You are on page 1of 2

Anthony Falco

Professor Ristow
WRRH: Digital Rhetoric
Critical Reading Response #5 (Revised)
March 15, 2015
We live in a world where technology is the nucleus, the very center of all that is
man. From Nayar and Haraway we being to see quite clearly how society revolves
around the technological advancements we make daily. Its a cycle, we create, adapt,
normalize then once something becomes outdate we start the cycle all over again.
Haraway focus is particularly a complicated focus. She chooses to analyze the presence
of cyborgs but her stance is much more sophisticated then Nayars. I understood Nayar,
resonated with his words, even created personal thoughts in those relations. Particularly
because his words are simply integrated and basically formatted. My dilemma comes
from reading Haraway and Gray.
I might be nave but at the present time I did not understand our current work on
the cyborg. Never did I think it would be a topic of conversation outside the Hollywood
cinemas. I was wrong. It is this topic of conversation. The other day I seen a cyborg takes
on human qualities, from a far you barely could tell the difference. Haraway offers an
interesting perspective about cyborgs and how in a way they are equalizing human men
and women because they are taking the place of men in the workplace. She tries to tie in
gender inequalities with something created out of materials in a lab. Not only did I not
really understand what she was getting at but to some degree I reject it. It is hard for me

to see as cyborgs creating inequality when looking at online resources of current cyborg
research. Many of them feature women and men gender ideologies most of which fit the
negative connotations provide by our social construction. So for this reason I can only see
a cyborg defeating or even ostracizing gender norms. On the other hand I think there is
potential to agree with Haraway. If we were to alter them deconstruct gender norms like
they do in the workplace then and only then we can have a change of creating equity. But
then at that very moment we would have to consider Grays work on Cyborg rights.
This is something I am particularly not interested in and never will be. If we as
humans grant rights to robots I fear that we will abuse those rights. After all they are fit to
the image and likeness of its creator. Whos to say that the biases from which its software
has been created wont affect the world around it? If we were to give the cyborg rights
then it would absolutely change the world. It is interesting to see the rights that Gray
has set up in his work. I do understand how this even became a thought for Gray. How
does a robot have the right to die if we as humans gave it the opportunity to live? It
would not be a death it would be the removal of a power source more of a deactivation.
With no boundaries on life how could something have the right to die.
With rights comes the discussion of Haraways feministic stance on the issue of
cyborgs. I understand what she is arguing. I do not necessarily agree. What resonated
with me was her idea of the homework economy. This definitely helps clarify her stance
but I still do not feel as if I get what she is after. My personal stance on human life and
rights will remain the same. Although I will admit that these works both opened my eyes
to the world around us and the possibilities that come with it.