Advertisement

Frankenstein’s Monster as Mythical Mattering: Rethinking the Creator-Creation Technology Relationship

  • Natalie HardwickeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 543)

Abstract

The mythical tale of Frankenstein portrays a certain pursuit of knowledge as being the monster. By drawing parallels between Frankenstein’s tale and aspects of both Martin Heidegger’s and Marshall McLuhan’s work, this paper foregrounds what ontologically needs to “matter” for us to “love” our technological creations. Creator-creation modes of being are problematized in relation to the pursuit of knowledge, suggesting an organic view of being is needed. What this view highlights is an important knowledge-identity dichotomy; one which plays an irrevocable role in our understanding of the people-technology relationship.

Keywords

Knowledge Myth Sociomateriality Technology Identity 

References

  1. 1.
    Baldick, C.: In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. OUP, Oxford (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Latour, B.: Love your monsters. Breakthrough J. 2(11), 21–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shelley, M.: Frankenstein. England, London (1818)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2(1), 433–474 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ou Yang, S.: Returning to the philosophical roots of sociomateriality: how M. Heidegger and M. Mcluhan questioned information communication technology. ACM 47(4), 93–105 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riemer, K., Johnston, R.B.: Clarifying ontological inseparability with Heidegger’s analysis of equipment. MIS Q. 41(4) (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Utesheva, A., Boell, S.: Theorizing society and technology in information systems research. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE for Adv. Inf. Syst. 47(4), 106–110 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barad, K.: Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28(3), 801–831 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heidegger, M.: Being and Time: A Translation of sein Und Zeit. SUNY press, Albany (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLuhan, M.: The Extensions of Man, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woodard, R.D.: The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campbell, J., Moyers, B.: The Power of Myth. Anchor, New York City (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glick, M.A.: Symbol and artifact: Jungian dynamics at McLuhan’s technological interface (1976)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, J.: The frankenstein problem. Philosophy 39(149), 223–232 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koestler, A.: The Ghost in the Machine. Macmillan, Oxford (1968)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen, B.: A dao of technology? Dao 9(2), 151–160 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations