“The ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs is precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly. They are as hard to see politically as materially. They are about consciousness - or its simulation.5 They are floating signifiers moving in pickup trucks across Europe, blocked more effectively by the witch-weavings of the displaced and so unnatural Greenham women, who read the cyborg webs of power so very well, than by the militant labor of older masculinist politics, whose natural constituency needs defense jobs.”
In the first sentence Haraway says that the cyborgs are everywhere but nobody knows it, ubiquitous and invisible. This is clearly an attribute that could make something dangerous. She says they are hard to see politically and materially, to me this means both the response and effect they have on society as well as their physical presence. I think it is important to discuss what Haraway means by ‘cyborg.’ To me she is talking about machines that are gaining a grip on society, almost to the point where they have a mind of their own.
How can somebody ‘need’ something when it did not exist 5 or 10 years ago? How is it possible that people depend so much on these objects that were created so recently? Haraway claims that these cyborgs are about consciousness or the stimulation of it. By this she means that they relate to the human mind and have the ability to influence it.
In the next phrase she makes a spiritual feministic claim. She says that these cyborgs or more effectively blocked, or as I see it, comprehended by weavings from a woman in Greenham than by the physical efforts of a man in the military. This is to say that the cyborgs cannot be stopped with military power or force, but by understanding and self control of an individual. When she speaks of the witch-weavings she clearly does not mean literally blocked but more blocked by a state of mind. While the soldier, incapable of this state of mine, is at the mercy of the cyborg. Whether it be a camera, website or even some new piece of military equipment.
I think an important part of this paragraph is when she says that they are hard to see politically and materially. While the things I mentioned can clearly be seen in material, that is not the cyborg, the cyborg lives in the use or the desire to use the object. The more difficult part to understand is why they cannot be seen politically, or why their effect on society would not influence leaders and their decisions. I think this is because they choose to be ignorant to the trends that begin to appear in the public and the cyborgs that begin to take over their people.
This paragraph is important to the essay because it really displays what the author means by cyborg and why she feels them a threat. As a reader, once I analyzed the paragraph, it helped me understand the paper as a whole.
4 comments:
First of all, I think you did a really good job choosing a paragraph that fit the description in the assignment.
At the end of the second paragraph, you summarize Haraway’s definition of a cyborg. I thought this statement was pretty problematic, as you so briefly touch on such a huge part of understanding Haraway’s essay. You could probably write an entire paper just discussing all of these uses, and at the very least you should probably elaborate more here.
In the next paragraph, I’m not quite sure where the questions that you begin with are coming from. It seems very disjointed from the current line of thought you were following.
I think your best analysis happens in your fourth paragraph. You really start to break down piece by piece a difficult sentence. You may want to go into even more detail. I would also especially expand upon the issue of gender, which plays such a large role throughout Haraway’s ideas – you say in the beginning of the paragraph that Haraway is making a feministic claim, but how does gender work into your interpretation?
As you moved on into the fifth paragraph, the organization of everything kind of confused me. I feel like you’re trying to get to the meat of your argument here, but it seems a bit too general and I’m having a hard time following. In the last paragraph you say that the paragraph “is important to the essay because it really displays what the author means by cyborg and why she feels them a threat”. I feel like this could be a really good thing to include in an introduction, and then go into a lot more clear detail supporting this throughout. This could essentially be the focus of your entire paper.
You bring up a lot of interesting ideas and interpretations of Haraway’s passage. I would just try to focus everything a bit more and add more explanation throughout.
This paragraph is important to the essay because it really displays what the author means by cyborg and why she feels them a threat. In the first sentence Haraway says that the cyborgs are everywhere but nobody knows it, ubiquitous and invisible. This is clearly an attribute that could make something dangerous. She says they are hard to see politically and materially, to me this means both the response and effect they have on society as well as their physical presence. I think it is important to discuss what Haraway means by ‘cyborg.’ To me she is talking about machines that are gaining a grip on society, almost to the point where they have a mind of their own. Something that is part alive and part inanimate material. A cross between and organism created by this world and a machine created by humans. To each person a cyborg may be a different thing, possibly something that takes control of their existence. For example a common teenage girl and facebook. Haraway displays that she both fears and respects the cyborg however complex they may be to a standard civilian.
How can somebody ‘need’ something when it did not exist 5 or 10 years ago? How is it possible that people depend so much on these objects that were created so recently? Haraway claims that these cyborgs are about consciousness or the stimulation of it. By this she means that they relate to the human mind and have the ability to influence it.
In the next phrase she makes a spiritual feministic claim. She says that these cyborgs or more effectively blocked, or as I see it, comprehended by weavings from a woman in Greenham than by the physical efforts of a man in the military. This is to say that the cyborgs cannot be stopped with military power or force, but by understanding and self control of an individual. It seems important to point out that this individual is a woman, representing how Haraway believes in feminism, it is a woman who can handle the cyborg. When she speaks of the witch-weavings she clearly does not mean literally blocked but more blocked by a state of mind. While the soldier, incapable of this state of mind, is at the mercy of the cyborg. Whether it be a camera, website or even some new piece of military equipment.
I think an important part of this paragraph is when she says that they are hard to see politically and materially. While the things I mentioned can clearly be seen in material, that is not the cyborg, the cyborg lives in the use or the desire to use the object. Similar to a hunter and a rifle, if the hunter could not fire the rifle it would be of no use to him nor would he desire it.
The more difficult part to understand is why they cannot be seen politically, or why their effect on society would not influence leaders and their decisions. This is where I feel the problem becomes very complex, in an attempt to solve a problem a person may just create more. The cyborg exists on a more individual level, it cannot be stereotyped. However if a cyborg became politically visible it may be the end of that cyborg's existence.
Heather - detailed and thoughtful analysis.
Scott - Interesting paragraph. Your introduction is somewhat chaotic - it could have been split into multiple paragraphs (one defining "cyborg," for instance, or at least been more internally structured. I would have liked at least a hint of your overall views here. I also think you're missing out on the fact that Haraway considers cyborgs to be, for the most part, a positive development - their deadliness is potentially positive.
Your extended analysis of why and how Cyborgs are difficult to see is really quite good, despite the fact that you miss an aspect of Haraway's thought. Ideally, I would have liked to see a more focused paper - I think that you could have done more, with more focus, by dealing exclusively with this long sentence. It's more than hard enough by itself, and you're taking it in interesting directions.
Overall, you start out week and get much better; what's lacking is a stronger overall organization - some sort of response to Haraway, perhaps even a thesis - you're not really dealing with *why* she's difficult here, even if you have a smart take on how we should understand some of the language.
Post a Comment