Introduction

The "brute matter" and “brute facts" of Colonial Science are not givens: they are made by Colonial Science via processes of "brutalization”. 

Colonizers submit beings to scientific study because they intend to brutalize them -- that is, to make efficient use of force as they disintegrate us, break us down into bits, transform us into perversely pleasurable and profitable datum for collection, correction, consumption, and deletion.

It is only when beings resist brutalization in remarkable ways that Colonial Science calls in the specialists in complexity, chaos, indeterminacy, and noise  as reinforcements, for the purposes of risk management and damage control. Colonial Science then endeavors to marginalize those beings that are remarkable for resisting brutalization, writing them off as special cases, as cases for specialized know-how, and rendering them inaccessible to the global majority.

Committed to the unsettling and humbling of Colonial Science,  the (de-/re-)creative practices that I term the  “Black Arts and Decolonial Sciences” are  intent upon (i) deconstructing the colonial practices of brutalization and specialization that have entrenched themselves in the modern techno-scientific imagination, and (ii) (re-)constructing “other-whys” that enable scientists and technologists to approach beings otherwise than brutalizing and specializing them.

The Indeterminacy of Reality

Do all problems of measurement really revolve around the “resolving power” of our measuring instruments and our data processing tools? Or, in other words, can all problems of measurement really be solved by fashioning instruments capable of more precise measurements and by developing data processing tools that record, sort, filter, and match measurements with greater accuracy? Is the imperative really to feed more precise data into our machines and models in order to more accurately predict favorable and unfavorable outcomes?

Alternatively, what if problems of measurement do not revolve around the resolving power of our measuring instruments and data processing tools but, instead, revolve around the “indeterminacy” of the realities that we intend to measure? What if the decisions we make— regarding what to measure, when and where to measure, how precisely and accurately to measure—are themselves responsible for prematurely or belatedly resolving outcomes favorable or unfavorable ways?

At their core, measurement challenges reveal a deeper truth: no truly objective measures are possible when incomplete formal systems (Gödel) and their undecidable problems (Turing) intersect with indeterminate material realities (Heisenberg) and their complementary properties (Bohr). These intersections, far from rare, occur daily. They can be navigated effectively through community-specific and site-specific practices—attuned to the complexities of local contexts—rather than by relying solely on standardized, universal systems.

The Proof is in the Practice, Not the Measure

Consider the act of learning to make pudding with your grandmother. No standardized measurements are required; instead, you intuitively absorb the relative proportions of ingredients through sensory experience—listening to the faucet, feeling the weight of water in the pan, or tasting and adjusting as needed. This lived, embodied knowledge is irreducible to recipes based on standardized metrics.

If you were to write a cookbook to share her recipes with the world, you might adopt standardized measures like “3 ½ cups of water” for accessibility. Yet even in the most rigorous recipe books, non-standard instructions persist: “simmer until translucent,” “salt to taste,” or “use the whites of three large eggs.” These phrases point to the contextual, fluid nature of real-world practices that standardized measures can only partially capture.

The widespread adoption of standard measures—such as the 8-fluid-ounce cup—is no historical accident. It reflects significant social processes, often driven by systems of domination. When standards emerge from such systems, their prevalence signals harm inflicted as much as utility achieved.

The Cup as a Measure of Possibility

Imagine dipping a cup into a flowing river. This act provides a measure of water—a portion that can be stored, accounted for, exchanged, deferred, or spilled. These five functions of the cup as a measure reflect the broader dynamics of measurement:

• Store: The cup temporarily contains water, making it accessible.

• Account: It provides a shared unit—one cup, half a cup—for quantification.

• Exchange: Its contents can serve as an exchangeable value.

• Defer: It enables deferred exchange, ensuring reciprocity over time.

• Dissipate: In its inability to fully contain, the cup spills and drips, nurturing life along its path.

Every measure operates similarly, attempting to contain while inevitably dissipating. These dynamics remind us that measures are not totalizing or neutral; they are entangled with the flows and contexts from which they arise.

Applications in BADS_lab

These conceptual frameworks inform the ongoing projects of BADS_lab (Black Arts and Decolonial Sciences), which interrogate and reimagine measures across various domains:

• Time: Clocks and calendars as measures of temporality.

• Value: Money as a measure of socio-economic exchange.

• Impact: Sustainability metrics as measures of ecological harm.

• Learning: Grades as measures of education and capability.

• Democracy: Polls and population statistics as measures of representation and governance.

By critically engaging these measures, BADS_lab aims to dismantle the colonial logics embedded within them and envision new paradigms that respect the complexities of lived realities.

Decolonizing Measures

Transparency, Privacy, and Opacity as Social Rites

Colonial Science’s measures, rooted in systems of brutalization and control, have long operated to extract, encrypt, and obscure information in service of domination. From plantation ledgers to modern algorithms, these measures reduce beings to signals, strip away context, and suppress complexity, perpetuating hierarchies of exploitation. To dismantle these legacies and reimagine how we engage with the act of measuring, we must not only deconstruct inherited systems but also enact social rites that generate new modes of transparency, privacy, and opacity. Unlike abstract rights, which are often framed as universal and static entitlements, rites are lived, situated practices—embodied and performed within specific communities, attuned to their contexts and relationships. These rites cultivate relational practices, embedding measurement within the flows of communal life.

The Rites of Transparency

A rite of transparency involves making recipes—algorithms and measures (to be) taken—explicit. Within this practice, processes of signal extraction are rendered discernible and accessible to the communities affected by them. Unlike the abstract right to transparency, which may remain detached from material conditions, this rite is enacted through collective engagement: exposing methodologies, sharing tools, and making the operations of power visible. By performing transparency, communities create shared spaces to navigate and challenge the systems shaping their realities, fostering collective accountability.

The Rites of Privacy

A rite of privacy emphasizes the selective encryption and protection of signals. While the abstract right to privacy may focus on legal protections or individual freedoms, this rite is a relational practice that establishes boundaries to safeguard communal dignity and autonomy. By carefully monitoring access to measures and privileging knowledge within trusted circles, a rite of privacy resists exploitation and overexposure. It is not just about withholding information but about nurturing spaces of trust and care, ensuring that the vulnerabilities inherent in measurement are respected and preserved.

The Rites of Opacity

A rite of opacity asserts the importance of ambiguity and indeterminacy, providing a counterbalance to transparency and privacy. Abstract rights often frame opacity as a passive refusal to participate or reveal, but as a social rite, opacity is an active and generative practice. It involves introducing noise to resist reduction, creating space for misinterpretation, reinterpretation, and the refusal to be fully measured or categorized. By maintaining what cannot or should not be fully articulated, opacity disrupts the totalizing impulses of measurement, defending the complexity of life.

Distinguishing Rites from Rights

Where rights often invoke claims to legal or ethical universality, rites are situated, adaptive, and performative—rooted in specific social practices and relationships. Rights are declarations; rites are enactments. Rights demand recognition within broader systems; rites cultivate alternative modes of being within and against those systems. In the context of measurement, the shift from rights to rites emphasizes the necessity of embedding transparency, privacy, and opacity within the lived practices of communities, making these principles not just ideals but integral parts of daily life.

Toward Contextual and Relational Measures

By engaging these rites, we reorient measurement away from colonial logics of extraction and domination, transforming it into a practice of care, complexity, and relational accountability. The rite of transparency fosters shared understanding and open engagement. The rite of privacy safeguards individuals and communities from overexposure and exploitation. The rite of opacity defends the irreducible and unknowable dimensions of life. Together, these rites honor the flows, entanglements, and specificities of the worlds they measure, crafting spaces for resistance, reimagination, and collective flourishing.

BADS_lab and Prototyping Rites of Measurement

At BADS_lab, we are prototyping these rites of measurement—exploring how transparency, privacy, and opacity might reshape the ways we engage with critical domains such as time (clocks and calendars), value (money), ecological impact (sustainability metrics), learning (grades), and governance (polls and statistics). Through iterative experiments and collaborative inquiry, we are developing frameworks that center relational accountability, complexity, and care.

Rather than enacting finalized practices, we treat these prototypes as evolving models—provocations that invite communities to imagine and co-create alternative approaches to measurement.