Kathy Wong's Critical Annotated Webligraphy

3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.

In 1818, the first novel of the now-popular mad scientist genre was published which is called Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley^[1]. Frankenstein refers to a crazed scientist who designs to create a life by combining the parts of different died bodies, at last, he makes a monster. This monster is the “successful product” of Frankenstein, although Frankenstein is afraid of it. Nowadays, Frankenstein is still imagined as a monstrous scientist. Then, how would the public discuss the recent technologies related to Frankenstein? I am going to analyze by the following articles which are reached through google scholar.

In the “Commentary on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, the conflict between science and religion is showed. The author mentions that “Frankenstein” is an icon of this conflict by two points. First, people will have desert for trying to surpass the ability of god with the “unnatural technology”, such as Frankenstein tried to “create” a human, at last, he died. Moreover, “Frankenstein” is also called “The Modern Prometheus”, as the name show, the core concept of Frankenstein is related to the legend of Prometheus^[2]. Again, human must obey to the God, if anyone tries to obtain the ability of God, he will be punished. Second, knowledge is only used “for the purpose of allowing God to run the world”. He mentions that religious has obstructed the development of the scientific concepts, for example, when the Italian physicist Galileo pointed out that “the earth was not at the center of the universe”, he was forced to recant this concept by the Catholic Church, just because it seems that he challenged the “truth”. If anyone tried to cross into the God’s domain, it was sin and needed to be punished. From the point of the author, God sometimes abandons human since religious blocks the development of technology.

Religious affects the development of technology, on the other hand, what the problem of technology is. We will have a look on this topic in the essay of “Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Problems with Technology”. In this essay, the author leads us inside how the knowledge and its effects are harmful to individuals and all of humanity. When Shelley wrote the Frankenstein, there was an industrial revolution in Europe, and the emerging age of technology has appeared. Moreover, "the eighteenth-century myth of freedom in England included the doctrine of progress", as told before, the resistant of technical development from religious has released softly that time. Although there was the improvement of the technology, things would develop in the opposite direction whey became extreme, and this is exactly what the point Shelley expressed. A mad scientist overused the technical ability to create a monster, and it lets the scientists as villain. The most serious problem what the author thinks is “the moral of the advancing technologies”, if we develop the technology correctly and morally, it is powerful and successful, on the contrary, the technology will become the cause of all evils.

For supplementing the theme of the previous article – problems causing by technology, I am going to analysis another article written by Shari Popen which is called “Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology)”. In this article, we would understand more about the problems of technology and how to solve these problems. At first, Popen is a philosopher who wants to confer the technical education and how to teach the students to criticize the advantageous or not of the technology. Then, he points out the same point of the previous article, he thinks that it is really very wrong that Frankenstein use the technology to achieve his aim without thinking the morality and the terrible consequence. He has said that, “Technology – for good or for ill – permeates all aspects of our lives”. Also, Donna Haraway^[3] has pointed that “We are all cyborgs now”. Therefore, if we do not use the technology morally, our lives are dangerous. What we should do now is teaching the students about the morality of technology. However, Popen believes that neither Frankenstein nor his “product”, monster, are not the deep villain, since they have no idea to use technology evilly. The real villain is person who aims to use the technology to commit something wrong immorally.

Since the first three article are also showing the problems of technology generally, I will have a look on how the situation of being “human creation technically” in the fourth article – “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein” which was written by Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis. As Mary Douglas^[4] said, the human body is “commonly functions as a conceptual model or symbolic stand-in for the social collectivity as a whole”. The “human creation technically”, is also called the “human clone”, signs a biotechnological revolution. Because of the human clone, there are the “various philosophical antinomies and moral conflicts characteristic of occidental modernity”. Being a representative, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is being discussed intensely with the reproductive technologies. Originally, Frankenstein is planning to perfect the world, such as some scientists want to invent more “products” to improve the human life. However, everything is uncontrolled, if the technology, such as the human clone, is uncontrolled, the world will be in disorder. Therefore, the conflict between human clone and morality is existed, and the authors think that “moral and intellectual failure often accompanies techno-scientific success” which is difficult to be controlled.

As told before, human clone is a controversial topic, special though the media. In the “Cloning in the Media and Popular Culture”, the author Giovanni Maio believes that it “often features unreal scenarios that are not based on scientific fact, but rather express a diffuse sense of uneasiness”. This article is showing us how the media transfers the messages of human clone to the public, and one of the examples is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Same as the previous article, Maio thinks that the interesting and discussing point of human clone is because of the religious, the public always related human clone to blaspheme the God and Frankenstein is one obvious example. There are four main messages from the media transferring to the public. First, the clone is potentially evil; second, the creator is punished at last; third, it takes place in a civilized result; fourth, order is eventually restored because of the destruction of the human clone. Since human clone is unable to be a “perfect” human, it is an “anti-image”, which wants to be a human but without a soul. However, is the human clone really blaspheming the God?

To conclude these articles, the conflict between technology and religious still exists. Somebody believes that the scientists will be published if they try to surpass the ability of God. Therefore, religious may be a barrier of the inventions, and knowledge is only for God. If we want to improve the technology correctly, we must use it morally. One of the most controvertible topics is human clone and it represents the revolution of technology, as well, if we try to disorder the world though technology, it is immoral and seems to be against the God. However, if the technology affects the religious is still confused.

Bibliography.

ü “Commentary on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein”, 123 help me, http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=10497

ü “Shelley’s Frankenstein and the problems with technology”, Essay Sample, http://www.essaysample.com/essay/002053.html

ü Shari Popen, “Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’ s Problem”, North American Association for Community of Inquiry (NAACI), July 1998, http://www.viterbo.edu/analytic/Vol%2019%20no.%201/thinking%20through%20tecnology.pdf

ü Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis, “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein”, International Journal of Social Sciences, Winter 2006, http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf

ü Giovanni Maio, “Cloning in the media and popular culture”, European Molecular Biology Organization, 2006, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1456881&tool=pmcentrez

---

[1] “Shelley's Frankenstein has been called the first novel of the now-popular mad scientist genre.” from Toumey, Christopher P. "The Moral Character of Mad Scientists: A Cultural Critique of Science." Science, Technology, & Human Values. 17.4 (Autumn, 1992) pg. 8

[2] “In Greek mythology, Prometheus is a Titan known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals for their use. Zeus then punished him for his crime by having him bound to a rock while a great eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day.” from Wikipedia ,U.S., 2009, retrieved 20 March 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

[3] “Donna J. Haraway (born September 6, 1944 in Denver, Colorado) is currently a professor and chair of the History of Consciousness Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, United States.” from Wikipedia ,U.S., 2009, retrieved 14 March 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway

[4] “Dame Mary Douglas, DBE, FBA (25 March 1921 – 16 May 2007) was a British anthropologist, known for her writings on human culture and symbolism.” From Wikipedia ,U.S., 2009, retrieved 14 March 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Douglas

Presentation Outline - Benson

“Hong Kong Cyberculture: A Case Study” by Amy Lai Tak-yee

1. Introduction
- Highlight what John Perry Barlow statement about Jurgen Habermas’s "public sphere” can applies in the Internet. People can express freely without restriction.

2. Case: Amy Lai provides ICERED case to criticize Barlow’s statement through:
- “Your English sucks!” --> the poster’s English standard
- "The Unbearable ‘White-ness’ of ICERED” -->the races, gender problems
- "Man are after sex, woman, after money” --> gender battle
- Issues of homophobia

3. Analysis
- Marginalization exist online same as offline
- Public sphere fail to exist in the Internet
- Impacts from virtual world may bring to the real world, or even co-exist

Presentation outline – George

"Ruminations on cyber-race" by Jerry Kang

1. Background research
2. Race categorizing and mapping people
3. Abolition
4. Integration
5. Transmutation
6. Conclusion

Hope you will enjoy the presentation

Kathy's Presentation Outline

Hi, here is my outline of the coming presentation:

Reading: "Menu-Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online" by Lisa Nakamura

1. Intro. - 2 different views on web. :
Lisa’s view Vs. Cyberutopian’s view

2. Web Portals -“Extremely limited & constricted view of the world” ???
(with the "menus")

3. The case of Excite - to prove "Cybertyping"

4. Social net-work websites (also with the "menus")

5. E-mail joke lists : "Covey racial identities online in a genuine, complicated & nuanced way" ???

6. Conclusion - (in)visibility racial identity online

See you guys on Thursday! ^^"

Annotated Webliography by Shermaine

Until the 21th century, Frankenstein is still a famous story which is a combination of horrific and scientific. Through this story, it shows the eager on exploration and control of technology through our human ability. The story of Frankenstein shows an expert scientist who challenge the nature and made a ‘human’ using dead body. It is not only shows that the behavior of a mad scientist but also tells the fatal result of human who misuse technology and science. Which is foresee of nowadays world of science. Because of human mind’s selfishness and neglect the result what they do. Our world is now badly affected by our over use of technology.

What will our world becomes when the technology lose control? Alisa Burns’s “Frankenstein of the Future” gives out questions on this scenery. Through the human intelligences, we invented many new machines and things which used to fulfill the dreams of a better living standard. Start from the invention of computer in 50’s, the technological boom brings the science and technology environment into the sharp. We give the machines human mind using the bases of human intelligences, will those machines replace our power on our society? We can’t be blind by the benefit and quality of the machine but take control of them, we should try to more independent on ourselves rather then machines. She also takes “AI” as an example on what the situation will be when we neglect the gradual occupation by the machine.

Frankenstein is not only a literature creation, it also tells many questions which related to science and brings out consideration of the on behind problems when we misuse science. Frankenstein is treated as a monster. Why it is a monster but not a technology invention? We may think that technology and human are two different hales, just like the man and the monster in the story. But indeed they are closely related with each other. The scientist- Victor was fascinated by the miracle power of electricity and science to relive a once living organism. Apart from the science invention and the seeking of knowledge in technology, the standard of moral should be the most important part to concern. Both of them should be balance, other wise disadvantage may come out. Just like Victor Frankenstein, he may not predict the danger and bad effects because of his monster creation. When we neglect the hidden result of over use of technology, bad effect will feedback to us. Just like nuclear weapon and cloning, which rise out a lot of problems to out society.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that technology invention gives convenient and better lives for us. There are various things and products which are really benefit to our lives. Such as i-phone and computer. They develop a fast and convenient way to skip away the distance between our communication. If we haven’t got computer, imagine we can’t communicate through MSM and e mail, what will our world becomes? May be our culture development won’t comes to today’s environment. It may become very difficult to share our ideas in a speedy way. If we haven’t got mobile phones, it may become very hard to keep contact with the others but only roughly through letters or verbal. The new technology appears are basically because of our eager to change and learn. What we learn and teach is determine what we invent. As Luke Fernandez said that : “human invention are controlling the way people teach and learn, especially when it comes to media technologies…” ( Luke Fernandez: “Frankenstein in the University” , line 30). The situation is inter-related as we will used to seek more knowledge from the invention. Also what we learn from books will urge us to take more invention as we want to explore from them. The monster in the story was created by the mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, the monster claimed that Victor is his creator but he is the master of him. Which represents the un- control of technology, even we are under control by technology. So how can we maintain a suitable position with technology? That’s the most important question that we need to concern.

“People celebrate the act of creating new inventions, but aren’t particularly concerned about what happens next.” “We don't want to take responsibility for our technological innovation, we just want to celebrate our ingenuity in achieving them.” ( Jon Katz: “The Unabomber's Legacy, Part II”) Katz takes the example from Frankenstein. After the ‘invent’ of the monster, Victor Frankenstein feels the successful from being handover the power of technology and the ability to birth a new life. But he didn’t consider any effect that the monster might bring out. He didn’t imagine how the monster will be, what it will do as he given a new life to it. Like the attitude of people on technology nowadays. They just eager to seek the result of their work. They claim that they are seeking the truth for the people, for humanity civilization and knowledge. But they have never consider the effect after their ‘seek of reality’.

People are not use technology properly, they may use their time to produce invention but not for the good of people. Such as the production of weapons for wars to destroy each other’s country. Some people may say that technology is not good for our society. If you consider it carefully, it is not the duty of technology but on the way we use. So it depends on how we use them. But there is no doubt that the story of Frankenstein, the popular culture and imagination of the society helps to explore our technology and imagination on science, thus helps to improve the world technology.


References:

“Frankenstein of the future” Alisa Burns, October 2002, http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html
“Frankenstein: The Man and the Monster” Suzanna Storment, October 2002
http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment3.html
“Frankenstein in the university” Luke Fernandez,
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2008/05/Frankenstein-in-the-University.aspx?Page=1
“The Unabomber's Legacy, Part II” Jon Katz,
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/04/11819
“The curse of Frankenstein: visions of technology and society in the debate over new reproductive technologies.” Bloomfield, BP and Vurdubakis, 2003, Lancaster University
http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/6839/

Critical Annotated Webliography by Kenneth Lai Hang Cheng

3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies

Frankenstein was “created” by the famous British writer Mary Shelley. The story is about a scientist creating Frankenstein by constructing “his” body by using dead organs, brain and limbs. Then, Frankenstein was given a life by a lightning. Afterwards, he killed the scientist (creator) and started his monster life. It was a shocking idea to the people of the 19th century not only because of the new thought but also it brings out the dark side of technologies.

As technologies those days were expected to be a tool of providing easier and convenient life to people, the horrible idea of Frankenstein made people start to realize new technology could also be a disaster for the society. “Technophobia” seems to become the by-product of the idea of “Frankenstein”. Here, we can define the technologies being tightened with science. Cited by Christa Knellwolf and Jane Goodall in their article named “Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romantic Culture, 1780-1830”[1], Patricia Fara points out in “Educating Mary: Women and Scientific Literature in the Early Nineteenth Century”: “Defining what is meant by ‘science’ at this period is problematic, because the word itself was and is constantly changing in significance. In retrospect, it is tempting to pick out activities of the period that clearly influenced the sciences of the future, an approach that is inappropriately historical”. We can see that people in the 19th century had less concept on what science is. Therefore, the existence of Frankenstein really vibrated their point of views about science.

Technophobia appeared in those years mainly related to the low opportunities of receiving education, i.e. most people had low standard of education level. However, does technophobia still exist nowadays? The answer would be “Yes! ”. Luke Fernandez stated in the article “Frankenstein in the University”[2] that people nowadays also face the problem of “technology out of control”. The American still have technophobia in their mind although they live in such a high technology society. We are encountering a large problem that how much control we really have over the technologies. Technological determinism would be a suitable term to describe our relationship with technology. Relying on the technologies makes us being controlled by technologies at the same time. Examples are raised by the writer to support his point. Some systems(software) are once installed even they might not be good ones, it is difficult for us to use others as they may not be available. The writer concluded that we are put in a “dilemma” between fear and reliable.

Another article named “The Influence of Science on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and subsequent retellings”[3], the writer talked about the background of Mary Shelley (the author of Frankenstein) and why she had such an idea. Mary lived in a time with frequent scientific discoveries which affected the people’s life. Numbers of scientific fields with regards to “Frankenstein” (anatomy and physiology) bloomed at that period. The article also stated that the modern physiology began while William Harvey published his findings on how to trace the path of the blood throughout the body and the heart. We can see that “Frankenstein” do have a good effect to the scientific field. The writer made a conclusion that we should learn from the Frankenstein to put right things on its place to make real benefits to the society.

What is the right attitude towards new technologies should we have? Shari Popen recalled in a chapter of the article called “Thinking through Technology: Frankenstein’s Problems”[4] with an advising topic of “Caring for our creations” what Frankenstein talked to its creator. Here, Frankenstein said that thought and care must also be given as only empowering and improving a new technology is not enough. At the end of the chapter, the writer pointed out we nowadays use all the technologies uncritically with no attention to the ways these unexpectedly control and arrange our lives.

Scientific ambition in some kind is becoming bigger and bigger. Technologies are not only improved for enhancing the working skills in old days. It is developed into many fields. The article titled “Frankenstein Vs Frankenfoods”[5] stated a lot of relationships between the idea of Frankenstein and nowadays technologies. Examples are listed to help the writer to elaborate certain points. For example, different steroids are injected into tomatoes. In some countries, genomes of tomatoes are altered to provide larger, tastier and better alternative for the consumers. At the beginning, such technologies might be developed for making benefits to people. However, it has been used to make profits from consumers. They have added so many elements to the food but ignored the possible negative effects. The writer cited the scene of Frankenstein requesting his creator to make one more “partner” for him and being refused to compare with the conditions of nowadays scientific technologies.

To conclude, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has been a fantastic idea for the scientific technologies both in old days and today. A coin has two sides. Although technophobia may be a worry of the dark side of technologies, it had never haunted technologies development. In fact, the development of technologies “runs” faster and faster. Therefore, we should keep an eye on controlling the technologies rather than being controlled. This would balance the technophobia and would not avoid the growth of scientific development.








Reference
"Frankenstein in the University -- Campus Technology." Campus Enterprise Networking & Infrastructure -- Campus Technology. .

“Frankenstein Vs Frankenfoods.” OPPapers.com. .

Adams, Patricia D. and Bove, Cheryl. “The Influence of Science on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Subsequent Retellings.” Ball State University. .

Knellwolf, Christa and Goodall, Jane. “Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romatic Culture, 1780-1830.” Australian Journal of Victorian Studies. .

Popen, Shari. "Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein's Problem." Viterbo University. .
[1] Knellwolf, Christa and Goodall, Jane. “Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romatic Culture, 1780-1830.” Australian Journal of Victorian Studies. 04 Mar. 2009 .
[2] "Frankenstein in the University -- Campus Technology." Campus Enterprise Networking & Infrastructure -- Campus Technology. 04 Mar. 2009 .
[3] Adams, Patricia D. and Bove, Cheryl. “The Influence of Science on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Subsequent Retellings.” Ball State University. 04 Mar. 2009 .
[4] Popen, Shari. "Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein's Problem." Viterbo University. 04 Mar. 2009 .
[5] “Frankenstein Vs Frankenfoods.” OPPapers.com. 04 Mar. 2009 .

Critical Annotated Webliography by Kwan Yat Hin, Yoshi

Before the discussing of “Cyborg disrupt persistent dualisms and to refashion our thinking”, let me simply explain what is cyborg. The full title of cyborg is cybernetic organism, which part of artificial and natural systems. This term is firstly introduced by Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline. The term “cyborg” is used by them to describe a kind of human which needs to be modified in order to live outside the earth.

According to the guiding question, cyborg may disrupt persistent dualisms or to refashion our thinking. However, cyborg is difficult to define. For example, is the one who installed a heart pacemaker or an artificial limb is seen as cyborg? To what circumstances so we can see a guy as cyborg? Even clothes can be seen as artificial skin! Some definition may include artificial human or bio computer, so there is confusion to define cyborg. “The question then arises as to what exactly is and what isn’t a Cyborg. Some could regard a blind man with is cane as a Cyborg, the cane feeding important information on the local environment, to the man.” (Kelvin, 2003) In “Terminator”, T series are modified human, but all of them are seen as robot in Terminator’s world view. However, inside the cartoon “Apple Seed”, there is artificial body with real brain organism. Those organisms always claim for identity and their nationality. “For good or ill, politics has already been cyborged in ways that touch us all: On-line voting promises to change who participates. Wars are won on video screens.” (Chris, 2001) Even politics can also be cyborged. All this questions rise a problem, cyborg is difficult to define and subjective.

From the article “Discussing Self-Consciousness and Body in Terms of Cyborg” by 徐紹強, I can see cyborg may not only defined by the degree of artificial systems within an organism.

“Cyborg of the posthuman is the new type; they tightly connected with the virtual world created by internet. When surfing the net, you are putting your heart and mind into the cyberspace. Many “soul” is interacting in this space and even form a society. For example, people digitalized 911 decedent’s sound or relic and uploaded them to the net in order to memorize. Also some extreme example claims that we can digitalize our mind inside the computer, does it mean body is no longer important? To conclude, cyborg seems to be a new type who can break the boundary of culture, robot and human, different kinds of organisms, real and virtual. May be you think this new type is far from us. However in some circumstances, modern people are all cyborg. If you surf net, wearing glasses or get on the bus, you are cyborg.” (徐紹強, 2005)

Nowadays, internet world is tightly connected with human’s life. So we can see the internet world is a new place that human is going to emigrate. And cyborg can be defined as the internet users. How about the artificial system? Obviously is our computer.

Current internet world is developing in an unbelievable speed. To the people who always participate inside the internet, it is difficult for them to distinguish which one is the real world; everything is so real inside the internet. “Internet is a virtual world; this world includes human’s mind and consciousness. Mark Slouka (1998) believes that human’s identity in this space should be flowed; also the physical space is also flowed, no boundary can be found in that space. The mind you put to the virtual world is your virtual self identity or mirror. Global network becomes an integrated mind system when it is born, many minds interact each other inside the internet. Also, time is not available in the internet work, nothing inside is stable, all are created by imagination.”(徐紹強, 2005) From this article, I can understand cyborg may not be bounded physically. Just like internet, human’s mind can be mixed with internet technology and become cyborg.

I do not agree with the statement of the guiding question. The definition of cyborg should not be bounded by neither technological nor completely organic. If we agree internet users can be defined as cyborg, then the statement “cyborg is still a transgressive figure” can be understood.

In the current society, we can find out many problems rise by the use of internet. Because of the rapid internet development, we have hackers. Because of the sharing ability of internet, some famous people’s sex photos spread very fast. Internet is facilitating us, but it also derives different kinds of crime.

In 1942, an author Asimov created three rules of robot. The first rule is robot cannot harm human, or leave any human alone who is in danger. The second rule is robot must obey all rules from human besides the first rule. The third rule is robot must protect itself but not violate with first and second rule. In this time, computer is the servant and human are the principle part. So it is a big issue in controlling the mind of computer. If we cannot control it, computer may become a big disaster. Such as the movie “Terminator”; inside the story, world is nearly destroyed because the computer is out of human’s control.

Scholar Daniel Bell(1989) believes that after the industrial society is born, human will have power to change their life by using science and technology. But this change will bring out a lot of complex problems. And his belief is correct, the society has many problems which are related to internet. So if we develop more, the problems will become more serious also.

Virtual cyborg, semi-machine cyborg and full-machine cyborg are all focus in the respect to technology. Cyborg is to use technology to fetch up the weak point. And the addict of technology is just like the statement of guiding question, a transgressive figure. From the “Three rules of robot”, technology is only a machine. However, one day it may make a counterattack to human, many scholars have warned it. But according to the rapid technology development, perdition may be a necessary.

References:

Discussing Self-Consciousness and Body in Terms of Cyborg by徐紹強 :

1) Hybrid Cyborg

http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/69/69-01.htm#_1-1混生種的Cyborg

2) Virtual World

http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/69/69-01.htm#_2-1虛擬世界

Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics by Kelvin Warwick

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l20101l3p5625581/

Cyborg Citizen by Chris Hables Cray

http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=24750&cgi=product&isbn=0415919789

Wikipedia, Cyborg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg

Critical Annotated Webliography by Ho Ka Lok Samson

Cyborg is the product of technology in recent decades obviously; they are supposed to help human being finishing the daily tasks, industrial processes or even maintaining our lives, all of the purposes are attempt to relief our workloads and bring conveniences for us. Yet, as the technology has been developing for so fast recently, it can be now disrupting the persistent dualisms and maybe also to refashion our thinking. It is because cyborg now is surprising or even challenging the traditional idea of dichotomies between man and machine, body and representation, organism and artifact. Therefore, in this webliography, it is attempted to find out whether cyborg is now still a transgressive figure through some scholarly writings.

According to the writing from William A. Covino, he thinks that cyborg is still a transgreesive figure in our society. “In this essay I will offer a reading of the golem tradition that stresses its relevance as both an alternative and analog to the new cyborg myth, noting that both the golem and the cyborg are products of an institutional grammar and of the urgency to transcend material conditions through majic. Both illustrate what Kenneth Burke calls “magic, verbal coercion, establishment or management by decree,” and as such, raise crucial questions of what we decree “in the name of”. In this connection the golem and cyborg myths involve coercive verbal magic that can be both subversive (uttered in the name of liberation) and conservative (uttered in the name of a status quo). Further, both creatures stand for the relationship of literacy to transgression, as they challenge the dominant linguistic code and its adepts.” (Covino, 1996) From his writing, it can be seen that Covino is basically agrees cyborg could still be a transgression figure in the field of literacy. Human always using languages to communicate with others, though we come from different places and the languages we speak are not the same, we are using verbal word or voice to send out our messages. Yet, robot does not use the same way as ours, what they are dealing with are the digital codes “1” or “0”, Terminator would be a good illustration. Although terminator’s appearance has no big difference with human being, his brain is digitalized and he process information with digital code instead of what we do. Therefore, Conino thinks that it is a big challenge towards human’s literacy.

There is scholar who tries to comment on cyborg through commenting on the film, Terminator. Doran Larson wrote in his article “…I do not propose, however, simply to write a political gloss over a rich tradition of cyborg and android-film criticism that explores the ambiguous state of boundary wars between male and female, machines and humans, or human spontaneity and capitalist rationalization. Instead I want to suggest that with the introduction of the morphing LMM, we see not simply a rehearsal of older cultural or psychological dichotomies but a profound cultural shift……At the same time, in Terminaotr 2 we see the fulfillment of the ideal of the fascist body, according to Klaus Theweleit: the machine incorporated into they body politic facing an extra technological and fluid enemy…..” (Larson 1997) The most important point of the captured article is his thinking of the differences between machine and human. Based on our topic, Larson’s view on cyborg is that he agrees cyborg is still a transgreesive figure, since the half robot half human in Terminator 2 is made for killing. It’s already violated the laws and it is, no doubtfully, transgreesive.

Ksenija Bilbija shares a same way with the mentioned two scholars, according to his article, “These are societies that have produced the hybrid image of the machine and the organism, simply called the cyborg. It is the very final and rebellious offspring of the golem, the one that has completely rejected and overcome the Father, the Paradise Lost, the Oedipus complex, and also, the gender differences. The other possibility, definitely more utopian, is the creation of the context in which the exchange will be allowed, where speechlessness will be voluntary, where masters will vanish, and where values will be human. There, the doll would be only a doll.” (Bilbija 1994) He obviously treats the cyborg as something bad, who is the offspring that totally violating normal humans’ behaviors or even have no differences in the filed of gender. These kinds of concepts are totally different from what we learn from school or parents; we can conclude these concepts are new to us and according to Balsamo, it is a refashion to our thinking.

When we look into the article written by Andrew Ross, it’s not difficult to find out that he has a much all-around view towards cyborg. “It seems clear that there are good cyborgs and there are bad cyborgs, and that the cyborg itself is a contested location. The cyborgs dreamed up by the Artificial Intelligence boys, for example, tend to be technofascist celebrations of invulnerability, whereas your feminist cyborgs seem to be more semi-permeable constructio' , hybrid, almost makeshift attempts at counterrationality. How do you prevent, or how do you think about ways of preventing, cyborgism from being a myth that can swing both ways, especially when the picture of cyborg social relations that you present is so fractured and volatile and bereft of secure guarantees?” (Ross, 1990) This question is actually asking Donna Haraway by Ross during an interview, despite the answer he had got; it has illustrated his attitude towards cyborg. Ross thinks that there are two types of cyborg in the world, good and bad. Both of them could bring different impact towards our society, depends on which kind or cyborg is made, therefore, I would say that he is quite conservative on commenting whether cyborg is transgressive figure and does not have a strong standing ground.

“New concepts of body and identity are explored, revealing fluid and open forms. In literature, we find cyborgs and robots, multiple identities and virtual bodies, avatars and agents, transhumanists and extropians, all indicating the dissolution of classical differences. Such dissolution is often associated either with apocalyptic visions or with euphoric dreams.” (Barbara Becker, 2000) Becker is somehow having a more open-view on the exploration of cyborg, he does not reject cyborg as a transgressive figure at all, but agrees cyborg could bring a brighter future. He thinks that technology is good for human being, like a heart diseased patient could embed a heart pacer in order to maintain his life in the medical field. The patient should also be described as cyborg due to his body is now made up of both organic and technology. Therefore, it is obviously that, Becker does not agree that cyborg is still a transgressive figure anymore.

To conclude, after summarizing different writings from various scholars, it is found that their standing grounds are quite different, some agree that cyborg is still a transgressive figure but some don’t, even some think it is not really a matter. Writing this essay makes me read a lot about the idea of cyborg and I appreciate of that. In my own view, I do agree with cyborg is good but not a transgressive figure. It is because our daily lives nowadays cannot be separated from technology; technology not just brings us conveniences but also brings hopes to our lives, just likes what the heart pacers do. Originally, technology is developed for the purpose of bringing a better and brighter future for human being.
Reference:

1. Becker, Barbara. Cyborgs, Agents, and Transhumanists: Crossing Traditional Borders of Body and Identity in. 5th ed. Vol. 33. The MIT P. BarbaraB eckerC, yborgsA, gents,a nd Transhumani, pp.361-365. MYJSTOR. 6 Mar. 2009 .

2. Bilbija, Ksenija. "The Youngest Doll": On Women, Dolls, Golems and Cyborgs. 3rd ed. Vol. 17. The Johns Hopkins UP. Callaloo, Vol. 17, No. 3, Puerto Rican Women Writers (Summer, 1994), pp. 878-888. MYJSTOR. 5 Mar. 2009

.

3. Covino, Willaim A. Grammars of Transgression: Golems, Cyborgs, and Mutants. Vol. 14. Lawerce Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & France Group). JSTOR: Rhetoric Review, Vol.14, No.2 (Spring 1996), pp.355-373. JSTOR. 4 Mar. 2009

<>.

4. Larson, Doran. Machine as Messiah: Cyborgs, Morphs, and the American Body Politic. 4th ed. Vol. 36. University of Texas P on behalf of the Society for Cinema & Meida Studies. Cinema Journal 36, No. 4, Summer 1997, pp. 57-75. MYJSTOR. 4 Mar. 2009 .

5. Penley, Constance, Andrew Ross, and Donna Haraway. Cyborgs at Large: Interview with Donna Haraway. Duke UP. Constance Penleyand Andrew Ross, pp.8-23. MYJSTOR. 5 Mar. 2009 .

Annotated Webiography by Zion Cheng Ho Yan

Question 1Cyborgs are hybrid entities that are neither wholly technological nor completely organic, which means that the Cyborg has the potential not only to disrupt persistent dualisms [in language and thought] … but also to refashion our thinking’. (Balsamo). Drawing on current scholarly work, discuss ways in which the Cyborg is still a transgressive figure.

Nowadays, many of use cannot live a life without technologies. Almost every teenager in Hong Kong has a mobile phone, and goes on internet everyday. Therefore we became a “cyborg” ourselves. The basic meaning of “cyborg” is the combination human and machines. For easier to understand, people wearing spectacles can be defined as a cyborg in someway. Thus are we really turned into cyborg, or is cyborg still in a progressive figure.

Technologies really help to improve the performances of athletes in the sport fields.
According to “Cyborgization of Sport” , Schulman mentioned the issue of body prosthesis technology in his article. This topic is often debated by people in the society. Two common examples of body prosthesis are the Tommy John Surgery and Prosthetic legs. Tommy John Surgery is mainly used by baseball players. This surgery is simply replacing the ligament of the arm with ligaments from other parts of the body. Originally this technique is used to extend the playing period of the pitchers. However, nowadays professional pitcher will do this surgery more often just for improving their strength, so that they can throw harder and faster. The second example about Prosthetic legs, this technique allows runners to adjust the length they want to stride, so that they can run faster. For prosthetic legs, the International Association of Athletics Federations has banned the runners who have used this technique to compete in Olympic Games. That is because they take that as a “technical aid”. Thus a question has brought forth, that is to what extent athletes can do so they are still normal gifted person but not to something as “technical aid”?

Can man ever live in space? Base on the features human-being has now, the answer is no. However, according to Clynes and Kline, being cyborg could help us to travel in space. Every living organism living on earth has its own mechanism so that it can live in a condition, and not in others. Like fishes have special breathing systems so they can live in water but not on land. Some plants have special shapes so that they can live in the dessert not in forest. Human’s body mechanism allows us to live on earth only with the oxygen and water we needed to survive. Therefore, if one organism wanted to live at somewhere else, like fish on land or human in space, the organism must change its mechanism. Clynes and Kline have mentioned many examples that technologies can help man to live in space, both physically and phycho-physically. If all the techniques can work, then human can really explore the space outside the earth by being cyborg. At the end of the essay, the authors agree that being cyborg and travel to space really improves what human is. The technology even can bring new and larger dimension for the human spirit as well.

Alexander Chislenko in his essay “Technology as extension of human functional architecture” point out if we want to think that human is in the process of evolution base on technologies, we must totally understand what is happening now, and what may happen in the future. In our world now, there are many technologies that can help to improve our body. There are mainly two methods of combining human and technologies now, one is by attachments and the other is by implanting. Attachments mean attaching some tools on to human skin, which is the external part of a body. Implanting mean to inject something into a body that may affect the person’s DNA or other internal organs. By these two methods, people would become something called cyborg that is a physically mixed system. By being cyborg, human lives in different aspect can be improved. So what will happen in the future? The writer would concern more of the personal identity problem in the future. As people may have the abilities to change their body in the future by the scientific improvements, the identity of a person may change from time to time. Thus the identity life span of people would become very short, as the goal and function of human may be changed. Therefore, the identity of people will be mixed up and confused in the future.

Dylan McKeever & Andrew Stevenson introduced various kinds of “Brian-Computer Interface Systems” (BCI’s) developed which serve different functions. These technologies in the field of neuroscience are often applied to restore functions to the disabled or to enhance the existing abilities of human, while some are invented to improve efficiency and accuracy when performing tasks. One of the examples discussed in the passage to tackle the physical disability of human being is a system called BrainGate invented by the company Cyberkinetics. It allows the persons interfacing with household objects like turning TV on and off etc. through the device implanted in the skull. The device translates the information and neuro-activities in brain to the computer connected to the users. The writers then suggested another BCI’s which can hopefully be helping in security enhancement for buildings while the system allows people to read and to identify images, or analyze data faster. Eventually single security guard is able to managed many sites are the same time and real time. However the BCI’s can be problematic while they are used in a wrong way. According to the writers, ethical issues may arise while some of the technologies have been applied in deciphering people’s intentions and reading their minds that the technologies could end up be applied to extremely undesirable uses.

The paper is written for a cultural research that the term “cyborg” has been borrowed from science and now been widely used in the field of Feminism since the 1984 Donna Haraway published her article in which she reinvented this term. According to Nina Lykke, “cyborg” no longer only refers to the combination of organisms and machines resulting from the development of biotechnologies as well as information technologies, while it instead is adopted as the deconstruction of dichotomies and hierarchies between not only the organism/machine, but more importantly the nature/culture, sex/gender and things like that. The writer further explains “cyborg” by examples in the Biotechnology and new reproductive technologies. As technologies allow reproduction to be done in a laboratory, even sperms, eggs and embryos could be sold or bought as goods, all the changes imply the links between genetic and social mother, fatherhood as well as between sexuality and reproduction are loosened in an extreme way. Another derived term “feminist cyborg” refers to persons who are not primarily interested in the physical performances of existing bodies. On the contrary, their goal is the production of new bodies through fusions of organism and machine and they put focus on reproduction or rather regeneration of bodies.

After reading all these sources, I found it is no doubt that the term “cyborg” is totally merged into our lives. No matter in the aspect of medical, sports, space travel or even cultural, cyborgs may bring great influence to our lives.

Work Cited:

Chislenko Alexander, “Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture” (1997) http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/techuman.html 5 March 2009

Clynes Manfred E. & Nathan S. Kline, “Cyborg and Space” (2008) http://www.scribd.com/doc/2962194/Cyborgs-and-Space-Clynes-Kline?autodown=pdf 2 March 2009

Lykke Nina, Are Cyborgs Queers? “Biological Determinism and Feminist Theory in the Age of New Reproductive Technologies and Reprogenetics” (Oct. 2000) http://www.women.it/quarta/workshops/epistemological4/ninalykke.htm 2 March 2009

McKeever Dylan & Andrew Stevenson, “Brain-Computer Interface Systems”, Cyborg DB (2007) http://www.cyborgdb.org/mckeever.htm 2 March 2009

Schulman Eli, “Cyborgization of Sport”, Cyborg DB (2007) http://www.cyborgdb.org/schulman.htm 2 March 2009

Critical Annotated Webiography by Cherry

Qestion 3:

The Discussions on Recent Technology with Frankenstein

This article attempts to investigate the impacts of the science fiction Frankenstein (1818) influence the discussions of recent technology. In the five electronic information resources below, it has been found that the representation of Frankenstein inspired various arguments on biological engineering, especially under the fields of genetic engineering and cloning. Meanwhile, there are arguments stated that the monstrous imagination of Frankenstein was a reflection of public’s fears towards biological technology.

In the article of “The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Towards Cloning” (1999), the authors evaluated in the level of the impacts made by Frankenstein which affecting public’s perception of biological engineer technology. “… to explore the role of popular culture in helping to shape and express public attitudes … such as Frankenstein can evoke an entire story or 'script', which can be used as an interpretative frame…”.
The writers believed that Frankenstein as a science fiction reflected the public’s attitude of biological engineering technology. The monstrous science fiction represented the public concerns of the negative social consequences of these advanced human technologies would possibly bring. The worries of genetic engineering technology were especially exaggerated in the technology of genetically modified food.
“The metaphors and comparisons used in the discourse about cloning had therefore mainly negative connotations, reflecting and stoking the general public's fears about cloning. This fear is nowadays exacerbated by the anxieties surrounding genetic engineering, especially 'genetically modified' (GM) foods -- "Frankenstein food", including "Frankenfish."” I agree with the author’s concept of expressing fears towards advanced technology by monstrous science fiction. As the authors stated the example of “Frankenstein food” which is the name of genetically modified food called by the public. The above example explains the profound impression on the public by the influence of Frankenstein novel.

Along with the profound image of Frankenstein- the monstrous scientist, the media seems give a big hand to reinforce such representation constantly. In the article “Cloning in the media and popular culture” (2006) launched by Giovanni Maio, he stated that the media was always interested in the topic of cloning. “… most notably Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which itself has become an important symbol for popular myths. It is therefore not surprising that many documentaries on the subject of cloning allude to Frankenstein: von Boehm's documentary is entitled Frankenstein's Children; a round-table discussion on Bavarian television was called Greetings from Frankenstein: Is the Cloned Human on the Way? (1998), and many documentaries feature segments from Frankenstein films.”
The writer stated that “Frankenstein” was the typical representation of myth among the public’s mind. Also, the author gave the examples of documentaries and television program which using the name “Frankenstein” as the themes which were relating to cloning. More than that, the myth of cloning portrayed in the media was stereotyped by certain messages. For examples, the cloned was always evil, the original one was always good, the creator was always being punished lastly, and peace will mostly take place after the elimination of the cloned.
I think the above arguments made by Giovanni Maio stated the fact that cloning is the popular topic which the media interested in. From the Frankenstein novel in 1818 to Resident Evil: Extinction in 2007, there were numerous media texts carried the frame of cloning. Throughout the hundreds years, the enthusiasm of the public about cloning seems has never cooled down.

Other than the studies on media aspect, there are different discussions jointed Frankenstein to the application of genetic engineering and cloning. In “Human Cloning” (1998), the authors James M. Humber and Robert F. Almedar linked the discussion of cloning to Frankenstein. “…the name Dolly suggests an individual, a human or at least a pet… Victor Frankenstein, of course, never named his creature, thereby repudiating any parental responsibility.”
From the name of the artificial reproduced creature, the authors examined their individual identity. Indeed, from the investigation of the identity of these artificial reproduced creatures, the authors believed that human cloning is unacceptable. As James Humber and Robert Almedar argued that human cloning is too risky to the value and the life of human. Moreover, the writers stated that human cloning would encourage the thoughts of viewing human being as commodity which is interchangeable by the others, as human cloning is a biological technology of replicating human being. The argument of viewing human as commodity by the application of human cloning is impressive, and this scholarly writing used the example of cloning a dying child by their parents thus explaining the identity and the relationship between the clone and the original.

Other than the ethic issues, the problems of moral and identity were brought by cloning. In “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein” (2006), the writers Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis linked the discussion of cloning to Frankenstein. “…Regarding the natural relationship between generations (that is, mother, daughter, granddaughter and so on), Oddie argued in The Sunday Times…”
As the authors asserted the moral crises raised by cloning, the problem of moral breakdown of nature would be aroused increasingly serious. The authors believed that the above influences of cloning are far more complicated than the Frankenstein’s author could expect. Other than the moral and ethic issues, cloning brought about the difficulties of the self-identity. “If individuals can be ‘copied’ then their individuality is compromised.”
This statement stated clear concept towards the reproductive technology of cloning would destroy human identity embodiment and recognition. Additionally, the authors stated their concern towards the abuse of cloning manipulated by the rich and authorities by copying themselves thus exploiting the poor and powerless. From my viewpoint, though the technology of human cloning would encounter different questions on the moral and ethic issue, I believed such reproductive technology should be developed continually as it might improve the world’s future.

In “Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research, and Cloning: Are these Technologies Okay to Use?” (2002), the authors took the public’s imagination on Frankenstein as an example of explaining genetic engineering. “The term genetic engineering often conjures up disturbing images. We might think of laboratory experiments resulting in the creation of Frankenstein- like monsters…”


The authors tried to address the doubt of such human biological technology by dissolving the monstrous imagination on the public’s mind. Also, the authors asserted that the nature of genetic engineering does not contain the value of good or wrong, but the objective of the human biological engineering would finally determine the ethicalness towards its particular use. It is appreciate that the authors advocated determining the value of human biological engineering by its purpose, as I believed that if such technology developed appropriately, some of the fatal illnesses for examples Down's Syndrome and inborn deformity, such illness could be healed by these very advanced biological technology thus improving public’s interests.

In short, there are numbers of discussions on recent technology which lined with the science fiction Frankenstein. The public might look upon Frankenstein as an expression of their anxious towards biological engineer technology. At the same time, some of the scholar jointed their opinion to the application of genetic engineering with the representation of Frankenstein for analyzing potential ethical problems we might encounter. Therefore, the imagination of Frankenstein inspired various discussions on the fields of cultural and the science aspect.



Reference:
Bevington, Linda K., Ray G. Bohlin, Gary P. Stewart, and John F. Kilner. "What is genetic engineering?" Basic Question On Genetics. 2002. Google Beta. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=-ANtuxKfXyYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=frankenstein+cloning+technology&ots=dIt1X1VkjT&sig=2wr2ac7rmyewUPh-pxYCz4uPEro#PPP1,M1>.

Bloomfield, Brian P., and Theo Vurdubakis. "Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein." Http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf. Winter 2006. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2 Mar. 09
<http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf>.

Brigitte, Nerlich, David D. Clarke, and Robert Dingwall. "'The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Towards Cloning." Nerlich, Clarke and Dingwall: The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Tow. 1999. Sociological Research Online. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=imagery&showurl=%2F4%2F3%2Fnerlich.htmlhttp://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=imagery&showurl=%2F4%2F3%2Fnerlich.html>.

Humber, James M., and Robert Almeder. "There Are No Good or Sufficient Reasons to Clone a Human." Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethics Reviews. Aug. 1998. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=34Pu37G5fPoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=frankenstein+cloning+technology&ots=_jMevRLnp4&sig=7786gpiQwkpksv13oqkcSZodzcM#PPP1,M1>.

Maio, Giovanni. "Cloning in the media and popular culture." Cloning in the media and popular culture. Mar. 2006. PubMedCentral. 2 Mar. 2009
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1456881>.

Vivian's self-introduction

Hi everyone, I'mVivian, I'm studying communication studies. I'm an emotional person, I always touched by a movie or a song. I'm an outgoing and sporty person, I've been an active girl guide since F.1, I like hiking, swimming, cycling, going to gym and yoga. On the other hand, I also like indoor activities, such as watching films, books and cooking.

Last summer, I worked in Cathay Pacific as customer service officer. Being a cabin crew and work in Cathay was my childhood dream. I'm glad that I fulfill half of my dream, and I will work hard to complete my dream as a cabin crew after graduated.

I'd describe my self as chocoholic; I like all kind of chocolate and chocolate-made dessert, especially dark and wine chocolate. I like daily product as well, so I bring a box of milk with me everyday. =]

I live with my parents and grandpa, grandpa is my favorite and most respect person; he is my teacher and friend as well. I like sharing my happiness and unhappiness with him.

Friendship is one of the most valuable things for me, I love all my friends.







I love travelling a lot, it is one of the reasons that I want to be a cabin crew =] I joined an exchange program in July 2006 and stayed with the host family at Perth, the Western Australia. I enjoy meeting people from different countries.

Critical Annotated Webliography by Vivian

Introduction
This essay aims to define cyborg and attempts to analyze the difference between human and cyborg with examples. The second part will focus on proving that cyborg is a transgressive figure.

The definition of cyborg
According to Donna Haraway’s most famous essay, "The Cyborg Manifesto," first published in 1985, she claimed that cyborg is "a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, and a world-changing fiction". It means that cyborg is a term used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and electromechanical devices.She also explained that we are all cyborg. It is because human are rely on technology very much nowadays, and we are not easy to separate with technology anymore. Try to imagine, what the world would become if we stop using any technology?

The Collapse of oppressive binaries
Krista Scott claimed that“Since the cyborg does not exist as nature or culture, but is rather a hybrid of both and more.” The first boundary breakdown is between natural and society, it is because there are many and many ‘natural’ sceneries which were artificial, some examples from Krista Scott’s article; “Japan’s ski slopes built with artificial snow, beaches washed with artificial waves, golf driving ranges where the players are stacked one above the other up to the sky.”
Apart from natural and society, man and machine are not easily separated. Machine advanced our quality of life a lot, people wearing glasses or contact lens and coupling with machines for medical purposes, such as artificial limbs and joints, hearing aids, implanted corneal lenses, and artificial skin have been described as cyborg. It is because the mixture of human and machine.

Cyborg women
Many of media texts also construct cyborg bodies as female.Cyborg woman is abject in that she transgresses the boundaries between human and machine, self and other, as well as the artificial and the real. Gender role are socially constructed, we are told to be boy or girl rather inborn. Women are not nature but constructed like cyborg.
The article used blade runner as an example, Female cyborgs are endowed with hyperfeminine, sexualized traits. Gibson's Molly is given long, razor-sharp fingernails. Major Kusanagi and the Knight Sabers have large, feminine breasts that are often the focus of the camera's gaze. Zhora from Blade runner is an exotic dancer, supposedly taking "pleasure from the snake that once corrupted man." Besides, I picked the movie, the stepford wives which was directed by Frank Oz, to illustrate that male is the dominant role in society. The story is about Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) and her husband moved from Manhattan to Stepford. Joanna discovered that all beautiful housewives are not robots, but cyborgs. They are created by their husbands who want an elegant and talented wife. It shows that women are portrayed in a passive and powerless position that is under men’s control. Both Blade runner and The Stepford wives illustrated that texts also objectify female bodies and treat them as sexual objects.

Man or machine
Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University says one day robots could fool us into believing they are human.I totally agree with him as technology developed very fast, machines are becoming more human and Japanese have already developed a human-like robot, a "female" android named Repliee Q1Expo. When I first saw this news, I was totally surprising. By looking and talking to her, you may not easily realize that she is a robot or we can say she is a cyborg, because she physically looks like human being but made by machinery. Not only does she looks like human, but also move, act and even breathe like human. More importantly, we have found that people forget she is an android while interacting with her. Beside machines look like human, people intergrate machine parts into body or too rely on technology are also defined as half human half machine. According to Haraway, one difference between machines and man is that machines could not achieve man's dream.

We are cyborg
Haraway say she is a cyborg, actually she does not mean she has got machine inside her body. Cyborg not only claim those physically combined with organism and machine, but also refer to those who rely on science and new-technology so much. “the realities of modern life happen to include a relationship between people and technology so intimate that it's no longer possible to tell where we end and machines begin. In fact, she's not the only cyborg in Healdsburg. There are 9,978 of them.”

A postmodern look at Blade runner
Haraway describes cyborg is half machine and half human. Blade runner written by Ridley Scott is a movie based in the future that challenge identity, humanity, cyborg myth and gender construction. A central theme in the movie Blade runner is that of blurring the boundary between human and machine. The characters are mainly replicants (cyborg) which are created by humans. Replicants have programmed different skills, physical abilities, implant false memories and emotional responses so that they look like humans. They supposed to be no feeling, no pain and no real emotion.
In the movie, the cyborgs are ambivalence in terms of their representations, especially Roy Batty and Rachael. For example, at Deckard’s apartment, he tells Rachael the truth that she is a replicant, those family pictures and memories are fake. Rachael starts tearing, she as a cyborg supposed do not have emotion and feeling. Even replicants are more likely to be humans and even have real emotions, while the real humans appear cold-blooded. The definition of human and cyborg become blurring. What differentiates human from nonhuman?

Conclusion
To conclude, where do we draw the line between human and machine, masculine and feminine, life and non-life? The boundaries are blurring, not just in fiction but in our late twentieth century reality. Cyborg is going beyond the line between human and machine. It becomes difficult to distinguish human or not, not to mention gender. As Haraway said that we are all cyborg, there is no doubt that people living in developed countries in the late 20th century are already hybrid human-machine.





Reference
David, W. news.bbc.co.uk. Japanese develop 'female' android, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4714135.stm
Donna ,H. standford.edu, "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York; Routledge, 1991), pp.149-181, 2nd March,2009, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Gauntgirl, horrordiva.com, A postmodern look at “blade runner”, 2nd March,2009 , http://www.horrordiva.com/new/essays/bladerunner.php

Hari, K. wired.com, you are cyborg, 3rd March,2009 ,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway_pr.html
Michael, K. cyberartsweb.org, Man or Machine, 1st March,2009, http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/kim/4.html
Patrick, N. cyberartsweb.org, More Woman than Woman, 2nd March,2009, http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/nagle/7.html
Krista, S. stumptouos.com, The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist and Her Critic, 2nd March,2009, http://www.stumptuous.com/cyborg.html
Wikipedia, The Stepford Wives (2004 film), 3rd March,2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives_(2004_film)