Sign in or register
for additional privileges

Feminist Dialogues in Technology

A Distributed, Online Open Learning Experiment Linking undergraduate students at Pitzer College and Bowling Green State University with Graduate Students at USC and UCSD

Mary Traester, Author
Previous page on path     Next page on path

 

You appear to be using an older verion of Internet Explorer. For the best experience please upgrade your IE version or switch to a another web browser.

Haraway Part 2

By the late twentieth century, our time, a mythic time, we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs. The cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics. The cyborg is a condensed image of both imagination and material reality, the two joined centres structuring any possibility of historical transformation. In the traditions of ‘Western' science and politics — the tradition of racist, male-dominant capitalism; the tradition of progress; the tradition of the appropriation of nature as resource for the productions of culture; the tradition of reproduction of the self from the reflections of the other — the relation between organism and machine has been a border war. The stakes in the border war have been the territories of production, reproduction, and imagination. This chapter is an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction. It is also an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end. The cyborg incarnation is outside salvation history. Nor does it mark time on an oedipal calendar, attempting to heal the terrible cleavages of gender in an oral symbiotic utopia or post-oedipal apocalypse. As Zoe Sofoulis argues in her unpublished manuscript on Jacques Lacan, Melanie Klein, and nuclear culture, Lacklein, the most terrible and perhaps the most promising monsters in cyborg worlds are embodied in non-oedipal narratives with a different logic of repressionwhich we need to understand for our survival.


The cyborg is a creature in a post-gender world; it has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labour, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all the powers of the parts into a higher unity. In a sense, the cyborg has no origin story in the Western sense — a 'final' irony since the cyborg is also the awful apocalyptic telos of the 'West's' escalating domination of abstract individuation, an ultimate self untied at last from all dependency, a man in space. An origin story in the 'Western', humanist sense depends on the myth of original unity, fullness, bliss and terror, represented by the phallic mother from whom all humans must separate, the task of individual development and of history, the twin potent myths inscribed most powerfully for us in psychoanalysis and Marxism. Hilary Klein has argued that both Marxism and psychoanalysis, in their concepts of labour and of individuation and gender formation, depend on the plot of original unity out of which difference must be produced and enlisted in a drama of escalating domination of woman/nature. The cyborg skips the step of original unity, of identification with nature in the Western sense. This is its illegitimate promise that might lead to subversion of its teleology as star wars.


The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence. No longer structured by the polarity of public and private, the cyborg defines a
technological polis based partly on a revolution of social relations in the oikos, the household. Nature and culture are reworked; the one can no longer be the resource for appropriation or incorporation by the other. The relationships for forming wholes from parts, including those of polarity and hierarchical domination, are at issue in the cyborg world. Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein's monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy. Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection- they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party. The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism. But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins. Their fathers, after all, are inessential.
Join this page's discussion (4 comments)
 

Discussion of "Haraway Part 2"

Chimera

The notion of the chimera works in Haraway's text to imagine a world that is free of all of the damaging "traditions" (as noted lated in this section). By embodying this mythic creature that has never existed until now, the world is open to all possibilities for feminists, as the chimera has no pre-set conditions or expectations.

Posted on 23 April 2013, 2:49 am by Jade  |  Permalink

RE: Inessential fathers

I love about this last three sentences of the last paragraph on this page. I think it is brilliantly stated and evocative. Two issues come to mind though. One being "Terminator" where cyborgs, at the very least, did not escape militarism. The second being illegitimate offspring who end up going on soul searching journeys for their inessential parts, returning to origins they were once unfaithful to.

Posted on 23 April 2013, 10:40 am by Ari Schlesinger  |  Permalink

Utopia

IS Haraway one of the cyber-utopians that many of our theorists have warned us to be wary of?

Posted on 23 April 2013, 3:51 pm by Alexandra Juhasz  |  Permalink

Re: Utopia

This is a little bit conflicting to me—Haraway mentions that "The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence." I generally would not associate a utopia with perversity, irony, or opposition, and yet she seems to.

Posted on 23 April 2013, 8:50 pm by Susie  |  Permalink

Add your voice to this discussion.

Checking your signed in status ...

Previous page on path Haraway: Cyborg Manifesto, page 1 of 8 Next page on path