Discussing Technology & the Body
In its third roundtable discussion, Tilt West took on a topic that has captivated the world since humans invented mechanical objects — technology and the body. One doesn’t have to look very far to find evidence of this fascination: a quick Google search turns up 410,000,000 results including TED talks, magazine and newspaper articles, academic papers, blogs, textbooks, pop culture icons, and the list goes on.
When discussing technology and the body, one of the first things that comes to mind is the cyborg. The cyborg, a souped-up fictional human with mechanical parts, came on the scene in the mid-nineteenth century (in a short story by Edgar Allan Poe) and has shown considerable staying power since. Cyborgs appear again and again in art, books, television, plays and movies, yet one more indication of the human fascination with technology and the body. But the cyborg has given us more than proof that people are keenly interested in technology and the body; the cyborg has allowed us to think about what it means to be human. Add to that the unendingly complicated question, “Should we enhance humans with technology?” and you have a ready-made debate on your hands. Interestingly, the creators of cyborgs have given them to us many times with a built-in value judgment. In other words, many cyborgs are cast as the bad guy thereby suggesting that mixing humans and machines is dangerous — cyborg villain Darth Vader comes to mind. But is using technology to improve upon nature really such a bad idea?
If the thought of a being who is half-human and half-machine seems disturbing, consider The Six Million Dollar Man, whose cyborg protagonist is a hunky crime-fighting hero. Colonel Steve Austin, a NASA astronaut who was badly injured in an accident and rebuilt by the government with bionic parts, captured the hearts and imagination of TV-viewers across the U.S. in the 1970s, in part, because of his mechanical enhancements. In the 1970s, that premise seemed farfetched. Today the idea of a cyborg doesn’t seem impossible and bionic body parts already exist. In 2013, the U.S. approved Argus II the first bionic eye implant (coincidentally one of Colonel Austin’s bionic parts was his left eye). And Johns Hopkins University has developed a modular prosthetic limb which is the most lifelike arm prosthesis yet.
“When I think of technology and the body, I think of that in multiple instances — my physical body, my mental body and also (kind of) this dissipated online existence.”
A discussion of technology and the body, though, extends far beyond talking about cyborgs and prosthetics. With advances in technology, one can argue that technology and the body have become inextricably intertwined (at least in first world countries) and the distinction between corporeal and mechanical blurs and bends with even the smallest surface scratch. So while cyborgs in the strictest sense are still fictional, human beings’ heavy reliance on technology today could be perceived as a mutated offspring or cousin of the cyborg. Kelly Sears, an experimental animator and University of Colorado professor who prompted Tilt West’s roundtable discussion, described this nuanced blurring of lines between the body and technology in several ways. As she introduced the topic, Ms. Sears told the group, “When I think of technology and the body, I think of that in multiple instances — my physical body, my mental body and also (kind of) this dissipated online existence.” She added, “I’m very interested in how the use of multiple selves overlap and are present and active at the same time.” This juggling of multiple selves is not an entirely modern phenomenon, but modernity and technology raise a multitude of new questions worthy of serious discussion.
During a recent episode of the NPR show “Fresh Air,” author and New York University professor Adam Atler described a survey of young adults in which 46% said that they would rather break a bone than lose their phone. It’s a startling statistic and one that reflects on the very nature of how blurred the line between technology and the body has become, and how attached we as humans have become to our various technology personas. Would a week without Instagram really be as bad as breaking a bone? Are we so attached to our online selves that we would suffer physical pain for them?
In the interview, Mr. Atler shared his ardent interest in the survey participants’ struggle with a seemingly straightforward question. Their responses weren’t always cut and dry — it was a very difficult decision for many. Some of those who ultimately chose a broken bone rather than losing their phone reasoned that at least they would have their phone during recovery. Based on their explanation, it’s easy to believe that these individuals view their phone as a part of their body. In fact, they consider their phone an important part of their body, more important it seems than some of their bones. What are we to make of that?
To give you an idea of how rapidly technology and our use of online personas have become ingrained in the daily habits of individuals, let’s look at some statistics. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2005 only 5% of adults in the U.S. used social media but by 2011 that number was 50%; today it is 69%. And those numbers don’t take into account American youth who have grown up spending more time with technology than in many cases the outdoors. In 2015, the Pew Research Center also reported that 24% of teens admitted to being online “almost constantly” and 92% of teens were online daily. While there are undoubtedly positives and negatives to so much screen time, one thing seems constant — our uncertainty as to whether such heavy reliance upon technology is good for us.
Reflecting upon this uncertainty, a roundtable participant and self-professed technology junkie confessed that his bias had always been in favor of the advantages technology brings. However, after reading several articles to prepare for the discussion, his vantage point had shifted. He wondered as many others did if so much technology was a good or bad thing. This brought up the question: Why do we feel compelled to place a positive or negative value on how technology impacts us?
During the hour and a half round table, participants shared countless concerns and interests in issues beyond online personas. As the discussion around the implications of an increasingly intricate relationship between technology and the body progressed, participants talked about racially segregated marketing, relationships between humans and robots, technology as language, boredom and its opposite busyness, technology-induced anxiety, technology-led meditation, e-waste, and the very definition of body and technology. As well, these topics were examined from different points of view — parent, citizen, teacher, student, significant other, professional, etc. In her prompt, Ms. Sears explained that a large part of her job as a professor is working with students to “interrogate the bodies of representations built into their work deconstructing normative impulses and biases with regard to representations of race, gender, religion and other identities.” And so, this too was reflected in the discussion in many ways such as the notion of a robot as a form of gender identity. One participant had recently polled her students and discovered that the majority approved of a relationship between a human and a robot. From their perspective, one could deconstruct conventional notions of gender and view a robot as a form of gender expression.
Turning the topics over and over while carefully considering the relationship between technology and the body, the group ultimately achieved Ms. Sears’s goal of producing “less utopic/dystopic binaries” and instead offered “navigational guides and strategic detours.” Through thoughtful discussion, participants were pushed to think more deeply and reserve judgment instead seeking information and understanding. Clearly, as Ms. Sears suggested, technology and the body “exists in smaller brush strokes.” Cyborgs, online personas, and the many other ways that technology and the body are interlaced aren’t good or bad; they are as complicated and diverse and humans.
