Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

The term cyberculture originated in 1963 by Alice Mary Hilton. She defined it as “that way of life made possible when an entire process of production is carried out by systems of machines monitored and controlled by one computer.” It is used to “denote not merely the new method of production but the vast influence of cybernetic principles and techniques on all phases of human life” (as cited by Petrina, n.d.). Hilton helped make a distinction between cyberspace and cyberculture without making it a dichotomy. The implications of cyberculture is that it “intensifies conditions through which the world is already divided.” Hilton remarked that cyberculture develops “new, revolutionary conditions for redividing abundance, labor, privilege and wealth” (as cited by Pertrina, n.d.). Thus, the implications are that civil liberties, human rights and redistribution of wealth are a part of cyberculture. It’s important that we know about the origins of cyberculture as Hilton provided a basis to compare and re-consider our current definitions of cyberculture. Additionally, it was interesting to note that Hilton’s overly optimistic notion of new technologies influencing the elimination of poverty and repetitive labor changed with the Vietnam war and social unrest. Instead, she ended up becoming wary of technology and abandoned the naive enthusiasm of her earlier work.

Reference
Petrina, S. (n.d.). On the origins of cyberculture. Retrieved from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

When I read this question, Cyberdyne systems and the creation of Skynet from the Terminator movies initially came to mind as they utilized supercomputers to replace humans in the control of military operations. Here’s a link to more information about the film at: http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Cyberdyne_Systems.

However, one of the influential figures in coining the term cybernetics was Norbert Wiener (1948), a mathematician, engineer and social philosopher. It was derived from the Greek word kybernetes meaning “steersman.” Historically, the word cybernetics first appeared in Antiquity with Plato and the 19th century with Ampère who viewed it as “the science of effective government” (Heylighen & Joslyn, 2001). Yet, Wiener revived this concept and re-defined cybernetics as “the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.” According to Ashby (1956) cybernetics is a theory of machines examining the ways of behaviours. Thus, instead of asking “what is this thing?” it asks “what does it do?” Additionally, Heylighen & Joslyn (2001) states that the distinguishing feature of cybernetics is its “emphasis on control and communication not only in engineered, artificial systems, but also in evolved, natural systems such as organisms and societies, which set their own goals, rather than being controlled by their creators.” Furthermore, Sadie Plant (1997) suggests that cybernetic systems possess feedback loops and “sense organs” (as cited in Murphie & Potts, 2003, p. 118).

References

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd. Retrieved from http://www-robotics.cs.umass.edu/~grupen/603/handouts/AshbyCybernetics.pdf

Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (2001). Cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-24). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27.9058&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mindell, D.A. (2000). Cybernetics: Knowledge domains in engineering systems. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Cybernetics.PDF

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and techology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

The George Washington University. (n.d). Definitions of cybernetics. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~asc/cyber_definition.html

Vallée, R. (2001). Nobert Wiener (1894-1964). Retrieved from http://www.isss.org/lumwiener.htm

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Communication and control in animal and machine. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Haraway’s key arguments in the “Manifesto for Cyborgs” includes:

1) the cyborg cannot be avoided as it blurs the boundaries and is our ontology (way of being). The cyborg is still “illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism and socialism” but they are viewed by Haraway as subversive as they undermind power disciplines (i.e. nature vs. culture). Thus, the cyborg can be used to imagine a world free of gender demands and categories.

2) the cyborg represents the breakdown of human-machine and human animal boundaries as it appears in cultural myths about the natural world and technology. Haraway states that “culture cannot escape biology as it seems to in some arguments (there is no simple cultural determination)” (Murphie & Potts, p.116).

3) the cyborg also represents the breakdown of the boundary between the physical world of visible objects and non-physical, or invisible “processual worlds.” “Invisible worlds” are defined by Haraway as consisting of information, electricity, or invisible computer chips.

4) there is the potential for subversion in a life “where people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines” (Murphie & Potts, p.117).

5) Haraway opposes the hierarchical dominations of “white capitalist patriarchy” (the rule of wealthy Caucasian men) and instead proposes a new cyborg conception of politics called “Informatics of Domination.” This new cyborg conception consists of optimal communications, with small groups as subsystems and perfection is optimization. Stress management replaces hygience and the family wage is replaced with integrated circuits of comparable worth. Genetic engineering and reproduction becomes replication as it replaces sex. Artificial intelligence or robotics replaces labour.

6) machines can become “friendly selves” and nothing in this networked world is natural. The world instead is defined as “a problem of coding” wherein communication and biotechnologies are critical to “recraft our friendly selves.” (Murphie & Potts, p.118).

I thought it was interesting that Haraway points out that we will realize as these boundaries become so blurred that nothing has ever truly been pure as it is connected to everything else. She is concerned with the future in terms of the human body, machines, feminism, socialism, cultural function of metaphors and discourses and oppressed women workers. According to Haraway, the cyborg is born out of social reality and is also a “creature of fiction.” Thus, a cyborg is both a series of real connections between bodies and machines (i.e. a pacemaker implanted in the human body) but also it offers us metaphors or new ways of negotiating cultural aspects.

References
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149-181). New York; Routledge.

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and techology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.