I only read bits of Cyborg Manifesto last year when I tripped over it during another “what’s my real politics?” search because I never like anything I see. Written in 1985, it’s a precursor to feminist posthumanism – or maybe it was the start of feminist posthumanism – the next stage once there’s egalitarianism, but more of a moving-towards than an strong dividing line thing. All whoosy mooshy stuff yet right up my alley it seems. I didn’t read it all but I knew within a few sentences it’s ‘my thinking” style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cyborg_Manifesto

I only read bits of Cyborg Manifesto last year when I tripped over it during another “what’s my real politics?” search because I never like anything I see.
Written in 1985, it’s a precursor to feminist posthumanism – or maybe it was the start of feminist posthumanism – the next stage once there’s egalitarianism, but more of a moving-towards than an strong dividing line thing.
All whoosy mooshy stuff yet right up my alley it seems. I didn’t read it all but I knew within a few sentences it’s ‘my thinking” style.
I was looking up instances on Facebook of Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” (1985) as I was recently reminded of it (and it is one of the very few things I’ve found that _is_ basically my political zone). So I found this call to papers and I was reading the language used – and it’s basically the way I write with concepts I use a lot such as “affordances” “embodiment” and such.
 
I don’t write about organizations, “the digital self”, or refer to “spaces” and yet these are the zones of my interest, certainly the playground I’m in when I think about how large amounts of people operate from a subject-centric POV interfacing with those of their chosen identities for their in-groups and how they operate with those in their out-groups, etc.

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six + = 15

Leave a Reply