A Superior Existence: Analyzing Donna Haraway’s Definition of the Cyborg
“The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence” (Haraway 9).
In her essay, begun in 1983, entitled “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s”, Donna Haraway invites a discourse about the cyborg–a being that personifies the liminal aspects of existence. These superior and hybridized entities, as Haraway claims, build the foundation of a time beyond ours that does not rely on the structures imposed by societal convention. In order to argue this, Haraway employs her own nuanced definitions of a “cyborg” (9) and then presents an argument that these beings exhibit superiority to our current-day classifications of humans. Cyborgs transcend the limitations of humanity.
Haraway strengthens her argument by titling her work a manifesto. This is a reactionary piece focused on a rebellion of popular practice. Ultimately, a manifesto serves as a call to action–a way to incite change–provoked by an anxiety surrounding contemporary conditions of living. In the 1980s, the structure of gender reigned supreme, effectively limiting the possibilities of human essence. Haraway expresses concern with a social climate revolving around such binding factors–hence, enter the “cyborg” (9).
By dissecting the first sentence word by word, Haraway’s vision of these futuristic entities becomes clear. For instance, “The cyborg is resolutely committed…” underscores that a cyborg must inherit the modifiers that follow (9). Firstly, if not the most important, is “partiality” (9). Haraway asserts that a cyborg exists as a being of a dual nature in that one position–such as the combination of animal and automation–is not subject to favoritism. The cyborg inhabits a liminal reality–an ability of existing on either end of a spectrum while simultaneously belonging to neither. The next word “irony” seems contradictory, for how can something be both “resolutely committed” and ironic (9)? Haraway makes use of contradictory words to emphasize the same point of the cyborg occupying complexity and receiving these contraries. A cyborg receives the contraries of human and animal, of organic material and machine, of the physical and the non-physical. And yet, it is neither.
The two following words “intimacy” and “perversity” describe the most fundamental human natures, but still, the cyborg exhibits them. When Haraway mentions “intimacy”, she does not refer to the carnal connection that humans and animals both share. Instead, it can be inferred from the whole of her work that this “intimacy” has to do with the joining of two or more categories so that they become inextricably linked (Haraway 9). In this sense of the word, one property cannot exist without the other, granting the cyborg its convoluted character. Moving to perhaps the most controversial of the attributes is “perversity” (Haraway 9). Haraway has a strategy of using familiar words with differing colloquial connotations than how she utilizes them, startling the reader and only obfuscating her theme. Perhaps, there is some connection between her writing style–the bold language, the uncomfortable ideas–that ties in with this idea of the socially unacceptable lifeform she names the cyborg. Perverted in regards to the purpose of Haraway’s argument is the subversion of expectations made conventional by modern society. Perversion, or rather subversion, connotes the action of finding a path less-traveled in a restrictive code. It could also pair with the idea of intentionally disaffirming the rigid formalities. A cyborg would have no experience with these binaries nor would it be indoctrinated with such, allowing it to be a free agent.
Haraway begins the next sentence with the subject “It”, effectively removing humanity from the definition of the cyborg (9). It can be argued that this excision of the anthropocentric mindset allows the cyborg to claim the rank of the superior being. Her next word is “oppositional”, which, much like “partiality” and “irony”, give emphasis to the coexistence of opposites within a cyborg (Haraway 9). “Oppositional” also relates to the crux of Haraway’s argument: cyborgs actively call into question the underbelly of society (Haraway 9). Current societal boundaries are totalizing and exclusive. By subverting these expectations and becoming something that inhabits the gray areas of overlap, one can escape.
Directly relating to that, “utopian” seems a misnomer of cyborgian character based on Haraway’s past modifiers (9). Traditionally, a utopian society centers around ideals of perfection, of equity, and of a lack of conflict; these challenge the cyborg. But, Haraway is not perpetuating this version of a utopian society. Conversely, she envisions this future reality where civilization is no longer dictated by binaries. This utopia will have relieved itself of the moral foundations that exist in ours, leaving the agents up to their own devices. In a world lacking morals there can be no concept of innocence, nor a concept of guilt–precisely why Haraway pronounces the cyborg to be “completely without innocence” (9). These cyborgian units are then inherently selfish–once again, not in the sense of being immoral to serve one’s own interests, but in the sense of striving to reach self-actualization on their own terms.
To define an object is to understand it, and that act of definition allows one to create an argument using that as foundation. Haraway attempts to envisage a world where the term “human” is no longer the standard of measure. An anthropocentric identity is isolating, totalizing, and declarative; it exists by perpetuating what has always been. A cyborgian identity is connecting (“cybernetic”), nebulous, and subversive; it makes a mockery of the constructs that once governed the human condition (Haraway 7). To be a cyborg allows for a future of perpetual becoming that allows the subjects of our society to inhabit a world that is focused on something greater than pre-existing notions of humanity. To be constantly in flux between an infinite amount of binaries is to gain one’s freedom from the delineated natural hierarchy.
Works Cited
Haraway, Donna. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s .” The Haraway Reader, Routledge, 2004, pp. 7–45.
