The paper focuses on processes of normalization through which dis/ability is simultaneously produced in specific collectives, networks, and socio-technological systems that enable the construction of such demarcations. Our point of departure is the cochlear implant (CI), a neuroprosthetic device intended to replace and/or augment the function of the damaged inner ear. Unlike hearing aids, which amplify sounds, the CI does the work of damaged hair cells in the inner ear by providing sound signals to the brain. We examine the processes of the CI’s genesis as well as its specific uses by and interrelations to the different and divergent actors that the CI assembles. We argue that the technological device and the implicated normalization process mobilize complex effects in varying socio-technical arrangements. The CI is conceived as a “boundary object”  or a “quasi-object” [49, 83], i.e., a metastabilized medium of translation that coordinates social, cultural, and technological (inter)action. Although intended to transform non-hearing or hard of hearing people into competent and “normal” hearing subjects, the CI system reproduces the asymmetrical structures of the disability discourse  through its function of “developing and maintaining coherence between intersecting social worlds” [89, 393]. Additionally, it initiates controversial discourses that have resulted in new forms of biosocial collectivities ranging from cochlear implantees with (restored) normal human hearing to (trans)human configurations who have passed through (post)human enhancement. Our approach is thus situated at the intersection of disability and media studies and tackles the particular conditions technological media configurations impose upon the (re-)production of dis/ability.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The notion of “Anthropofakt” refers to a current research project by the Technical University of Berlin and the Deutsche Hygiene-Museum (DHDM) on the hybridization of bodies and technologies. Cf. Anthropofakte. Schnittstelle Mensch, http://www.anthropofakte.de/ (accessed 22 September 2015).
The notion of “first-time-activation videos”, as can be found on YouTube, refers to the concept of the “activation scene” as developed by Pamela Kincheloe .
However, methodologically speaking, in order to observe and describe such processes, a temporal fixation of the object of investigation (in popular imagery as well as in scientific contributions) is the heuristic condition of the production of dynamic knowledge [80, 119].
Callon (1986) uses the term identity for both human and non-human actors in order to remain what he calls a “generalized symmetry.” Thus, identity is not thought of as a fixed and restricted to human entities but needs to be understood as a list of attributes, which can be “negotiated and delimited” [13, 203] in the process of networking.
For the sake of completeness and in order to avoid the misconception of a homogeneous group of deaf people with a common agenda, it should be mentioned that views on CI differ greatly. The views expressed in the following correspond with those of deaf communities, whose members are born and raised in a context with a strong communicational focus on sign language and feel discriminated against by biological/medical concepts of hearing as natural. Depression as a result of feeling excluded from the “hearing world” is a typical clinical view of people who are born with hearing and live large sections of their lives communicating via spoken language before becoming deaf in adult life and being unable to easily adapt to a non-hearing lifestyle.
Of course these are extreme points in the debate. There is without a doubt a whole range of other constructions of “deafness” and “hearing” in relation to the CI such as reconciliations of both “worlds” [7, 4; 8, 211] and identities “stuck in-between” both sides [12, 92]. Also, it should be added that this kind of subjectivization also depends on the degree of the hearing loss and whether the person in question was born deaf or lost their hearing as an adult. Identity constructions are certainly conditioned by a vast spectrum of other factors such as cultural and social environment, age, and gender. From the perspective of an ANT approach, this means that a homogeneous and sharply defined group of people cannot be set as the starting point of the analysis. Rather, subjectivization can as be described as relations to and negotiations between different actors in the process of networking. In this case, the extreme points are results of specific mediatizations, which surface as the most “popular,” “politically effective,” or “controversial” in specific network constellations.
Dehumanization as a result of invasive cyborg technology is even more stressed by Peter Artinian’s concern, uttered in the documentary Sound and the Fury (Josh Aronson, Artistic License, 2000), that “cochlear implants will create a bunch of robots.” However, technically speaking, there is a decisive difference between the concept of the cyborg, as a part machine part human hybrid, and the robot, or android, which is a completely artificial machine.
However, “becoming a Borg” is not always discoursified as undesired. For example, on the blog Graysdeafblog.com, being implanted with cyborg technology is presented as a “cool,” nerdish gimmick. The blog’s owner, Graham, has included a picture of the assimilated Captain Picard with the ironic side note, “I will begin my planning now for my role as a real life cyborg in the next Star Trek movie!! Beam me up Scottie!!” .
The photography is used by Chaikof as an argument for her discussion of the acceptability of the CI .
Cochlear device switch-on live in studio (23 March 2014), https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/22127656/cochlear-device-switch-on-live-in-studio/, accessed 22 June 2015. More examples, Activating Anderson’s cochlear implant (15 May 2013), www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_oB_CBPa04 (accessed 22 June 2015); 3 year old hearing for the first time with a cochlear implant (15 May 2012), www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutzKqvH8DQ (accessed 22 June 2015); Hearing for first time - Wee Daniel's reaction to Cochlear Implant Switch On in Belfast (05 January 2013), www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozmvMufIh4 (accessed 22 June 2015); and 2-year-old Cooper hears mommy’s voice for the first time! (10 October 2011) www.youtube.com/watc?v=WDDfGMuofuw (accessed 22 June 2015).
Cf. the Listening demos given by Dorman, Loizou, Rainey .
Drake’s cochlear implant activation (18 June 2006), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3qhj2DJaB4, accessed 22 June 2015.
For example in Suzi’s switch-on: Brain doctors. Emergency. BBC Two (02 February 2013), http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014jy3z, accessed 22 June 2015.
Joanne Milnes’ very emotional viral cochlear implant switch on, http://limpingchicken.com/2014/03/28/watch-joanne-milnes-very-emotional-viral-cochlear-implant-switch-on-video/, 28 March 2014 to 27 May 2014.
“[…] moments after switch-on takes place, she can understand the days of the week being read to her, knows she is speaking with a Geordie accent and tells the audiologist that the sounds seem “too high”… Hang on, wait… “Geordie accent? This is the first time she has ever heard and she can not only speak, but with a recognisable accent? That is not a cochlear implant, that is a miracle.” Joanne Milnes’ very emotional viral cochlear implant switch on (28 March 2014), http://limpingchicken.com/2014/03/28/watch-joanne-milnes-very-emotional-viral-cochlear-implant-switch-on-video/ (accessed 22 June 2015). Another critic, Betty Hoven, expresses her anger about this kind of videos as it focuses on entertainment rather than the long process of auditory mapping .
Other examples from television series highlight the implementation of visual prostheses. In Star Trek, Geordi la Forge uses his visor in order to sense a frequency range that goes far beyond the capacity of human physiological sight. But the visor also transmits the recorded visual material wirelessly so that his user is transformed temporarily into a mobile camera. The six million dollar man (ABC, 1974–1978) uses his telescope vision in order to track down suspects.
For ambivalences in the medical and rehabilitation discourse, see the analysis by Moser, who emphasizes the “relocation” of dependency through the use of assistive technologies [62, 205].
In the case of the CI, these restrictions are not only commercially motivated. The process following the implantation is very complicated; audiologists and CI users have to collaborate to define how the implant system operates. The initial adjustment or mapping is followed by fine-tuning, hearing training, speech therapy, and further medical tests to measure the auditory perception of the CI user.
Chorost, for instance, despite a keen interest in improving the perception of music using CI, points out that he would not dare to hack his system due to its complexity [cf. 59, 338].
Chorost describes such a scene, “I’m plugged directly into the player. Its electrical output goes straight into the processor, which converts it to binary and passes it on to the implant. The implant decides which electrodes to trigger in my cochlea. These are no physical vibrations anywhere” [17, 58].
Discussing the Turing test, Hayles contends that the specificity of this setting is not to be found in the decision whether one communicates with a computer or a human person but in the fact that the test person is participating in a “cybernetic circuit that splices your will, desire, and perception into a distributed cognitive system in which represented bodies are joined with enacted bodies through mutating and flexible machine interfaces” [34, 14].
Akrich M (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: Law J, Bijker W (eds) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT, Cambridge, pp 205–224
Beuth P (2013) Wie hackt man ein Cochlea-Implantat. Zeit Online. http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2013-07/sigint-enno-park-german-cyborg-society. Accessed 22 June 2015
Biderman B (1998) Wired for sound: A journey into hearing. Trifolium Books, Toronto
Binns D (2013) The bionic woman. Machine or human? In: Allan K (ed) Disability in science fiction representations of technology as cure. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 89–102
Bippus E, Ochsner B, Otto I (2015) Between demand and entitlement. Perspectives on researching media and participation. In: Denecke M, Ganzert A, Otto I, Stock R (eds) ReClaiming Participation. Technology–Mediation–Collectivity. transcript, Bielefeld (in print)
Blume S (1997) The rhetoric and counter-rhetoric of a “bionic” technology STOR. Sci Technol Hum Values 22(1):31–56
Blume S (2010) The artificial ear: cochlear implants and the culture of deafness. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Bondarew V, Seligman P (2012) The cochlear story. CSIRO, Collingwood
Bostrom N (2005a) A history of transhumanist thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology 14.1. http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/bostrom.html. Accessed 22 June 2015
Bostrom N (2005) In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19(3):202–214
Bostrom N, Roache R (2008) Ethical issues in human enhancement. In: Ryberg J, Petersen T, Wolf C (eds) New waves in applied ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 120–152
Brueggemann BJ (1999) Lend me your ear: rhetorical constructions of deafness. Gallaudet UP, Washington, DC
Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp 196–233
Callon (2005) Why virtualism paves the way to political impotence. Econ Soc 6(2):3–20
Cannes L (2012) The deaf community’s final meltdown? (Deaf babies, sign language (ASL), cochlear implants and deaf education. http://lexiecannes.com/2012/03/19/the-deaf-communitys-final-meltdown-deaf-babies-sign-language-asl-cochlear-implants-and-deaf-education/. Accessed 22 June 2015.
Chaikof R (2008) How much better is the acceptance today? Cochlear Implant Online. http://cochlearimplantonline.com/site/how-much-better-is-the-acceptance-today/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Chorost M (2007) Rebuilt: how becoming part computer made me more human. Souvenir Press, London
Christiansen JB, Leigh IW (2002) Cochlear implants in children: ethics and choices. Gallaudet UP, Washington, DC
Christen M (2005) Der Einbau von Technik in das Gehirn. Das Wechselspiel von Informationsbegriffen und Technologieentwicklung am Beispiel des Hörens. In: Orland B (ed) Artifizielle Körper—lebendige Technik technische Modellierungen des Körpers in historischer Perspektive. Chronos, Zürich, pp 197–220
Chute P, Nevins ME (2005) The parent’s guide to cochlear implants. Gallaudet UP, Washington, DC
Clark G (2003) Cochlear implants: fundamentals and application. Springer, New York
Coenen C (2013) Human Enhancement und die Zukunft des menschlichen Körpers. In: Popp R (ed) Zukunft. Lebensqualität. Lebenslang. Generationen im demographischen Wandel. LIT, Berlin et al., pp 87–95
Cyborg e.V. Gesellschaft zur Förderung und kritischen Begleitung der Verschmelzung von Mensch und Technik. Mission Statement. http://cyborgs.cc/?page_id=9. Accessed 22 June 2015
DeaFeed (2014) Nuremberg laws: target recruitment of cochlear implants to perish deaf people. DeaFeed. http://deafeed.com/nuremberg-laws-target-recruitment-of-cochlear-implants-to-perish-deaf-people/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D (1997) Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 102(5):2993–2996
Eisenberg LS (2009) Clinical management of children with cochlear implants. Plural, San Diego
Engell L (2010) Kinematographische Agenturen. In: Krtilová K (ed) Idem, Bystřický J. Medien denken. Von der Bewegung des Begriffs zu bewegten Bildern. transcript, Bielefeld, pp 137–156
Friedner M (2010) Biopower, biosociality, and community formation. How biopower is constitutive of the deaf community. Sign Lang Stud 10(3):336–347
Gardner P, Wray B (2013) From lab to living room. Transhumanist imaginaries of consumer brain wave monitors. ada. A journal of Gender, New media and Technology 11: http://adanewmedia.org/2013/11/issue3-gardnerwray/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Garner S (2011) Image-bearing cyborgs. Theology and the body: reflections on being flesh and blood 14.2: 33–54
Goggin G, Newell C (2006) Reclaiming civility: disability, diversity, and human rights. In: Porter C, Offord B (eds) Activating human rights. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 219–238
Goth G (2007) Opening the mobile net. IEEE Distrib Syst Online 8(11):1–4
Graysdeafblog (2010) Cyborg. Gray’s deaf blog http://graysdeafblog.wordpress.com/tag/cyborg/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Hayles NK (1999) How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago, Chicago
Heilinger J-C (2010) Anthropologie und Ethik des Enhancements. DeGruyter, Berlin and New York
Hermann-Röttgen M (2010) Cochlea-Implantat: Ein Ratgeber für Betroffene und Therapeuten. Trias, Stuttgart
Hirschauer S (2004) Praktiken und ihre Körper. Über materielle Partizipation des Tuns. In: Hörning K, Reuter J (eds) Doing culture: Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis. transcript, Bielefeld, 73–91
Hörl E (2013) A thousand ecologies: the process of cyberneticization and general ecology. In: Diederichsen D, Franke A (eds) The whole Earth. California and the Disappearance of the Outside. Sternberg Press, Berlin, pp 121–130
Hörl E (ed) (2011) Die technologische Bedingung: Beiträge zur Beschreibung der technischen Welt. Suhrkamp, Berlin
Hossain S (2013) Cochlear implants and the deaf culture: a transhumanist perspective. H+ Magazine
Hoven B (2012) My problems with cochlear implant activation videos. Bettyhoven. http://bettyhoven.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/my-problems-with-cochlear-implant-activation-videos/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Hüls R (1999) Geschichte der Hörakustik: 2000 Jahre Hören und Hörhilfe. Median, Heidelberg
Kincheloe P (2010) Do androids dream of electric speech? The construction of cochlear implant identity on American television and the ‘new deaf cyborg’. M/C Journal 13.3: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/254. Accessed 22 June 2015
Knorr-Cetina K (1982) Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? a critique of quasi-economic models of science. Soc Stud Sci 12:101–130
Knorr-Cetina K (1999) “Viskurse” der Physik: Wie visuelle Darstellungen ein Wissenschaftsgebiet ordnen. In: Boehm G, Huber J (eds) Konstruktionen Sichtbarkeiten. Springer, New York, pp 245–263
Kollien S (2000) Das Cochlea-Implantat aus Sicht der Gehörlosen. Spektrum. http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/page/fe_seiten?article_id=57092. Accessed 17 April 2014
KPG (2013) Bio-Hacking: Amerikaner lässt sich Kopfhörer implantieren. Spiegel Online. http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadgets/bio-hacking-richard-lee-implantiert-sich-magneten-fuer-tonuebertragung-a-909154.html. Accessed 22 June 2015
Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Law J, Mol A (2001) Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environ Plan D: Soc Space 19:609–621
Lee J 2015 Cochlear implantation, enhancements, transhumanism and posthumanism: some human questions. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1–26. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9640-6
Leonhardt A (2009) Cochlea-Implantate für gehörlose Kinder gehörloser Eltern? In: Ernst A, Todt I, Battmer R-D (eds) Cochlear implant heute. Springer Medizin, Heidelberg, pp 63–72
Levy S (1984) Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution. Anchor Press, Garden City
Lösch A, Spreen D, Schrage D, Stauff M (2001) Technologien als Diskurse—Einleitung. In: Lösch A et al (eds) Technologien als Diskurse: Konstruktionen von Wissen, Medien und Körpern. Synchron, Heidelberg, pp 7–20
Maguire GQ, McGee EM (1999) Implantable brain chips? Time for debate. Hastings Cent Rep 29(1):7–13
Mauldin L (2012) Parents of deaf children with cochlear implants: a study of technology and community. Soc Health & Illness 34(4):529–543
Mauldin L (2014) Precarious plasticity neuropolitics, cochlear implants, and the redefinition of deafness. Sci Technol Hum Values 39(1):130–53
May C, Finch T, Frances M, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M et al (2007) Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res 7:148
Mills M (2013) Do signals have politics? Inscribing abilities in cochlear implants. In: Pinch TJ, Bijsterveld K (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 320–346
Mitzner J (2013) Deutschlands Cyborgs formieren sich. Motherboard. http://motherboard.vice.com/de/blog/deutschlands-cyborgs-formieren-sich. Accessed 22 June 2015
Moravec HP (2000) Robot: mere machine to transcendent mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moser I (2000) Against normalisation: subverting norms of ability and disability. Sci Cult 9(2):201–240. doi:10.1080/713695234
Moser I (2006) Disability and the promises of technology: technology, subjectivity and embodiment within an order of the normal. Inform, Commun Soc 9(3):373–395. doi:10.1080/13691180600751348
Müller S, Zaracko A (2010) Haben gehörlose Kleinkinder ein Recht auf ein Cochleaimplantat? Nervenheilkunde 29:244–248
Naufel S (2013) Nanotechnology, the brain, and personal identity. In: Hays A, Robert JS, Miller C, Bennett I (eds) Nanotechnology, the brain, and the future. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 167–178
Niparko JA (2000) The cultural implications of cochlear implantation. In: Niparko JA (ed) Cochlear implants: principles and practices. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 335–342
Ochsner B, Stock R (2013) Translations of blind perception in the films Monika (2011) and Antoine (2008). Invisible Culture 19. http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/portfolio/translations-of-blind-perception-in-the-films-monika-2011-and-antoine-2011. Accessed 22 June 2015
Ochsner B (2013) Teilhabeprozesse. Oder: Das Versprechen des Cochlea-Implantats. AUGENblick. Konstanzer Hefte zur Medienwissenschaft 58:112–123
Park E (2013a) Eine Fernbedienung für mein Gehör. die ennomane. http://www.ennomane.de/2013/06/20/eine-fernbedienung-fur-mein-gehor/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Park E (2013b) Wie ich zum Cyborg wurde. http://www.carta.info/68129/wie-ich-zum-cyborg-wurde/. Accessed 22 June 2015
Park E (2014) Die Abschaffung der Behinderung. Jungle World. http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2014/02/49104.html. Accessed 22 June 2015
Rao H (2009) Market rebels. How activists make or break radical innovations. Princeton, Oxford
Romoff A (2000) Hear again: back to life with a cochlear implant. League for the Hard of Hearing, New York
Rose N (1992) Governing the enterprising self. In: Heelas P, Morris P (eds) The value of the enterprise culture. The Moral Debate, Routledge, pp 141–165
Rose MC (2013) Kylie gets a cochlear implant. Strategic Book Publishing, Houston
Saukko P (2003) Doing research in cultural studies: an introduction to classical and new methodological approaches. Sage, London
Schillmeier M (2007) Dis/abling practices: rethinking disability. Hum Aff 17(2):195–208
Schlenker-Schulte C, Weber A (2009) Teilhabe durch barrierefreie Kommunikation für Menschen mit Hörbehinderung. In: Antos G (ed) Rhetorik: Ein Internationales Jahrbuch. Rhetorik und Verständlichkeit. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, pp 92–102
Schriempf A (2012) Hearing deafness: subjectness, articulateness, and communicability. In: Gonzalez-Arnal S, Jagger G, Lennon K (eds) Embodied selves. NY, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 160–179
Schulz-Schäffer I (2000) Sozialtheorie der Technik. Campus, Frankfurt am Main
Thielmann T, Schüttpelz E (eds) (2013) Akteur-Medien-Theorie. transcript, Bielefeld
Senf D (2004) Cochlea-Implantat: Mit dem CI leben, hören und sprechen. Ein Ratgeber für Eltern, Schulz-Kirchner, Idstein
Serres M (1982) The parasite. John Hopkins University Press, London
Serres M, Latour B (1995) Conversations of science, culture, and time. Michigan University Press, Ann Arbor
Sparrow R (2005) Defending deaf culture: the case of cochlear implants. J Political Philos 13(2):135–152
Spöhrer M (2013) The (re)socialization of technical objects in patient networks: the case of the cochlear implant. Int J Actor-Network-Theory and Technol Innov 5(3):25–36
Spöhrer M (2013) Bilder der gelungenen Kommunikation: Das Cochlea-Implantat in sozialen und medizinischen Denkkollektiven. Das ZEICHEN 95:382–389
Spreen D (2010) Der Cyborg: Diskurse zwischen Körper und Technik. In: Eßlinger E, Schlechtriemen T, Schweitzer D, Zons A (eds) Die Figur des Dritten: Ein kulturwissenschaftliches Paradigma. Suhrkamp, Berlin and Frankfurt, pp 166–179
Star SL, Griesemer JF (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(4):387–420
Steadman I (2013) Man creates “invisible headphones” by implanting magnets into his ears. Wired. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/28/magnetic-ear-implants. Accessed 22 June 2015
Stiglegger M (2003) Robocop: Das Gesetz in der Zukunft. In: Koebner T (ed) Filmgenres: Science Fiction. Reclam, Stuggart, pp 460–463
Strandvad SM (2011) Materializing ideas: a socio-material perspective on the organizing of cultural production. Eur J Cult Stud 14(3):283–297
Thoma J (2013) Cyborg Enno Park. Mein Implantat gehört mir. Golem.de. http://www.golem.de/news/cyborg-enno-park-mein-implantat-gehoert-mir-1307-100239.html. Accessed 22 June 2015
Thweatt-Bates J (2011) Posthuman selves: bodies, cognitive processes, and technologies. In: van Wentzel Huyssteen J, Wiebe EP (eds) In search of self: interdisciplinary perspectives on personhood. Wm. B. Erdmann’s, Cambridge, pp 243–255
Valente JM (2011) Cyborgization: deaf education for young children in the cochlear era. Qual Inq 17(7):639–652
Winance M (2006) Trying out the wheelchair. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(1):52–72
Winter J A (2003) The development of the disability rights movement as a social problem solver. Disability Studies Quarterly 23.1: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/399/545. Accessed 22 June 2015
Wohlsen M (2011) Biopunk. DIY scientists hack the software of life. Current, New York
We would like to acknowledge the thorough comments, encouragement, and instructive suggestions of the editors and anonymous reviewers which contributed to the preparation of this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Ochsner, B., Spöhrer, M. & Stock, R. Human, Non-Human, and Beyond: Cochlear Implants in Socio-Technological Environments. Nanoethics 9, 237–250 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0242-1
- Cochlear implant
- Media studies
- Socio-technological environments
- YouTube activation videos
- Human enhancement