Haraway, Cyborgs and Theory, Oh my!

With this post, I'm hoping to spark some conversation about Donna Haraway and the "Cyborg Manifesto" that may help us to articulate our ideas when we meet. Also, each time I read this piece and as I read, I feel as though my ideas change as I think -- even when I feel like I'm having a simple thought. So, it might be helpful to have a record of our thoughts as they, er, evolve, and that may help us ultimately deal with how Haraway shapes and perverts (to be fair) New Media, and possibly also think through this piece as contributing to multimodality.

My initial impression as I read "Cyborg Manifesto" (as it always is) is that Haraway seems a lot like Asimov in her visionary thinking. For those who know his science fiction work, and those who don't, many of the ideas that Asimov developed in his novels predicted scientific development very well. In fact, his ideas were so ahead of science, that many of NASA's space designs are modeled after what Asimov described in his books!

I feel as though this happens in "Manifesto" as well. As the concept of cyborg is developed this being (what's a better word?) bears a close resemblance to contemporary people who are always plugged in to computers and machines. This is reminiscent of the discussion about Hayles last week and how it's tough for us to be distant from the internet for any particular time. There are other ways too that I will articulate as I post, but I wonder what you thought as you read.

For me, the keys to understanding Haraway in any meaningful way involve
* remembering that this is intended as "an ironic political myth" and
* bearing in mind that "the cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity."

Ok, all myth-making involves creating a history and a prophesy of the future, whether Greek myths, the Bible, or maybe even the American ideal of Manifest Destiny. This one gets complicated because it is intended as ironic, and as she develops the notion in her first paragraph, is overtly contradictory, and about "humor and serious play." What's more, this myth is feminist, socialist and materialist in origin. It combines Marxism and psychoanalysis in its theory. So, as a basis of theory making, Haraway, using one of the best parts of feminism, chooses subjectivity and community actively to consider what she is and is not interested in discussing.

Frankly, some of these choices are infuriating. If the cyborg has no cosmic memory or origin myth, and is not loyal to the Father (and you know I like that), why is dismissing and distancing the cyborg from the Father so important? Wouldn't an encompassing Mother myth be so much better? Wouldn't that be feminist myth making in the extreme? I mean other cultures do it, so. . . . Then I remember that the project is intentionally ironic, that much of 80's feminist projects involved reclaiming history, and that this is myth-making, not fiction. What's more, this topic is discussed in this way as Haraway sees humanity's relentless march towards machine-dom.

Here's what I like most about the cyborg myth:
* the cyborg is not an innocent and does not blame her (yes, the cyborg i subjectively develop is a she) progenitors,
* she is not tied to history, so there is no sense of atonement or reparations needed---sort of a new birth and planning only for the future (oh, and she both does and doesn't remember the past),
* individual responsibility is emphasized so the cyborg doesn't look to others to solve problems,
* the barriers between publicprivate citizenry are broken down,
* community based on commonality--the common thread I think is being on this planet, since the dichotomies between humananimal and human machine are broken down--so diversity is natural, and difference is expected, but all are the same if they are terrestrial, and
* because there is no need to name an Enemy, place blame, or to atone, the cyborg works for productive change.

So, as I began, I suggested that Haraway perceived the future in her myth, and I think that perhaps what we are doing as feminists (and I don't mean this as a gender specific notion) may in a small part be living the cyborg destiny. In an obvious way we do live in an information system. This blog you are reading and much of the content on the internet serves to make private citizens public. The line between person and machine is breaking down. Ipods, Blackberries, wireless phones and laptops are so common that it is ness likely to see someone without any of these. And as I mentioned above, and we discussed, being away from the technology is strange. I feel a sense of loss when I can't check email, and perhaps as though my personhood is compromised a little as my connection to the "collective" is disconnected.

What do you think of all this, and what do you make of the "informatics of domination?" And where do we go from here?

The Maiden Voyage

Yea! My very first blog post. And it's sure to be a fun ride. I'll try not to yack.