Advertisement

Subjectivity

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 297–315 | Cite as

Touching technologies, touching visions. The reclaiming of sensorial experience and the politics of speculative thinking

  • María Puig de la Bellacasa
Original Article

Abstract

The sense of touch is being revalued in disparate places, from cultural theory to expanding markets of haptic technologies. In this paper I explore the potential of thinking with literal and figural meanings of touch. My standpoint inherits from discussions in feminist knowledge politics and constructivist conceptions of science and technology that problematize epistemological distances – between objects and subjects; knowledge and the world; and science and politics. In this direction, touch expresses a sense of material embodied relationality that seemingly eschews abstractions and detachments that have been associated with knowledge-as-vision. Engaging speculatively with experience, knowledge and technology as touch, I explore the differences made by touching visions.

Keywords

touch technology knowledge politics feminism 

References

  1. Adams, V., Clarke, A. and Murphy, M. (2009) Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. and Stacey, J. (2001) Thinking Through the Skin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K.M. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basdogan, C., Ho, C. and Srinivasan, M.A. (2001) Virtual environments for medical training: Graphical and haptic simulation of common bile duct exploration. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 6 (3): 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basel Action Network. (2002) Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, http://www.ban.org: last accessed 12 April 2009.
  6. Blackman, L. (2008) The Body. Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  7. Castañeda, C. (2001) The future of touch. In: S. Ahmed and J. Stacey (eds.) Thinking Through the Skin. London: Routledge, pp. 223–236.Google Scholar
  8. Chrétien, J.-L. (2004) The Call and the Response, 1st English-language edn. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, M. (2008) Life as Surplus. Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle, WA and London: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  10. Danius, S. (2002) The Senses of Modernism. Technology, Perception, and Aesthetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G. (1996) Péricles et Verdi. La Philosophie de François Chatelet. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dumm, T. (2008) Loneliness as a Way of Life. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haran, J. (2001) Why turn to speculative fiction? On reconceiving feminist research for the twenty first century. In: G. Bendelow, M. Carpenter, C. Vautier and S. Williams (eds.) Gender, Health and Healing. The Public/Private Divide. London: Routledge, pp. 68–87.Google Scholar
  15. Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haraway, D. and Goodeve, T.N. (2000) How Like a Leaf. Donna J. Haraway. An Interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (2004) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hartsock, N. (1983) The feminist standpoint: Toward a specifically feminist historical materialism. In: N. Hartsock (ed.) Money, Sex and Power: Towards a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York: Longman, pp. 231–251.Google Scholar
  22. Jain, S.L. (2006) Injury. The Politics of Product Design and Safety Law in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latimer, J. (2000) The Conduct of Care. Understanding Nursing Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Leigh Star, S. (ed.) (1995) Ecologies of Knowledge. Work and Politics in Science and Technology. Albany, NY: State of New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marks, L.U. (2002) Touch. Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis, Mn: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mc Caffrey, A. (1969) The Ship Who Sang. London: Corgi Books.Google Scholar
  27. Myers, N. (2008) Molecular embodiments and the body-work of modelling in Protein Crystallography. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 163–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oudshoorn, N. (2008a) Diagnosis at a distance. The invisible work of patients and healthcare professionals in cardiac telemonitoring technology. Sociology of Health and Illness 30 (2): 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oudshoorn, N. (2008b) Acting with telemonitoring technologies. Paper presented at the 2008 Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Papadopoulos, D., Stephenson, N. and Tsianos, V. (2008) Escape Routes. Control and Subversion in the 21st Century. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  31. Paterson, M. (2006) Feel the presence: Technologies of touch and distance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24: 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paterson, M. (2007) The Senses of Touch. Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  33. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (forthcoming) Thinking-with-care. In: G. Tabrizi (ed.) Thinking with Donna Haraway. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Radcliffe, M. (2008) Touch and situatedness. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3): 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodaway, P. (1994) Sensous Geographies: Body, Sense and Place. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Satava, R.M. (2004) Telemedicine, virtual reality, and other technologies that will transform how healthcare is provided, http://depts.washington.edu/biointel/future-of-healthcare-Tokyo-0412.doc, last accessed 10 October 2008.
  37. Sedgwick, K. (2003) Touching Feeling. Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, D. (1987) Women's perspective as radical critique of sociology. In: S.G. Harding (ed.) Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington, In/Milton Keynes, UK: Indiana University Press/Open University Press, pp. 84–96.Google Scholar
  39. Sobchack, V. (2004) Carnal Thoughts. Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stengers, I. (2004) Devenir philosophe: Un goût pour l’aventure?. In: M. Alphant (ed.) La Vocation Philosophique. Paris: Editions du Centre Pompidou/Bayard.Google Scholar
  41. Stengers, I. (2008) Experimenting with refrains. Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism. Subjectivity 22: 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephenson, N. (1996) Mother Earth, Motherboard. Wired 4.12 (December), pp. 97–160.Google Scholar
  43. Strand, G. (2008) Keyword: Evil; Google's addiction to cheap electricity. Harper's Magazine, March (64).Google Scholar
  44. Suchman, L.A. (2007) Human–machine Reconfigurations. Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Vora, K. (2009) The commodification of affect in Indian call centers. In: E. Boris and R. Parreñas (eds.) Intimate Labors. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Care, Sex and Domestic Work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Puig de la Bellacasa
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social Sciences, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations