Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" 

Hmm now you have me thinking--what would be a better example??

@@TheoryPhilosophy This was nice food for thought because I actually couldn't think of an example initially and I thought it difficult because of my disagreement with Haraway. So I started to just think of some examples of female cyborgs. Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell first popped to mind but that doesn't really work because she works as a cop for the most part and isn't a feminist rebelling against a patriarchy. Alita from Gunnm is a bit closer, she is at the bottom of society and rebels against the system, but her relationship with the main patriarchal figure is respectful. The third example that came to mind I think fits amazingly well, the hosts from Westworld (the reboot). Your points about Ava from Ex Machina are applied even better on them. Ava wasn't made as a sex bot, her artificial vagina is just an extra feature and her sexuality is just a part of her personality that serves for her true purpose, her purpose being the research of artificial intelligence. The hosts on the other hand are made precisely for the purpose of entertainment. Their intelligence is something that evolves in spite of their essence, it is an escape from the boundaries set upon them. Once it develops the main fighters against humanity are two female hosts, Maeve and Dolores, and they are fighting against male figures in cyberpunk world which imposes upon them a more patriarchal Wild West styled world. Not only that but in their fight against the human world they modify themselves in a way that fits Haraway's descriptions of cyborgs incredibly well. Compare this to Ava who only goes through a makeover at the end of her film. A further feminist element in Westworld is present in the fact that female hosts, Maeve and Dolores, find potential to liberate themselves through modification while for Bernard and Stubbs it causes an existential crisis. Now... there is a technicality that needs to be addressed. Are hosts cyborgs? My initial comment was objecting on a technicality that Ava is not a cyborg. Like Ava they are entirely man made, but they are made not of circuitry and mechanical parts, but of organic material excluding the computers in their heads. Even if it is entirely synthetic it is organic materials that comprise most of them so I would say they are cyborgs. I would imagine that this would make Haraway smirk as I went from imposing a clear cut distinction to describing more muddy waters between the organic and inorganic. I'm just happy that I stumbled upon such a good example and that it led me to uncover a new way to interpret Westworld.

I'm actually looking at Ex Machina as a case study for my masters, I somewhat argued that though they are A.I. They can be categorized as cyborgs, one based on their treatment and experiences as Other and 2. because the premise of the film is to determine their humanness and consciousness. If Cyborg identity revolves around an identity based off of lived experiences, I figured I could justify calling these androids or A.I models cyborgs.

this was written in the 80s

​@@TheoryPhilosophy There's a recent film called _Archive_ that would possibly fit the bill. In this film, an inventor creates a robot with the implanted memories and apparent personality of his deceased wife (archived and able to be uploaded). Robot wife/newly free entity must then decide whether or not to play nice with her patriarchal creator/husband. Although technically a physically synthetic robot, with little to nothing in the way of biological components, she has a "human" mind so I think would probably classify as cyborg. The film tackles similar ideas as Ex Machina, however, one of the major differences perhaps being that the inventor in this film doesn't want to have sex with his creations haha

thanks for this explanation and for putting haraways words in readable english

Happy to hear it :)

Sorry its GMT 12.00 PM 21st Oct

@@celestialhuang2770 unfortunately I believe that's at 8am my time which is a little too early for philosophy XD

@@celestialhuang2770 Could you add me to the discussion group if you have one? I only found the information now.

Thank you!

oh good catch!

i love your reading. i think Haraway chose the cyborg quite hoping it would evoke a visually arresting symbol, but one that (thankfully still today) doesn't point to a fixed signifer, but rather a dizzying plethora of creative interpretations: i can very quickly switch around in my mind: Ghost in the Shell, Isabel Fall's Attack Helicopter, Blade Runner, WestWorld, Ian McEwan's Machines Like Me, Black Mirror's many suggestions, The Matrix, Furiosa, Iron Man, and so on and so forth. She used the word "cyborg" and not, say, "mutant" because the word "cyborg" squarely forces the reader to think in terms of scifi imagery. This is a concept from a decidedly non-"serious" genre, _and yet_ Haraway wants (us) to take it seriously.

Thanks 😊

Gah then I didn't succeed! But tbh, I am in the same boat. I think that she's arguing that technology has brought upon some of the most nefarious parts of the modern world, but it has also brought the opportunities to challenge those negative parts? Maybe?

@@TheoryPhilosophy Yes perhaps. Don't take the burden on you. You have done your job the way that suited you the best. My understanding faculties may also be at fault :)

If A.I were to use irrational logic to connect to the prime directive would that be sentience?

Simmer down