"The Cyborg Manifesto" and Cyberfeminism

Рет қаралды 12,870

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 42

@lunafowler5736 5 ай бұрын

While this text is definitely a harder read than many of the other theoretical texts I’ve read, I think the problem with accessibility also has to do with the fact that people aren’t really taught how to read theory. It’s definitely a different practice from reading a regular nonfiction text like a news article, but I think professors will assign a random piece of theory to students and expect them to just read it like nonfiction. I was lucky enough to have had a professor who spent the semester easing us into reading theory and helped us navigate leftist scholarly conversation. Because of that professor, I would say I’m now pretty okay at reading theory and can actually understand the nuances of denser texts. I think that with practice in reading theory, most people could generally understand the manifesto it as it is now. When explaining ideas, especially radical ones that aren’t already common in our cultural landscape, the writing will get weird because the concepts being written about are weird. I think the accessibility viewpoint often underestimates how smart the average person is. I think that in addition to scholars writing in a more accessible fashion, we also need to give people access to strong education so they can develop strong reading skills.

@meldagoknel5510 6 ай бұрын

It must be a pretty good challenge to summarize a text that complicated this clear and less than 20 minutes. You have explained her manifesto better than she did! Thank you for this effort. Kudos.

@tl_swan9348 4 ай бұрын

This has been truly helpful in understanding this difficult and lengthy read. I just wanted to thank you for doing an excellent job in summarizing this text while remaining informative and accessible. You're amazing!

@Velcera 8 ай бұрын

This is a really good, but i'm not sure if she would be considered a transhumanist. Posthumanist, certainly, but transhumanism is devoted to the perfection of the 'human' as a category through biohacking, extending life, cryogenics etc (Jones). Posthumanism is the critique of humanist assumptions and the dualism Haraway speaks of in her essay on Cyborg pluralism/partiality. Source: Jones, Emily. "Posthuman Feminism and Global Constitutionalism: Environmental Reflections." Global Constitutionalism 12.3 (2023): 495-509. Print.

@Sociotube 8 ай бұрын

Always appreciate a comment with citations! Your point is well taken, but I think it's fair to say that this work does have transhumanist overtones--in particular, her continuous (albeit very abstract) references to the growing bond between people and machines/information systems. That said, I have no idea whether she considers herself to be a transhumanist. It's not so much that she was advocating for stuff like biohacking and cryogenics, and more that these are the sorts of things that inform her argument about the "boundary breakdowns"

@Sociotube Жыл бұрын

Table of contents: 0:00 - 1:25 Introduction 1:26 - 3:29 Background 3:30 - 5:47 What is a Cyborg? 5:48 - 10:03 The Three Boundary Breakdowns 10:04 - 12:54 Haraway's Critique of Feminism 12:55 - 15:01 The Value of the Cyborg 15:02 - 17:02 Critiques of Haraway 17:03 - 18:03 Outro

@Sirzacharia 11 ай бұрын

Thank you for making this text accessible! I couldn’t get through it at all myself but it makes a lot more sense now!

@Sociotube 11 ай бұрын

Yeah, it's so tedious. Glad I could help!

@georgearmstrongcuster8419 Жыл бұрын

Wow, this is very comprehensive and informative. Keep up the work!

@Sociotube Жыл бұрын

Thank you, that means a lot!

@TrilithiumBanditKelsey 6 ай бұрын

I remember reading Haraway's 'Primate Visions', it was required reading in a Medical Anthropology class... I don't know WHY it was, it just was. 'A Cyborg Manifesto' was recommended reading. That didn't happen. It was the early 90s. Foucault, Haraway, Derrida, Barthes and other white-paper postmodernist/deconstructionist/poststructualist were all the fashion; it didn't matter what social-science/humanities class you took, you were going to bump heads with these folks... and it was god-awful annoying. Deconstructionists had nigh completely monopolized intellectual/academic curriculum for at least a decade; if your dissertation, article, or research-paper didn't have some citations crediting the 'avant garde', you were up a creek. ... The same key words over and over which refrained nearly every abstract and article: ontology, etiology, discourse, The Other/'Otherness', dichotomy, epistemology... interwoven with verbose metaphors peppered with ubiquitous citations in which one scholar would disagree to agree with the other. For the most part, they seem to all say the same thing, but brushed with different strokes in Marxist vs. Capitalist hues. I revisited my old anthropology dept. after 30 yrs. Scarcely anyone was doing actual ethnographic works anymore, of extant communities and populations, or archaeology any more of folks long gone... it's mostly just history of consciousness crap, and I remember being right there, ground zero, when it all began. I think you did a fantastic job summarizing this book, and I'm sure those who were required to read it are truly in your debt! Sometimes, a Cyborg is just a Cyborg.

@admiralfrancis8424 8 ай бұрын

Did anyone else come here from Existential Comics?

@Sociotube 8 ай бұрын

What a nice surprise, I used to read EC quite often!

@Fearofthemonster 8 ай бұрын

EC has 500K followers. The post has 700 likes so far. This video will have a lot more viewers soon.

@Lylybeebee 6 ай бұрын

that’s me too

@marioocana7529 3 ай бұрын

@admiralfrancis8424 3 ай бұрын

@@marioocana7529 Yes, they evidently did.

@MartijnVos 8 ай бұрын

This is very informative. I'd heard of the Cyborg Manifesto before, and felt there was something to it, but it was too hard and abstract for me to really grasp. But the way you explain it, it sounds like it basically supports how I feel about gender identity and other identities: they're cultural artefacts that we should get rid of. There's no need to divide ourselves into male and female. That hard boundary creates needless division, and there are too many people who are somehow in between: lacking a strong gender identity, having the opposite identity of their birth anatomy, having mixed ethnic ancestry, etc. It's great that transgender people are now able to transition, but that doesn't address the more fundamental problem that we don't really need this distinction at all in most parts of our lives; all of human experience should be accessible to all, and not be limited by artificial cultural boundaries based on your supposed identity.

@Sociotube Ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing! I think this text actually was ahead of its time, and corresponds to how a lot of people are thinking about identity now, which is why I decided to go ahead and teach it along with a lot of the great classics

@mariakoohi4306 9 ай бұрын

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks the Manifesto is a hard read, too poetic sometimes.

@hwdpai 9 ай бұрын

Thank you for this video. It is really helpful. 👏

@uprightmovement 4 ай бұрын

The dialogue between Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" and a speculative "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" presents two divergent pathways regarding humanity's future relationship with technology, identity, and nature. Haraway's manifesto envisions a world where traditional boundaries-between human and machine, nature and technology, and various social categories-are transcended through the integration of humans and technology. It argues for a fluid understanding of identity and advocates for a socialist-feminist approach to technology, aiming for a more inclusive and equitable society. On the other hand, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" imagines a return to principles grounded in humanity's ancient connections to nature, emphasizing sustainability, community, adaptability, and a profound respect for all forms of life. This approach advocates for living in harmony with the Earth, prioritizing ecological balance, and drawing on ancestral wisdom to navigate contemporary challenges. Carl Jung's perspective would likely offer a nuanced interpretation of these visions, emphasizing the importance of psychological integration, the balancing of opposites within the psyche, and the significance of the collective unconscious and archetypes in shaping human experience. Jung might view the cyborg as a symbol of the potential for transcending traditional human limitations, representing an integration of opposites-technology and nature, conscious and unconscious. However, he could also express concerns about losing touch with the natural, instinctual aspects of the self, which are crucial for psychological wholeness. Regarding the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto," Jung would likely appreciate the emphasis on living in harmony with nature and the interconnectedness of all life forms. This approach resonates with Jungian concepts of the collective unconscious and the archetypes that emerge from humanity's deep evolutionary past and our embeddedness in the natural world. The principles of community, sharing, and respect for the earth could be seen as conducive to encountering and integrating archetypal images and experiences, supporting the individuation process-Jung's term for the journey toward wholeness and self-realization. In evaluating the sustainability and success of these manifestos for all life upon the biosphere, including the humus that is fundamental to human existence, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" likely aligns more closely with principles that ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the planet. This approach prioritizes ecological balance, sustainable resource use, and a reciprocal relationship with nature, supporting biodiversity and the health of ecosystems upon which all life depends. The Cyborg Manifesto, while offering transformative possibilities for society and individual identity, primarily focuses on transcending human limitations through technology and does not directly address ecological sustainability or the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Its success in contributing to the well-being of the biosphere would depend on the development and application of technologies in ecologically responsible ways. In conclusion, while Jung's insights suggest the psychological and spiritual importance of integrating technology and nature, as well as the collective unconscious and archetypes, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" might offer a more sustainable and successful blueprint for ensuring the thriving of all life forms on Earth, including the very substance of humus. This approach emphasizes harmony with the natural world, sustainability, and a deep respect for the interconnectedness of life, principles fundamental for the flourishing of the biosphere and humanity's place within it.

@Sociotube Ай бұрын

I haven't read this text, but your great comment makes me want to! I was considering doing a manifesto series...

@aditikhandelwal8290 6 ай бұрын

Really good video, explained it very well!

@MichaelSandroBertl 7 ай бұрын

THANK YOU!

@jsalsman 8 ай бұрын

I, for one, welcome our cyborg feminist overladies. Shout out to Existential Comics!

@foodbaby7620 11 ай бұрын

This is really helpful - thank you!

@Sociotube 11 ай бұрын

Glad you liked it!

@juliancarvajalvaldes5094 7 ай бұрын

😊

@jeffpoole8404 Жыл бұрын

Promo`SM ❤️

@christophers.985 Жыл бұрын

Another case of great minds being used to further destroy what little peace people might have been able to find in the distance between an individual's journey of accepting one's natural position and the artificially created conflicts within the confines of a society so over-thought that no one is allowed to like themselves anymore for what they are. To me, her theory speaks more about her personal struggle with acceptance of self and the limitations of the human experience than it does feminism. It seems a shame that a woman as sharp as Donna Haraway doesn't appear to like herself for being a woman or possibly doesn't feel like being a woman alone is enough to warrant self appreciation.

@Sociotube Жыл бұрын

I think she would say that the idea of a natural position is a self-fulfilling prophecy-- even if we did have a natural position in society, we need sharp minds asking questions like this every now and then to understand where that position is and what it looks like. I bet you are right though that this is very personal on some levels-- most theory is, although most scholars will deny it.

@christophers.985 Жыл бұрын

@@Sociotube First, I learned so much from your explanation of her work. Thank you. You have a fan. Thank you taking the time to respond. Very kind. Second, great point on sharp minds questioning our position in things from time to time. Total agreement there. I would add that she inadvertently articulated in great detail her resignation and frustration with being limited and confined by our natural state simply by using cyborg in her theory. She's is not wrong, we are definitely a composite existence but unfortunately to deny that we have natural biological imperatives and intentions by design is kind of like saying the Sun will burn forever. Known good physics have already said otherwise. We are also a series of biological processes and much of our perception is largely based on very identifiable sensory inputs and evolved biological mechanics, chemicals, habits and routines that are easily a million years in the making. When she expresses feminism, societies impact on gender proclivities and cultural potential as a choice when (maybe) 10% of our consciousness is aware enough to struggle for control of our behaviors related to instincts and dna....I feel she might be a bit ambitious. Trying to change something as insignificant as biting your nails could take someone years. I can certainly understand why scholars would deny me this input but I think her work may lead to something greater if looked at from different optics. I am 51 years old and have been to other countries and seen a few cultures on display, a few where where the women clearly dominate the daily narrative. One congruent observance is that with or without the input of men there seems to be a solid slice of the female demographic that is discontent with their natural state. In my experience, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with wealth or freedoms. Contentment doesn't generally lead to progress so they appear to be a greater force in evolving our societies than I think they give themselves credit for. I.E I wanted a red Camero when I was 16 because Holly Shue (my favorite cheerleader) told me it was the car she wanted to ride in. Ultimately, this leads me to wonder. Even if women can summon a change of state by declaring everyone else's state ambiguous, problematic or oppressive, or through the use of surgery or technology: 1. What would be the impact on our species, on our children's future....will there even be children? 2. At what point does the expense of this discourse become too costly and selfish to sustain the current flailing human experiment? 3. Do we really want to discover that point? I would really love your input. The final questions are questions I truly don't have the answer too. Thanks.

@Sociotube Жыл бұрын

@@christophers.985 Thanks for your perspective! And great questions. I also am not sure I have answers. I can say though that I don't believe a world without gender would necessarily mean a world without children. One might very well abandon their gender without abandoning their ability or desire to reproduce. If theoretically cyberfeminism were to go mainstream, I think most likely the consequence would be a systemic change in child-rearing arrangements and expectations. For example, the role of the Mother might be replaced by some other figure, or several other figures which are capable of nurturing a child. Either way, if we are to move further beyond our "base" humanity with technology, I think the driving force behind that will more likely be an economic one, with people becoming increasingly open to pills and other enhancements that will optimize their functioning. In other words, if we are to become cyborgs, it will be in our pursuit of a competitive functional advantage, akin to the logic of why so many people drink coffee every day.

@milu3779 11 ай бұрын

@@christophers.985 "to deny that we have natural biological imperatives and intentions by design" Not by design, by history. It's an important difference. Allow me to pick at this "nature" thing for a minute, because that's a very loaded term and i'm not sure you realize that. Haraway is not in the business of denying the existence of "natural" things as such. she's in a tradition of challenging our use of the term, of being suspicious of how easily we fling it about without ever really defining it precisely. It should be noted that not all cultures have/had a concept of nature, or rather (because the term always exists to mark a boundary) of a nature/culture binary. Have you ever tried to define the word "nature"? Give it a try. Think of what you're leaving out that should probably be in, and what you're including that you might wish was out. To the extent that you want to salvage that word (Haraway would say chuck it out, i think) you have no choice but to politicize it. Any specific sense of "nature" is one that some people will take issue with, and any definition you pick will be congruent with some interests and communities - and incompatible with others. As soon as you start arguing that some part of sex differences come from nature, you are faced with a lot of thorny problems. First is: what does that imply for the issue at hand? Does "natural" = good, or = unchangeable? Second, assuming you do think "natural" means "unchangeable", you have new problems. One is that "nature" actually does change, all the time. Evolution doesn't only happen on the million-year scale, it takes place on much smaller scales too. Can that evolution be influenced? _Should_ it? (that's eugenics turf, tread lightly.) Another is the matter of plasticity: can instincts be educated out? (and is that a good or a bad thing, and who decides?) Another yet, is how do you actually tease out what's "natural" in human behaviour from what's "cultural"? Like, what's the methodology here? You can't just grow babies in vats and isolate them from their environment for the sole purpose of carefully controlled research. The ethics committee will have some opinions. This is an extreme example, but this type of debate inevitably must face the question of empirical fact-finding, because again, powerful interests and important issues depend on those answers. And then there's just that that line is sooo blurry. The grey zone is HUGE. Here's a tiny sample of the sort of questions that Haraway decided her time was better spent not having to answer: Is immunity transmitted by the lactating parent "natural" or "cultural"? Is clothing natural? Is cooking natural? Are glasses natural? And contacts? And LASIK? Are antibiotics natural? And anaesthetics? Some plants are abortifacent. Is it natural to use them? If you synthesize the same molecules contained in these plants and put them in a pill to trigger an abortion, is that natural? And on, and on, and on. As I said. It's a loaded term. So, maybe you can understand a bit better at least, why Haraway would want to encourage us to question whether it's not more trouble than its worth, and push ourselves to think about our bodies and societies under a different lens? Finally, i would be remiss not to say this. the "but nature!" argument is a very basic antifeminist point, and its goalposts just happen to differ from culture to culture, and shift with every generation, would you believe it. It appears to be mostly deployed by people who just want things to stay the way they're used to.