Haraway's article is certainly a heavy read. It was difficult to follow at times, and she has a strong way of writing. What I mean by that is that she doesn't hold back her opinion of what she thinks about certain things. Such as making the connection of teaching modern students creationism can be considered child abuse! Wow, that's ballsy. I'm not sure if I can talk much in depth on the article since my ability to digest it is pathetic. However, I can add on to the discussions in class about her overall theory of cyborgs in relations to feminism.
One thing I'd like to get off my chest first though, is that in class I didn't get a chance to comment on examples of cyborgs. Haraway herself mentions animals. The example I found was the RoboRoach. Funded successfully on Kickstarter, this is claimed to be the "world's first commercially available cyborg". What happens is that you are able to control the cockroach wirelessly through your mobile device. Now... I'm not exactly a large sympathizer for something like cockroaches or any particular insects, but this seems kinda messed up. I mean, I'm not going to go PETA all over it. But still. This makes me wonder what cyborgs mean all of the sudden. When we make cyborgs like this, is it something meant to be controlled? Could this be applied to Haraway's idea of two contrasting elements that can combine to create a new thing that can be coined as a cyborg?
In a way, sure. I'd argue that to combine something technological to something organic certainly requires human interaction. Control too. While it's more daunting to think of someone else controlling the technological side of your cyborg body, it seems it's unethical to do that to a human. Feminism as a concept that ties in with cyborgs seem plausible.
She doesn't want the idea of feminism to be traditional. She says that traditional dualisms that we have today only contributes to the oppression of women, women of color, animals, etc. So with hybrids and cyborgs we can combine contrasting forces and create a new ideal that goes beyond traditional ideologies. Like gender. The idea of two genders, male and female is predominant in our society. However gender fluidity is a thing now, where the two genders can be combined so someone can identify with both genders without the boundaries they have with gender roles.
So overall, the idea seems sound. However there are a lot of things to consider when it comes to the definition or idea of cyborgs. The RoboRoach is an example of so. While her idea is abstract, it is frightening to see the first commercially available cyborg is an animal that is subjected to our entertainment and whims. Cockroaches are amazing creatures, by boyfriend told me. They are basically one of the sole survivors since the dinosaur ages, and we can learn a lot from them. How far can her idea go? With this new product to buy, does it say anything else about our idea of a cyborg? Would this take her idea to a new level?
Friday, February 20, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The idea that teaching creationism is equivalent to child abuse was certainly arresting, I don’t really think I can react to that in a constructive manner myself. The RoboRoach looks like an interesting project, from a moral perspective using our technology to control another living being is a little creepy. Gender Fluidity is also an intriguing subject, the idea that masculinity and femininity exist to some degree within any individual. I think the concept of cyborg is more than the physical construct, the sci-fi style construction people tend to identify with. For me the concept isn't nearly as literal, our increasing dependence on technology raises some interesting questions.
ReplyDelete