Lee Brown said:
>If I were to say that what Harraway means by the term "Cyborg" (in the
>context of Cultural Studies -- you know that thing which grew from trying
>to understand the oppressions of identity in 70-80s Britain, Birmingham
>school, Stuart Hall and all that) is that the very nature of humanness is
>cyborg would it mean anything?? Not individual people, not prosthetic
>enhancement for what ever reason or in whatever field (a car can be
>considered a prosthetic enhancement because it expands the range of our
>legs) but to define the term human is to also define the technology which
>we use to create the world around us (or is that phrase too Marxist??)
>
I happen to agree, Haraway's work is politically engaged and academically
responsible. What she says in the Cyborg Manifesto about "humaness" and
about women in the integrated circuit is a lot more, however, than about
technologically reorganizing one's body.
I think one of the issues here is how transness (transsexuality) gets
exoticized in critical theory contexts. The same holds true for how trans
is always the exemplar of the "constructedness" of gender, never mind that
everyone's gender is constructed: focus on the trannies as the limit case.
When are these theorists going to add to the list of cyborgs ALL
(non)humans?!!
I am both concerned with the anti-intellectualism of this discussion *and*
the reification, exoticization of trans bodies by critical theorists. Some
of us get caught in the middle of such a debate and can't take sides. The
point, I think, is to be more responsible and *situated* (another Haraway
concept) about our academic work and cultural politics.
Ben Singer
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|