Advertisement

Psychological Ethics and Cyborg Body Politics

  • Betty M. Bayer
Chapter

Abstract

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, changing technocultural pulses of everyday life, of who and what we are about as psychological subjects, our subjectivities, have stirred up anew a sense of life in the twilight zone. Neither wholly unmoored from our familiar ways of being nor completely jacked into cyberspace, we are instead caught up in the visual and digital cultural-political surrounds of transitions and transformations, restagings and reimaginings. From magazine headlines announcing technologies as making us faster, richer, smarter as well as alienated, materialistic, and a ‘little crazy’ through to advertisements claiming ‘the future of machines is biology,’ ‘the biological is becoming technological,’ ‘technologies are becoming biological’, and ‘don’t just send email, be email’, popular culture discourses heighten our association of technology with emerging transformations in selves, bodies, and subjectivity. Likewise, academic study and debate, whether of what constitutes intelligence, the mind, emotion, the body, or life itself, have served to redraw filial lines between humans and machines (Turkle, 1995). Calling into question boundaries between nature and artefact, science and culture, body and mind, self and non-self, these discourses signal disturbances around the limits to and boundaries between inner and outer, off-line and on-line material-discursive worlds.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, T.G. (1948) ‘Some psychological apparatus: a classified bibliography’, Psychological Monographs, 62: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar, B. (1996) ‘Diving into virtual reality’, The APA Monitor, 27(1): 24–6.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, R.F. (1950) Interaction process analysis, a method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, B.M. (1997) ‘Technovisions and the remaking of scientific identity’. Paper presented at the International Society for Theoretical Psychology, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Bayer, B.M. (1998) ‘Between apparatuses and apparitions: phantoms of the laboratory’, in Bayer, B.M. and Shotter, J. (eds) Reconstructing the Psychological Subject: Bodies, Practices, and Technologies. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biagoli, M. (1996) ‘From relativism to contingentism’, in Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds) The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Biocca, F. (1992) ‘Virtual reality technology: a tutorial’, Journal of Communication, 42(4): 23–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blume, H. (1998) ‘Reverse engineering the psyche’, Wired! (March), 155.Google Scholar
  9. Bordo, S. (1990) ‘Feminism, postmodernism, and gender-skepticism’, in Nicholson, L.J. (ed.) Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Boring, E.G. (1946) ‘Mind and mechanism’, American Journal of Psychology, 59: 173–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brasher, B. (1996) ‘Thoughts on the status of the cyborg: on technological socialization and its link to the religious function of popular culture’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 64: 809–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright, L. (1995) ‘Gender artifacts: technologies of bodily display in medical culture’, in Cooke, L. and Wollen, P. (eds) Visual Display: Culture Beyond Appearances. Seattle, WA: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chappie, E.D. (1949) ‘The interaction chronograph: its evolution and present application’, Personnel, 25: 295–307.Google Scholar
  14. Crutchfield, R.S. (1951) ‘Assessment of persons through a quasi group-interaction technique’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 577–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danziger, K. (1997) Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Daston, L. (1992) ‘Objectivity and the escape from perspective’, Social Studies of Science, 22: 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downey, G.L. and Dumit, J. (1997) ‘Locating and intervening’, in Downey, G.L. and Dumit, J. (eds) Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, P.N. (1996) The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fields, C. (1987) ‘Human—computer interaction: a critical synthesis’, Social Epistemology, 1: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. New York: Ace Science Fiction.Google Scholar
  21. Gill, R. (1995) ‘Relativism, reflexivity and politics: interrogating discourse analysis from a feminist perspective’, in Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (eds) Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. González, J. (1995) ‘Envisioning cyborg bodies: notes from current research’, in Gray, C.H., Figueroa-Sarriera, H.J. and Mentor, S. (eds) The Cyborg Handbook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Griggers, C. (1997) Becoming-Woman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grings, W.W. (1954) Laboratory Instrumentation in Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammonds, E.M. (1997) ‘New technologies of race’, in Terry, J. and Calvert, M. (eds) Processed Lives: Gender and Technology in Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Haraway, D.J. ([1985] 1991) ‘A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century’, in Haraway, D.J., Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Haraway, D.J. (1989) Primate Visions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Haraway, D.J. (1991) ‘Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, in Haraway, D.J., Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Haraway, D.J. (1997a) ‘enlightenment@science_wars.com: A personal reflection on love and war’, Social Text, 15: 123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haraway, D.J. (1997b) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.Female_Man_Meets_OncoMouse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hayles, N.K. (1996) ‘Narratives of artificial life’, in Robertson, G., Mash, M., Tickner, L., Bird, J., Curtis, B. and Putnam, T. (eds) Future Natural: Nature/Science/Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Heim, M. (1991) ‘The erotic ontology of cyberspace’, in Benedikt, M. (ed.) Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hillis, D. (1998) ‘The big picture’, Wired! (January), 38.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, S.G. (1997) ‘The internet and its social landscape’, in Jones, S.G. (ed.) Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Joseph, A. and Winter, A. (1996) ‘Making the match: human traces, forensic experts and the public imagination’, in Spufford, F. and Uglow, J. (eds) Cultural Babbage: Technology, Time and Invention. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  37. Kadrey, R. (1998) ‘Go forth and multiply’, Wired! (March), 150, 182.Google Scholar
  38. Keller, E.F. (1996) ‘The dilemma of scientific subjectivity in postvital culture’, in Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds) The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lanier, J. (1998) ‘Taking stock’, Wired! (January), 60, 62.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Megill, A. (1991) ‘Introduction: four senses of objectivity’, Annals of Scholarship, 8: 301–19.Google Scholar
  42. Nagel, T (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Noble, D.F. (1997) The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  44. Penley, C. (1997) NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  45. Pfister, J. and Schnog, N. (1997) Inventing the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional Life in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Plant, S. (1997) Zeros + Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  47. Rouse, J. (1996) ‘Beyond epistemic sovereignty’, in Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds) The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sekula, A. (1986) ‘The body and the archive’, October, 39: 3–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Senft, T (1996) ‘Introduction: performing the digital body — a ghost story’, Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, 9: 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Springer, C. (1996) Electronic Eros: Bodies and Desire in the Postindustrial Age. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stafford, B.M. (1994) Artful Science: Enlightenment Entertainment and the Eclipse of Visual Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stafford, B.M. (1996) Good Looking: Essays on the Virtue of Images. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Stam, H., Lubek, I. and Radtke, L. (1998) ‘Repopulating social psychology texts: disembodied “subjects” and embodied subjectivity’, in Bayer, B.M. and Shotter, J. (eds) Reconstructing the Psychological Subject: Bodies, Practices, and Technologies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Star, S.L. (1991) ‘Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions’, in Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Terry, J. and Calvert, M. (1997) ‘Introduction: Machine/Lives’, in Terry, J. and Calvert, M. (eds) Processed Lives: Gender and Technology in Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  57. Traweek, S. (1997) ‘Iconic devices’, in Downey, G.L. and Dumit, J. (eds) Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  58. Uglow, J. (1996) ‘Introduction: “possibility”’, in Spufford, F. and Uglow, J. (eds) Cultural Babbage: Technology, Time and Invention. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson, E. (1996) ‘“Loving the computer”: cognition, embodiment and the influencing machine’, Theory and Psychology, 6: 577–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Betty M. Bayer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betty M. Bayer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations