Fiber Arts and Generative Justice
Sarah Kuhn
Reviewer A:
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
Tema interesante y poco comun. Intencion buena, pero me parece que falta un propuesta verdadera. En donde llegamos ? Al leer el articulo uno aprende sobre el mundo diverso de las fiber arts, pero el texto es mayoritariamente descriptivo/informativo. El enfoque simbólico podría ser mas explorado. La red de fiber arts tiene tal dimensión afectiva que una posibilidad también podría ser explorar el vínculo personal del autor con el campo de las fiber arts, incluir una mirada subjetiva asumida.
No hay noción de género incluída en el analísis.
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
-
Recommendation: Resubmit for review.
Reviewer B:
Reviewer B didn't want comments to be published.
Recommendation: Accept.
Reviewer C:
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
Overall this is a well-written, interesting paper and an appropriate topic for the special issue. However, there are some issues that the author and editors should address before moving forward with publication of the article.
One concern I have is partly an issue of organization: the paper’s abstract and initial case lead the reader to assume the article will mainly focus on the Navajo fiber arts, because this is the only empirical site referenced, but this is not the case. I would recommend rewriting the (currently very brief) introduction of the paper to include a road map of the paper and the sections that will follow, including how they support an original analysis.
This leads to a second concern: the paper does not currently exhibit a strong argument. The the introduction includes the statement, “Because the fiber arts are a culturally, ecologically, and historically ubiquitous human activity, they make a fascinating lens through which to examine issues of generative justice,” which is fine as far as it goes, but stops short of being an argument.
And this raises another question, for the editors: are the papers in the generative justice special issue supposed to contain original empirical contributions? The CFP refers to “theoretical foundations” and “body of research practice” that advance our understanding of GJ. So far this paper does not do either, and without empirical research, it seems like it should be more geared towards the theoretical side of things--which underscores that the paper has some ways to go analytically.
As it stands, the paper is descriptive and fairly celebratory of the fiber arts’ generative potential. It would be fine if this potential were substantiated to a greater degree, perhaps with a detailed case study, or if the paper were written to be more in dialogue with or convincingly pushing against readings of how fiber arts practices may be coopted within capitalism or consumerism. As it stands, though, the author makes a number of statements about the value of artifacts and their meanings that seem to romanticize fiber arts.
I also wonder whether the Navajo case and fiber arts e.g. knitting within other fiber arts networks/communities are more alike or more different. The case could probably be made either way, but some of these practices look a lot more like consumption and feminine care work.
Animal-human mutualism: think about Haraway or other post-humanist/feminist work? Currently seems a bit simplistic: whether and how animals benefit from human “care” is more troubled than the author’s representation, which also borders on essentializing nature and romanticizing indigenous ecologies (“sheep are part of the natural world,” p. 5).
Author may wish to check out the first half of Anita Chan’s recent book Networking Peripheries for some very thoughtful discussion of how traditional/artisanal crafts get introduced into global circulation, and the value extraction that results, as there seem to be parallels that would bolster and expand much of what the author is saying.
M’Closkey is in the text but not in list of works cited.
p. 7. Gender breakdown misses the opportunity to situate fiber arts within gender analysis. I realize this may not be a main point of the paper, but given that these are largely women’s and girls’ craft practices, it could be worth introducing more of a gender lens. It is also particularly problematic to make the uncommented-upon statement that “men are often leaders” in textile arts—this seems to uncritically reproduce hierarchy/gender status (thinking here of parallels to cooking or fashion, where the bulk of the mundane tasks are women’s work and uncelebrated, but the “geniuses” and celebrities are often men).
p. 10: I would suggest rewording “naturally occurring gendered making space” as this leads the reader to wonder whether the author is promoting a natural or naturalized system of gender.
13: “Fiber arts activities create artifacts AND relationships. By creating an artifact that has value in the making (calming, creativity, parallel play) and in the giving (use value, social bonding, the emotional and cultural meaning of the handmade) they partake of and create labor, environmental, and expressive value through mutualism and within a network of humans, animals, and organizations.” This is a stronger thesis statement. It should appear earlier and the concepts here might be useful to organize the paper.
13-14. Could the author also make reference to the critique that these political consumption practices can be co-opted to promote consumption, as in “greenwashing”?
p. 15-16. The author may wish to incorporate reference to Steve Jackson’s essay “Rethinking Repair” into the discussion of repair/mending (in Media Technologies, MIT 2014, eds. Gillespie, Boczkowski and Foot)
15: “When a fiber enthusiast wears a button that reads “Yes, I know I can buy socks for $2 at Wal-Mart!” it expresses not just a love of knitting but also a critique of cheap goods bought from international corporations.” This is a critique, yes, but again, to what degree is knitting one’s own socks just participating in consumption elsewhere in the commodity chain? What do we know about the wool being used? The author has convincingly shown that wool can come from more generatively just supply chains, for example, but not that it does more often than not, so how to move the needle here? Not to take an unduly dark view, but the piece would be strengthened by the author being in greater dialogue with how DIY/(DIO/DIT) is potentially reproducing or situated within consumer culture even as it critiques it. The mentions of Etsy, Facebook, and Instagram on p. 9 underscore this. I don’t know enough about how Ravelry operates, but I wonder about it too: how does it make money? What discourses does it circulate?
In other words, can the author give us more of a “potentials and limits” analysis/be less one-sided?
FN 1: “empowerment” is a thorny term/concept and I would caution the author to not wield it uncritically. See Chan, again, and Angela McRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism (Sage, 2009). This is not just an issue within the footnote but within the analysis more generally.
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
I would like to see this article developed further and included in the special issue if possible because I thought the site was generative for thought and the piece was well-written. I do however think the author needs another pass at what the main analytical points are, with appropriate guidance from the editors.
Recommendation: Resubmit for review..
The text included important modifications before publication
