Critical Annotated Webliography (Q.1)

Question 1. Cyborgs are hybrid entities that are neither wholly technological nor completely prganic, which means that the cyborg has the potential not only to disrupt persistent dualism [in language and thought] ... but also to refashion our thinking’. (Balsamo). Drawing on current scholarly work, discuss ways in which the cyborg is still a transgressive figure.

In the past, cyborg is defined as half human and half machine, the idea was initially brought by the United States N.A.S.A for helping to investigate the space. However, the meaning of cyborg has changed via times, it seems that a person who wears glasses, or is too dependent on computer, are also defined as cyborg, I will further explain the new nowadays definition in the following paragraphs. I will also use the sources which I have found to explain how current scholars think whether cyborg is a transgressive figure or not.

Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us--Thomas Blake

I will first start with how scholars define the word ‘cyborg’. According to Blake, cyborg means an integration of organism and information technology. In the present time, a combination with any kind of technology is also counted as cyborgs, thus he has suggested that people with immunizations or with glasses are considered as cyborg under this sense, but he believes that the above examples cannot really be cyborgs. He thinks a real cyborg is that a human has added some technological devices into his body physically, which is totally combined with the biological body and the owner can control it by himself. Besides, Blake thinks that ethics and human nature are closely interrelated, hence, if a person transforms (change) into a cyborg, the ethics will change as well, because cyborgs are not something of human nature. Furthermore, he claims that cyborgs cannot be considered as ‘he’ or ‘she’, but ‘it’, as it is a thing, not people. However, he also admit when he look at a cyborg at the first time, it seems there is no difference in nature. From what Blake has mentioned, it results that cyborgs are neither human nor machine, they are transgressive.

Fatally Flawed--Greg Halenda

The author has suggested some cyborgs’ characters in four movies as examples, using them to show that general people lean to think cyborgs are transgressive, dangerous and afraid of them, as movies can well represent most of the public’s thinking, especially fear. This online writing can let me to show that cyborgs are still considered as transgressive. As the author, Halenda mainly illustrates that the cyborgs’ characters in Blade Runner, Bubblegum Crisis, Ghost in the shell and Max Headroom are portrayed as a figure with human-liked appearance, but actually deep inside are inhuman by looking at their activities and needs in the films, for instance, drink blood to survive, need steady repair when break down. He claimed that people believe cyborgs are totally not human, just a hybrid of machine and human, thus, they are always suffered from bad things in the movie, in order to show people’s (director and audience) hatred and panic towards the cyborgs, they count them as otherness. Nevertheless, they will not regard them as just a technological device, it is because they have different gender roles, and will also die, simply like human. This writing can clarify that people are commonly think that cyborgs are transgressive, something different from human and machine. 

The Modernistic Posthuman Prophecy of Donna Haraway--Peta S. Cook

This writing will use for discussing the reasons of cyborgs are transgressive in advance. The writer believes that a cyborg is a hybrid entitle with a techno-organic soul and human flesh. In addition, he thinks that cyborgs are not just a science and military integration of human and technology, but some fundamental dualistic prospect that influence daily self-conceptualizations, thus it is a challenge of organic and scientific differentiation. In the reality, he thinks that some people has some technological devices inside his body can be considered as not a cyborg in some cases, like, the people who has a prosthetic leg, although he should be seen as a cybrog scientifically, the writers claims that we should look over the body, but focus more on people’s thinking,

Brain-Computer Interface Systems--Dylan McKeever & Andrew Stevenson

For this piece of writing, I will use it to explain that some scholars consider a few cyborg cases are somehow not transgressive. In the above writing, the writer believes that if a disabled person with a prosthetic limb should not be really considered as cyborg, as he or she still has his or her own thinking. The writers of ‘Brain-Computer Interface Systems’ also have a similar idea, have mentioned a case about a brain-paralysed cyborg. A group of scientists implanted a machine, called neuromotor prosthesis into a paralysed patient’s brain, which allow him to control objects by his own thoughts, such as, switch on and off the television, and even change channels. It is obvious that this paralysed patient totally matches the definition of cyborgs. The writers believe that it is nice to help people with disability to live like a normal person. Moreover, they avoid using the term ‘cyborg’ as well, as they may think ‘cyborg’ is a bit negative, show no respect to the patient, or they may consider the patient is totally a human though he is really a cyborg technically. Therefore, they just use other scientific terms to replace this word, such as, people with brain-computer interfaces. This writing can show that people tend to imagine disabled people with implanted device or dependent on machine are still ‘very’ human, at least they have their own mind.

Performing the Cyborg: Stelarc--Andrew Eglinton

This essay allows me to reinforce the though of the above paralysed patient’s case, and also gives an idea that when cyborgs have dissimilar purposes, they are considered as two different things in someway. The writer has similar idea on the above case, he weighs this circumstance as a life-enhancement, does not deny the patient is not human. Then he further explains that, if the idea of cyborg use in military force, such as, enhancing soldiers to become stronger, modifying them into a kind of weapons or military equipment, he thinks that it is ethically questionable, not quite acceptable. Besides, the writer has proposed that cyborgs should be considered as the ‘others’, and classified into a lower rank. Apparently, he believes that cyborg is definitely not human, if not, he will not think they are ‘others’. I will use this to show that people always think cyborg for military use is morally inappropriate, it is something more than a machine, but obviously not a human. On the other hand, they accept the people becoming a cyborg, because of their physical disabilities or illness, though in technological level, this kind of cyborg is the same as the cyborg for military use, just different in purpose. From the above writings, we can see that scholars tend to think cyborgs are transgressive, but when they consider the cases of disabled people, there maybe some contradictions.

Reference

Andrew Eglinton (2006) ‘Performing the Cyborg: Stelarc’http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/performing-the-cyborg-stelarc/ (accessed 27 February 2009) 

Dylan McKeever & Andrew Stevenson (2007) ‘Brain-Computer Interface Systems’.http://www.cyborgdb.org/mckeever.htm(accessed 27 February 2009) 

Greg Halenda (2005) ‘Fatally Flawed’. http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/halenda/3.html(accessed 27 February 2009)

Peta S. Cook (2004) ‘The Modernistic Posthuman Prophecy of Donna Haraway’http://eprints.qut.edu.au/646/1/cook_peta.pdf (accessed 26 February 2009)

Thomas Blake (2007) ‘Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us’. http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/conferences/ethicomp/ethicomp2007/abstracts/83.html (accessed 25 February 2009)