Future Sex: Cyborg Bodies and the Politics of Meaning

Hi Everyone,

I planned on presenting this reading in tute on Wednesday, however I couldn't make it in person. I found this reading to be very content heavy, but hopefully this post alone will suffice.

Norah Campbell's article begins by introducing the concept of the cyborg as "the dominant social and discursive figuration for the interaction between the human and the non-human in post-industrial societies". Further, her article aims to investigate visual representations of "cyberbodies" in advertisements. As a basis for her discussion, Campbell first outlines the controversy surrounding an imagined post-human identity. To do so could either provide liberation from hegemonic identity configurations; or merely recast these into today's technological era. She also briefly touches on Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto.

Campbell divides the cyborg into two possible types: the feminist and the masculinist. The feminist cyborg comes about as the ontology of technology and that of the feminine seem to ally the two. The feminist cyborg is analysed in terms of liberation in repression, performing & passing and femaleness & technology. On the other hand, the masculinist cyborg is discussed in reference to technology & material effects and masculinist cyborgs in visual culture (in particular video/computer games).

The core of the article revolves around image analysis of the primary texts, mainly:

• SVEDKA_grl print ads
• Heineken "Keg" TV commercial
• Philips "Robot Skin" TV commercial
• Johnnie Walker "Human" TV commercial
• Bjork - All is Full of Love music video

Campbell looks at the commonality of all the texts, that is, their skins. This encompasses the "metal flesh", sheath (or clothing) and the notion of black/white skinned technologies.

The primary texts are discussed under the frames of:

1. Having cyborg sex (e.g. All is Full of Love)
2. The empowered/enslaved (e.g. Robot Skin)
3. The future anterior (e.g. SVEDKA_grl)
4. The posthuman in the human (e.g. Human)

Campbell touches on the politics of meaning before reaching her conclusion. That is, the logic of the cybersexual is a reflection of Derrida's idea of the hymen in The Double Session.

Points of Debate

1. Campbell says that "of the images in this research, we see a privileging of a monist paradigm, because of the consistent exposure of... the skull - and deliberately laying bare its functioning" (p 9). However, when I look at these images I see this exposure of the skull more as a visual representation of the mind; implying a dualist notion of humanness. What does this aspect of the images represent to you?

2. When Campbell performs a "textual sex change operation on the text" Robot Skin, the servile female robot changes into a self-possessed, assured male robot. Similarly, the imagined female human is described as "holding her face with a bemused smile, not quite knowing or understanding the enigma of the robot" (pp 15-16). Does reversing the gender roles also reverse the roles of the empowered/enslaved?

3. "Passing means that the body might not act as the "proof" of identity; in this sense, technological bodies cannot always be trusted to tell the truth" (p 4). For a machine to lie, it would have to possess some sort of consciousness or mind. How could the notions of performing and passing fulfil this requirement; thus allowing technological bodies to not tell the truth?