Translated by Tanja Ohlsen

A review on the entangles futures of cyberfeminism and the Old Boys Network

“What is the old boys network?” “utopia—mistaken for reality”, answers Claudia Reiche. “An ongoing crisis; a big misunderstanding”, replies Cornelia Sollfrank. “An unstoppable dissolving structure”, says Helene von Oldenburg (von Oldenburg/Reiche 2002: 16). All three statements are from texts to the panel “net working, knot working, not working?”, which took place at the Very Cyberfeminist International 2001 in Hamburg. The Old Boys Network (OBN) was simultaneously utopia and reality, productive crisis and dissolving structure. It was a network founded as the “first international cyberfeminist organisation”, that spent four years with questioning itself.

Cyberfeminismus as Interface

When the OBN was founded in 1997 and invited people to the First Cyberfeminist International to Kassel, it denied to define itself. Instead 100 antitheses were collectively formulated: “Cyberfeminism is not an ism”, “Cyberfeminismus is not art”, “Cyberfeminism is not lady-like”. The term was to remain as open as possible, a “feminist user interface”, that allowed a wide range of applications (Draude 2000). Since the early 1990s, artistic experiments (VNS Matrix), theoretical interventions (Sadie Plant), and activist projects (subRosa) were brought together under this term in order to hack patriarchal codes with the help of technology. Donna Haraways cyborg figure—hyvrid, contradictionary, ironic—was a central reference point (Haraway 1985). Cyberfeminism was described as a practise that was concerned with “ideas, irony, appropriation and hands-on skilling up in the data-terrain” (Pierce 1997: 10). It was a field of experimentation which made feminism technologically engaged and through which technology could be read through a feminist lens.

OBN saw itself not primarily as a technical, but a social network. Its slogan was “The mode is the message—the code is the collective”, which pointed to the network’s attitude in respect to conditions of representation and production. I contrast to Marshall McLuhan’s motto “The medium is the message”, here the mode—the way of acting—is the message. Organisational functions and responsibilities were to be shared and they had no leader. Work was organised in autonomous project groups, which had to be communicated via a mailing list (von Oldenburg/Reiche 2002: 17). The stated goal was to develop various kinds of cyberfeminism, that could and should contradict one another in the name of the “principle of disagreement” (ibid.). This kind of fluid organisation form was oriented on the then new digital infrastructures like email lists, personal websites and curated search engines. The mailing list FACES, founded in 1997, enables (until today) self-organised connections across all continents. Email lists became tools of a living, non-hierarchical solidarity. The three cyberfeministic internationals were at the centre of this shared practise. The poster format of the Very Cyberfeminist International in 2001 demonstrates this structure in a radical way: in a large space 20 to 30 participants presented their answers to the question: “What is your vision of cyberfeminism?” with the help of a A2 poster and in a maximum of 10 minutes. It was a deliberate break with hierarchical conference formats (cf. von Oldenburg/Reiche 2002: 6).

Two contributions presented during this conference shall be an example for the concrete questions, cyberfeminists then dealt with—and the critiques which already at that time were being postulated. In an online discussion with Russian feminists, Andrea Hapke and Andrea Jana Korb reflected on the ambivalence of their position. They found themselves in the conflicting roles of being travellers and hosts at the same time. Did they create a hospitable space for others or did they enter one? (Hapke/Korb 2002: 70). Hospitality, a term, Irina Aristarkhova introduced, became a critical tool: what happens, when the host is not an owner? (Aristarkhova 2002: 120). Questions like this point to the material and symbolic conditions of digital encounters. Hospitality not only implies technical access, but the deliberate decision in favour of connection—in virtual as well as in physical spaces. The technical barriers were real: Cyrillic encoding in a web dominated by ASCII, different time zones, unequal access to computers. Hapke and Korb speak of the instability of cyberfeministic infrastructures—the website of the Cyberfemin Club St. Petersburg suddenly disappeared and with that, they lost the basis for their project. “Anchoring”—to ground, to visualise, to archive—became a political necessity. (Hapke/Korb 2002: 72).

Hapke and Korb describe how they had to defend themselves against the supposed incompatibility of so-called reality and virtuality (ibid.: 71). Both spheres are closely intertwined and confront us nowadays as a continuum. It claims to be seamless and immediate, yet the problems stated by Hapke and Korb still exist.

The question of the material conditions of digital practise was raised by TechnoTricksterTank in an even more self-critical way. The collective called for a reorientation of cybefeminism, directing its critique against an overemphasis on symbolic gestures: “Do you really think it helps to sublimate the fear of technosphere by doing your fancy website and endless PowerPoint animations?” (Bath et al. 2002: 64). Instead, they argued for transdisciplinary alliances and the not only subversive use of technologies, but to intervene in their production. There was more than to undermine “evil” technology in its use. They demanded: “Engage yourself in the construction and development of technology while being aware of mechanisms of in-/exclusions!” (ibid.: 65) Faith Wilding and her collective subRosa argued similarily, and claimed that cyberfeminism had to address the material consequences as well as the in-/exclusions of the human-machine interface, and that not only for highly skilled knowledge workers, but especially for feminised forms of digital labour (Wilding/subRosa 2002: 69). Thus, focus shifted from playful experiments with identity towards material analyses of working conditions in IT production, biotechnological instrumentalisation of bodies, and global feminist division of labour. These perspectives were introduced into the discourse by cyberfeminists and continue to shape—directly or indirectly—the discussion about who programmes and produces technologies and for whom. The question is no longer whether technology can be emancipatory, but under what conditions—and who has to pay the price. Current feminist critiques of technology ask: whose labour is being exploited by AI? Whose bodies are being captured in biometric databases? Whose work becomes (in)visible through interface? Those questions were already asked in 2001, however, in the context of platform capitalism and generative AI they gain new importance.

Not-working: From Cyberspace to Platform Critique

Officially, OBN has never been dissolved, but it ceased to function. Many participants wished for more political aims and common demands from OBN. This, however, was in disagreement with the “principle of disagreement”, which practically dictated a refusal to unite and speak with one voice. Later, Cornelia Sollfrank described another incompatibility. The informal ways of working could not be united with the economies of the art world, the activism or the academy, which are based on authorship, attribution and valorisation (Sollfrank 2018: 112). The wish not to have a fixed structure, collided with the requirements of those very fields in which the network operated. This text tries to tell a possible story of something that resisted to be told.

When asked about the future of the OBN, its participants answered in 2001: “utopia, waiting” (Reiche), “to be historical?” (Sollfrank), “a myth referring to an X—with 1001 possibilities to be told” (von Oldenburg) (von Oldenburg/Reiche 2002: 16). Those answers anticipated the impending end. Thus, the network became a kind of myth, an open narrative. The history of the OBN has up to now not really systematically been documented. It refuses to adapt to classical archival logics, because it is based on evasive practises: on collective working methods, situational alliances, ironic gestures, or email threads. While there are images of early cyberfeminists—often depoliticised and aestheticised—the processes, conflicts and contradictions remain invisible. The digital sphere exacerbates the problem: websites disappear, servers are shut down, mailing-list archives are lost. Knowledge is being privatised, connections monetised and commons fragmented.

Knot-working: weaving solidarity

The title of this essay, knot-working against not-working networks, refers to the panel of 2001. It describes a practise of resistant entangling against those networks that may function technically, but are not useful for emancipatory purposes. Today’s platforms are based on surveillance, data extraction and fragmentation—they are not-working networks.

Knot-working, in contrast, means organising in an entangled, unstructured way. It is not a quantifiable network, but a network that resists classical control. According to Helene von Oldenburg’s “experimental spider science”, knot-working is an arachnoid method, weaving threads, connecting loose ends and sees the net as an activity (von Oldenburg 1997). Historicising, too, can be a practise of knot-working. It is less about preservation than about sustaining and to transfer practises, about reconnecting with only half realised futures, about the reactivation of lost seeds of possibilities. Mindy Seu’s Cyberfeminist Index 1990–2020 shows that cyberfeminist practises emerged worldwide—including in places where the term itself was never explicitly used. Hackfeministas in Mexico, queer-feminist tech collectives in East Asia, Black cyberfeminism and decolonial network practises complicate a genealogy that had long been centred on Europe, the United States and Australia.

What remains? Alternatives to dominant net logistics are still existing. At the same time, the conditions for collective organisation have undergone fundamental changes. The early internet promised decentral, self-organised structures, while today a few corporations dominate the digital infrastructure. Email lists like FACES do still exist, however, their role as tool for non-hierarchic solidarity has become precarious.

New forms of collective organisations like Mastodon instance, the Fediverse, mesh networks, pads and encrypted messengers present themselves as alternatives. However, these spaces, too, are under attack, they depend on unpaid labour and remain often invisible to those who are not yet connected. Collective organisation is possible, though fragile. Technologies are not neutral, but malleable. Feminism and technology are not separate fields; they mutually shape one another. Initiatives like Algorithmic Justice League, Feminist AI Projects or decolonial tech collectives work at this intersection. The question of Hospitality comes up continually when moderating digital spaces, while the “principle of disagreement” becomes relevant in disputes about cancel culture. Today, the influence of cyberfeminism becomes visible more in a shift in attitude than in explicit references. Technology is not seen as emancipatory, but as a terrain of ongoing negotiation.

In times of algorithmic control and privatised infrastructures it is necessary to gather together in solidary entanglements. Knot-working is not a solution; it is a practise. The careful interweaving of resistant threads—against forgetting, against isolation, against the functional, but not functioning networks of the present.

Malin Kuht works as an artist and mediator. They studied political science, art education, and visual communication at the Universität/Kunsthochschule Kassel. Against the backdrop of a present shaped by digital infrastructures, their work repeatedly returns to the origins of digital cultures and their legacies, seeking emancipatory and queer-feminist approaches to technologies and archives.

Malin Kuht’s work has been shown, among other venues, at Kunstraum Dock 20 in Lustenau, at the Hamburg Short Film Festival, and at Kassel Dokfest. From 2023 to 2025, they taught on the MA programme in Art Education at HFBK Hamburg, is a founding member of the association para-education, and is currently realising the “reference library on Public Art in Hamburg and beyond”. In 2025, they participated in the Goldrausch Künstlerinnenprojekt, Berlin.

malinkuht.com

References

Aristarkhova, I. (2002). Hosting the other. In H. von Oldenburg & C. Reiche (Eds.), Very cyberfeminist international (pp. 120–127). Berlin: b_books.

Bath, C., Peter, U., Draude, C., Weber, J., & Gössner, A. (2002). TechnoTricksterTank4Today. In H. von Oldenburg & C. Reiche (Eds.), Very cyberfeminist international (pp. 64–65). Berlin: b_books.

Draude, C. (2000). Introducing cyberfeminism. https://obn.org/obn/reading_room/writings/html/intro.html

Hapke, A., & Korb, A. J. (2002). Travelling hostesses in cyberfemspace. In H. von Oldenburg & C. Reiche (Eds.), Very cyberfeminist international (pp. 70–73). Berlin: b_books.

Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, 65–108.

Oldenburg, H. von. (1997). Feministische Aspekte der experimentellen Spinnenkunde. https://obn.org/obn/reading_room/writings/html/spinnenkunde.html

Oldenburg, H. von, & Reiche, C. (Eds.). (2002). Very cyberfeminist international. Berlin: b_books. https://obn.org/obn/obn_pro/downloads/reader3.pdf

Seu, M. (2022). Cyberfeminism index. London: Inventory Press.

Sollfrank, C. (2018). Die schönen Kriegerinnen: Technofeministische Praxis im Netz. Vienna: Transversal Texts.

Wilding, F., & subRosa. (2002). Strategies and tactics for feminist/cyberfeminist collaborations. In H. von Oldenburg & C. Reiche (Eds.), Very cyberfeminist international (pp. 66–69). Berlin: b_books.