Hi Adrienne. Thank you for sharing your visual artefact. ‘The cyborg is a feature of social reality, as well as science fiction.’ This theme has also had an impact on me, and has helped me to realign my understanding of what we mean by the term cyborgs. Prior to starting the course, I had little concept of the ‘social reality’ of cyborgs and had not fully considered the real world application of the terminology. The use of this quotation in your artefact had poignancy for me.
However, I would challenge your assertion that popular culture still depicts female cyborgs as vulnerable. I would ask you to reconsider this by looking at the recent examples of the female Terminator (the TX) in Terminator 3 (2003), as well as the Seven of Nine character from Star Trek: Voyager series and more recently Star Trek: Picard (1997 – 2001, 2020). Both are represented through a strong and tenacious characterisation. Is there perhaps a wind of change, or are these anomalies in how the female cyborg is represented in popular culture?
I think you raise a very interesting point here Jeremy. Much of what has been discussed in terms of technological enhancements to humans has been from a wider social perspective. If we look at the issue from a narrower point of view, viz. technological enhancement of school children, I ponder what impact transhumanism would have on our education systems.
Take for instance the most basic of the ‘real life’ enhancements from my video – the insertion of a data chip into the back of an individual’s hand. What educational opportunities would this avail, should schools and colleges insist on turning their students into an army of mini-cyborgs? There would certainly be many benefits from an administrative point of view; for example, schools would be able to undertake expedient and instantaneous attendance as children walk through the school gates, an essential part of their safeguarding procedures. In addition to this, cashless cafeterias would ensure the speedy distribution of lunches, and collate data on the types of food children are eating, with this being visible to both parents and teachers. Furthermore, this could form the basis for health-based discussions and schemes of work centred around real-life consumption data. An implanted chip that recorded biometric data from the child’s body in the same manner as a Fitbit or Apple Watch, would also be highly valuable for PE departments in devising personalised fitness plans and class setting according to physical ability. The list of educational benefits could go on….
However, the ethical concerns surrounding what is being suggested here are glaringly obvious, particularly in reference to privacy, and Orwellian oversight of young people. As such, to my mind, the acceptance of this type of technical enhancement within mainstream education is a non-starter, certainly for primary and secondary aged children. I cannot imagine any teacher, senior manager, head of school, or politician that would be able to put forward a convincing enough ‘educational’ argument that would supersede the ethical implications of doing such a thing. The educational arguments are strong but surely the ethical considerations will always win for the parents and children.
Thank you so much for you comments. I’m glad you enjoyed my visual artefact.
Yes, I was trying to encapsulate the view being argued by Knox (2015), that digital education has “largely shifted away from the phase of cybercultures, towards the view of an educational world in which technology is more firmly embedded, but importantly subservient to its human users”. The dystopian image of cybercultures and cyborgs, that has been diffused to us through science fiction, is exactly that – fiction! Knox says the “next phase of education and digital cultures reveals a pacification and instrumentalism of technology for predefined social ends”. I had hoped for the artefact in the latter half of the video, was able to represent this change in how cybercultures can viewed and imagined in more positive ways.
I think you draw a very interesting parallel regarding how those who have altered the human form through technology, aside those who had done so through gender reassignment. I agree that both would certainly receive prejudice rooted in ‘otherism’ and in the belief that the individual has done something ‘unnatural’. However, I think that perhaps fear and hatred of the cyborg is fuelled more from a mistrust of technology, as well as the augmented abilities that a technological enhancement may provide to a human. So whilst there are some similarities in the prejudice, I don’t think its exactly the same.
Biohacker Michael Laufer recently had a 512GB drive implanted in his leg, which can store data, stream music or movies, and power a hot spot and mesh network. It’s called the PegLeg, and WIRED’s Daniel Oberhaus spoke with Laufer about the device and the field of biohacking.
For more of Daniel’s reporting on Laufer, his PegLeg and Biohacking technology, visit WIRED.com: https://ift.tt/2HAdH5o
Humanity just made a small, bloody step towards a time when everyone can upgrade themselves towards being a cyborg. Of all places, it happened in the back room of a studio in the post-industrial German town of Essen.
It’s there that I met up with biohacker Tim Cannon, and followed along as he got what is likely the first-ever computer chip implant that can record and transmit his biometrical data. Combined in a sealed box with a battery that can be wirelessly charged, it’s not a small package. And as we saw, Cannon had it implanted directly under his skin by a fellow biohacking enthusiast, not a doctor, and without anesthesia.
Called the Circadia 1.0, the implant can record data from Cannon’s body and transfer it to any Android-powered mobile device. Unlike wearable computers and biometric-recording devices like Fitbit, the subcutaneous device is open-source, and allows for the user the full control over the data.
Great article on why Japanese do not fear robots to the same extent as the West. It attributes the religion of Shinto, which affixes spirits to humans, animals and inanimate objects, as one of the major factors. ‘All things have a bit of soul’ #MSCEdchttps://t.co/tnWzIL9vFg
Upon reading The Body and Information Technology (Miller, 2011), my interest was piqued in the manner in which the ‘cyborg’ was represented. The terminology, as a result of popular culture and dystopian notions of cybernetics, has often been framed as something to fear, with the term being imbued with pejorative connotations. Citing Gray et. al’s idea that by using technology as a means to restore, normalise, enhance and reconfigure the human body, it is possible to view the notion of cyborgs through an entirely different prism. Ten years ago my father was lucky enough to receive a cochlear implant on the National Health Service after years of degeneration in his hearing. Prior to the operation his hearing had diminished to such low levels that had essentially rendered him severely deaf. The implant to restore his hearing was life-changing and this ‘normalising’ technology significantly improved the quality of my father’s life. His hearing was restored to such a level that the was able to once again hear the sound of a spoon clinking against the side of a mug, as he stirred sugar into his tea – an everyday noise that he had not heard for years. Until I read the core paper, I have never viewed my father as a ‘cyborg’ but Miller has certainly put forward a reasonable case that has helped realign my perspective on this. Imagining cyborgs as individuals who have benefited from technology to improve the quality of their lives, rather than a traditional view often put forward in science fiction, establishes a more positive framework for understanding the complex relationship between humans and machine. This was very influential in my lifestream this week, with my inaugural tweeted about cochlear implants and cybernetics from the Ear Institute.
That said, there are possible ethical concerns on the horizon with this technology – as auditory cybernetics have developed over the past decade, my father’s device has become increasingly connected to the digital world. He can now connect his cochlear to Bluetooth and is able to attune the device to his mobile phone, laptop and television. This has brought me to wonder whether, in the not-too-distant future, humans who do not suffer from acute deafness, will be choosing to voluntarily implant the technology in order to enhance their connectivity to digital environments. This of course raises a gamut of ethical concerns over the nature of voluntary augmentations on the human body. Is this something that should be prevented from happening? And if so, can it be stopped?
Miller, V. (2011) “The Body and Information Technology”, from Miller, V. Understanding Digital Culture pp. 207 – 223, London: Sage.
Just read Vincent (2011) ‘The Body and Information Technology’. Fascinating stuff… My father received a cochlear implant in 2010. A means of using technology for to ’normalise’ his condition. I have never viewed him as a cyborg until now https://t.co/w1QKVUFQni