Abstract
Social science research on the anthropomorphisms of computers and robots has been devoted to studying intellectual anthropomorphism, emotional anthropomorphism, bodily anthropomorphism, and the limits of computer and robot anthropomorphism. Although these represent important patterns for studying the anthropomorphisms of computers and robots, there are other important patterns. The limitation of anthropomorphism is one of these patterns. The limitation of anthropomorphism is a discursive practice which places limits on anthropomorphism. Discursive practices are interactional and practical activities for making sense of who and what we encounter. In this article, I analyze the limitation of anthropomorphism as another important activity to investigate. Drawing on an ethnographic study of a robotics research group, I show the importance of the limitation of anthropomorphism by documenting how it contributes to research group identity. In the final section, I describe some implications for future studies of the anthropomorphisms of computers and robots.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a discussion of the limits of the anthropomorphism in media equation research, and an argument for one particular anthropomorphism as an improvement in media equation research, please see Klowait (2017).
References
Alač M (2009) Moving android: on social robots and body-in-interaction. Soc Stud Sci 39(4):491–528
Alač M (2016) Social robots: things or agents? AI Soc 31:519–535
Alač M, Movellan J, Tanaka F (2011) When a robot is social: enacting a social robot through spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in robotics practice. Soc Stud Sci 41(6):126–159
Cousineau MJ (2015) Mass media as a discursive resource and the construction of engineering selves. Bull Sci Technol Soc 35(1–2):35–43
Cousineau MJ (2016) Accomplishing profession through self-mockery. Sym Int 39(2):213–228
Barley SR (1988) The social construction of a machine: ritual, superstition, magical thinking, and other pragmatic responses to running a CT scanner. In: Lock M, Gordon D (eds) Biomedicine examined. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 497–539
Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT, Cambridge
Breazeal C, Velasquez (1998) Toward teaching a robot ‘infant’ using emotive communication acts. In: Proceedings of the 1998 simulation of adaptive behavior workshop on socially situated intelligence. Zurich, Switzerland, pp 25–40
Brooks R, Breazeal C, Marjanovic M, Scassellati B, Williamson M (1998) The cog project: building a humanoid robot. In: Nehaniv C (ed) Computation for metaphors, analogy and agents. Springer, Berlin, pp 8–13
Collins H (1990) Artificial experts: social knowledge and intelligent machines. MIT, Cambridge
Downey GL (1998) The machine in me: an anthropologist sits among computer engineers. Routledge, New York City
Dreyfus HL (1972) What computers can’t do. MIT, New York City
Dreyfus HL (1992) What computers still can’t do. MIT, New York City
Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE (1986) Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free, New York City
Forsythe D (2001) Studying those who study us: an anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (Sheridan A, Trans.). Vintage Books, New York City
Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Gecas V, Burke PJ (1995) Self and identity. In: Cook KS, Fine GA, House JS (eds) Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp 41–67
Hackett EJ (2005) Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Soc Stud of Sci 35(5):787–826
Helmreich S (2000) Flexible infections: computer viruses, human bodies, nation-states, evolutionary capitalism. Sci Tech Hum Values 25(4):472–491
Holstein JA, Gubrium JF (2000) The self we live by: narrative identity in a postmodern world. Oxford University Press, New York City
Kleif T, Faulkner W (2003) ‘I’m no athlete [but] i can make this thing dance!’—men’s pleasures in technology. Sci Tech Hum Values 28(2):296–325
Klowait N (2017) The quest for appropriate models of human-likeness: anthropomorphism in media equation research. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0746-z
Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103
Potter J, Hepburn A (2008) Discursive Constructionism. In: Holstein JA, Gubrium JF (eds) Handbook of constructionist research. Guilford, New York City, pp 275–293
Prasad P (1995) Working with the ‘smart’ machine: computerization and the discourse of anthropomorphism in organizations. Stud Cult Org Soc 1(2):253–265
Šabanović S (2014) Inventing Japan’s ‘robotics culture’: the repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Soc Stud Sci 44(3):342–367
Searle J (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457
Smith D (1978) K is mentally Ill: the anatomy of a factual account. Sociology 12:25–53
Suchman LA (1986) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Turkle S (1984) The second self: computers and the human spirit. Simon and Schuster, New York City
Turkle S (2006) A nascent robotics culture: new complicities for companionship. AAAI Technical Report Series Jul 2006
Turkle S (2007) Evocative objects: things we think with. MIT, Cambridge
Vertesi J (2012) Seeing like a rover: visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the mars exploration rover mission. Soc Stud Sci 42(3):393–414
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The ethnographic research reported in this article was supported by the University of Missouri Department of Sociology, and the University of Missouri Graduate School. In addition, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who helped improve the manuscript and the members of EARL for their generosity.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cousineau, M.J. Limiting the discourse of computer and robot anthropomorphism in a research group. AI & Soc 34, 877–888 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0836-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0836-6