Donna Haraway’s “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s” is a dense and confusing piece of feminist work, however it is undeniable influential in the realm of digital cultural studies. According to Haraway, a cyborg is “a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction” (p. 28). For Haraway the cyborg represents the idea of otherness; it is a symbol for the changing structure of identity. Technology challenges identity because “it is not clear who makes and who is made in the relation between human and machine” (p. 36). Haraway argues there is no longer a separation between machine and organism, and consequently, the relationship and connection to our technological tools is heightened (p. 36). However, according to Haraway these connections with technology are unnecessary as technologies are merely “prosthetic devices, intimate components, friendly selves” (p. 36). I agree with Haraway that the relationship to technology has been heightened because the boundaries between machines and organisms have become blurred. People are constantly connected to technology. This can be further discussed by looking at information appliances.
Discussed briefly in this week’s class were information appliances, which are invisible technologies that have become so overused that they are taken for granted. This leads to the notion that everyone is ultimately shifting between their biological and non-biological parts, stemming the idea that everyone is born a cyborg. From cell phones and iPods always in hand to laptops being toted around all over campus, people work with their biological and technological parts simultaneously. In my previous post, “My Modified Body”, I discussed my relationship with my insulin pump and sensor. My pump can also be described as an information appliance. This is because I do take these pieces of technology for granted everyday. The idea of taking a needle in the middle of class, instead of pressing a button is completely foreign to me. I no longer notice and think about the critical impact this small piece of technology is having on my life. I can no longer imagine or differentiate my body without the pump, I have grown a heightened connection to the pump as my physical body works with my technological parts. I have this connection because this technology has made my life better, even though it is simply a prosthetic device. So, does this connection between our biological and non-biological parts mark our bodies as something different, as living cyborgs?
The concept of information appliances argues the notion that we are cyborgs because we have a heightened relationship with technology that often goes unnoticed. Wearing my insulin pump does mark me as different as it is not a highly known piece of technology and acts as an open invitation for people to ask me questions. In this technologically driven society it is acceptable for me to wear my insulin pump on the outside of my clothing as it often passes as a mp3 player or beeper. It is not much different from someone who wears their cellphone on their pants. However, I like all people still have the option to disconnect from digital technology and am not yet quite "a hybrid of machine and organism" (p. 28). My insulin pump may be part of my identity, but there is still a separation between my body and technology. The notion that someone who uses a cellphone is a cyborg is not quite evolving into part human, part machine as one disconnects from this technology several times a day. This is why technology challenges identity and it is difficult to define people as cyborgs already because we can no longer define what we are and what technology makes us into. Does technology make us, or do we make technology? I do not think cyborgs have become a part of social reality yet, they are still "a creature of fiction" that will continue to be worked towards in the future (p. 28).
No comments:
Post a Comment