Search This Blog

Showing posts with label body. Show all posts
Showing posts with label body. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Techno Culture and Human Bodies

It has been suggested by Debra Shaw that humans have a correlation to machines, rather than two different entities. Using the of the body's circulatory system as an example Shaw compares it to working with medical tools to create our 'natural' understand of the human body. Shaw tells us about William Harvey building upon Galen's findings how the heart served its purpose. Shaw continues to say "produced by technology in the simple sense that Harvey had necessarily to use tools to examine the workings of the heart."(Shaw, 2008, p.82) This suggestion allows us to make correlations between machines and the human bodies being repaired and reassembled using tools. 

There is a fixation among individuals to create ideological embodiments of there perfect self using technologies which have only advanced because of our understand of the human body. The example used within Shaw's Technoculture is that of Bruce Springsteen and the modern geek. Bruce Springsteen used in the consumer society to relate towards those of the working class by doing so creating a body that was enhanced with technologies within a gym.

"He thus signifies the passage from the body of the industrial worker, marked by social class, to the body of the late capitalist consumer" (Shaw, 2008, p.85). 
 
Emphasizing Shaw's notion of Bruce Springsteen, the modern geek, as the machine driven body can be constructed to fit the ideological stance within their cyberspace. With the emergence of Web 2.0, the computer literate can create new identities, to enhance properties of themselves otherwise unknown outside of cyberspace. This allows a "construction of a wide variety of private worlds and, through them, for self-exploration". (Turkle, 1984, p.21). With the technology allowing us to use pseudonyms, and be annoymous within cyberspace, the reality creates convergence between collective intelligence and its participatory culture. Do we live as a machine or in a machine?


Bibliography

Shaw, D. (2008). Technoculture: The Key Concepts. Oxford: Oxford Berg Press.
Turkle, S. (1984) The Second Life: Computers & The Human Spirit 
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture, where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. 



Shifting ideas of the self

One of the things Shaw discusses in his chapter on Technobodies is that new discourses are imposed throughout the changes in the environment a ‘body’ lives in. A society in which bodies are marked by social class and work implies different ‘truths’ than living in a society in which the emphasis is on capitalism, modern subjects and consumption. It actually comes down to a shift in the cultural consumption (Shaw, 2008, pp. 83-87). This notion goes back to the words of Creeber, who stated that the historical periods of postmodernism and modernism imply a shift in media, media consumption and ways of approaching media (Creeber, 2009, pp. 11-17). As Jenkins cites Pool’s Technologies on Freedom, there no longer exists a one-to-one relationship between a medium and its use (Jenkins, 2006, p. 10). So with New Media being transmitters of multiple messages and carrying out different functionalities, we should consider the way it influences a subject’s notion of how to act and what to be.

Furthermore, this shift in discourses also implies a change in which we would define ourselves as humans. When Shaw states that “the concept of ‘human’ is unthinkable without technology” he might be right in the sense that, in a contemporary culture, the mentioned discourses happen in connection with technology (Shaw, 2008, pp. 81-82). This means that with New Media making their way into our lives, and coexisting with Old Media (Jenkins, p. 14), we could consider their role in the change of this self-definition. The way we define ourselves happens in the extent of  what (new) media offer us. When technology is so engaged with the body, it will manipulate the body in a significant way, in that it offers us the necessary information about the body and determines what and how the body is. This makes us think of the body as a primarily ‘technology’ structure, with ‘technological’ processes coordinating it (Shaw, 2008, pp. 88-89).


Bibliography


Creeber, G. & Royston, M. (2009). Digital Theory: Theorizing New Media: digital cultures. Berkshire: Open University Press.  


Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture, where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.


Shaw, D. (2008). Technoculture: The Key Concepts. Oxford: Oxford Berg Press.



Thinking about the unthinkable human

"[T]he concept of 'human' is unthinkable without technology but we act as if it is" (Shaw, 2008, p.81). Shaw (2008, pp.81-82) illustrates this by the understanding of the circulatory system. Before humans were aware of this it already functioned in the same way, but this understanding had actual consequences in the way people saw and used their bodies. This could be seen as an example of the "Thomas theorem" (Thomas, & Thomas, 1928, pp.571-572). In this way, technology, which is produced by our bodies, also effects our bodies (Shaw, 2008, pp.81-83).

In this chapter society is viewed as a machine of which the people are parts (Shaw, 2008, pp.83-87). This is a fitting metaphor, but it is just one way of looking at society. It could be argued that people have always adapted to their environments in a Neo-Darwinistic way and that societies already ran like machinery before the industrial revolution gave rise to machines. In other words, although the text uses modern concepts to describe being human, these processes already existed long before that.

It is argued that "[t]he body has become obsolete" (Shaw, 2008, p. 87) because advancements in technology make differences less important and even different 'species' can be mixed. Although there is a tendency in this direction, saying that these differences have already vanished could be considered problematic in an age where discrimination -for instance the glass ceiling- is still prevalent. However, advancements like transgenics make it clear that many divisions we use, are surpassed. These old concepts might still be useful in what we could see as Husserl's (1970, p. 127) Lebenswelt but in a slightly more scientific area new ways of distinction have to be found, for instance focussing more on genetic details.

Altogether, this holistic view of body and technology is said to "evade the opposing responses of technophobia and technophilia" (Shaw, 2008, p.91). In the light of this text one could say that these concepts show a misunderstanding of the interconnectedness of body and technology. However, following the Thomas theorem (Thomas, & Thomas, 1928, pp.571-572), it could be said that if people experience technology in this way, it might still be important to look at it like this.

Bibliography
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crises of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Northwestern University.
Shaw, D. (2008). Technoculture: The Key Concepts. Oxdord Berg Press
Thomas, D.S., & Thomas, W.I. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

We are human, Aren't we?

"The concept of 'human' is unthinkable without technology but we act as if it is"
(Shaw, 2008: p.81)

Shaw opens the chapter with a paraphrase of the quote from Stiegler (1998) where he claims "The human [..] invents himself in the technical by inventing the tool - by becoming exteriorised techno-logically" (p.141)

Shaw is talking about the means which we find out for ourself that we are human. The technological advancements in departments such as health and sports, help us program, monitor and test out bodies to see if everything is running as it should be. The idea that there needs to be blood pumping around out bodies to be alive, only came about after Galem understanding of our veins and hearts. This was later proved to be incorrect, when William Harvey's findings, which were aided by technology, showed that blood came from and to the heart. 

We can also look at different objects which hold a similar principle. For example, gender, race, age, class. These are things which are highlighted in our society, more than what they should be. Of course, race and gender have their obvious technicalities, but society uses these to categorise humans into separate groups, as if to divide us. Shaw re-refences to the quote made ealier in the chapter, which said that "bodies are obsolete", (Shaw, 2008: 81) and pushes this even further, saying that the human body in society is "dependent on accepted differentiations" (Shaw, 2008:87)

Gender is the most prolific of this differentiation. As with the first 30 seconds of being born, a baby is judged on whether it is male or female. Its a baby, a human, but according to society, it has already been deemed as to which class it will be placed in.

I can never imagine a society without these classes. It will never happen.

Bibliography
Shaw, D. (2008), Technoculture: The Key Concepts, Oxford Press.
Stiegler, B. (Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.