The feminist writings of Haraway and Plant in particular illustrate highly pessimistic views on society and technology in particular. Although Turkle was not as explicitly as Haraway in her proclamation of being a socialist feminism, she also discusses the ramification of technology (most notably the loss of real human interaction) in this "culture of simulation" (Turkle 254). If the above writers were more prominent in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, their influence on new media would make cybernetics forces cautious to support expansion of media into the private sphere. In the Cyborg Manifesto, Haraway in particular draws on how cybernetics and technologies have not given women a more equal footing in society. None of the previous writers really discussed gender and sex politics in the same way as Haraway and Plant do. Plant's emphasis on the female labor force and how women were alloted the supposedly menial tasks of plaiting and weaving which Freud contends is the only thing women are good at (255). Plant picks on the fact that these tasks involve much attention to detail and that "plaiting, spinning, and weaving...led to rather increasingly complex processes and products," (258). Any products that should have alleviated women's toil did not do so because the social stigma associated with being a woman in a developing country did not change. Socially women were still considered inferior to "male dominant capitalism" and left to continue working in grueling environments such as sweatshops. factories and not to mention taking care of a family with limited resources such as running water and electricity (150).
I do see a little bit of optimism in Haraway's anger and endless discussion of the cyborg when she writes that "cyborgs...are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism...but illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins..." (151). I took that to mean that feminist writers as they gain more prominence in this age of the blogosphere and handheld devices as she calls them, they will be able to use thee cyborg not as a means to further repress women especially "women of color" but to also finally create a world "without gender." I hearkened back to my semester in Feminist Theory and how we as a class wondered why is it that writers, artists, journalists, etc... are categorized by gender. Could we not just say, unless the writer wishes to be referred to as a feminist writer (which the term in and of itself does not limit its meaning to include just women but also men), that Emily Dickinson was a New England poet and find her under the category of "Poets of Massachusetts" and not "19th century female poets" ? That might be part of Haraway's issue with the cyborg and the literature and technology of the time. I have heard in countless classes about man's propensity to label and categorize nearly everything, and Haraway wants gender out of the equation at least until women are no longer facing oppression and control. Her observation of feminist cyborg stories which want to "recode communication and intelligence to subvert command and control," (175) are similar to Turkle's whole issue with "simulation". Turkle reflects much of the contemporary criticisms of new media-especially social media when she writes about MUDs and its virtual networks. Turkle and Haraway to an extent agree that there is something wrong with the way society interacts with media. Children will meld the real with what they see on television. Thus even Turkle recounts her childhood memory of expecting a flower to grow as fast as it did in a film she watched (237). But more so, Turkle discusses how media should "break down traditional barriers" and strengthen communities but instead computers create an "information elite" (244). Thus if women ruled the television, radio and newspaper channels 20-30 years ago, audiences would have heard and read about a cautionary approach to the supposed panacea called "cyborg" or really "new media." Though Turkle mentions the voices of Foucault and his Panopticon as an embodiment of her criticisms.
I do see a little bit of optimism in Haraway's anger and endless discussion of the cyborg when she writes that "cyborgs...are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism...but illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins..." (151). I took that to mean that feminist writers as they gain more prominence in this age of the blogosphere and handheld devices as she calls them, they will be able to use thee cyborg not as a means to further repress women especially "women of color" but to also finally create a world "without gender." I hearkened back to my semester in Feminist Theory and how we as a class wondered why is it that writers, artists, journalists, etc... are categorized by gender. Could we not just say, unless the writer wishes to be referred to as a feminist writer (which the term in and of itself does not limit its meaning to include just women but also men), that Emily Dickinson was a New England poet and find her under the category of "Poets of Massachusetts" and not "19th century female poets" ? That might be part of Haraway's issue with the cyborg and the literature and technology of the time. I have heard in countless classes about man's propensity to label and categorize nearly everything, and Haraway wants gender out of the equation at least until women are no longer facing oppression and control. Her observation of feminist cyborg stories which want to "recode communication and intelligence to subvert command and control," (175) are similar to Turkle's whole issue with "simulation". Turkle reflects much of the contemporary criticisms of new media-especially social media when she writes about MUDs and its virtual networks. Turkle and Haraway to an extent agree that there is something wrong with the way society interacts with media. Children will meld the real with what they see on television. Thus even Turkle recounts her childhood memory of expecting a flower to grow as fast as it did in a film she watched (237). But more so, Turkle discusses how media should "break down traditional barriers" and strengthen communities but instead computers create an "information elite" (244). Thus if women ruled the television, radio and newspaper channels 20-30 years ago, audiences would have heard and read about a cautionary approach to the supposed panacea called "cyborg" or really "new media." Though Turkle mentions the voices of Foucault and his Panopticon as an embodiment of her criticisms.
I also thought it was interesting how Haraway put all her hope into the figure of the cyborg. It made sense to me in the context, but when I first heard about science fiction or cyborgs in general I didn't imagine them as a very "feminine" thing at all. Haraway addresses this in saying that much of science fiction and even the use of technology has sexist ramifications. It was nice to see a different model of thinking about it all emerge.
ReplyDeleteI liked what you said about feminism and the role of gender in society in relation to Emily Dickenson. This is something that has always annoyed me actually. I also like that you acknowledged that men can be feminists, haha. Haraway talks a lot about the role of gender in society and how she would prefer to do away with gender until it is not used as a way to segregate and limit opportunity. In my opinion, the cyborg is a demi-creature that has aspects of both worlds. She mentions the merging of man and technology in the traditional sense of cyborg, but could a new current day cyborg not just be a non-prejudiced individual (e.g. a female feminist who doesn't hate men, or a male feminist that teats all as equals)?
ReplyDelete