“How do artifacts become instruments of power? How do power relations materialize in artifacts?”
In this section, I will work through the theoretical background for this project. The theory used in this section is supplmeneted primarily by Wiebe E. Bijker's work "Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change." Bijker emphasizes the importance of understanding social relations via artifacts, and artifacts through social relations. He explains the concept of "obduracy" of an artifact, or the amount an artifact is resistant to change. He posits that artifacts that are accepted into a society have a higher obduracy than artifacts that are not accepted into a society. The concept of obduracy is very useful when working with Shule Ya Kujitambua.
First, we must define our terms.
The shule is an assemblage (grouping) of individual artifacts (ex. this artifact, or this one) We are using artifacts in the broadest of terms - these are pamphlets, songs, ideas, stories etc. These artifacts work together to form a technological frame (for example, this page explaining a series of artifacts that constitute the technological frame). A technological frame is when there is social interaction around an artifact (or grouping of artifacts). The presence of people talking about, attending to, or inciting controversy about the Shule means that it existed within a social structure. An example of the social interaction around the grouping of artifacts can be observed in many of the oral histories spotlighted throughout this work. Figure 1 expresses a generalized understanding of the artifact to technological frame theory.
We can observe the process of socio-technical change from multiple standpoints in the case of Shule Ya Kujitambua. It is important to recognize that this process of change was not linear. While the breakdown of stages makes the process appear linear, we must remember that this is only for academic purposes. This is the aim of including both broad, theoretical concepts (seen below) versus more personal, distinct, and complex pieces of this change (e.g. oral histories, individual artifacts)
Creating the technological frame
A technological frame is created through the process of socio-technical development. This process occurs when individual actors act within a socially constrained system. In the case of the shule, Kofi Lomotey is the actor who exerts agency by creating the shule within the socially constrained system. This constriant is the ways that education often failed African American students. This constraint is referenced in the earliest pages of the website. See: African-Centered Education
The 'working' technological frame
During the substantive years of the Shule, it 'worked.' Students were educated, teachers came into work, and songs were sung. Most importantly, children went back home having learned more than they had the previous evening. For these four years, the Shule was successful. The pieces (or assemblage of artifacts that operated in tandem constructed the Shule (or, the technological frame) and were prosperous. The obduracy of the technological frame seemed consistent. See: Shule Ya Kujitambua
The 'failing' technological frame
For years the Shule was resistant to change - it demonstrated a defiance to the complex racial power relations. But it did eventually close, does this mean it failed? See: School Closing
A note on success: material culture theory tends to focus on "successful machines", i.e. machines that complete the task at hand. Wiebe Bijker proposes that the working of a machine is not “an intrinsic property of the artifact” (or technology), rather the ability for the technology to work “should figure as a result of the machine’s success.” The state of ‘working’ is not a given, rather it is “an achievement.” In the stage of the failing machine we see the “transformative capacity” of power (263). Within this material culture theory, power is the talisman of social relationships. We observe that the power enacted by the ruling group (in this case White residents of Oberlin) was enough to close the school, and transform the state of our technological frame.
Once 1977 came around, the Shule stopped ‘working’ in the classic definition of the word because it stopped educating students. I propose through this website that the Shule continued to ‘work’ because it influenced its participants throughout their lifetimes.
A new technological frame?
Our technological frame had to be destroyed before it could be rebuilt. The actors (students who created Shule Ya Kesho) were able to draw on the working of the former machine (Shule Ya Kujitambua). They reassembled the artifacts into a new working technological frame that would better meet the needs of their time. See: Shule Ya Kesho
