Emily McArthur and Yoni Van Den Eede, through an exploration of Siri via Walter Benjamin\u2019s definition of the \u2018aura\u2019 and self-tracking technologies through Marshall McLuhan\u2019s extension theory of media, explore the relationship between humans and technology and the ways in which interactions between the two shape the media ecology. In this post, I will be comparing the two texts in order to find common ground and points of difference between the two and point out the ways in which each author conceptualizes the boundaries between the human body and technological mediation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McArthur builds a case for the aura of technological devices and programs. Walter Benjamin\u2019s definition of aura is \u2018the sense of uniqueness\u2019, which deteriorates due to forces of technological reproduction. However, he has a positivist attitude towards technological development, as the destruction of aura also destroys the mysticality inherent in it, and essentially leads to a democratization of art (McArthur 115).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Originally, Benjamin\u2019s definition of the aura had been applied to aesthetic works such as art and literature, with technology merely being the means of reproduction in this equation (McArthur 114). But what McArthur proposes is a reimagined view of the aura; a posthuman aura which allows technologies like Siri, which teeter on the edge of humanity and artifact, to gain a unique kind of authenticity (115). This new conception of aura, as proposed by McArthur, is based on the technology\u2019s simultaneous proximity and distance from the user. It appropriates human mannerisms and functions well enough to lull the user into perceiving it to have a \u2018quasi-human\u2019 face, while also drawing a clear boundary through its robotic tone of voice, reminding the user that it is a technology created by man (117). It also performs a democratizing function, by making available a technology to everyday users, that had only been available to people working within the tech industry up until then (McArthur 117). All in all, McArthur presents a determinist approach to perceiving human-technological relationships. She raises concerns about such algorithms collecting data and surveilling users for corporate gain, fracturing human relationships as a result of excess proximity to technology, and encourages readers to critically engage with media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, Van Den Eede uses self-tracking health technologies as a case study to examine the extensionism theory, often championed by media theorists. He presents arguments for and against the extensionist perspective, specifically expanding upon Marshall McLuhan\u2019s theory of extensionism and putting it into conversation with Kiran and Verbeek\u2019s critique of the instrumentalist nature of the extension theory. Van Den Eede himself seems to take a stance against the extensionist theory, citing it as a useful way of examining media technologies but one that ultimately reduces human-technology interactions to a binary of complete \u2018reliance\u2019 or \u2018suspicion\u2019 (156). He instead \u2018superposes\u2019 McLuhan\u2019s extensionism theory with Kiran and Verbeek\u2019s argument that the relationship between humans and technologies should be one of trust, in which the user learns to critically engage with the technologies (168).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both McArthur and Van Den Eede bring up translation as a crucial element of the human and technological relationship. McArthur talks about how natural language processors do not actually comprehend human speech; rather it goes through a series of translations (116). From sound waves to code and then back to sound waves. The magic of the translation process, the fact that information is converted into multiple different forms before being reflected back to the user is part of what gives the technology its aura (117). She argues that this appropriation of human language simultaneously performs the function of ‘mystifying’ and ‘demystifying’ language. While technology\u2019s ability to comprehend and respond to humans in a language they understand grants it an exalted status, human speech is wrested out of human hands, causing them to lose the unique connection they had with the language (116).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, Van Den Eede argues that McLuhan\u2019s media theory is deeply rooted in linguistics, citing McLuhan\u2019s idea that media are translations of human organisms and functions into material forms (159). He refers to media as metaphors, suggesting that these media constitute a language through which humans make sense of the world around them. Van Den Eede contends that analysing media through a linguistic framework allows us to understand them by linguistic means. He examines the etymology of media and finds that it originates from the human, which, he argues, lends weight to McLuhan\u2019s extensionist claim that the body from which media originates should hold significance (160). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
McArthur cites Benjamin to explore technology\u2019s ability to \u2018gaze back\u2019 at us, noting how, in the case of traditional art, this gaze once afforded value to bourgeois works. Essentially, she argues that this returned gaze grants the object a form of social control over the human (119). While it constructs a hierarchy that gives users the illusion of mastery over a human-like apparatus, there remains an imbalance, as the data collected by these corporations is used to refine algorithms and exercise corporate control over users (McArthus 125). Moreover, just like the aura of bourgeois art, the aura of Apple\u2019s products gain control over the masses through the strengthening and construction of social hierarchies, with Siri adding onto its exclusivity. Though McArthur claims the aura has been \u2018democratized\u2019 by the value of it being available to the common people, Apple is still a brand whose products can only be acquired by a certain class of privileged individuals. Rather than democratizing aura, it furthers commodity fetishism and the aura of technology simply becomes another part of the equation of corporate profitmaking endeavours (120).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Van Den Eede also addresses similar concerns, drawing on McLuhan\u2019s theory of the environment\u2019s reciprocal relationship with human extensions. He comments on a transformative process in which humans and media continuously reshape one another. By translating ourselves into media, \u2018we reach out into the environment, but this also makes it possible for the environment to reach back into us\u2019(160). He claims that the extensionist theory creates an illusion of\u00a0 one-way traffic between humans and media, leaving humans unable to notice the effects media have on them. He advocates for a ‘two-way traffic’ approach towards technologies, arguing that they shape us just as much as we shape them (166). In this sense, Van Den Eede champions a co-shaping relationship between humans and technology, in which technology and humans exist within the same environment, on equal footing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McArthur describes the aura of technologies as posthuman, meaning a type of aura that is not inherent, but is instead imbued in a device through the painstaking efforts of engineers (120). In line with her technological determinist view she seems to be skeptical towards posthumanism. She claims that the posthuman aura of Siri is broken when it fails to process spoken instructions, which happens quite frequently. It reminds the user that Siri is not actually an autonomous entity, but rather a program developed by engineers which is liable to fail (124).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McArthur\u2019s view on the posthumanism of technology is in line with the McLuhanian extension theory and the concept of Narcissus narcosis, the idea that humans are unaware of the fact that these technologies originate from us. Van Den Eede seems to be critical of the anthropocentric implications of the extension theory, claiming that the idea of becoming aware of the \u2018origin\u2019 of technologies from the human still prioritizes human body over technology (160). He does admit, however, that Kiran and Verbeek\u2019s idea of \u2018trusting\u2019 oneself to technology is also based in a certain negotiation of the boundaries between the two, which has a hint of a humanist character as well (168). All in all, while he does support a posthuman approach towards technology, he also encourages readers to critically engage with technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McArthur appears to be more skeptical of human-technology relations, raising concerns about surveillance, data collection, algorithmic control, and the varied ways in which the capitalist system harnesses technology to exercise social control over the masses. She adopts a more humanist stance, echoing the McLuhanian notion of the human body assuming a superior position in\u00a0 human-technology relations by value of it being the source of technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contrast, Van Den Eede adopts a more optimistic stance toward technology. He only briefly touches upon surveillance and data collection, primarily using it to support his argument for a \u2018trust\u2019 approach to human-technology interactions (165). Though he ends up finding a middle ground between extensionism and Kiran and Verbeek\u2019s alternative ideas of human-technology interaction, it is clear that he values the posthumanist notion of a two-way relationship between humans and technologies. Despite these differences, both authors share confidence in the user\u2019s capacity to critically engage with media, emphasizing the importance of reflection and awareness in navigating technological environments. Emily McArthur and Yoni Van Den Eede, through an exploration of Siri via Walter Benjamin\u2019s definition of the \u2018aura\u2019 and self-tracking technologies through Marshall McLuhan\u2019s extension theory of media, explore the relationship between humans and technology and the ways in which interactions between the two shape the media ecology. In this post, I will be … Continue reading Human-Technological Relations: An Exploration of McArthur and Van Den Eede<\/span>
Works Cited<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n