I’m not going to lie to you. I liked Manuel Castells. Some of his stuff was pretty neat. I’m not sure if I like Haraway. The first time I read through her ideas, her arguments… I thought she was stoned off her gourd.
Yes, this is what I thought Donna Haraway was stoned off of. I don’t get the saying either.
The problem is though, I don’t know what I really dislike about her work. Sure, the some of her theory is out there, but I’ve read much more abstract ideas (like Gibson’s whole “Unidentified Flying data objects” thing… I’m still trying to get my head around that). I guess what really doesn’t sit well with me is her incorporation of the “cyborg” and “feminism”. Haraway asserts that women should embrace the cyborg, for it allows the most control, the most embodiment, the most empowerment. But, it causes reflection: What makes a woman a woman? Hell, lets get into a bigger picture. What makes a human… human? (Ooohh.. deep, I know.) When does the machine start, and humanity end? When will technology stop becoming a tool, and start becoming our.. offspring?
I know, I know, it’s not great to continuously go into the doom and gloom. ICTs arn’t going to destroy us all. But I think it’s Haraway’s selectiveness on womaenkind that probably causes me most intellectual unease. That, and the dog thing.
[Edit: On further reflection, I understand the appeal to Haraway's work and I have to admit, she is quite insightful and far from stoned off her gourd. On further reflection, it isn't her ideas that was causing me any sort of discomfort, it was her writing. I was reading Haraway's words too academically. I was reading her like I was reading Castells. Now, Haraway is a fantastic academic and she does communicate clearly.. but oddly, the words she picks and her sentence structure is almost.. poetic. You almost have to read her work like you would read poetry. I certainly did that, and I certainly enjoyed the ideas she put forth more enthusiastically. Below is the video shown in class. I think it really highlights my "poetic and prose" argument.]
