Response to Haraway: Alex, Alexina and Emmanuel

Haraway's main theme in her manifesto is the cyborg. The cyborg is the anti-feminism in her mind. The perfect cyborg is based on the image of the woman, but an asexual one.The cyborg is the anti-feminism in her mind. The perfect cyborg is based on the image of the woman, but an asexual one. This technological innovation can be interpreted as a future "us". With cyborgs, it is harder to control people because they are not categorised anymore based on their race and gender. This text is undeniably feminist. ForHaraway this term means an equality amongst genders. She's afraid of giving birth, because it affirms that she is a woman; rather, she would prefer to be an asexual cyborg and regenerate. Her distinction is harnessing the future to empower women.Haraway does not believe in integrating future technologies into historical methods or worse, natural ones. For cyborgs have no innate history. These creations are unfaithful to their creators. This makes them wholly independent. In a society of cyborgs while there is no domination, in their world there exists only collaboration. This establishes political unity. There are no longer definitions which divide society in her utopia. The original feminist idea was directed at white women only; women of colour had to fight their own battles of colour and feminine identities. Instead,Haraway proposes the cyborg as an all-encompassing feminine ideal where race and sex do not exist.

Throughout the text, Haraway brings to light many concepts regarding the cyborg. The author believes this creature is a solution to many of society's woes but it can also demonstrate human handicaps. It is possible to applyHaraway's concepts to human life, i.e. not only to feminist issues. Although she brings about many concepts of unity and harmony (such as respect for nature, animals and cultures), the most important one is of a whole. That is, a collaborating society which has no innate history, culture, race or gender. This community of cyborgs is a solution to our amalgamation of old traditions and new innovations. For the author, this is an unsanitary mix. In movies, the machine is portrayed as an being without faults.Haraway brings about many examples in her text. Although this is helpful in understanding it, she often appears to contradict her theories on feminism. It would be formidable for women to have an equal place in society. As we said in the summary, the cyborg may be a perfect image of the female being that can regenerate once injured. It looks like she's searching for a world without incapacitation, without visible injuries or disabilities. Whereas there might be differences in colouring, height, weight, etc., there would not be any signs of injuries or disabilities. The retarded mind would be regenerated to be made "intelligent"; the paralysed body would be made to walk again; the missing limbs would regenerate as soon as it is missing... In short, perfectly unblemished asexual women... But don't these differences make humans so much more individual? Is it ethical to restrict cyborgs'individualities ? Another point that is related to regeneration: with (re)birth, we lose our genetic memory/history. That is, we don't inherit our mother and father's memories, but we learn all over again. With regeneration, however,Haraway seems to suggest that that genetic memory/history would be donated. Thus, she suggests that cyborgs are higher beings even than us humans, because they are able to keep that memory and add to it. Haraway's vision may be that of one lacking faith in humanity. She may even be qualified as egocentric for concentrating on women as opposed to society as a whole. She is correct in pointing out that humans are talented in constructing barriers between varying elements.

Is the predetermined aspect of cyborgs (prior knowledge of outcome) what makes them an attractive Utopian society?