Abstract
Hackerspaces: Making the Maker Movement is primarily a study of emergent US maker culture. It is based on a series of more than 30 interviews, undertaken in 2012 during visits to 12 ‘hackerspaces’ located ‘in four regions across the US … Phoenix, Arizona; the Bay Area in California; Boston; and New York’ (Davies, 2017: 41). The book puts forward a vivid and compelling account of the transformative experiences, and deep connection to a shared ethos, that participants reported, particularly emphasizing the importance of belonging to a like-minded community. Davies places this central concern with community in the context of key texts and current thinking from leading sociologists. These include the decline in ‘social capital’ reported by Puttnam (2001), Stebbins’ (2009) concept of meaningful ‘serious leisure’ and Gauntlett’s (2011) account of the way in which ‘doing and making things’ for ourselves restores a creative, collaborative and active engagement with the world.
In titling the book Hackerspaces Making the Maker Movement, Davies narrows the focus of her readers’ expectations, away from this broader concern with the meaning of making in modern society, and towards an expectation that ‘hackerspaces’ are a readily definable or homogeneous category. By the end of the introduction, we are told that ‘hackerspace’ is intended as an inclusive ‘catch-all for the labs, spaces, places and playgrounds that support hacking and making’ (Davies, 2017: 13), yet there continues to be an interesting, but at times, distracting concern throughout the narrative with the complexities of the terminology of ‘hacking’ and ‘hackerspaces’. We learn about the etymology of hacking, the history of hacking, the relationship of hackerspaces to computer hacking and the views of ‘authentic’ hackers on the misappropriation of hacking terminology – for exmaple ‘food-hacking’. Yet, Davies (2017) reports that for most participants it was unimportant whether ‘hacker’, ‘maker’ or some other label is used: ‘Like many others we spoke to he doesn’t distinguish between hacking and making: it’s all the same’ (p. 62).
The discussion of the provenance of hacking does serve as a useful context for Chapter 5: The Hacker Spirit. Here, Davies uses her interviews to best effect. Detailed analysis and convincing argument explore the characteristics of a shared ethos. She reports on interviewees curiosity about how things work, personal satisfaction at making things that suit the individual, a vibrant and voluntary creative spirit of cross-fertilisation and experiential learning by doing. Above all, the hacker spirit placed an emphasis on knowledge exchange and making connections within a community ‘with a shared sense of purpose and identity’ (Davies, 2017: 70).
She provides interesting insights into how these communities value action over discussion – how a ‘do-ocracy’ operates, and the premium placed on pragmatism and a spirit of experimentation and freedom: ‘As we were told: don’t ask, just do. Done is better than good’ (Davies, 2017: 64). Davies (2017) concludes that ‘Contrary to talk focusing on “bits to atoms” or “transformative tools,” it’s not about accessing new technology, but relationships’ (p. 84).
In placing community absolutely at the heart of the hackerspace culture and experience, Davies (2017) explains that ‘community wasn’t experienced unproblematically’ (p. 85). She is forthright in confronting the difficult issues around the creation of grass-roots communities, particularly with regard to governance and exclusion. She relates how one founder explained, ‘he and other founders had, he told us, “forced people to be grassroots.” They had been clear that the space only got what its members really wanted, when they wanted it enough to act to make it happen’ (Davies, 2017: 86). Davies tackles the under-representation of some groups within hackerspaces with clarity and comprehensiveness, explaining exactly why, for example, it is not good enough to suggest that if women were not present, it was because they were not interested. She explains how a dominant culture can exclude and devotes considerable space to examining the case for, and two examples of, hackerspaces that seek to specifically support women and/or minorities (Davies, 2017: 101).
In the end, Davies (2017) believes that ‘hackers and makers were convinced that this way of life is a social good: that it helps individuals to better themselves, provides both pleasure and useful skills, and ultimately frees you to take control of your life’ (p. 172). But she questions whether this will lead to any broader social impact, saying that ‘this concern for social good largely stops at the door of the hackerspace’ (Davies, 2017: 172) and reports that politics was generally kept outside, with spaces seeing themselves as ‘counter-cultural’ but politically neutral.
Her suspicion is that this emphasis on personal agency and hackers as ‘self-reliant proactive agents in a complex, choice-filled world’ (Davies, 2017: 166) suits a prevailing neoliberal dynamic which preferences ‘individual change over collective action; an emphasis on the responsibility of individuals with no appreciation of wider circumstance’ (Davies, 2017: 167). Davies sees this as part of a trend towards the increasing expectation that we are personally responsible as citizens and consumers for every aspect of our lives.
These are seen as communities that function to restore social capital to digital natives who can identify with the counter-cultural vibrancy and take pleasure in developing the hacker spirit in themselves and others. Another vision of the maker movement Davies (2017) acknowledges (and sets up somewhat in opposition) is as a vehicle for entrepreneurial start-up business and commercial ventures, clearly explaining the attraction of this narrative for Government and other commentators and asking whether ‘hacking can simultaneously be subversively counter-cultural and a profitable business opportunity’ (p. 170).
In conclusion, this is an interesting and well-written study of emergent maker culture in the United States and is brave enough to raise awkward questions. It is, as Davies acknowledges, situated in time and place, focussing in the main, on a group of strongly community orientated, close knit spaces. It identifies their defining feature as community and points to the members’ motivations as bound up with restoring social capital. It raises important and interesting questions about why ‘hacker’ culture is a good fit with the prevailing zeitgeist and whether, ultimately, the maker movement has any broader social impact benefits to offer.