Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto"

[@Firmus777]

Ex Machina is about building artificially intelligent robots, not cyborgs. There are no organic components, just cybernetic components imitating organic ones (wetware for the brain and artificial skin).

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Hmm now you have me thinking--what would be a better example??

[@Firmus777]

@@TheoryPhilosophy This was nice food for thought because I actually couldn't think of an example initially and I thought it difficult because of my disagreement with Haraway. So I started to just think of some examples of female cyborgs. Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell first popped to mind but that doesn't really work because she works as a cop for the most part and isn't a feminist rebelling against a patriarchy. Alita from Gunnm is a bit closer, she is at the bottom of society and rebels against the system, but her relationship with the main patriarchal figure is respectful. The third example that came to mind I think fits amazingly well, the hosts from Westworld (the reboot). Your points about Ava from Ex Machina are applied even better on them. Ava wasn't made as a sex bot, her artificial vagina is just an extra feature and her sexuality is just a part of her personality that serves for her true purpose, her purpose being the research of artificial intelligence. The hosts on the other hand are made precisely for the purpose of entertainment. Their intelligence is something that evolves in spite of their essence, it is an escape from the boundaries set upon them. Once it develops the main fighters against humanity are two female hosts, Maeve and Dolores, and they are fighting against male figures in cyberpunk world which imposes upon them a more patriarchal Wild West styled world. Not only that but in their fight against the human world they modify themselves in a way that fits Haraway's descriptions of cyborgs incredibly well. Compare this to Ava who only goes through a makeover at the end of her film. A further feminist element in Westworld is present in the fact that female hosts, Maeve and Dolores, find potential to liberate themselves through modification while for Bernard and Stubbs it causes an existential crisis. Now... there is a technicality that needs to be addressed. Are hosts cyborgs? My initial comment was objecting on a technicality that Ava is not a cyborg. Like Ava they are entirely man made, but they are made not of circuitry and mechanical parts, but of organic material excluding the computers in their heads. Even if it is entirely synthetic it is organic materials that comprise most of them so I would say they are cyborgs. I would imagine that this would make Haraway smirk as I went from imposing a clear cut distinction to describing more muddy waters between the organic and inorganic. I'm just happy that I stumbled upon such a good example and that it led me to uncover a new way to interpret Westworld.

[@samkou-man4825]

I'm actually looking at Ex Machina as a case study for my masters, I somewhat argued that though they are A.I. They can be categorized as cyborgs, one based on their treatment and experiences as Other and 2. because the premise of the film is to determine their humanness and consciousness. If Cyborg identity revolves around an identity based off of lived experiences, I figured I could justify calling these androids or A.I models cyborgs.

[@matthewjbacher]

this was written in the 80s

[@markymarcm]

​@@TheoryPhilosophy There's a recent film called _Archive_ that would possibly fit the bill. In this film, an inventor creates a robot with the implanted memories and apparent personality of his deceased wife (archived and able to be uploaded). Robot wife/newly free entity must then decide whether or not to play nice with her patriarchal creator/husband. Although technically a physically synthetic robot, with little to nothing in the way of biological components, she has a "human" mind so I think would probably classify as cyborg. The film tackles similar ideas as Ex Machina, however, one of the major differences perhaps being that the inventor in this film doesn't want to have sex with his creations haha

[@lewisnicholson790]

I wanted to say that haraway isn’t actually calling for a shedding away of race or gender but it’s more about the constructions that precede these identities. It’s about recognizing that it is a construction and not some divine inherent things. And I think that’s about it. It takes her a while to get to that but that’s what it’s about. She is essentially a materialist taking away abstractions within our understanding of the systems that govern our bodies… presenting a non-representational concept instead to a representational one, which is actually more materialist than abstract because it is these structures that are the abstractions, reductions, and classifying constructions

[@lucaholland2887]

thanks for this explanation and for putting haraways words in readable english

[@Virus16th]

I have struggled so hard to make sense of the manifesto, thank you so much for helping to clear up so many of my frustrations.

[@milu3779]

Wow, that was very illuminating. This text just blew me away when I first read it, (and to be honest i haven't re-read it in whole yet) and while it did kind of leave me bewildered, i tend to think (having gone through more Haraway since) that's *kind of* intentional? And this "kind of" feels like another instance of Harawayan irony: to the critique of: "this is impenetrable!" she might reply half-seriously: "could it be anything else, given that it tries to describe the troubled conditions that it is itself a product of?" But also, she might point out that she called it a manifesto right there in the title, so some free-form lyricism is par for the genre. It just so happens that her poetic esthetics are drawn from the technical jargon of academic political philosophy, as well as from scifi and other works of subversive creativity. As for the problematic aspects, i'm glad you pointed them out because i had missed them. Maybe though that's why i was slightly uncomfortable in the "Women of colour" section? though i'm white, so, idk. Still i'm not sure i agree with your critique? i felt less like Haraway wanted to subsume "women of colour" within the cyborg label, and more that she was drawing inspiration from the open-endedness that characterizes (according to her) the strategic identification of some people as "women of colour"? Like this was a smart political innovation, and should be emulated. but it did feel a bit cavalier, so maybe you're right and she was less than entirely respectful and responsible towards struggles not hers to claim.

[@frequenseas7337]

Thank you. This video really helped me understand the material. This broke it down in such an easy way to understand and hope that the theories I need help with you have a video for. Thanks again!

[@legalcoffee5315]

I like the theory - thank you for explaining it. Of course, no theory could possibly speak as to all female experiences across the globe but I like how the theory broadly speaks to reimagining identity rather than just accepting old narratives of identity. The goddess ideal is ridiculously hard to live up to - a cyborg-assisted equalization of the human experience is an interesting idea.

[@giulia2503]

in 6:52 the actually quote is "This essay is an argument for pleasure in the CONFUSION of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction". Changes the meaning quite a bit

[@milu3779]

oh good catch!

[@MrArgentino2000]

Hi, I have already read Cyborg Manifesto. Responding to your question about undoing the heritage, the race-determination and else is an issue built by, as you said, a very privilege point of view, a position in wich you CAN propose things like that. Also she said that in the text (I dont remember the exact words) that she is an Irish, white woman with good education in a first world country. I think that the issue of cyborg is interesting and can be applied, but also is an Utopia and, as you said, not everybody would like to get rid of the things that makes them "themselves" Sorry for my bad english, was a pleasure to hear. From Argentina.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Thank you!

[@xiongbingao70]

Thank you for the video! I have read this text a few times and find it really difficult to grasp. Haraways' ideas are interesting but her writing is certainly not the easiest (for me anyway). Would really like to see more videos on her work in the future.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Happy to hear it :)

[@celestialhuang2770]

Sorry its GMT 12.00 PM 21st Oct

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

@@celestialhuang2770 unfortunately I believe that's at 8am my time which is a little too early for philosophy XD

[@MultiRozey]

@@celestialhuang2770 Could you add me to the discussion group if you have one? I only found the information now.

[@petjaivanova2587]

Really enjoyed your intro. I do think you left out a few important aspects such as the limitations of language and how they are bound to patriarchy. So the cyborg and Haraway’s way of writing aim to show how that struggle is also a struggle of grammar, the lack of an outside of patriarchal language. I’m curious as to why the cyborg myth is so widely used to refer to a manifestation of a cyborg body where I read the manifesto more of a story telling device that amplifies the importance of imagination as a faculty, a tool for change.

[@milu3779]

i love your reading. i think Haraway chose the cyborg quite hoping it would evoke a visually arresting symbol, but one that (thankfully still today) doesn't point to a fixed signifer, but rather a dizzying plethora of creative interpretations: i can very quickly switch around in my mind: Ghost in the Shell, Isabel Fall's Attack Helicopter, Blade Runner, WestWorld, Ian McEwan's Machines Like Me, Black Mirror's many suggestions, The Matrix, Furiosa, Iron Man, and so on and so forth. She used the word "cyborg" and not, say, "mutant" because the word "cyborg" squarely forces the reader to think in terms of scifi imagery. This is a concept from a decidedly non-"serious" genre, _and yet_ Haraway wants (us) to take it seriously.

[@TehillaSiboni]

Thank you for this vid! i found it so helpful! It was an "extra" reading for one of my uni classes and i saw that the pdf was like 88 pages and while I am a teacher's pet I am not QUITE at the level of reading 88 pages of "extra/optional" reading. So this summary was a nice lil easy way out. I also really appreciate the way you explained things it really felt like I was in a lecture! You have a very nice cadence that makes this not at all boring to listen to (granted I was doodling while listening hehehe)

[@pratibhasangale2145]

That was a lucid and simple explanation of the manifesto,as I struggled so hard to decode it. Thank you

[@Sociotube]

Useful discussion of an unnecessarily confusing text. I'm currently trying to teach this to undergrads and I'm convinced that certain parts of this manifesto are intentionally vague and ambiguous.

[@vauchomarx6733]

Awesome! Now this text makes much more sense to me than the first time I've tried to read it. Speaking of Haraway's references: Do you consider making a video about Catharine MacKinnon at some point? I think she's one of the most theoretically interesting radical feminists. Maybe about "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State"?

[@leonoremilletde5195]

Je suis en larmes devant cette vidéo. Comment peut-on avoir si peu de compassion, si peu de compréhension de ce que c'est que d'être une personne trans ? On ne décide pas d'être trans. Ca me fait penser aux hommes qui se disent victimes du féminisme... comme si, les micro-inconforts engendrées par le féminisme étaient comparables à l'oppression subie par les femmes. Comme si les micro-inconforts de certaines femmes étaient opposables à la souffrance des personnes trans qui ne se sentent pas reconnues et écoutées.

[@CorvusCoraxPodcast]

Funny I just bought a book collecting several texts from Haraway. Great video as always, keep it up :)

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Thanks 😊

[@joaoviegasv]

Thank you so much for this

[@tazzy4367]

Great video, this really helped a lot and made so much sense!

[@alexburns7259]

7 months late but thanks for this vid! Cool summary of CM. Haraway is super interesting and occasionally super frustrating - - I think her "Situated Knowledges" is the better essay of the two. It would be great if you could do a video on her book 'Staying with the Trouble', too - That one is also really interesting!

[@Phantom.1]

You are awesome, my friend. Thank you for your work.

[@Zing_art]

I didn’t really understand Haraway’s argument

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Gah then I didn't succeed! But tbh, I am in the same boat. I think that she's arguing that technology has brought upon some of the most nefarious parts of the modern world, but it has also brought the opportunities to challenge those negative parts? Maybe?

[@Zing_art]

@@TheoryPhilosophy Yes perhaps. Don't take the burden on you. You have done your job the way that suited you the best. My understanding faculties may also be at fault :)

[@seansmith5468]

If A.I were to use irrational logic to connect to the prime directive would that be sentience?

[@redhotunity]

Thanks for making this, it is sooo hard to understand :DD

[@drakegaither]

you changed the music finally lol

[@theeefemmebot]

thank you bestie

[@dougcraig6922]

Which....is a little problematic, but....it's what we have here... hahahahaah

[@px7107]

Interesting

[@battragon]

Witches.

[@timcox1380]

👍👍👍

[@a.jcresswell9980]

It was painful listening to this presentation with all of the repetition, use of "you know," false starts, and verbal tics. This is an example of why a SCRIPT is needed.

[@danishajenkins4520]

Simmer down