Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Is Feminist Philosophy of Technology? A Critical Overview and a Plea for a Feminist Technoscientific Utopia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feminist Philosophy of Technology

Part of the book series: Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie ((TPAHT,volume 2))

Abstract

Since the beginning of the so-called second wave feminism (in the middle of the 20th century), there has been a growing awareness of the urgency of a critical reflection on technics and science within feminist discourse. However, feminist thinkers have not consistently interpreted technics and science as emancipative and liberating for people who identify as women. At the same time, many early feminists criticized the structures of dominance, marginalization, and oppression inherent in numerous technologies as well as the technoscientific social structures. This is because technological development is mostly embedded in social, political, and economic systems that are patriarchally hierarchized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Homepage TrueCompanion, FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions). Retrieved from http://www.truecompanion.com/shop/faq.

  2. 2.

    David Levy (2013) discusses whether Roxxxy actually exists (I thank Susanne Steigler for this hint and Tanja Kubes also drew my attention to the fact that TrueCompanion could be a dummy company).

  3. 3.

    Homepage Realbotix, The Software. Retrieved from https://realbotix.com/Harmony.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Murray 2017; Homepage der Campaign Against Sex Robots. Retrieved from https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/.

  5. 5.

    Technological posthumanists are particularly interested in the development of a strong artificial super intelligence (Loh 2018: 112–118).

  6. 6.

    Transhumanism primarily aims at the technological transformation of human beings into posthuman beings (Loh 2018).

References

  • Aengst, J. & Layne, L.L. (2010). The Need to Bleed? A Feminist Technology Assessment of Menstrual-Suppressing Birth Control Pills. In L.L. Layne, S.L., Vostral & K. Boyer (Eds.), Feminist Technology. University of Illinois, 55–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alaimo, S. & Hekman, S. (Eds.) (2008). Material Feminisms. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ÄrzteZeitung. (2018). Mit Sexrobotern Pädophilie therapieren? Retrieved from https://www.aerztezeitung.de/panorama/article/955012/vision-verwerflich-sexrobotern-paedophile-therapieren.html.

  • Anscombe, E. (1957). Intention. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2003). Posthuman Performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2012). Agentieller Realismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2015). Verschränkungen. Berlin: Merve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, M. (2006). Haraway’s Lost Cyborg and the Possibilities of Transversalism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 31, 1027–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bath, C., Meißner, H., Trinkaus, S. & Völker, S. (Eds.) (2013a). Geschlechter Interferenzen. Wissensformen – Subjektivierungsweisen – Materialisierungen. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bath, C., Meißner, H., Trinkaus, S. & Völker, S. (2013b). Einleitung. In C. Bath, H. Meißner, S. Trinkaus & S. Völker (Eds.), Geschlechter Interferenzen. Wissensformen – Subjektivierungsweisen – Materialisierungen. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendel, O. (2017). Sexroboter im Gesundheitsbereich. In IT for Health 8, 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R. (Ed.) (1991). Feminist Approaches To Science. New York, London: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Women (1971). Our Bodies, Ourselves. Boston: Boston Women’s Health Book Collective.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2014).Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, M.E. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, R. (2016). Jenseits des Menschen: Posthumanismus. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (APuZ), Der neue Mensch 66, 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callus, I. & Herbrechter, S. (2013). Posthumanism. In P. Wake & S. Malpas (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Critical and Cultural Theory. London, New York: Routledge, 144–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campo, H., Cervelló, I. & Simón, C. (2016). Bioengineering the Uterus: An Overview of Recent Advances and Future Perspectives in Reproductive Medicine. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 45(7), 1710–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, M. & Gunkel, D. (2014). Facing Animals: A Relational, Other-Oriented Approach to Moral Standing. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 5, 715–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danaher, J. (2017). Should We Be Thinking about Robot Sex? In Danaher, J. & McArthur, N. (Eds.), Robot Sex. Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Nucci, E. (2017). Sex Robots and the Rights of the Disabled. In Danaher, J. & McArthur, N. (Eds.), Robot Sex. Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, W. (2013). Feministische Technikphilosophie. In A. Grunwald (Ed.), Handbuch Technikethik. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler, 113–118.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, W. (2001). The Technology Question in Feminism: A View From Feminist Technology Studies. Women’s Studies International Forum 24(1), 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, S. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex. The Case for Feminist Revolution. United States: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A. (2009). Posthumanism. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Oxford, 3548–3550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F., Johnson, D.G. & Rosser, S.V. (Eds.) (2006). Women, Gender, and Technology. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane, N. (2006). Posthuman. Theory, Culture & Society: Explorations in Critical Social Science 23, 431–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, I.J. (1965). Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine. In F. Alt & M. Ruminoff (Hrsg.),Advances in Computers. Volume 6, Academic Press, 31–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, E.L. (2002). Representations of the post/human. Monsters, aliens and others in popular culture. Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gearhart, S.M. (1979). The Wanderground. Massachusetts: Persephone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2013). Technik. In A. Grunwald (Ed.), Handbuch Technikethik. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler, 13–17.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1985). A Cyborg Manifesto. Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Manifestly Haraway. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press (2016), 3–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988): Situiertes Wissen. Die Wissenschaftsfrage im Feminismus und das Privileg einer partialen Perspektive. In C. Hammer & I. Stieß (Eds.), Donna J. Haraway. Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen. Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus Verlag (1995), 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1992): The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson & P.A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies. New York, London: Routledge, 295–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2000). How Like a Leaf. An Interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2008). The Companion Species Manifesto. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Manifestly Haraway. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press (2016), 91–198.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1999). Feministische Wissenschaftstheorie. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und sozialem Geschlecht. Hamburg: Argument Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrasser, K. (2011). Donna Haraway: Natur-Kulturen und die Faktizität der Figurationen. In S. Moebius & D. Quadflieg (Eds.), Kultur. Theorien der Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: Springer, 580–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, B.J., Hilton, T.N., Riviere, R.N., Ferraro, Z.M., Deonandan, R. & Walker, M.C. (2017). Advanced maternal age: ethical and medical considerations for assisted reproductive technology. International Journal of Women’s Health 9, 561–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbrechter, S. (2009). Posthumanismus. Eine kritische Einführung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbrechter, S. (2018). Critical Posthumanism. In R. Braidotti & M. Hlavajova (Eds.), Posthuman Glossary. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi: Bloomsbury, 94–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, H. (2018). Xenofeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, H. (1999). Die feministischen Diskurse über Reproduktionstechnologien. Positionen und Kontroversen in der BRD und den USA. Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubig, C. (21995). Technik- und Wissenschaftsethik. Ein Leitfaden. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubig, C. (32013). Historische Wurzeln der Technikphilosophie. In C. Hubig, A. Huning & G. Ropohl, Günter (Eds.), Nachdenken über Technik. Die Klassiker der Technikphilosophie und neuere Entwicklungen. Berlin: edition sigma, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1738). A Treatise of Human Nature. Retrieved from http://nothingistic.org/library/hume/treatise/treatise033.html.

  • Kranz, M., von der Lühe, A. & Hühn, H. (1971–2007). Technik. In J. Ritter (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Band 10: St–T, Basel: Schwabe, 940–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, O. (2007). Die Vervollkommnung des Menschen. Tod und Unsterblichkeit im Posthumanismus und Transhumanismus. Eurozine. Retrieved from https://www.eurozine.com/die-vervollkommnung-des-menschen/.

  • Laboria Cubonics (2014). A Politics for Alienation. Retrieved from http://www.laboriacuboniks.net/de/.

  • Layne, L.L. (2010). Introduction. In L.L. Layne, S.L., Vostral & K. Boyer (Eds.), Feminist Technology. University of Illinois, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, L.L., Vostral, S.L. & Boyer, K. (Eds.) (2010). Feminist Technology. University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. (2013). Roxxxy the ‘Sex Robot’ – Real or Fake? Lovotics 1, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, E. (2008).Vom Darstellen zum Herstellen. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Naturwissenschaften. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, J. (2017). Posthumanistische Anthropologie zwischen Mensch und Maschine. In J.H. Franz & K. Berr (Eds.), Welt der Artefakte. Berlin, 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, J. (2018). Trans- und Posthumanismus zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, J. (2019). Feministische Ansätze im Trans- und Posthumanismus. genderstudies 34, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löw, C., Volk, K., Leicht, I. & Meisterhans, N. (Eds.) (2017). Material turn: Feministische Perspektiven auf Materialität und Materialismus. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykke, N. & Braidotti, R. (Eds.) (1996). Between Monsters, Goddesses and Cyborgs. Feminist Confrontations With Science, Medicine and Cyberspace. London, New Jersey: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, N. & Danaher, J. (2017). How sex robots could help with the nuts and bolts of relationships. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/03/sexbots-nuts-bolts-relationships-sex-robots.

  • Meyer, U.I. (1997). Einführung in die feministische Philosophie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M. (1995). Sie sehnen sich nach dem, was sie zerstört haben. In M. Mies & V. Shiva (Eds.), Ökofeminismus. Beiträge zur Praxis und Theorie. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von Andrea Hunziker und Margit Klingler-Clavijo. Zürich: Rotpunktverlag, 183–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mlot, S. (2018). Sex Robot Samantha Upgradet With Moral Code. Retrieved from https://www.geek.com/tech/sex-robot-samantha-upgraded-with-moral-code-1743756/.

  • Morgan, R. (2017). Looking for robot love? Here are 5 sexbots you can buy right now. Retrieved from https://metro.co.uk/2017/09/13/looking-for-robot-love-here-are-5-sexbots-you-can-buy-right-now-6891378/.

  • Murphy, M. (2017). Interview: Kathleen Richardson makes the case against sex robots. Retrieved from https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/02/interview-kathleen-richardson-makes-case-sex-robots/.

  • Murray, T. (2017). Professor Kathleen Richardson on ethical problems with sex robots. Retrieved from https://ispr.info/2017/10/27/professor-kathleen-richardson-on-ethical-problems-with-sex-robots/comment-page-1/.

  • Nayar, P.K. (2014). Posthumanism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S.M., Telfer, E.E. & Anderson, R.A. (2012). The ageing ovary and uterus: New biological insights. Human Reproduction Update 19(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S.B. (1974). Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? In M.Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, Culture, and Society. Stanford University Press, 68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penley, C. & Ross, A. (1991). Cyborgs at Large: Interview with Donna Haraway. Technoculture 3, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piercy, M. (1976). Woman on the Edge of Time. New York: Fawcett Crest Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts-Taylor, V. (Ed.) (2016). Mattering. Feminism, Science, and Materialism. New York, London: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J.F. (1978). The Practice of Philosophy. Handbook for Beginners. United States: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satz, D. (2017). Feminist Perspectives on Reproduction and the Family. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/.

  • Schneider, J. (2005). Donna Haraway. Live Theory. New York, London: continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. (2017). Inspiriert dieser neue Sexroboter zu sexueller Gewalt an Frauen – oder hält er Männer davon ab? Retrieved from https://ze.tt/mit-sexrobotern-vergewaltigungen-nachspielen-bedrohung-oder-schutz-fuer-frauen/.

  • Steinfeldt-Mehrtens, E. (2019). Posthumanistischer Feminismus. Gender Glossar. Retrieved from https://gender-glossar.de/glossar/item/94-posthumanistischer-feminismus.

  • Strikwerda, L. (2017). Legal and Moral Implications of Child Sex Robots. In Danaher, J. & McArthur, N. (Eds.), Robot Sex. Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (22007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2011). Subject objects. Feminist Theory 12, 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trallori, L.N. (2015). Der Körper als Ware. Wien, Berlin: Mandelbaum Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What Things Do. Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vienna, Austria

    Janina Loh

Authors
  1. Janina Loh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janina Loh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Janina Loh

  2. Institut für Philosophie, Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Mark Coeckelbergh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Loh, J. (2019). What Is Feminist Philosophy of Technology? A Critical Overview and a Plea for a Feminist Technoscientific Utopia. In: Loh, J., Coeckelbergh, M. (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie, vol 2. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04966-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04967-4

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation