Posts Tagged ‘Haraway’

Horizon, Haraway and artifacts of knowledge

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

I have just been watching ‘Horizon – How long is a piece of string?’ on BBC2. The concept of the programme was simply to explain quantum mechanics to the layman; a tall order! However, using the construct of an ordinary man in the shape of Alan Davies to act as our representative interrogating the experts, it allowed the possessors of the knowledge to pass it down in manageable chunks to me as the viewer. Now I have read a little about quantum theory and the notion of Schrödinger’s cat, but I have never seen it so beautifully explained!

This reminded me of a comment that I read yesterday in Arthur Hall’s blog referencing digital artifacts:

“I think the ‘artifacts’ we are producing only become cultural artifacts when they are accepted and widely used or quoted. This would mean that Haraway’s manifesto, for the reasons given – oft cited etc., is a cultural artifact” Arthur Hall blog: Culture, cultural artefacts and transition posted 16th November.

So here we have what I am sure will become a cultural artifact under Arther’s definition, because it would have been widely viewed and widely commented on in the future. So it is an artifact of culture, and more so an artifact of knowledge because it performs the function of imparting knowledge into a wider audience. This has also brought into sharp focus my experience this past week with the work of Haraway. Haraway is undeniably a cultural artifact in the sense of being widely accepted and quoted. But is it also a knowledge artifact? I would say that a piece of academic writing could not be described as a knowledge artifact if the knowledge that it contains has to be ‘deciphered’ by other academics before it can be fully understood and more widely consumed by knowledge ’seekers’.  If the work can only be understood by a few, it surely does not have the wider appeal to define it as an artifact of knowledge. The academics who ‘translate’ the work of Haraway do not necessarily carry the same kudos as the name of Haraway, but their work does more to foster the knowledge of what Haraway is trying to impart. In my opinion, they have more right to the truer description of ‘producers of artifacts of knowledge’ than the work of Haraway.

Do cyborgs resist the structure of sex/gender as Haraway claims?

Monday, November 16th, 2009

This is a question that was posed at the beginning of last week and has been playing on my mind since then. Haraway states that:

“The cyborg is a creature in a post-gender world” Cyborg Manifesto pg 35

This suggests that the cyborg is gender free, and indeed this seems to be a theme running though the Cyborg Manifesto. But lets take a step back and think about this for a while. Could this be true? In pondering this we must consider the following:

  1. What is the cyborg ‘for’?
  2. Who creates the cyborg?
  3. What sources does the ‘creator’ have to draw upon?

When Haraway was writing her manifesto, much of the research and funding into cybernetics was coming from the military. However, since the end of the Cold War, and changes to the type of technology we expect to use (communication and connectivity rather that guns), the ‘use’ of the cyborg has moved from military to entertainment. This will surely have an impact on the structure and design of the cyborg.

Who creates the cyborg must surely have an impact on the type of cyborg that will be the result. As Haraway states, the cyborg will be born from:

“the tradition of racist, male dominated capitalism” Cyborg Manifesto pg 35

So these are the people who we can expect to create our cyborgs, and where do you think they will get their design imagery from. I am suggesting that a major source would be science fiction. Our cyborgs will look like ‘Seven of nine’ because that is what a cyborg is supposed to look like. Bjork’s video for ‘All is full of love’ (helpfully supplied by Damien Debarra on Twitter this week) is a case in point. These ‘fembot’ images are highly sexually charged, and have a power to inspire.

So if cyborgs are to be created by Haraways male’s of ‘dubious intent’, I would have to say that they will of course become sexualised, so you can rest assured that they will not look like Olive from ‘on the buses’!

Olive from On The Buses

Olive from On The Buses

Week 8 lifestream commentary: Haraway, Feminism and the war on boys

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

Most of my time this week has been taken up trying to fathom the work of Haraway thought the aid of YouTube and various commentators (plus a dictionary or two). It was one of those occassions where I really missed face to face interaction with my collegues or my tutors so that someone could explain her work to me. However, with some external Internet sources and some helpful comments from Sian and assorted co-studiers through Twitter, I think that I finally got my head around it. It is times like these when the lifestream becomes such a useful resource because it has enabled me to track these sources as I find them, to be revisited at my leisure. Other people’s lifestreams can also prove to be a mine of useful links. I am considering continuing my use of the lifestream beyond the scope of this course onto my future modules.

Cyborgs and feminism

The basic premise is that cyborgs are sexless, colourless and free of prejudice. Therefore they allow us to imagine a ‘Star Trek’ like world where there are no constraints on who you can become. Nice idea and and interesting way of playing around with gender politics. Haraway seems to think that the age of the cyborg will be liberating for women, but it made me wonder if it would also be liberating for men too.

I have 2 brothers and a partner and they lament the fact that they often feel marginalised as men, because there is very little that modern women cannot do on their own (even the obvious area of reproduction doesn’t necessarily require a man to be physically present).

They argue that everything that had been associated with being male is being undermined in the name of feminism. Some men are derided for being too “macho” and are called “male chauvinist pigs” if they have old fashioned manners and hold a door open for a woman.

This can leave young boys with their own gender confusions over what it ‘means’ to be a man.

This led me to read two interesting pieces:

The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers and

Feminism Shames Young Boys by Pelle Billing March 18th 2009

Both of these articles lament the long term effect that denigrating men will have on future generations of young boys. If we do indeed look forward to a cyborg generation, it may not just be the girls who will benefit from a brave new genderless world.

defining the term ‘cyborg’

Friday, November 13th, 2009

I have been collecting definitions of cyborgs to see if I can get a handle on the concept at the very basic level of ‘what exactly is a cyborg?’

The orginal term ‘cybog’ is widely accredited to Manfred E Clynes & Nathan S Kline  in a paper regarding how a man may exist in space.

“What are some of the devices necessary for creating self-regulating manmachine systems? This self-regulation must function  without the benefit of consciousness in order to cooperate with the bodys own autonomous homeostatic controls. For the exogenously extended organizational complex functioning as an integrated homeostatic system unconsciously, we propose the term “Cyborg. The Cyborg deliberately incorporates exogenous components extending the self- regulatory control function or the organism in order to adapt it to new environments. If  man in space, in addition to flying his vehicle. must continuously be checking on things and making adjustments merely in order to keep himself alive, he becomes a slave to the machine. The purpose of the Cybogy, as well as his own homeostatic system, is to provide an organizational system in which such robot-like problems are taken care of automatically and unconsciously, leaving man free to explore, to create, to think, and to feel.” Manfred E Clynes & Nathan S Kline Cyborgs and space (1960)

Haraway states that from a technological point of view, any person that associates themselves with technology and uses it at almost any level is a cyborg.

“A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction. The international women’s movements have constructed ‘women’s experience’, as well as uncovered or discovered this crucial collective object. This experience is a fiction and fact of the most crucial, political kind. Liberation rests on the construction of the consciousness, the imaginative apprehension, of oppression, and so of possibility. The cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience that changes what counts as women’s experience in the late twentieth century. This is a struggle over life and death, but the boundary between science fiction and social reality is an optical illusion.” Haraway; a cyborg manifesto pg 34

According to Chris Hables Gray in his book Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age:

“A cyborg is a self-regulating organism that combines the natural and artificial together in one system. Cyborgs do not have to be part human, for any organism/system that mixes the evolved and the made, the living and the inanimate, is technically a cyborg. This would include biocomputers based on organic processes, along with roaches with implants and bioengineered microbes.”Chris Hables Gray  Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age pg 2

and

“If you have been technologically modified in any significant way, from an implanted pacemaker to a vaccination that reprogrammed your immune system, then you are definitely a cyborg. Even If you are one of those rare people who are in no way a cyborg in the technical sense, cyborg issues still impact you. We live in a cyborg society; no matter how unmodified we are as individuals.” Chris Hables Gray  Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age pg 2

During an interview with World.information.org he stated

“Anyone who has been vaccinated is technically a cyborg, because their immune system has been reprogrammed to deal with certain stimulae, as if they were computers.” Interview with Chris Hables Gray

Gray uses the term posthuman and cyborg interchangeably.

So what can we decipher from these eminent academics? Is a cyborg someone who is flesh and bone, but has one or more robotic appendages electronically linked to his or her nervous system? Would the defining point fall when a cyborg is said to be half human and half machine? For example, the Terminator is a robot covered with human tissue and so is not a cyborg because he doesn’t have any bones? Is a human with removable artificial limb a cyborg? Or is a cyborg someone who has had a flu jab, or used an I-phone?

I open this one to the floor!

cyborg v posthuman

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

Haraway seems to be using the term cyborg as a metaphor to discuss the fact that we are no longer sure who or what we are. The fact that the boundaries between machine and organism have blurred have left us unable to define ourselves even as biological entities. Instead we have become cyborgs, an amalgam of organics and machine so tightly bound together that the two can no longer be separated.

“A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction” Haraway 2007 pg 34

From further reading about Haraway, she seems to consider herself a cyborg. This confused me a little as everything that I have read about cyborgs so far was founded in the bio-genetics field and the development of implants to enhance the human body. If this is the case, what is she talking about?

I think she is talking about the way we use technology, and how we integrate it into every area of our lives without even noticing it. In that case, what is the difference between the cyborg and the post human?

Early thoughts on Haraway and Feminism

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

Firstly I would like to state that I do not consider myself to be a feminist. I do not agree that in any way am I limited by my sex. It is part of who I am, but it does not define me, and I do not believe that I have ever been restricted by it. I achieve by my ability, though I can appreciate that is not the case for everyone.

So when I started reading Haraway I found her frustrating because she seems determined to label the cyborg as a result of a “tradition of racist, male dominated capitalism” and therefore a weapon to further denegrate women.

However the idea of the cyborg as a feminist issue is actually an interesting one. At first reading I thought that she was taking issue with the female image of the cyborg as created by male fantasists, like Seven of Nine.

seven of nine

The sexualised image of a women with logic at her core and no messy emotions for men to have to deal with.

After some initial frustrations, I realised that what she was actually talking about how the cyborg could set us free (though I do not believe that I require ’setting free’).

“The cyborg is a creature of a post-gender world” (pg 35)

Women are often described as the weaker sex, but if we could all be ‘fused’ with technology, either physically or metaphorically, then surely that weakness disappears. Then women truly can do anything they choose to!