Collecting OtherwiseCollecting Otherwise

How do we rebuild and empower communities through the networks we create and inhabit? And how do we reconstruct caring in networks as a pre-digital, nurturing, feminist practice? The archive of the pioneering women’s architecture collective Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen offers some clues.

Reality is networked. In the midst of nodes, algorithms and platforms, it seems more useful to think of ourselves as being networked, rather than actively networking. Networking, a practice that predates digital technologies and is mostly rooted in collaboration and empowerment, now seems to be mainly moderated by artificial intelligence, with its biases that consolidate hierarchies of power and presence. We find ourselves maintaining a network that is difficult to name, understand and care for. So how do we go rebuild and empower communities and the networks we create and inhabit? How do we reconstruct ‘caring’ in the process of networking as a pre-digital, nurturing, feminist practice?

We urgently need to put the practice of regenerating networks at the centre of our rethinking of (net-)working, and to build on existing digital solidarity. Fostering digital solidarity networks means caring, relying on non-extractivist models based on horizontal approaches and emphasising stewardship. In this way, it becomes possible to nurture and collaborate in a network of our own. Like collecting otherwise, ‘doing otherwise’ can then be understood as a practice that focuses on marginal, previously overlooked angles for retelling the past, and building the present.

Queering networks in this way reveals other stories and the many nodes and networks that make up our digital landscapes. The Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen network was one of many that not only built like-minded communities and strategically increased women’s influence in the construction and architecture industries, but is now able to tell a different, her/they story of digital solidarity, by offering other narratives of how we can still reimagine caring networks.

The Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen network was founded by a group of women who, inspired by the feminist movements of the time, wanted to focus on the relationship between patriarchal oppression and the built environment. Despite this focus, it still involved several different disciplines: the first national conference registered the presence of researchers, sociologists, designers, architects and engineers (Tussentijdse Krant 1, 1984). Their aim was not only to push for further action to recognise the oppression of women and other marginalised voices in the domestic environment, but also to increase women’s influence in the male-dominated fields of architecture and construction. The network flourished following its first national conference, on 26 November 1983, after which women were able stay in touch and form their own sub-groups and networks in particular regions or on specific themes.

When attending the conference, participants were mainly concerned with maintaining and belonging to specific networks: networking was a way to avoid working in isolation and to increase women’s influence in their various fields of activity. In the Tussentijdse Krant, a publication circulated in between the conferences, Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen defines networks as “flexible, non-hierarchical forms of organisation.” The members found their strength in the exchange of information, contacts and practical support, while sharing common goals, ideologies, and methods of creating collective knowledge. Within the network, smaller working groups were formed and operated independently, although the conferences brought everyone together to share results.

In an interview for Bulletin, a publication initiated by VBW Amsterdam, Ied Guinée is asked to define networking. Describing the “true networker” and exploring the value of networking, Guinée likens a network to a fishing net: there are all kinds of knots, with all kinds of lines running through them. You can find yourself in one of these knots, receiving and contributing information, deciding where, when and what to participate in. The network is dynamic, evolving as interests and issues change (Bulletin 1, 1986). In addition to the practical, strategic roles of networking as described above, these connections also produce models for future feminist politics. To use them, we need to ask: what does it mean to be a ‘knot’ in a non-digital network, and how does information flow through the ‘net’?

“The real networker always has her card catalogues ready to distribute her contacts,” says Guinée. On the surface, these feelings of speed, immediacy and readiness seem similar to the urgency of LinkedIn notifications or social media pings; but they were mainly rooted in the sense of responsibility that came with such horizontal networking. Everyone had to do the work in order to move the whole group forward. Guinée goes on to say that “it’s not enough to be in the card catalogue”; you have to be present and proactive.

Caring for the network meant giving it a central role in professional life, but also making network members feel cared for. Between regional sub-group meetings, national conferences and the distribution of publications, there was no sense of competition or differentiation, but rather of strengthening each other’s practices in order to achieve a common goal. The creation of a generative, ongoing network allowed the constant exhange of addresses and experiences in a kind of analogue mailing list. Recommendations, suggestions and simple ‘hellos’ appear not only in letters written from members to members, but also to global and international networks. Without a digital, fast-moving network, women around the world were actively practising a solidarity that can inspire contemporary digital solidarity, now and otherwise.

So how does researching case studies and networked practices like these affect our own processes of moving forward with an archive that honours thoughtful and caring networks like those of Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen? How do we translate the care that goes into writing a letter, or compiling a handmade address list, into the seemingly cold, incessant clacking of the keyboard, or the pinging of notifications?

For one thing, Collecting Otherwise continues practices like the newsletter, to foster a research community and keep members informed between public gatherings, just as Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen’s publications followed up on national gatherings.

Newsletters, both printed and digital, embody networked solidarity. Such home-grown communication tools are key in feminist communities. Members can use them to build and maintain community. Newsletters can become more than just tools; they can become a resource for mobilising the community. They have played a key role in shaping the politics, goals and meaning of their communities. Newsletters transcend the dynamics of publication, as they represent ‘discursive communication practices’ in a generative and generous shaping of new contexts and networks.

Etherpad is one of the ways in which we can write otherwise: the network is international and interdisciplinary, and the multivocality – the presence of many voices – makes for a collective writing process that does not erase opinions, but enhances particularities to strengthen collaborations. It’s queering by exposing nodes, infrastructures, and different histories. Vrouwen Bouwen Wonen’s archive shows how networking as a feminist practice can reveal and make accessible such organising structures. We can learn from these and continue the work of maintaining a caring network.