Based on Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto, in what ways do cyborgs transform the social and political aspects of humanity? In your opinion, is a cyborg a feasible form of new media that can transform the social and political aspects of society today?
If the cyborg were to ever manifest itself in our society, I believe the main thing it would alter is our social relations. As Haraway states, “The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family,” and it “skips the step of original unity, of identification with nature in the Western sense” (517). Yet, the cyborg still remains “needy for connection” (517). So, somehow, most likely in some new technologically savvy way, the cyborg would alter how humans connect with one another. Come to think of it, maybe we are in the beginning stages of evolving into the cyborg Haraway predicted. We have certainly altered our way of connecting over the past few years, and are getting ever closer to becoming “hybrids of machine and organism” (516). We have also made great strides in our trust with the machine, as it has become such a central part of our lives in one way or another. Therefore, considering our progress with the machine, it may not be too long until we look at Haraway’s following statement as a definition of our society: “We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they” (534).
I think that the cyborg would first be influential politically, then as it becomes a more natural part of society, its influence would change the culture of our world. By saying "the laboratories that most fiercely embody and spew out the tools of technological apocalypse" (519) I think Haraway is referring to how the cyborg would first be a military tool. It would be a weapon to manipulate and scare people into doing what the government wishes. However, once the cyborg is out there in the world, I don't think it will take long for scientists to find a more ordinary use for it in our everyday lives.
At this point I think we will make the transition from "A cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the planet ... " (519) to "A cyborg world might might be about lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints." (519)
I think that this cyborg world has already begun to take shape. We are living in a time that depends on and flourishes with machines. Although we are not at the point to where we do not fear new technology, we are learning to embrace it more everyday.
I think that the cyborg would affect humanity in that, because it is not fully human, it has no biases, be they politically, emotional, etc. "In a sense, the cyborg has no origin story in the Western sense..." (517). I was under the impression that they cyborg, while human, does not have the same emotions that humans do, and can therefore look at life in an impartial manner. This would greatly affect political aspects of society: almost all of politics are driven by different constituents who have different values, beliefs, cultures, etc., which leads to almost all political conflict. A cyborg, however, does not have these same conflicts because it is just as much a machine as a living organism, and is therefore much more objective.
As far as a social impact, I think it would be very much the same as the political impact. However, I'm not sure that Haraway's idea of a "cyborg" the way she describes it is really in use today. Certainly humans are connected with technology more than ever, but I don't feel like her definition of a cyborg is in existence yet.
As a “coupling between organism and machines”, I think that a cyborg would definitely play a role in a social and political sense. As far as socially, I think we have already started down that path. Like Venessa noted, society has already made machines such a big part of our lives. It’s only a matter of time before they start becoming more interactive on their own and therefore affecting the social part of society.
As far as their potential impact on the political sense, I think their effects will be a little more limited than in a social aspect. “The ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs is precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly. They are as hard to see politically as materially. They are about consciousness — or its simulation.” This statement by Haraway, more specifically the “hard to see politically…” part, is why their effect will be limited. Society will be hesitant to include them because of their questionable actions. For all we know they could be perfectly legitimate, but because of the fact that they could be working behind the scenes and still having lots of influence, we may be hesitant. Maybe we’d even be more hesitant because of the fact that, as Haraway explains in the beginning, that cyborgs were stemmed from the military. I’m not saying everyone would be, but I could see a random group of people going crazy over that fact.
As far as being a feasible part of new media, for me it’s hard to say at the moment whether or not something like a cyborg can have that big of an effect in our society, but you never know where new media and the determinist perspective will take us in the future.
I agree with the above comments that a cyborg would definitely have the ability to be more neutral on political issues simply because the emotion aspect is not there. Maybe I do not understand her concept of a cyborg completely, but I think cyborgs could help solve political conflict, but personally I don't think removing all emotion is the best way to do that. Like Rebecca stated, politics are driven by differing morals and opinions which makes it personal--which is why I'm hesistant to this new idea. I do think that the neutral position would be a helpful reference in regards to removing bias and prejudice, however. We do rely on technology and machines for a majority of our communication, but we are not yet true hybrids of machine and organism.
Haraway says that these "hybrids of machines and organisms" do "not dream of community on the model of the organic family...." This being said, cyborgs would exacerbate the breakdown of the family. Back in the 50's, the "atomic family" was THE way of life. Nowadays, with a estimated 50% divorce rate, and with rises in abortion and birth control, etc., the family is crumbling. If, as Haraway suggests, cyborgs have no need for families, then this disintegration of the family as the fundamental unit of society would be greatly accelerated, thus changing our social structure.
Another social change would deal with religion. Haraway suggests, "the cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden." Based on this assumption, it is safe to extrapolate that religion would be of no import to the cyborgs. What use would a diety be to a mechanical being? Without religion, where would our society be? According to the ARIS study, as of 2001, 81% of Americans identified themselves with a religion. Religion is a huge part of our society and culture. Lack of religion would be a complete turnaround from our current society.
As Jen H. stated, I agree that cyborgs have the ability to solve emotional conflicts. However, I'm not sure that as a society, we would agree to be subordinate to a machine in that situation. As we have seen in religious wars etc., humans become emotionally invested in issues, and removing oneself from those conflicts in place of a machine is a task that I believe to be impossible for many individuals. In a perfect world, I think that cyborgs like the one Haraway depicts would make issues resolve in more timely, safe, and practical manners, but I don't think our love of machines is at a point where we can step back as a society and let them run our social and political systems. As far as becoming a hybrid, I think we are definitely on our way to such an end. However, I think this "hybrid" is much more metaphorical than physical. Nowadays when we communicate with one another it is usually through means of a computer or cell phone. Many people I know feel self conscious talking face to face with others because it's so much easier to hide behind a digital screen with text and emoticons to convey our thoughts and emotions. So, yes, in that sense I believe that as a society we are moving towards becoming one with machines, but I don't think we will be seeing anything like robots being submerged into society any time soon.
I agree that, if cyborgs were to exist in our society, they would definitely impact both the social and political aspects of humanity. In my opinion, however, neither of those impacts would be positive. Julia brought up a good point that cyborgs would aid in the elimination of the family, as they see no need or purpose for it. I don’t entirely understand the idea of cyborgs, but I thought of them the same way that it seems Jen H. did, which is as beings without emotion. If this is the case, then certainly cyborgs would be able to look at political disputes without bias, but we would also be relying on emotionless beings with no morals to guide their decisions. Once again, however, I do not fully understand what cyborgs are exactly.
I believe cyborgs are well on there way to becoming part of our normal society. Each year we can go back and reflect on the new technology and machines that were introduced that year and how we now are comfortable with them. I believe that eventually we will reach a time in which, "people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints." As we look back through history it is evident that we are less rascist, oppressive and sexist than we were 200 years ago. I think one day we will reach a point where we not have to judge people based on their features. This may only be available with cyborgs because they will not have the emotions to judge people. This will have a huge social effect on society.
There are several ways in which cyborgs could (and are, according to Haraway) transforming humanity. Some of the most interesting ways, in my opinion, are outlined in the list called “Informatics of Domination” (523). This list is comprised of things that are changing as our society becomes more tied to science and technology. Some of my favorites are the change from Eugenics to Population Control, from Sex to Genetic Engineering and from Mind to Artificial Intelligence. These things detail the changes our society undergoes as we move from organic to artificial.
I believe cyberization, if fully realized, would affect society on a huge scale. It would transform society into something much more rational, for instance using the Eugenics and Sex examples. Population Control and Genetic Engineering combined would make for a much stronger species as far as I can tell. Limiting the number of people (or cyborgs) and making sure they are built from the strongest genetic material would insure that only genetically superior people were created and they would then have access to more resources. This seems a fully rational way of approaching reproduction to me and something that could, and to some extent already has been, brought about by cyberization.
Furthermore I believe that the social and political aspects of society would be greatly changed simply by the changes in perceptions of gender that could potentially be brought about by cyberization. Supposed biological inferiorities could be compensated for via genetic manipulations and cyberization thus minimizing the differences between genders. Or, another possibility would be to do away with gender distinctions entirely. We could have children artificially selected from a wide range of genetic materials and then grown and birthed from external wombs. Take away the urge to reproduce and I guarantee it will revolutionize society. After all, if the idea of “woman”, and therefore “man” are merely social constructs, why not take away the assumed characteristics the constructs are built on (522)? If “’god’ is dead” and “so is the ‘goddess’” then who really cares (523)?
I think that a cyborg would have a major impact socially and politically. I agree with many of the above posts, especially Jen H. and her thoughts about cyborgs in a political setting. I think that not having a bias while making major political decisions would be beneficial, but it would also cause a shift in the way we view the world. Everyone has some type of bias, even if you can see it from both ways, you will tend toward one or the other, so to change from decisions being made based on debates between sides, "logical" decisions would be made in hopes of "bettering" society. We can't guess if that would really be beneficial/better than how it is now. Socially, I think that we are definitely moving toward a world with cyborgs. I think that we are (kinda) there already actually. We've discussed how attached we are to our cell phones, iPods, laptops, etc., and these advances have made our lives easier in some way. We've also discussed how they are an "extension" of a human body part (mind, voice, etc), so in a way we are cyborgs. I know that when I don't have my phone I feel like I'm missing part of myself, and I think the way that technology is developing, we will become more and more reliant on technology, making more of a part of ourselves. Cyborgs aren't just half-man/half-machine (but that is kinda cool to think about how we do have that today with hip replacements, technology to assist the disabled...), cyborgs can be the interdependence of man and machine, one relying on the other. Wouldn't you say that's what we have today, at least to some extent?
The most important aspect of Haraway's cyborgs is the "fractured identity." One major problem that she sees in our world today is the tendency of humans to segregate each other into different groups whether physically or just in their beliefs. One of the causes of this is the different labels that exist for people to generalize each other with such as gender, race, species, religion, sexuality, class, age, political ideologies, etc. Just the sheer number of different categories that one can be stereotyped into is staggering. It is difficult for anyone to try to avoid being labeled as one thing or another. People tend to look for the differences rather than the similarities. Once the cyborg gets introduced into this mess, it's not so clear anymore. For a cyborg, there is no one group that he/she/it can strongly identify with. This causes the fractured identity. The more fractured and mixed this identity is, the more removed he/she/it is from the tendencies of bias. However, the problem that arises from being a cyborg is the rejection by all groups from which it was created. Societies do not tend to smile upon their "bastard children." So in my opinion, single cyborgs will not be very successful in influencing society in any way. Only in large populations can Haraway's genderless utopia (dystopia?) be realized.
As Cody mentioned, Haraway views segregation, whether physical or mental, and group labels as a major detriment to human society. One of the most profound causes of this is the tendency in people to look for differences between each other instead of similarities. Whether this tendency is biological or cultural, I do not see it changing easily, even with the introduction of cyborgs. I feel as though introducing cyborgs to society as it is today would simply result in another societal label and another division. Instead of having options for male and female on forms, we have male, female, and cyborg (or whichever terms are most politically correct). Though Haraway is working toward breaking down divisions like these, it will not change the fact that it is generally easier for people to identify with others who are like them. Because of his, I do not see such social categorization of people (or cyborgs, were they to be thrown into the mix) coming to an end.
I think the idea of a cyborg, a neutral baseplate to the subliminally influenced American life would radically change things. I especially thought the idea that the cyborg would not have the same drives as a human was incredibly interesting yet terrifying.
A cyborg would not seek a mate, a cyborg would not want for family, a cyborg would not be influenced by others political standpoints. In essence, if an infusion of cyborgs were made into society, the status quo would change severely. Julia said it well when she mentioned the steadily decreasing success with marriage and the prevalence of religion (Around 83% of the world adheres to some sort of religious tenet). The fact is, if cyborgs were factored into life, the traditional family could be wiped out. Religion would also be changed. People might see the neutral tranquility of cyborg existence and seek to emulate it, starting some new cyborg adulation cult.
And I was able to make it through that without making a single snarky comment. Will cyborgs take the snark out of man as well? Will they have a sense of humor? Is snark a verb on its own? The world may never know.
Cyborgs transformed society by representing a physical representation of what we as a population view as both a fictional and social reality. Cyborgs are the evolution of both our fantasies and our greatest scientific achievements. These machines are a byproduct of both advances in anatomical related research and machine related research thus they transform society by allowing them to view their dreams as something that came out of their minds and into their life. Cyborgs are incredible and a beyond even the wildest thoughts of our imaginations. Yet, I do not believe that cyborgs are as feasible a form of new media as much as the internet or even cell phones. Cyborgs are not available to all of the public like other forms of technology and simply do not serve as effective purposes.
Cyborgs could potentially alter the course of politics, but nothing spectacularly game changing. There would simply be lobbyists for cyborg rights and wants in addition to what is already here. Socially, by the time cyborgs would be feasible, I believe society would be pretty much ready to accept them. However, I don't see how cyborgs can be a form of new media, unless they are to be commodities, which would harken back to slavery. The intriguing part of cyborgs is not the computer part, but the human that is enmeshed with the technology. Cybernetics themselves could be considered a new form of media, should they be able to perform superfluous tasks such as retrieving e-mail. However, if they simply mimic or enhance functions of the body, I do not see the potential for them to be explored as new media.
Many people have previously stated that cyborgs would change society but being non-biased toward situations. However, in this essay Haraway disagrees with that. She says that cyborgs cannot be trusted because "they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism" (517). Is Haraway right? Can cyborgs be trusted if they are created in this biased atmosphere. Would the scientific answer to a question always be the right answer? These are some hard questions to think about when looking at if cyborgs are completely non-partial.
I think the introduction of this technology is close at hand. We already have computers that can do our thinking for us and machines that can do physical tasks that we find too burdensome. What comes next is the cyborg that can do both with minimal energy. I was intrigued by this quote from Haraway; "Late twentieth-century machines have made thoroughly ambiguous the difference between natural and artificial, mind and body, self-developing and externally designed, and many other distinctions that used to apply to organisms and machines. Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we are frighteningly inert" (518). This is something to think about. Are our machines more active then we are? If they are, then I believe we have a problem.
I found it interesting when Haraway talked about how communication technologies will work to shrink public space. I think about facebook, blogs, and other online communities where private thoughts and information are publicized for the world to see. With the internet you are now able to access information about virtually anyone you seek to find information upon. There have been times I have found out people’s addressed using the Cha-Cha services which utilize internet to gather information for the user. It’s astonishing to see how public these things are that we think are private. The internet has opened doors to access to so much information in all sects of life. Even with facebook, I have been told that, if you set your profile to private there are still people who have access to view all profiles. The other concept I found interesting was that the machine is us. It reminded me of earlier discussions of how machines can only know as much as we humans know, so it embodies our knowledge and, ultimately, is an extension of us. I think the possibility of a cyborg transforming social and political aspects of society is definitely plausible. For this to come to pass, however, I am not quite certain. I am sure that the notion of skype, and even television, was not conceivable to our ancestors. I guess with the rate that media is expanding these days we can truly say that anything is possible!
Wow, David, you stole (I mean precipitately developed) half of my spiel. And Cody developed the other half. Now I have to think of something new. XD
I was reminded heavily of a particular music video. A family wanted a kid and thus adopted a cyborg boy who didn’t just work but “live”, and didn’t “need batteries like human beings” (likely a reference to food). The boy was “needy for connection,” (517) particularly with his mother (no Freud please!). After the mother and father got pregnant and had a real child, the cyborg felt alone because the father rejected his “bastard” child in favor of the other. And yet the biological child is also envious, envious of the immortality and perfection (“more human than human”) of the cyborg. Very provocative.
Anyway, Haraway claims that “the cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family” (517), but this boy does. He also connects with his “phallic mother, from whom all humans must separate” (517). So is he human? He was created, but he meets the criterion of “humanist sense.” (517)
Haraway is in accord to an extent, saying that “our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves frighteningly inert.” (518) Indeed “we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs.” (516)
Cyborgs are simply “where the boundary between… animal-human and machine” (518) is transgressed. What about something as simple as robotic limbs or plastic surgery? Could this potentially make people think, “Who cares? I can get that fixed.”? Will we stop being so careful? Machines are ubiquitous in modern American society. What difference does it make to add a little more plastic and gears?
So is this unfeasible? No, it’s feasible. Even if we don’t take it as literally as the video, with cyborgs being so like us, cyborgs could potentially influence us. Cody is correct in saying that it will take more than just one cyborg to change things. He is also correct in saying that there will be problems associated with the pseudo humans. These problems alone will give rise to great social and political changes.
Thanks Vanessa for posting the link for more information to understand the purpose of the cyborg metaphor, that really helped in my understanding of the content of the reading. My opinion regarding the cyborg is that it is a feasible form of new media that can transform the social and political aspects of society today. I can relate to Haraway's statement that she "...argue(s) for a politics rooted in claims about fundamental changes in the nature of class, race, and gender in an emerging system of world order analogous in its novelty and scope to that created by industrial capitalism...we are living through a movement from an organic, industrial society to a polymorphous, information system." I think this really epitomizes why the cyborg is a legitimate form of new media that can alter the social and political aspects of society today, because technically computers now already are an extension of humans, they know everything that every person who worked on them has input into them, so they know the equivalent of many minds who all come from different racial and sexual boundaries. Just as Haraway states, her "cyborg myth is about transgressed boundaries," and I think that's what she is referring to.
I believe that we are getting used to presence of the cyborg in our lives. We may rely on it, and may feel insecure without any machines. It is going to influence our society socially and politically inevitably. Personally I think cyborg is going to take us to a society which lacks of emotions. Like what some other machines have done, it may create more distance and boundaries within human. It may also influence our culture in terms of technology. We can’t live with our technologies in today’s society. In addition, I agree with what Vanessa has pointed out that cyborg may serve as a military tool for government. Even though we have expectations and guesses about how cyborg will influence us, we still don’t know what exactly it will bring us.
I agree with Rebecca Archer--cyborgs would certainly be more objective. However, I agree with Jen H as well, "Personally I don't think removing all emotion is the best way to do that. Like Rebecca stated, politics are driven by differing morals and opinions which makes it personal--which is why I'm hesitant to this new idea. I do think that the neutral position would be a helpful reference in regards to removing bias and prejudice, however."
I think Andrea Y brings up a great point in referencing, "they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism" and asking whether or not Haraway is correct--would this mean cyborgs are biased toward militarism and patriarchal capitalism?
I think Duoduo sums up my thoughts best, "Even though we have expectations and guesses are how cyborg will influence us, we still don't know what exactly it will bring us." I think that until cyborgs are widespread and omnipresent, it is very difficult to determine their implications.
Did this make anyone else think of Fahrenheit 451 and a society lacking emotion?
The use of artificial limbs that function as real (example in iRobot when Will Smith's character has an artificial limb) would greatly benefit many people in society but the idea of a thinking, feeling robot still makes me uneasy. I think about movies like iRobot and others where the robots take over. This may seem a little far fetched but it almost seems dangerous to have something we created living with us. This may just be paranoia from me but i don't see the reason that robots should act or be like humans. That is what a legitimate human is for. I guess in the future we will have to see what cybernetics brings us. It could bring us good or bad but only time will tell.
Socially, Haraway predicts that the creation of the cyborg will bring about “a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves (535).” She thinks cyborgs would further blur the lines between race, social standing, and gender in our society. Their creation would cause less distinction between human-animal and human-machine relationships. In the section entitled “Cyborgs: A Myth of Political Identity”, Haraway lays out her opinion about how politics could potentially be changed by cyborg production. She focuses mainly on the implications cyborgs hold for the future of women. She feels that they hold hope for the feminist cause because breaking down differences in society would further promote gender equality. I personally believe that cyborg production would unify the world in a common scientific cause, but I wonder if some controversial issues would arise as to the cyborg’s “gender”, political views, religious ideas, and identification of right and wrong. Would it have a concept of ethics? Politically, future leaders could use the cyborg to promote their campaign or support their cause because they could program it to say or do exactly what he or she wants to make them always look favorable. I believe that the presence of cyborgs would either encourage people to value their family and interpersonal relationships even more, or would eventually bring about a more distant norm of communication. Perhaps people would become less dependent on each other and more dependent on cyborgs because of their more advanced capabilities. The concept of combining human and machine has always been frightening to me because of the several science fiction movies I have seen on the topic. I have yet to be convinced that cyborgs would do society more good than harm because I believe when humans become creators of other "humans", we are crossing into a dangerous realm that was not reserved for us.
I certainly think that cyborgs would transform social and political life. Like Rebecca said, and like a few other classmates expanded on, in the political arena, cyborgs would provide an unbiased opinion that would be based upon an evaluation of which method should work the best.
Socially, cyborgs would create a society that is more dependent on machines, but I disagree with some classmates that they would bring about a community that lacks emotions. We are human, and what separates us from other animals is that we have the ability to empathize and consider emotions when making decisions. No technological advancement can take that away from us. I also don't believe that lacking emotions would appeal to any humans, just because that is such an integral part of the way that we go about doing things, and we cannot simply push those feelings aside. Cyborgs would however essentially eliminate discrimination, which would be a huge success for society!
In my opinion, cyborgs are most effective at blurring the boundaries of society, especially social and political boundaries between animals and machines. Unlike humans, however, cyborgs lack emotions or the ability to feel. Our emotions and how we feel about certain subjects influence us politically and determine how we vote. Unfortunately because of these emotions we prevent ourselves from understanding an opposing political view. Cyborgs don’t have this problem. Therefore, politically the people are more informed about politics. Cyborgs can “see from both perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from the other vantage point” (519). For better or for worse, cyborgs would dramatically change politics.
Haraway’s reference to Star Wars helped me picture the way cyborgs would blur social boundaries. Our world would be very similar to the world of Star Wars if cyborgs were to exist. It would be a world where, “social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints “ (519). For these reasons, it is my opinion that cyborgs are capable of transforming the social and political aspects of today, just like any other advanced technological determinant.
(Thanks Vanessa for the link!) I believe that the cyborgs would transform us socially as well as politically. Politically the cyborgs would cause a different perspective on issues because they have no emotion. Socially, our world would be changed forever. A cyborg is a “creature of lived social reality” and a “hybrid of machine and organism”. Cyborgs would first be integrated into society as military aid and then would blend with society because humans would be accustomed to the idea of animals and machines. Imagine a cyborg today? I believe that like any form of new media it would be taken as a shock accompanied by a fear then eventually accepted by our society. I believe that if cyborgs were introduced in my generation it would be shocking but by our next generation it would be normal to them and they would blend with society. I still feel as though we are waiting for the invention of the cyborg and a part of me thinks that it is already invented just not available to the public.
I saw that some find that cyborgs will one day be accepted into our society. I agree in a sense that socially they might be, but when it comes to politics, or when it comes who who will or what will be in control in governing humans, I agree with Dana. Politics are only politics because those involved have invested emotional, moral, and ideological parts of themselves in it, and they try to control the rest of society based on that. So although in an ideal world, cyborgs, with their lack of emotional influence on decision making, might be great leaders that bring practicality to every issue, I know for a fact that many people will not be able to accept this in our own world.
Cyborgs are unarguably the future, and are in ways already here. although our machines aren't inside our skin, they might as well be. The number of people walking around with their headphones in their ears plugged into their iphones is evidence enough. We keep it outside of the physical boundaries of our bodies, modern technology is arguably part of many people's bodies. When you don't have your cellphone in your pocket, you still feel "phantom texts", akin to phantom pains that amputees experience. When I forget my phone I not only feel naked but as if a part of me is missing, and when my battery dies, its like losing one of your senses. weather of not we put our communication devices in our brains, the machines are very much a part of us.
If the cyborg were to ever manifest itself in our society, I believe the main thing it would alter is our social relations. As Haraway states, “The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family,” and it “skips the step of original unity, of identification with nature in the Western sense” (517). Yet, the cyborg still remains “needy for connection” (517). So, somehow, most likely in some new technologically savvy way, the cyborg would alter how humans connect with one another. Come to think of it, maybe we are in the beginning stages of evolving into the cyborg Haraway predicted. We have certainly altered our way of connecting over the past few years, and are getting ever closer to becoming “hybrids of machine and organism” (516). We have also made great strides in our trust with the machine, as it has become such a central part of our lives in one way or another. Therefore, considering our progress with the machine, it may not be too long until we look at Haraway’s following statement as a definition of our society: “We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they” (534).
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who was as unsure as I was about what exactly Haraway's meant by cyborg, I found this website.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.terrisenft.net/students/readings/manifesto.html#ironic
I think that the cyborg would first be influential politically, then as it becomes a more natural part of society, its influence would change the culture of our world. By saying "the laboratories that most fiercely embody and spew out the tools of technological apocalypse" (519) I think Haraway is referring to how the cyborg would first be a military tool. It would be a weapon to manipulate and scare people into doing what the government wishes. However, once the cyborg is out there in the world, I don't think it will take long for scientists to find a more ordinary use for it in our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I think we will make the transition from "A cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the planet ... " (519) to "A cyborg world might might be about lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints." (519)
I think that this cyborg world has already begun to take shape. We are living in a time that depends on and flourishes with machines. Although we are not at the point to where we do not fear new technology, we are learning to embrace it more everyday.
I think that the cyborg would affect humanity in that, because it is not fully human, it has no biases, be they politically, emotional, etc. "In a sense, the cyborg has no origin story in the Western sense..." (517). I was under the impression that they cyborg, while human, does not have the same emotions that humans do, and can therefore look at life in an impartial manner. This would greatly affect political aspects of society: almost all of politics are driven by different constituents who have different values, beliefs, cultures, etc., which leads to almost all political conflict. A cyborg, however, does not have these same conflicts because it is just as much a machine as a living organism, and is therefore much more objective.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a social impact, I think it would be very much the same as the political impact. However, I'm not sure that Haraway's idea of a "cyborg" the way she describes it is really in use today. Certainly humans are connected with technology more than ever, but I don't feel like her definition of a cyborg is in existence yet.
As a “coupling between organism and machines”, I think that a cyborg would definitely play a role in a social and political sense. As far as socially, I think we have already started down that path. Like Venessa noted, society has already made machines such a big part of our lives. It’s only a matter of time before they start becoming more interactive on their own and therefore affecting the social part of society.
ReplyDeleteAs far as their potential impact on the political sense, I think their effects will be a little more limited than in a social aspect. “The ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs is precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly. They are as hard to see politically as materially. They are about consciousness — or its simulation.” This statement by Haraway, more specifically the “hard to see politically…” part, is why their effect will be limited. Society will be hesitant to include them because of their questionable actions. For all we know they could be perfectly legitimate, but because of the fact that they could be working behind the scenes and still having lots of influence, we may be hesitant. Maybe we’d even be more hesitant because of the fact that, as Haraway explains in the beginning, that cyborgs were stemmed from the military. I’m not saying everyone would be, but I could see a random group of people going crazy over that fact.
As far as being a feasible part of new media, for me it’s hard to say at the moment whether or not something like a cyborg can have that big of an effect in our society, but you never know where new media and the determinist perspective will take us in the future.
-Nathan
I agree with the above comments that a cyborg would definitely have the ability to be more neutral on political issues simply because the emotion aspect is not there. Maybe I do not understand her concept of a cyborg completely, but I think cyborgs could help solve political conflict, but personally I don't think removing all emotion is the best way to do that. Like Rebecca stated, politics are driven by differing morals and opinions which makes it personal--which is why I'm hesistant to this new idea. I do think that the neutral position would be a helpful reference in regards to removing bias and prejudice, however. We do rely on technology and machines for a majority of our communication, but we are not yet true hybrids of machine and organism.
ReplyDeleteHaraway says that these "hybrids of machines and organisms" do "not dream of community on the model of the organic family...." This being said, cyborgs would exacerbate the breakdown of the family. Back in the 50's, the "atomic family" was THE way of life. Nowadays, with a estimated 50% divorce rate, and with rises in abortion and birth control, etc., the family is crumbling. If, as Haraway suggests, cyborgs have no need for families, then this disintegration of the family as the fundamental unit of society would be greatly accelerated, thus changing our social structure.
ReplyDeleteAnother social change would deal with religion. Haraway suggests, "the cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden." Based on this assumption, it is safe to extrapolate that religion would be of no import to the cyborgs. What use would a diety be to a mechanical being? Without religion, where would our society be?
According to the ARIS study, as of 2001, 81% of Americans identified themselves with a religion. Religion is a huge part of our society and culture. Lack of religion would be a complete turnaround from our current society.
As Jen H. stated, I agree that cyborgs have the ability to solve emotional conflicts. However, I'm not sure that as a society, we would agree to be subordinate to a machine in that situation. As we have seen in religious wars etc., humans become emotionally invested in issues, and removing oneself from those conflicts in place of a machine is a task that I believe to be impossible for many individuals. In a perfect world, I think that cyborgs like the one Haraway depicts would make issues resolve in more timely, safe, and practical manners, but I don't think our love of machines is at a point where we can step back as a society and let them run our social and political systems.
ReplyDeleteAs far as becoming a hybrid, I think we are definitely on our way to such an end. However, I think this "hybrid" is much more metaphorical than physical. Nowadays when we communicate with one another it is usually through means of a computer or cell phone. Many people I know feel self conscious talking face to face with others because it's so much easier to hide behind a digital screen with text and emoticons to convey our thoughts and emotions. So, yes, in that sense I believe that as a society we are moving towards becoming one with machines, but I don't think we will be seeing anything like robots being submerged into society any time soon.
I agree that, if cyborgs were to exist in our society, they would definitely impact both the social and political aspects of humanity. In my opinion, however, neither of those impacts would be positive. Julia brought up a good point that cyborgs would aid in the elimination of the family, as they see no need or purpose for it. I don’t entirely understand the idea of cyborgs, but I thought of them the same way that it seems Jen H. did, which is as beings without emotion. If this is the case, then certainly cyborgs would be able to look at political disputes without bias, but we would also be relying on emotionless beings with no morals to guide their decisions. Once again, however, I do not fully understand what cyborgs are exactly.
ReplyDeleteI believe cyborgs are well on there way to becoming part of our normal society. Each year we can go back and reflect on the new technology and machines that were introduced that year and how we now are comfortable with them. I believe that eventually we will reach a time in which, "people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints." As we look back through history it is evident that we are less rascist, oppressive and sexist than we were 200 years ago. I think one day we will reach a point where we not have to judge people based on their features. This may only be available with cyborgs because they will not have the emotions to judge people. This will have a huge social effect on society.
ReplyDeleteThere are several ways in which cyborgs could (and are, according to Haraway) transforming humanity. Some of the most interesting ways, in my opinion, are outlined in the list called “Informatics of Domination” (523). This list is comprised of things that are changing as our society becomes more tied to science and technology. Some of my favorites are the change from Eugenics to Population Control, from Sex to Genetic Engineering and from Mind to Artificial Intelligence. These things detail the changes our society undergoes as we move from organic to artificial.
ReplyDeleteI believe cyberization, if fully realized, would affect society on a huge scale. It would transform society into something much more rational, for instance using the Eugenics and Sex examples. Population Control and Genetic Engineering combined would make for a much stronger species as far as I can tell. Limiting the number of people (or cyborgs) and making sure they are built from the strongest genetic material would insure that only genetically superior people were created and they would then have access to more resources. This seems a fully rational way of approaching reproduction to me and something that could, and to some extent already has been, brought about by cyberization.
Furthermore I believe that the social and political aspects of society would be greatly changed simply by the changes in perceptions of gender that could potentially be brought about by cyberization. Supposed biological inferiorities could be compensated for via genetic manipulations and cyberization thus minimizing the differences between genders. Or, another possibility would be to do away with gender distinctions entirely. We could have children artificially selected from a wide range of genetic materials and then grown and birthed from external wombs. Take away the urge to reproduce and I guarantee it will revolutionize society. After all, if the idea of “woman”, and therefore “man” are merely social constructs, why not take away the assumed characteristics the constructs are built on (522)? If “’god’ is dead” and “so is the ‘goddess’” then who really cares (523)?
I think that a cyborg would have a major impact socially and politically. I agree with many of the above posts, especially Jen H. and her thoughts about cyborgs in a political setting. I think that not having a bias while making major political decisions would be beneficial, but it would also cause a shift in the way we view the world. Everyone has some type of bias, even if you can see it from both ways, you will tend toward one or the other, so to change from decisions being made based on debates between sides, "logical" decisions would be made in hopes of "bettering" society. We can't guess if that would really be beneficial/better than how it is now.
ReplyDeleteSocially, I think that we are definitely moving toward a world with cyborgs. I think that we are (kinda) there already actually. We've discussed how attached we are to our cell phones, iPods, laptops, etc., and these advances have made our lives easier in some way. We've also discussed how they are an "extension" of a human body part (mind, voice, etc), so in a way we are cyborgs. I know that when I don't have my phone I feel like I'm missing part of myself, and I think the way that technology is developing, we will become more and more reliant on technology, making more of a part of ourselves.
Cyborgs aren't just half-man/half-machine (but that is kinda cool to think about how we do have that today with hip replacements, technology to assist the disabled...), cyborgs can be the interdependence of man and machine, one relying on the other. Wouldn't you say that's what we have today, at least to some extent?
The most important aspect of Haraway's cyborgs is the "fractured identity." One major problem that she sees in our world today is the tendency of humans to segregate each other into different groups whether physically or just in their beliefs. One of the causes of this is the different labels that exist for people to generalize each other with such as gender, race, species, religion, sexuality, class, age, political ideologies, etc. Just the sheer number of different categories that one can be stereotyped into is staggering. It is difficult for anyone to try to avoid being labeled as one thing or another. People tend to look for the differences rather than the similarities. Once the cyborg gets introduced into this mess, it's not so clear anymore. For a cyborg, there is no one group that he/she/it can strongly identify with. This causes the fractured identity. The more fractured and mixed this identity is, the more removed he/she/it is from the tendencies of bias. However, the problem that arises from being a cyborg is the rejection by all groups from which it was created. Societies do not tend to smile upon their "bastard children." So in my opinion, single cyborgs will not be very successful in influencing society in any way. Only in large populations can Haraway's genderless utopia (dystopia?) be realized.
ReplyDeleteAs Cody mentioned, Haraway views segregation, whether physical or mental, and group labels as a major detriment to human society. One of the most profound causes of this is the tendency in people to look for differences between each other instead of similarities. Whether this tendency is biological or cultural, I do not see it changing easily, even with the introduction of cyborgs. I feel as though introducing cyborgs to society as it is today would simply result in another societal label and another division. Instead of having options for male and female on forms, we have male, female, and cyborg (or whichever terms are most politically correct). Though Haraway is working toward breaking down divisions like these, it will not change the fact that it is generally easier for people to identify with others who are like them. Because of his, I do not see such social categorization of people (or cyborgs, were they to be thrown into the mix) coming to an end.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of a cyborg, a neutral baseplate to the subliminally influenced American life would radically change things. I especially thought the idea that the cyborg would not have the same drives as a human was incredibly interesting yet terrifying.
ReplyDeleteA cyborg would not seek a mate, a cyborg would not want for family, a cyborg would not be influenced by others political standpoints. In essence, if an infusion of cyborgs were made into society, the status quo would change severely. Julia said it well when she mentioned the steadily decreasing success with marriage and the prevalence of religion (Around 83% of the world adheres to some sort of religious tenet). The fact is, if cyborgs were factored into life, the traditional family could be wiped out. Religion would also be changed. People might see the neutral tranquility of cyborg existence and seek to emulate it, starting some new cyborg adulation cult.
And I was able to make it through that without making a single snarky comment. Will cyborgs take the snark out of man as well? Will they have a sense of humor? Is snark a verb on its own? The world may never know.
Cyborgs transformed society by representing a physical representation of what we as a population view as both a fictional and social reality. Cyborgs are the evolution of both our fantasies and our greatest scientific achievements. These machines are a byproduct of both advances in anatomical related research and machine related research thus they transform society by allowing them to view their dreams as something that came out of their minds and into their life. Cyborgs are incredible and a beyond even the wildest thoughts of our imaginations. Yet, I do not believe that cyborgs are as feasible a form of new media as much as the internet or even cell phones. Cyborgs are not available to all of the public like other forms of technology and simply do not serve as effective purposes.
ReplyDeleteCyborgs could potentially alter the course of politics, but nothing spectacularly game changing. There would simply be lobbyists for cyborg rights and wants in addition to what is already here. Socially, by the time cyborgs would be feasible, I believe society would be pretty much ready to accept them. However, I don't see how cyborgs can be a form of new media, unless they are to be commodities, which would harken back to slavery. The intriguing part of cyborgs is not the computer part, but the human that is enmeshed with the technology. Cybernetics themselves could be considered a new form of media, should they be able to perform superfluous tasks such as retrieving e-mail. However, if they simply mimic or enhance functions of the body, I do not see the potential for them to be explored as new media.
ReplyDeleteMany people have previously stated that cyborgs would change society but being non-biased toward situations. However, in this essay Haraway disagrees with that. She says that cyborgs cannot be trusted because "they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism" (517). Is Haraway right? Can cyborgs be trusted if they are created in this biased atmosphere. Would the scientific answer to a question always be the right answer? These are some hard questions to think about when looking at if cyborgs are completely non-partial.
ReplyDeleteI think the introduction of this technology is close at hand. We already have computers that can do our thinking for us and machines that can do physical tasks that we find too burdensome. What comes next is the cyborg that can do both with minimal energy. I was intrigued by this quote from Haraway; "Late twentieth-century machines have made thoroughly ambiguous the difference between natural and artificial, mind and body, self-developing and externally designed, and many other distinctions that used to apply to organisms and machines. Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we are frighteningly inert" (518). This is something to think about. Are our machines more active then we are? If they are, then I believe we have a problem.
I found it interesting when Haraway talked about how communication technologies will work to shrink public space. I think about facebook, blogs, and other online communities where private thoughts and information are publicized for the world to see. With the internet you are now able to access information about virtually anyone you seek to find information upon. There have been times I have found out people’s addressed using the Cha-Cha services which utilize internet to gather information for the user. It’s astonishing to see how public these things are that we think are private. The internet has opened doors to access to so much information in all sects of life. Even with facebook, I have been told that, if you set your profile to private there are still people who have access to view all profiles. The other concept I found interesting was that the machine is us. It reminded me of earlier discussions of how machines can only know as much as we humans know, so it embodies our knowledge and, ultimately, is an extension of us. I think the possibility of a cyborg transforming social and political aspects of society is definitely plausible. For this to come to pass, however, I am not quite certain. I am sure that the notion of skype, and even television, was not conceivable to our ancestors. I guess with the rate that media is expanding these days we can truly say that anything is possible!
ReplyDeleteWow, David, you stole (I mean precipitately developed) half of my spiel. And Cody developed the other half. Now I have to think of something new. XD
ReplyDeleteI was reminded heavily of a particular music video. A family wanted a kid and thus adopted a cyborg boy who didn’t just work but “live”, and didn’t “need batteries like human beings” (likely a reference to food). The boy was “needy for connection,” (517) particularly with his mother (no Freud please!). After the mother and father got pregnant and had a real child, the cyborg felt alone because the father rejected his “bastard” child in favor of the other. And yet the biological child is also envious, envious of the immortality and perfection (“more human than human”) of the cyborg. Very provocative.
Anyway, Haraway claims that “the cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family” (517), but this boy does. He also connects with his “phallic mother, from whom all humans must separate” (517). So is he human? He was created, but he meets the criterion of “humanist sense.” (517)
Haraway is in accord to an extent, saying that “our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves frighteningly inert.” (518) Indeed “we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs.” (516)
Cyborgs are simply “where the boundary between… animal-human and machine” (518) is transgressed. What about something as simple as robotic limbs or plastic surgery? Could this potentially make people think, “Who cares? I can get that fixed.”? Will we stop being so careful? Machines are ubiquitous in modern American society. What difference does it make to add a little more plastic and gears?
So is this unfeasible? No, it’s feasible. Even if we don’t take it as literally as the video, with cyborgs being so like us, cyborgs could potentially influence us. Cody is correct in saying that it will take more than just one cyborg to change things. He is also correct in saying that there will be problems associated with the pseudo humans. These problems alone will give rise to great social and political changes.
Thanks Vanessa for posting the link for more information to understand the purpose of the cyborg metaphor, that really helped in my understanding of the content of the reading. My opinion regarding the cyborg is that it is a feasible form of new media that can transform the social and political aspects of society today. I can relate to Haraway's statement that she "...argue(s) for a politics rooted in claims about fundamental changes in the nature of class, race, and gender in an emerging system of world order analogous in its novelty and scope to that created by industrial capitalism...we are living through a movement from an organic, industrial society to a polymorphous, information system." I think this really epitomizes why the cyborg is a legitimate form of new media that can alter the social and political aspects of society today, because technically computers now already are an extension of humans, they know everything that every person who worked on them has input into them, so they know the equivalent of many minds who all come from different racial and sexual boundaries. Just as Haraway states, her "cyborg myth is about transgressed boundaries," and I think that's what she is referring to.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we are getting used to presence of the cyborg in our lives. We may rely on it, and may feel insecure without any machines. It is going to influence our society socially and politically inevitably. Personally I think cyborg is going to take us to a society which lacks of emotions. Like what some other machines have done, it may create more distance and boundaries within human. It may also influence our culture in terms of technology. We can’t live with our technologies in today’s society. In addition, I agree with what Vanessa has pointed out that cyborg may serve as a military tool for government. Even though we have expectations and guesses about how cyborg will influence us, we still don’t know what exactly it will bring us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebecca Archer--cyborgs would certainly be more objective. However, I agree with Jen H as well, "Personally I don't think removing all emotion is the best way to do that. Like Rebecca stated, politics are driven by differing morals and opinions which makes it personal--which is why I'm hesitant to this new idea. I do think that the neutral position would be a helpful reference in regards to removing bias and prejudice, however."
ReplyDeleteI think Andrea Y brings up a great point in referencing, "they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism" and asking whether or not Haraway is correct--would this mean cyborgs are biased toward militarism and patriarchal capitalism?
I think Duoduo sums up my thoughts best, "Even though we have expectations and guesses are how cyborg will influence us, we still don't know what exactly it will bring us." I think that until cyborgs are widespread and omnipresent, it is very difficult to determine their implications.
Did this make anyone else think of Fahrenheit 451 and a society lacking emotion?
The use of artificial limbs that function as real (example in iRobot when Will Smith's character has an artificial limb) would greatly benefit many people in society but the idea of a thinking, feeling robot still makes me uneasy. I think about movies like iRobot and others where the robots take over. This may seem a little far fetched but it almost seems dangerous to have something we created living with us. This may just be paranoia from me but i don't see the reason that robots should act or be like humans. That is what a legitimate human is for. I guess in the future we will have to see what cybernetics brings us. It could bring us good or bad but only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteSocially, Haraway predicts that the creation of the cyborg will bring about “a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves (535).” She thinks cyborgs would further blur the lines between race, social standing, and gender in our society. Their creation would cause less distinction between human-animal and human-machine relationships.
ReplyDeleteIn the section entitled “Cyborgs: A Myth of Political Identity”, Haraway lays out her opinion about how politics could potentially be changed by cyborg production. She focuses mainly on the implications cyborgs hold for the future of women. She feels that they hold hope for the feminist cause because breaking down differences in society would further promote gender equality.
I personally believe that cyborg production would unify the world in a common scientific cause, but I wonder if some controversial issues would arise as to the cyborg’s “gender”, political views, religious ideas, and identification of right and wrong. Would it have a concept of ethics? Politically, future leaders could use the cyborg to promote their campaign or support their cause because they could program it to say or do exactly what he or she wants to make them always look favorable. I believe that the presence of cyborgs would either encourage people to value their family and interpersonal relationships even more, or would eventually bring about a more distant norm of communication. Perhaps people would become less dependent on each other and more dependent on cyborgs because of their more advanced capabilities. The concept of combining human and machine has always been frightening to me because of the several science fiction movies I have seen on the topic. I have yet to be convinced that cyborgs would do society more good than harm because I believe when humans become creators of other "humans", we are crossing into a dangerous realm that was not reserved for us.
I certainly think that cyborgs would transform social and political life. Like Rebecca said, and like a few other classmates expanded on, in the political arena, cyborgs would provide an unbiased opinion that would be based upon an evaluation of which method should work the best.
ReplyDeleteSocially, cyborgs would create a society that is more dependent on machines, but I disagree with some classmates that they would bring about a community that lacks emotions. We are human, and what separates us from other animals is that we have the ability to empathize and consider emotions when making decisions. No technological advancement can take that away from us. I also don't believe that lacking emotions would appeal to any humans, just because that is such an integral part of the way that we go about doing things, and we cannot simply push those feelings aside. Cyborgs would however essentially eliminate discrimination, which would be a huge success for society!
In my opinion, cyborgs are most effective at blurring the boundaries of society, especially social and political boundaries between animals and machines. Unlike humans, however, cyborgs lack emotions or the ability to feel. Our emotions and how we feel about certain subjects influence us politically and determine how we vote. Unfortunately because of these emotions we prevent ourselves from understanding an opposing political view. Cyborgs don’t have this problem. Therefore, politically the people are more informed about politics. Cyborgs can “see from both perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from the other vantage point” (519). For better or for worse, cyborgs would dramatically change politics.
ReplyDeleteHaraway’s reference to Star Wars helped me picture the way cyborgs would blur social boundaries. Our world would be very similar to the world of Star Wars if cyborgs were to exist. It would be a world where, “social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints “ (519). For these reasons, it is my opinion that cyborgs are capable of transforming the social and political aspects of today, just like any other advanced technological determinant.
(Thanks Vanessa for the link!) I believe that the cyborgs would transform us socially as well as politically. Politically the cyborgs would cause a different perspective on issues because they have no emotion. Socially, our world would be changed forever. A cyborg is a “creature of lived social reality” and a “hybrid of machine and organism”. Cyborgs would first be integrated into society as military aid and then would blend with society because humans would be accustomed to the idea of animals and machines. Imagine a cyborg today? I believe that like any form of new media it would be taken as a shock accompanied by a fear then eventually accepted by our society. I believe that if cyborgs were introduced in my generation it would be shocking but by our next generation it would be normal to them and they would blend with society. I still feel as though we are waiting for the invention of the cyborg and a part of me thinks that it is already invented just not available to the public.
ReplyDeleteI saw that some find that cyborgs will one day be accepted into our society. I agree in a sense that socially they might be, but when it comes to politics, or when it comes who who will or what will be in control in governing humans, I agree with Dana. Politics are only politics because those involved have invested emotional, moral, and ideological parts of themselves in it, and they try to control the rest of society based on that. So although in an ideal world, cyborgs, with their lack of emotional influence on decision making, might be great leaders that bring practicality to every issue, I know for a fact that many people will not be able to accept this in our own world.
ReplyDeleteCyborgs are unarguably the future, and are in ways already here. although our machines aren't inside our skin, they might as well be. The number of people walking around with their headphones in their ears plugged into their iphones is evidence enough. We keep it outside of the physical boundaries of our bodies, modern technology is arguably part of many people's bodies. When you don't have your cellphone in your pocket, you still feel "phantom texts", akin to phantom pains that amputees experience. When I forget my phone I not only feel naked but as if a part of me is missing, and when my battery dies, its like losing one of your senses. weather of not we put our communication devices in our brains, the machines are very much a part of us.
ReplyDelete