This text is an argument for a view of the posthuman which is more networked. In this sense it continues the development from Hayles text “Toward embodied virtuality” where she was arguing for a collective sense of identity. Embodiment was a key issue of this earlier text and “a recognition that agency is always relational and distributed” and she viewed “cognition as embodied throughout human flesh and extended into the social and technological environment”

This text is a continuation of the previous text:

“At issue now (and in the past) are distributed cultural cognitions embodied both in people and their technologies.” (p.160).

She is introducing a fourth stage in her history of cybernetics which she calls “the Regime of Computation”. Central to this age is the global phenomenon of the “cognisphere”: “the globally interconnected cognitive systems in which humans are increasingly embedded” (p. 161)

Positive effects of the cognisphere:

- increased communication
- access to databases around the world
- communal knowledge-building through wikipedias and other data collection projects
- networking

Changes in subjectivity through the cognisphere:

- movement from deep attention to hyperattention
- dustributed cognitive systems that include human and non-human actors
- a dispersed sense of self
- artificial coginitive systems help to preserve and extend human awareness

Humans, animals and intelligent machines are more tightly bound together than ever.

Hayles believe that by using metaphors, such as “The regime of computation” we are influencing the evolution of ideas and technology: “What we make and what (we think) we are co-evolve together”. (p164).

The cognisphere is “multiple, not a split creature but a co-evolving and densely interconnected complex system”. (p.165)

My thoughts:

I’m still grappling with this one a bit. I find it hard to place the individual person / learner in this system. I suppose this is a process which began with the creation of different professions and specialisations. I rely on the knowledge of other people to live my life and can only survive through distribution of knowledge. I wouldn’t have the skills or knowledge to grow food, build a house, etc. But in the age of computation this development is continuing with the sharing of knowledge on the computer? Not sure whether I’m on the right track here…

Hayles, N.K. (1999). Toward embodied virtuality, chapter 1 of How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp1-25

This week I was struggling with the two core texts by Haraway and Hayles. I’ve been reading some of the blogs of other people in this course and this has helped me get my head round the ideas and think about what they mean for me.  I did find the texts very tough reading and part of me doesn’t really like the ideas they outline very much. (Part of me… I must be getting post-human).

I’m not sure I really like the metaphor of the cyborg. This is too much machine and too little human for me. Maybe I’m not immersed enough in technology, but I really value everything to do with real life far more than anything virtual. To me machines are there purely to help me do my work, stay in touch with people, learn better, etc. I’ve also never really got into science fiction. I can understand what Haraway is getting at to some extent and I agree that the philosophical idea of crossing boundaries of race and gender can be fascinating. As a “language person” however, I am constantly working with cultural ideas and heritage and I can’t imagine a scenario where this will not be important to people.

However, I am interested in the idea which both Hayles and Haraway have described of having a collective identity (whether you want to call this posthuman or cyborg). I know this is an idea which is very strongly linked to postmodernism (though I’m sure this idea has been around for a lot longer,  but maybe it is becoming more important in this era).  I think what is new in this text is that Hayles is using this concept to explain what happens in virtual environments and she is arguing that virtuality is just one facette of our identity, but still an embodied one. But even without any connection to machines it’s interesting to acknowledge how different we are in various surroundings and roles. Again, as a language teacher this is an important thought as learning a new language is linked to a new role and new outlooks in life. Language itself and the way we teach and learn it is also made up of so many different parts. It can be split up into reading, writing, speaking, listening, grammar, and in some ways it has to come together again, but with a different emphasis for every person and in every act of communication. There is a lot to think about here and I’d quite like to write my final essay on something to do with language and learning in the posthuman era.

Haraway, D. (2000). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century. in D Bell and A Kennedy, The Cybercultures Reader. Routledge.

Hayles, N.K. (1999). Toward embodied virtuality, chapter 1 of How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp1-25

This is a very interesting text. First it gives a good definition of what “posthuman” is:

- informational pattern is privileged over material instantiation, so that biological embodiment is seen as an accident of history rather than an inevitability of life;

- consciousness is not seen as a central phenomenon, but as a minor sideshow;

- body is seen as a prosthesis which can be extended or replaced;

- there are no boundaries between bodily existence and computer simulation

The text is basically concerned with the concept of embodiment. The author is arguing that disembodiment is not necessarily a consequence of the posthuman. In fact her “dream is a version of the posthuman that embraces the possibilities of information technologies without being seduced by fantasies of unlimited power and disembodied immortality, that recognizes and celebrates finitude as a condition of human being, and that understands human life is embedded in a material world of great complexity, one on which we depend for our continued survival”. (p.5)

She argues that the concept of disembodiment is not a new one and was described in humanism as well when cognition was emphasized rather than embodiment.

She sees herself as a posthuman collectivity, a “we” of autonomous agents operating together to make a self.

Virtuality is defined as “the cultural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information patterns”

In 1948 Shannon defined information “as a probablility function with no dimensions, no materialility, and no necessary connection with meaning. It is a pattern not a prescence” (p. 18). This leads to theories of disembodiment. However, the author explains that there have always been critics of this view and that this was a theory driven by the atmosphere of the time. The author would like to recover ” a sense of the virtual that fully recognizes the importance of the embodied processes constituting the lifeworld of human beings”. The book she is introducing describes various narratives through an interplay of science and literature. She would like to see disembodiment as just one narrative amongst others. She uses literature to illustrate “embodied” theories. Literature itself shows that we use embodiment (information is not portrayed as patterns but is embedded in a story).

What do I think of this text?

I’m really pleased that Hayles is arguing for an embodied version of the posthuman. I have never liked the concept of disembodiment. I also agree that the existence of virtuality and virtual worlds is not an argument for disembodiment of information. Virtual worlds are games where you use your imagination and the imagination will always be part of you.

What I don’t quite understand is how she is reacting to the definition of “posthuman” she gives in the beginning. She undermines part of the definition in the text by emphasizing the importance of embodiment. To her the splitting up of the persona seems to be more important as a definition. However, she doesn’t really outline her own definition of what “posthuman” is.

Hayles, N.K. (1999). Toward embodied virtuality, chapter 1 of How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp1-25