Blogging Cyborgs

I am a big fan of Donna Haraway, philosopher and cyborg.  I have recently gone back to re-read some of her work on cyborgs, as well as that of others here, as I find that "cyborg" is a useful tool for analyzing the many ways humans and technology interact.  In my reading, I immediately had some insights about blogs, which I thought I'd share with you here. [Warning: open-notebook style post ahead, not fully baked.]

The most important thing to know about cyborgs in this case, is that they are, by their very nature, embodied. We humans who live intertwined in close symbiosis with cellphones, immunizations, databases, and blogs, are cyborgs.  Embodiment means that cyborgs can be understood; they are not  black boxes. (1)  Because cyborgs are embodied, their "truth is situated and accountable, and therefore able to be in power-sensitive engagement with other versions and materializations of the world." (2)

Cyborgs are not innocent and they have point of view.  They speak with a specific voice, not the dis-embodied voice of god.  Substitite the word blog for cyborg, and you have an excellent definition:

Blogs are not innocent and they have a point of view.  They speak with a specific voice, not the dis-embodied voice of god [corporation].

 

There are a number of bloggers out there today that are arguing that blogs are innocent.  They are trying to place the individual point of view on some kind of pedestal, to be honored, and protected from marketing people.  They write about communications for communications sake, and creating conversations, and saving the world.  They are, in many cases, utopian, and in some cases, dystopian.

What Haraway would say, I believe, is that point-of-view is never innocent.  It is always grounded in history, culture, personality, frame, etc. etc. 

What is also interesting, is that traditional journalism, for example, is arguing exactly the same thing for their black boxed, voice-of-god style journalism:  it is innocent (bias free).  Of course, we all know that isn't true.

Innocence, then, to me, is a useless tool.  It is a word that hides, vs. one that reveals.  The more important thing about cyborgs/bloggers, is that they are embodied (technology/human mixed together).  They celebrate their point of view, and speak authoritatively from their "situated knowledge." [Haraway's term]  The result of this approach is that they are not attempting to wield authoritative/hierarchical power, but rather tapping into the distributed power that flows through networks, sometimes pooling for results, then rushing off to the next place. 

Haraway celebrates the trickiness of cyborgs.  They are constantly moving, destroying boundaries, forcing redefinitions.  Today, it is the tool of blogging that is enabling cyborg voices to be increasingly heard while they go about their business of mutating, metamorphosizing, changing each other and the world.

Today, ironically enough, many blogging cyborgs are merrily at work trying to define boundaries, to wall off "Blogging" for only a certain type of cyborg.  Other cyborgs* (those inside the system/machine of journalism for example) are trying to shore up their own boundaries, sniping at "pajama wearing" bloggers.  Wielding definitions (this is blogging/this is journalism) they hack at each other from behind their walls.  Luckily, there are other cyborgs out there who are just as dedicated to breaking down/ignoring boundaries and battles.

So, where does all of this leave me, female, cyborg, blogger, PR person, etc.?  At the end of this rambling post, with thoughts of a future one on boundary disputes (which actually, was where this started, but then I got off on innocence, and well, here we are).

*Yes, journalists inside the mass media complex are also cyborgs.  This "tool" is tricksy indeed!

 

 

(1) Gray, Mentor, & Figueroa-Sarriera, Cyborg Handbook, p. 7.
(2) Haraway, Introduction, Cyborg Handbook, p xix.