]

    Kimberle Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of rac e and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum (1989), 139

    1989

  28. [38]

    Roderic N. Crooks. 0. Times Thirty: Access, Maintenance, and Justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values 0, 0 (0), 0162243918783053. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439187 83053 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918783053

    doi

  29. [39]

    Jill Patrice Dimond. 2012. Feminist HCI for Real . Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology

    2012

  30. [40]

    Dimond, Michaelanne Dye, Daphne Larose, and Amy S

    Jill P. Dimond, Michaelanne Dye, Daphne Larose, and Amy S. Bruck- man. 2013. Hollaback!: The Role of Storytelling Online in a Social Movement Organization. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’13) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 477–490...

    2013

  31. [41]

    Paul Dourish. 2010. HCI and Environmental Sustainability: The Pol - itics of Design and the Design of Politics. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171. 1858173

    2010 doi

  32. [42]

    Mainwaring

    Paul Dourish and Scott D. Mainwaring. 2012. Ubicomp’s Colo- nial Impulse. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiqui- tous Computing (UbiComp ’12) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370238

    2012

  33. [43]

    Francis Dupuis-Déri. 2016. Is the State Part of the Matrix of D omina- tion and Intersectionality? An Anarchist Inquiry. Anarchist Studies 24, 1 (2016)

    2016

  34. [44]

    Sheena Erete, Aarti Israni, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2018. An Inter - sectional Approach to Designing in the Margins. Interactions 25, 3 (April 2018), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194349

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    Daniel Fallman. 2011. The New Good: Exploring the Potential of Philosophy of Technology to Contribute to Human-computer Inter- action. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1051–1060. https://doi.org/1...

    2011

  36. [46]

    Andrew Feenberg. 2010. Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity. MIT Press

    2010

  37. [47]

    Grand Visions

    Tom Feltwell, Shaun Lawson, Enrique Encinas, Conor Linehan, Ben Kirman, Deborah Maxwell, Tom Jenkins, and Stacey Kuznetsov. 2018. "Grand Visions" for Post-Capitalist Human-Computer Interaction. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Facto rs in Computing Sys...

    2018

  38. [48]

    Harald Fischer-Tiné. 2015. Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociol- ogy and Anti-Imperialism. Routledge

    2015

  39. [49]

    Eran Fisher. 2010. Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age . Springer, New York

    2010

  40. [50]

    Christiane Floyd, Wolf-Michael Mehl, Fanny-Michaela Reisin, Ger - hard Schmidt, and Gregor Wolf. 1989. Out of Scandinavia: Alter- native Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction 4, 4 (1989), 253–350

    1989

  41. [51]

    Sarah Fox and Christopher Le Dantec. 2014. Community Histo- rians: Scaffolding Community Engagement Through Culture and Heritage. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing In- teractive Systems (DIS ’14) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/259851...

    2014

  42. [52]

    Sarah Fox and Daniela K Rosner. 2016. Continuing the Dialogue: Bringing Research Accounts Back into the Field. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 1426–1430

    2016

  43. [53]

    Benjamin Franks, Nathan Jun, and Leonard Williams. 2018. Anar- chism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge

    2018

  44. [54]

    Lessie Jo Frazier. 2007. Salt in the Sand: Memory, Violence, and the Nation-state in Chile, 1890 to the Present . Duke University Press

    2007

  45. [55]

    Miranda Fricker. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press

    2007

  46. [56]

    Batya Friedman, David G Hendry, and Alan Borning. 2017. A Sur- vey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction 11, 2 (2017), 63–125

    2017

  47. [57]

    Batya Friedman, Peter H Kahn Jr, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods . Technical Report

    2002

  48. [58]

    Jane Gavin-Hebert. 2011. Plural Desires: Feminist Epistemology as Anarchist Praxis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Saint Mary’s University

    2011

  49. [59]

    Peter Gelderloos. 2018. Anarchy Works. The Anarchist Library

    2018

  50. [60]

    Juan Gentina and Fernando Acevedo. 2016. Copper Bioleaching in Chile. Minerals 6, 1 (March 2016), 23–9

    2016

  51. [61]

    Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, and Jo Freeman. 2012. Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader . AK Press

    2012

  52. [62]

    Alfredo Gómez-Muller. 2008. Anarquismo y anarcosindicalismo en América Latina. La Carreta Editores EU

    2008

  53. [63]

    Uri Gordon. 2009. Anarchism and the Politics of Technology. WorkingUSA 12, 3 (Sept. 2009), 489–503

    2009

  54. [64]

    David Graeber. 2013. The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a move- ment. Spiegel & Grau

    2013

  55. [65]

    Benjamin Greschbach, Gunnar Kreitz, and Sonja Buchegger. 2012 . The devil is in the metadata - New privacy challenges in Decen- tralised Online Social Networks. PerCom Workshops (2012), 333–339

    2012

  56. [66]

    Daniel Guerin and Mary Klopper. 1970. Anarchism. NYU Press

    1970

  57. [67]

    Ian Hacking. 1996. The looping effects of human kinds. In Causal Cognition. Oxford University Press, 351–383

    1996

  58. [68]

    David Hankerson, Jennifer A Rode, Andrea R Marshall, Jennifer Booker, Houda El Mimouni, and Imani Walker. 2016. Does Tech- nology Have Race?. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 473–486

    2016

  59. [69]

    Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Questio n in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist studies 14, 3 (1988), 575–599

    1988

  60. [70]

    Steve Harrison, Phoebe Sengers, and Deborah Tatar. 2011. Ma king epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor scienc e. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 385–392

    2011

  61. [71]

    Gillian R Hayes and Oliver L Haimson. 2015. Toward Trans Inclu- sion in Feminist HCI. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 8–11

    2015

  62. [72]

    Rose Erin Holyoak. 2015. Young Women’s Gendered Subjectivity and Agency in Social Movement Activism Thesis submitted for thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Rose Erin Holyoak BA (Derby), MA (Nottingham) Department of Sociology Univer sity of Lei...

    2015

  63. [73]

    Dongyoun Hwang. 2016. Anarchism in Korea: Independence, Transna- tionalism, and the Question of National Development, 1919- 1984. SUNY Press

    2016

  64. [74]

    Ivan Illich. 1968. To hell with good intentions. In Conference on Inter- American Student Projects

    1968

  65. [75]

    Anthony James Elliot Ince. 2010. Organising anarchy: spatial strat- egy prefiguration and the politics of everyday life . Ph.D. Dissertation. Queen Mary, University of London

    2010

  66. [76]

    Comité invisible. 2009. The coming insurrection. Semiotext

    2009

  67. [77]

    Design Thinking

    Lilly Irani. 2018. “Design Thinking”: Defending Silicon Valley at the Apex of Global Labor Hierarchies. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 4, 1 (May 2018), 1–19

    2018

  68. [78]

    Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebec ca E. Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Devel- opment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1311–1320. http...

    2010

  69. [79]

    Irani and M

    Lilly C. Irani and M. Six Silberman. 2016. Stories We Tell About Labor: Turkopticon and the Trouble with "Design". In Pro- ceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4573–4586. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858592

    2016

  70. [80]

    Sandra Jeppesen. 2010. Queer anarchist autonomous zones and publics: Direct action vomiting against homonormative con- sumerism. Sexualities 13, 4 (2010), 463–478

    2010

  71. [81]

    Theodore John Kaczynski. 1995. Industrial society and its future . Washington Post

    1995

  72. [82]

    Gopinaath Kannabiran. 2011. Themself: Critical Analysis of Gender in Facebook. CHI (2011), 1–6

    2011

  73. [83]

    Kim Kelly. 2018. Anarchy: What It Is and Why Pop Culture Loves It. Retrieved September 12, 2018 from https://www.teenvogue.com/story/anarchy-explained-what-it-is-why-pop-culture-loves-it

    2018

  74. [84]

    Os Keyes. 2018. The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Im- plications of Automatic Gender Recognition. Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 88 (Nov. 2018), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274357

    2018 doi

  75. [85]

    Terence Kissack. 2008. Free Comrades: Anarchism and Homosexuality in the United States, 0895-0907 . AK Press

    2008

  76. [86]

    Brian Larkin. 2013. The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology 42, 1 (Oct. 2013), 327–343

    2013

  77. [87]

    Jackie Lasky. 2011. Indigenism, anarchism, feminism: an emerging framework for exploring post-imperial futures. Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action (2011)

    2011

  78. [88]

    Bruno Latour. 1992. Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociolo gy of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Shaping Technology - Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change . MIT Press, 225–259

    1992

  79. [89]

    Jonathan Lazar, Julio Abascal, Simone Barbosa, Jeremy Bark sdale, Batya Friedman, Jens Grossklags, Jan Gulliksen, Jeff Johnson, Tom McEwan, Loïc Martínez-Normand, Wibke Michalk, Janice Tsai, Ger- rit van der Veer, Hans Axelson, Ake Walldius, Gill Whitney, Marco Winckler, Volker...

    2016

  80. [90]

    Ursula K Le Guin. 2015. The dispossessed. Hachette UK

    2015

  81. [91]

    Michiel Leezenberg. 2017. The ambiguities of democratic autono my: the Kurdish movement in Turkey and Rojava. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (Feb. 2017), 0–0

    2017

  82. [92]

    Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (Sept. 2011), 430–438

    2011

  83. [93]

    Ann Light, Alison Powell, and Irina Shklovski. 2017. Design for E x- istential Crisis in the Anthropocene Age. In ACM International Con- ference on Communities & Technology . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 270–279

    2017

  84. [94]

    Albert S Lindemann. 1984. A history of European socialism . Yale University Press

    1984

  85. [95]

    Conor Linehan and Ben Kirman. 2014. Never mind the bollocks, i wanna be anarCHI. In the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 741–748

    2014

  86. [96]

    Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic. 2008. Wobblies and Zapatistas. PM Press

    2008

  87. [97]

    David Lyon. 2003. Surveillance technology and surveillance soc iety. Modernity and technology (2003), 161–83

    2003

  88. [98]

    Astrid Mager. 2012. Algorithmic ideology: How capitalist soc iety shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (June 2012), 769–787

    2012

  89. [99]

    Peter Marshall. 2018. Demanding the Impossible: A History of An- archism. (Sept. 2018), 1–1169

    2018

  90. [100]

    Luiza Prado de O Martins. 2014. Privilege and oppression: Towar ds a feminist speculative design. Proceedings of DRS (2014), 980–990

    2014

  91. [101]

    Ashwin J Mathew. 2016. The myth of the decentralised internet . In- ternet Policy Review (Sept. 2016)

    2016

  92. [102]

    Sam Mbah and Chaz Bufe. 2014. African Anarchism. See Sharp Press

    2014

  93. [103]

    Paul McLaughlin. 2016. Anarchism and Authority. Routledge

    2016

  94. [105]

    Cindy Milstein. 2010. Anarchism and Its Aspirations. AK Press

    2010

  95. [106]

    F Musiani. 2014. Decentralised Internet governance: The case of a ’peer-to-peer cloud’. Internet Policy Review (2014)

    2014

  96. [107]

    Robert Nozick. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books

    1974

  97. [108]

    Oyèrónké. Oyěwùmí. 1997. The Invention of Women. U of Minnesota Press

    1997

  98. [109]

    Elena Parmiggiani and Helena Karasti. 2018. Surfacing the Arctic : Politics of Participation in Infrastructuring. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Work- shops and Tutorial - Volume 2 (PDC ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA,...

    2018

  99. [110]

    Joshua M Pearce. 2012. The case for open source appropr iate technol- ogy. Environment, Development and Sustainability 14, 3 (Jan. 2012), 425–431

    2012

  100. [111]

    Kavita Philip, Lilly Irani, and Paul Dourish. 2010. Postcolonial Com- puting. Science, Technology, & Human Values37, 1 (Nov. 2010), 3–29

    2010

  101. [112]

    Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton. 2016. Notes towards au- tonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography 30, 6 (July 2016), 730– 746

    2016

  102. [113]

    James Pierce. 2012. Undesigning Technology: Considering the Nega - tion of Design by Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 957–966. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208540

    2012

  103. [114]

    Mark Purcell. 2016. For democracy: Planning and publics witho ut the state. Planning Theory 15, 4 (Oct. 2016), 386–401

    2016

  104. [115]

    Mark Purcell. 2017. Our Own Power to Act. Planning Theory & Practice (Oct. 2017), 1–5

    2017

  105. [116]

    Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen. 2013. Changing Anarchism. Ox- ford University Press

    2013

  106. [117]

    Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. A Theoretical Agenda for Fem- inist HCI. Interact. Comput. 23, 5 (Sept. 2011), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005

    2011 doi

  107. [118]

    Yvonne Rogers. 2012. HCI Theory: Classical, Modern, and Cont em- porary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 5, 2 (2012), 1–129. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI 014 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014

    2012 doi

  108. [119]

    J Rogue and Abbey Volcano. 2012. Insurrection at the intersec - tions: Feminism, intersectionality, and anarchism. In Quiet rumors: An anarcha-feminist reader , Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson (Eds.). AK Press Oakland, CA, 43–46

    2012

  109. [120]

    Daniela K Rosner. 2018. Critical Fabulations: Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design . MIT Press

    2018

  110. [121]

    Arundhati Roy. 2003. War Talk. South End Press

    2003

  111. [122]

    Arjuna Sathiaseelan, Liang Wang, Andrius Aucinas, Gareth Tyson, and Jon Crowcroft. 2015. SCANDEX: Service Centric Network- ing for Challenged Decentralised Networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Do-it-yourself Networking: An Interdisci plinary Approach (DIYNetworking...

    2015

  112. [123]

    Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E

    Ari Schlesinger, W. Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 20 17. Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity Through Gender, Race, and Class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5412–5427. https://doi.o...

    2017

  113. [124]

    Michael Schmidt. 2009. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Cla ss Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counter-Power, Volume 1). (2009)

    2009

  114. [125]

    Michael Schmidt. 2013. Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism. AK Press

    2013

  115. [126]

    Deric Shannon. 2016. Intersectionality, ecology, food: Conflict the- ory’s missing lens. In Emergent Possibilities for Global Sustainability: Intersections of Race, Class and Gender . Routledge, 39–49

    2016

  116. [127]

    Grace Shaw, Margot Brereton, and Paul Roe. 2014. Mobile Phone Use in Australian Indigenous Communities: Future Path- ways for HCI4D. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer- Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Fut ure of Design (OzCHI ’14) . ACM, New ...

    2014

  117. [128]

    Shemaya. 189. Pirkei Avot. In Mishnah, Judah HaNasi (Ed.). Chap- ter 1

  118. [129]

    Katie Shilton. 2018. Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Inter ac- tion. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction 12, 2 (2018), 107–171

    2018

  119. [130]

    Bennett, and Jacob O

    Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L. Bennett, and Jacob O. Wobbrock

  120. [132]

    SIGCHI. 2018. SIGCHI Conferences Re- port. Retrieved September 19, 2018 from https://web.archive.org/web/20180920073001/’-’https: //sigchi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SIGCHI-Conferences-Report-for-Members-May-2018.pdf

    2018

  121. [133]

    SIGCHI. 2018. SIGCHI EC Values and Strategic Ini- tiatives. Retrieved September 18, 2018 from https://web.archive.org/web/20180919195610/’-’https: //sigchi.org/2018/09/sigchi-ec-values-and-strategic-initiative s/

    2018

  122. [134]

    Six Silberman, Lisa Nathan, Bran Knowles, Roy Bendor, Adrian Clear, Maria Håkansson, Tawanna Dillahunt, and Jennifer Mankoff

    M. Six Silberman, Lisa Nathan, Bran Knowles, Roy Bendor, Adrian Clear, Maria Håkansson, Tawanna Dillahunt, and Jennifer Mankoff

  123. [135]

    Else Skold and Frederik Larsen. 2018. Design for Profit or Pr osperity? Proceedings of DRS2018 (2018), 158

    2018

  124. [136]

    Thomas Smyth and Jill Dimond. 2014. Anti-oppressive Design. in- teractions 21, 6 (Oct. 2014), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2668969

    2014 doi

  125. [137]

    Fiona Ssozi-Mugarura, Thomas Reitmaier, Anja Venter, and Edwin Blake. 2016. Enough with ’In-The-Wild’. In Proceed- ings of the First African Conference on Human Computer In- teraction (AfriCHI’16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998581.2998601

    2016

  126. [138]

    Judith Suissa. 2018. Anarchism and Education: A philosophical p er- spective. (Sept. 2018), 1–252

    2018

  127. [139]

    Huatong Sun. 2013. Critical Design Sensibility in Postcolonial Con- ditions. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research 3, 0 (Oct. 2013)

    2013

  128. [140]

    Loren Terveen, Helena Mentis, Aaron Quigley, and Philippe Palanque. 2018. The evolution of SIGCHI conferences and the fu- ture of CHI. Interactions 25, 5 (Aug. 2018), 84–85

    2018

  129. [141]

    Siva Vaidhyanathan. 2012. The Googlization of Everything . Univer- sity of California Press

    2012

  130. [142]

    Lucien van der Walt. 2005. Towards a history of anarchist ant i- imperialism. Against the War and Terrorism (2005)

    2005

  131. [143]

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2011. Moralizing technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things . University of Chicago Press

    2011

  132. [144]

    Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilder- brand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. rom Gen- der Biases to Gender-Inclusive Design: An Empirical Investiga- tion. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing System...

    2019

  133. [145]

    Robert White. 2004. Post Colonial Anarchism: Essays on Race , Re- pression and Culture in Communities of Color, 1999–2004

    2004

  134. [146]

    Postneoliberal

    Richard J White and Colin C Williams. 2012. The Pervasive Natur e of Heterodox Economic Spaces at a Time of Neoliberal Crisis: Towards a “Postneoliberal” Anarchist Future. Antipode 44, 5 (July 2012), 1625– 1644

    2012

  135. [147]

    Matthew Wilson. 2014. Rules Without Rulers: The Possibilities and Limits of Anarchism. John Hunt Publishing

    2014

  136. [148]

    Langdon Winner. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109, 1 (1980), 121–136

    1980

  137. [149]

    Langdon Winner. 2010. The Whale and the Reactor . University of Chicago Press

    2010

  138. [150]

    Heike Winschiers-Theophilus and Nicola J Bidwell. 2013. Towar d an Afro-Centric Indigenous HCI Paradigm. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29, 4 (March 2013), 243–255

    2013

  139. [151]

    Robert Paul Wolff. 1970. In Defense of Anarchism. University of Cal- ifornia Press

    1970

  140. [152]

    International Workers of the World. 2018. Preamble, Con- stitution and General Bylaws of the International Work- ers of the World. Retrieved September 21, 2018 from https://web.archive.org/web/20180606234641/https://www.iww.org/PDF/Constitutions/CurrentIWWConstitution.pdf

    2018

  141. [2014]

    interactions 21, 5 (Sept

    Next Steps for Sustainable HCI. interactions 21, 5 (Sept. 2014), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/2651820

    2014 doi

  142. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Ac - cessibility (ASSETS ’16)

    How Designing for People With and Without Disabili- ties Shapes Student Design Thinking. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Ac - cessibility (ASSETS ’16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982158

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.