>
>>The use of the term cyborg in a non-technological context to me is
>>inappropriate and by it's very definition meaningless.
>>
>Just as Webster's dictionary does not limit the nature, meaning, and usage of
>words in our world, the technological definition of "cyborg" does not alter
>it's specific usage in feminst writing such as Haraway's.
>
>Is this an *academic* list? Has anyone taking issue w/Haraway's writings on
>cyborgism (?) ever even read her manifesto? Do you know of what you
>critique???? IMO, watching RoboCop or citing technical manuals has little
>bearing on the original discussion.
>
>Who controls and makes meaning? We all do. And we contest our relationship to
>meaning making all the time. The only issue I had with the CFP that spurred
>this debate was the reductive application of the term to transsexuality, when
>in terms of feminist theory, it has much wider application (in fact,
>transsexuals are not even mentioned in Haraway's manifesto as far as I can
>recall).
>
>
>Ben Singer
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|