Haraway's essay introduces the metaphor of a cyborg: one which blurs the lines between women and men, human and machine, human and animal. She discusses her opposition towards identity politics and states there is "nothing about being female that naturally binds women". As privatization grows, public space reduces for workers in this new economy. The "homework economy" is an important term here; Haraway explains how work has been (and is becoming) more and more feminized. All people are finding themselves in a state of vulnerability in the workforce, even (and especially) the white male who once dominated the scene. But the author does point out that this is not quite as bleak as it may seem, as more and more women are being involved in sciences and are resisting the military urge. This new economy has served to break down earlier distinctions between public and private domains: home and state are like networked communications rather then separated entities. A major key point related to her cyborg allusion: Cyborg imagery suggests "a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves." Haraway admits that in order for the society to finally accept women for who they are (as cyborgs) that machines, identities, categories, relationships etc must all be destroyed.
The text seems not to defend (socialist and radical) feminists, but to criticize them for ignoring a larger issue. They have fought for a voice, which they have now received. Now it's time to use that voice, and not to exclude any form of being (man/woman, human/machine, human/animal) when speaking. Haraway explains that we can't define the world in strict parameters anymore, rather we are better to accept dualisms of cyborg reality. The struggle with politics, she says, is "to see from both perspectives at once" as one will reveal information about the other that would otherwise be unknown. This is a powerful piece of advice, but in a world where both sides are corrupt, is the level of corruption what we learn about the other? Although Haraway does not claim perfection in the term "cyborg", she states at the very end of the text, that she would "rather be a cyborg than a goddess". She would rather be clouded in a blurry notion of dualities than be forced into a "consciousness of exclusion through naming", being under the misconception of an absolute truth. One could argue that the idea of being a cyborg is more realistic in the sense that, upon inclusion of an attribute, it does not force the expulsion of another. In a world where technology has become a part of us, an "extension of ourselves" as McLuhan put it, we may have difficulty in defining ourselves, but perhaps the point of this article is to prevent us from suffering, attempting to fit ourselves (and others) into one category, by asking us to break down such barriers which serve as exclusion devices.
It's been 20 years since Haraway has written this essay. Now that women in certain fields of medicine have become a mainstay, can one say that part of her wishes have now come true? Or are we still headed in the wrong direction? Although objectification of women is at its greatest in other fields (fashion), has the gap between cyborg and goddess diminished or increased?
No comments:
Post a Comment