Difference between revisions of "1 Introduction"
Caseorganic (Talk | contribs) |
Caseorganic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<blockquote>"To live in the world of creation – to get into it and stay in it – to frequent it and haunt it – to think intensely and fruitfully – to woo combinations and inspirations into being by a depth and continuity of attention and meditation – this is the only thing.” - Henry James </blockquote> | <blockquote>"To live in the world of creation – to get into it and stay in it – to frequent it and haunt it – to think intensely and fruitfully – to woo combinations and inspirations into being by a depth and continuity of attention and meditation – this is the only thing.” - Henry James </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Beginnings=== | ||
| + | [[Anthropology]], from the Greek “anthopos” (human being), is the study of humanity. A host of disciplines and sub-disciplines have arisen to study technology: [[STS]], [[Philosophy of Science]], [[History of Science]], [[Communications]], [[Sociology of technology]], etc. This section will compare Cyborg Anthropology to these disciplines to show where Cyborg Anthropology departs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Diachronic analysis==== | ||
| + | Technology has always been implicated in the question of what it means to be human, but since WWII and the proliferation of informatic disciplines this question has gained whole new dimensions and horizons. Technology is radically changing the way we interact--faster than any other point in history. Traditionally, the central unit of analysis in anthropology is the ethnography, a synchronic snapshot of how a culture functions as a whole (often with some recourse to the notion of the "structure" of a culture, a metaphor that is steeped in connotations of unchanging stability). In this sense anthropology often leaves the diachronic analysis to historians, and instead tries to understand how the culture functions as a whole. Cyborg Anthropology seems different in this respect. Because technology and interface are changing so fast, cyborg anthropology is much more likely to note the changes over time in culture and use this diachronic analysis to understand the ramifications of our cybernetic condition. The rhizome (a cybernetic, feedback-looping, adaptive, descentralized network) is the metaphor that replaces static structure. Insofar as Cyborg Anthropology is studying phenomena that have very little cultural precedence, it seems to be inextricably tied to diachronic analysis and theories of interface r/evolution. | ||
===Why an anthropology of cyborgs?=== | ===Why an anthropology of cyborgs?=== | ||
The object of study for Cyborg Anthropology is the cyborg. Originally coined in a paper about [[space exploration]], the term “cyborg” is short for cybernetic organism. A cyborg is traditionally defined as a system with both organic and inorganic parts. In one sense, the use of any tool that functions as an extension of one's abilities qualifies one as a cyborg, but cyborgs are more narrowly understood to have actual, physical technological extensions/prostheses. Thus in the narrowest sense, examples of cyborgs would include people with [[pacemakers]], [[insulin pumps]], and [[bionic]] limbs. In the broadest sense, all of our interaction with technology could qualify as a cyborg (since the border of a cyborg system has no inherent limits, the universe could qualify as a cyborg). The narrowest sense of cyborg does not let us grasp the steadily expanding field for the practice of cyborg anthropology or investigate the surprising synergies of the human-non-human splices, while the broadest conception runs the risk of being so broad that the discipline cannot be defined.Thus Cyborg Anthropology studies humankind and its relations with the technological systems it has built, specifically modern technological systems that have reflexively shaped notions of what it means to be humans. | The object of study for Cyborg Anthropology is the cyborg. Originally coined in a paper about [[space exploration]], the term “cyborg” is short for cybernetic organism. A cyborg is traditionally defined as a system with both organic and inorganic parts. In one sense, the use of any tool that functions as an extension of one's abilities qualifies one as a cyborg, but cyborgs are more narrowly understood to have actual, physical technological extensions/prostheses. Thus in the narrowest sense, examples of cyborgs would include people with [[pacemakers]], [[insulin pumps]], and [[bionic]] limbs. In the broadest sense, all of our interaction with technology could qualify as a cyborg (since the border of a cyborg system has no inherent limits, the universe could qualify as a cyborg). The narrowest sense of cyborg does not let us grasp the steadily expanding field for the practice of cyborg anthropology or investigate the surprising synergies of the human-non-human splices, while the broadest conception runs the risk of being so broad that the discipline cannot be defined.Thus Cyborg Anthropology studies humankind and its relations with the technological systems it has built, specifically modern technological systems that have reflexively shaped notions of what it means to be humans. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Differences between digital anthropology and cyborg anthopology==== | ||
| + | Digital Anthropology is more concerned with how digital advances is changing how anthropologists do ethnography. Also, cyborg anthropology looks at disciplines like [[Genetics]] and [[Nanotechnology]], which are not strictly "digital". Cybernetics/informatics covers the range of cyborg advances better than the label "digital". | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Cybernetics=== | ||
| + | Another way to think about the object of study of Cyborg Anthropology is through the discipline of [[Cybernetics]]. [[Cybernetics]], was originally the study of control, communication, and information, but it has mutated into a host of other disciplines that fall under the general label of [[Informatics]]. Informatics include the disciplines of [[Robotics]], [[Artificial Intelligence]], [[bionics]], [[Nanotechnology]], [[Genetics]], [[Artificial Life]], [[Cognitive Science]], [[Neuroscience]], and the variety of sub-disciplines within these larger fields. These disciplines' commonalities are 1. their historical link with Cybernetics 2. their implicit metaphor of man as machine, machine as organism, and everything as information. Cyborg Anthropology is particularly concerned with advances in the informatic disciplines and their implications for culture and humanity. | ||
[[Category:Book Pages]] | [[Category:Book Pages]] | ||
[[Category:Marked for Editing]] | [[Category:Marked for Editing]] | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 29 March 2011
"To live in the world of creation – to get into it and stay in it – to frequent it and haunt it – to think intensely and fruitfully – to woo combinations and inspirations into being by a depth and continuity of attention and meditation – this is the only thing.” - Henry James
Contents
Beginnings
Anthropology, from the Greek “anthopos” (human being), is the study of humanity. A host of disciplines and sub-disciplines have arisen to study technology: STS, Philosophy of Science, History of Science, Communications, Sociology of technology, etc. This section will compare Cyborg Anthropology to these disciplines to show where Cyborg Anthropology departs.
Diachronic analysis
Technology has always been implicated in the question of what it means to be human, but since WWII and the proliferation of informatic disciplines this question has gained whole new dimensions and horizons. Technology is radically changing the way we interact--faster than any other point in history. Traditionally, the central unit of analysis in anthropology is the ethnography, a synchronic snapshot of how a culture functions as a whole (often with some recourse to the notion of the "structure" of a culture, a metaphor that is steeped in connotations of unchanging stability). In this sense anthropology often leaves the diachronic analysis to historians, and instead tries to understand how the culture functions as a whole. Cyborg Anthropology seems different in this respect. Because technology and interface are changing so fast, cyborg anthropology is much more likely to note the changes over time in culture and use this diachronic analysis to understand the ramifications of our cybernetic condition. The rhizome (a cybernetic, feedback-looping, adaptive, descentralized network) is the metaphor that replaces static structure. Insofar as Cyborg Anthropology is studying phenomena that have very little cultural precedence, it seems to be inextricably tied to diachronic analysis and theories of interface r/evolution.
Why an anthropology of cyborgs?
The object of study for Cyborg Anthropology is the cyborg. Originally coined in a paper about space exploration, the term “cyborg” is short for cybernetic organism. A cyborg is traditionally defined as a system with both organic and inorganic parts. In one sense, the use of any tool that functions as an extension of one's abilities qualifies one as a cyborg, but cyborgs are more narrowly understood to have actual, physical technological extensions/prostheses. Thus in the narrowest sense, examples of cyborgs would include people with pacemakers, insulin pumps, and bionic limbs. In the broadest sense, all of our interaction with technology could qualify as a cyborg (since the border of a cyborg system has no inherent limits, the universe could qualify as a cyborg). The narrowest sense of cyborg does not let us grasp the steadily expanding field for the practice of cyborg anthropology or investigate the surprising synergies of the human-non-human splices, while the broadest conception runs the risk of being so broad that the discipline cannot be defined.Thus Cyborg Anthropology studies humankind and its relations with the technological systems it has built, specifically modern technological systems that have reflexively shaped notions of what it means to be humans.
Differences between digital anthropology and cyborg anthopology
Digital Anthropology is more concerned with how digital advances is changing how anthropologists do ethnography. Also, cyborg anthropology looks at disciplines like Genetics and Nanotechnology, which are not strictly "digital". Cybernetics/informatics covers the range of cyborg advances better than the label "digital".
Cybernetics
Another way to think about the object of study of Cyborg Anthropology is through the discipline of Cybernetics. Cybernetics, was originally the study of control, communication, and information, but it has mutated into a host of other disciplines that fall under the general label of Informatics. Informatics include the disciplines of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, bionics, Nanotechnology, Genetics, Artificial Life, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and the variety of sub-disciplines within these larger fields. These disciplines' commonalities are 1. their historical link with Cybernetics 2. their implicit metaphor of man as machine, machine as organism, and everything as information. Cyborg Anthropology is particularly concerned with advances in the informatic disciplines and their implications for culture and humanity.
