David Harris
Amstd 475-01
Professor Plemons
2/20/15
My
main take away from Donna Harraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto” is that a cyborg is a
“hybrid or a machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature
of fiction” (149). The cyborg is then used to show that binaries are not how we
as people should think of the world. This example creates a gray area between
nature and machine. The cyborg is not limited by traditional binaries and
dualist paradigms for example, a cyborg is neither male nor female Areas that
she cites as already breaking down binaries are human vs. animals, organisms
vs. machines, and physical and non-physical. The purpose is to then critique this binary
world that is created around us with the idea of the cyborg as the new road
map. Also she wants to tear down boundaries rather than promoting labels.
I find it very
interesting that she said machines are becoming more lifelike as this was
published in 1985. This is before the time of voice commands and Siri. I
specifically think of Siri because you can have Siri address you with your
personal name. By stating your name Siri is then acting as if it is a personal
friend of yours. Also, Siri can talk back to you. For example, when you ask
Siri where is a good place to bury a dead body she responds with multiple
locations around your general area. Machines can recommend locations to your
for certain purposes, like a best friend would recommend Red Bento if you
really wanted sushi nearby. Harraway already states in 1985 that machines are
becoming more personal; I wonder how she would react to 2015 technology. How far would she extend her argument? This a
good question that has no answer.
“A Cyborg
Manifesto” easily can be brought into the discussions we are having in the
classroom. At the center of Harraway’s argument is to not think of the world as
black and white. So far we have critiqued the binary view of technology:
technology is either the great equalizer or a great limiter. With Harraway’s
view technology is neither. Instead technology should be thought of as a gray
area that has too much complexity to put a label on it. I believe that with not labeling what
technology is we will be able to view the benefits and critique in a holistic manner.
This is something that Harraway would
agree with and extend to everything. We are already cyborgs and we should thus
view the world around us as such. We cannot be quantified with a label therefore
we should not do that to others and the world around us.
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Haraway-CyborgManifesto-1.pdf
To some extent, is not labeling technology dangerous? Like you stated technology back in 1985 was a lot less sophisticated than it is now. It has become a lot more powerful and is integrated into most of our lives. Something like that cannot go unquantified or unlabeled. This thinking that technology is a gray area that is far too complex to understand is an excuse for people to not learn anything about the technology that is now driving our culture. It is very complex, but that shouldn’t keep people from learning about it and trying to understand it.
ReplyDelete“We cannot be quantified with a label…”
While we may like to think this is true we all fall into categories. Granted, we do not belong to just one category, but we can be labeled. Technology has helped to create those labels by constantly collecting data on us, what we like, what we do, and who we are so businesses can better market what they sell. Data is collected on us and we are put into categories. While we shouldn’t let the categories define who we are it is stupid to try and pretend they don’t exist. It is powerful to know how others see you and how you see yourself.
I understand that she is using these particular arguments to critique other parts of our culture, but if the base technological side of her argument no longer seems relevant with the extent of technology we have now, can the rest of it as well?