The Companion Species Manifesto – Donna Haraway

In Donna Haraway’s The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness, the main point Haraway is making is that as humans we rely on relationships with both humans and non-humans in order to identify ourselves, and in turn co-evolve with the other party within that relationship.  Specifically, Haraway uses dogs as a non-human companion species to support her argument.

In this article, Haraway states that “dogs are not surrogate for theory; they are not here just to think with.  They are here to live with.  Partners in crime of human evolution…” [4]. Her notion of co-evolution between humans and dogs is evident in this statement, in that ultimately in this relationship, one would not evolve without the other, and vice versa. I agree with Haraway in her description of these co-evolutional relationships, and find it easy to relate to her arguments, on both a personal and global scale.  I have developed certain character traits; morals; ethics; based on the influence of those around me growing up.  Having cats and dogs in the household, though living with their own set of rules, developed within me a certain respect for these companion animals.  They shared a home with me; slept in the same bed as I did; watched TV on the couch with me.  They ate breakfast and dinner, and my mother was always worried about them when we were planning trips away to see family. Haraway describes how dogs have been used as companions rather than just as working dogs for centuries; that despite their many jobs – hunter, herder, tracker – dogs have been regarded as more or less equals by humans with regards to their living conditions or burial and death rituals. On a broader scale, the human race in general has forever been adopting new ways to incorporate these companion animals into every day life. Dogs lead our blind through the streets and shopping malls.  Cats are used as therapy tools in hospitals or prisons.  In the following blog, Jennifer Copley describes how “in 2007, the Associated Press reported that a Columbian police unit has been using cat-and-rat teams to find and remove landmines” [Copley].  Not only are these animals working with humans, but cats and rats are working together, despite their historical feud.

Beyond the idea of humans and dogs living as one, this issue is of importance to us in this course because we can relate what Haraway is saying in terms of our co-evolution with communication technologies, specifically, the Internet. To take a step back and look at how technology has developed over the past century, it is apparent that without human involvement, the Internet would not be what it is today.  On the flip side, this networking technology has in turn changed how humans behave, interact, and think, as a species. Jose Luis Cordeiro describes Part II of a book written by William E. Halal called Technology’s Promise, in saying that “Social Impacts of the Technology Revolution builds on the previous chapters [of Halal’s book] in order to visualize possible futures and the direct impact of science and technology on social institutions during this current Knowledge Age, which seems to be giving birth to an Age of Consciousness. The author argues that these changes are fundamental to the very survival of humanity.” [Cordeiro].  This book, though I have only read reviews, appears to build on this idea of technology evolving alongside the human race, and in turn the necessity of this technology in human evolution.

My question for my fellow students is, where is the breaking point between how you identify yourself based on relationships with family, friends, work, sports, and so on, versus your relationship with the technological companion, the Internet?

When wrapping my head around the concepts in this article, I found Wikipedia’s explanation of coevolution particularly useful.  Please refer to this site, as well as the sites listed below for further reading.  Also, if you’re interested, I have also included a link to a website that has available for download, a 20 minute “video” (you’ll see why I put that in quotations if you check it out) called Co-Evolution of Technology, Media, and Collective Action where Howard Rheingold talks about human evolution through writing, colonization, and the advancement of networks and network technologies.  It is an interesting piece, though it doesn’t touch on the technologies aspect until the last couple of minutes.

In closing I’d like to end with my favourite quote from Haraway’s article:

“Generally speaking, one does not eat one’s companion animals (not get eaten by them); and one has a hard time shaking colonialist, ethnocentric, ahistorical attitudes toward those who do (eat or get eaten).” [14]

In thinking about co-evolving alongside the Internet, I like to hope that, as time goes on, we do not eat, or get eaten, by this technology.

Thank you for reading!

Copley, Jennifer. "Suite 101." Cats with Jobs. 29 May 2008. 17 February 2011. <http://www.suite101.com/blog/shaya_weaver/cats_with_jobs>.

Cordeiro, Jose Luis. "Kurzweil." Technology’s Promise: Expert Knowledge on the Transformation of Business and Society. 4 July 2010. 17 February 2011. <http://www.kurzweilai.net/technology’s-promise-expert-knowledge-on-the-transformation-of-business-and-society>.

Rheingold, Howard. “Co-Evolution of Technology, Media, and Collective Action”. NMC Symposium on Evolution of Communication. 5 December 2007.

Wikipedia. "Coevolution." October 2010.  Wikipedia Foundation Inc. 17 February 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution>.

The Ambiguous Panopticon: Foucault and the Codes of Cyberspace - Mark Winokur

In this article, Mark Winokur is illustrating, through the aid of Michael Foucault’s arguments on panopticism, his ideas on the ambiguity of the Internet, in specific, the distribution of power within the Internet and it’s relation to panopticism. He opens with a statement ultimately saying that the effects of the Internet are unclear in whether they are positive or negative, but using the arguments of the French philosopher to dissect the Internet down to power, surveillance and totality.  This is a great article to look at, as it ties into previous discussions on Biopower, and it’s effectiveness within a society, versus Sovereign power, which is an important issue when discussing the Internet and it’s effect on our now ‘Network Society’.  Winokur argues his panoptic view versus a utopic view of the Internet, by categorizing his thoughts in four subsections: The Gaze, Space, Authority, and Totality. 

Winokur argues that the Internet instills a notion within its users of being watched all the time, and that this “gaze” is stronger and more prevalent than other forms of media, such as films and television. He describes this gaze as having bi-directionality, in that “the computer monitor observes us as we observe it” and “the monitor seems genuinely reciprocal in a manner to which neither television nor movies can aspire”.  He relates this idea of being constantly observed to panopticism, as individuals are policing themselves online, as they know there is always a chance they could be under surveillance.

When discussing space within the Internet, Winokur focuses more on the idea that the Internet could be anywhere in terms of a virtual sense, rather than a geographical sense. In terms of space, the Internet is dispersed like power is dispersed in a panopticon. However, he argues that this space can be both multiple and homogenous in that it can be used anywhere, especially with the advancement of communication technologies such as Smartphones, but at the same time, the websites people visit are often the same.  Popular websites, such as Facebook, YouTube, or MySpace, are visited most frequently which gives the internet that homogenous attribute.  I disagree with Winokur’s point here about the spatial aspect of the Internet being dispersed as power is in panopticism. Later I will discuss in more detail how I feel this point relates to the idea of totality within the Internet system, and how we are limited to the spatial disbanding of power based on our accessibility, our infrastructure, and social status as well.

As for authority, Winokur argues that creating surveillance software promotes the idea that the user is always being watched or could be at any given time, and that because of this, individuals may take on the responsibility themselves to police others on the Net.

“Anti-virus software, spyware, anti-spyware, anti-pornography software, firewalls, Trojans, anti-Trojan programs, worms, data-erasure programs, and other forms of self-surveillance -- software more or less readily available to all Internet citizens -- can infiltrate other computers or monitor the penetrations into one's own computer; it is possible to locate the source of the attack, thus monitoring the activities and strategies of individuals and corporations.”

This dispersion of authority brings key focus on the relationship between those who are in the centre and those who are being watched, when relating the Internet to a panoptic system.

Lastly, when discussing totality, Winokur argues that virtual reality is itself a version of totality, as the ability to have access to the Internet all the time, and it’s portable nature now with Smartphones and PDA’s, gives the Internet a totalizing nature.  As discussed in the forum, I agree with Winokur’s point that the Internet is totalizing, but only when people are online.  And although the accessibility of the Net is growing with each passing day, there are still many places, both foreign and domestic that render us “offline” no matter what technology we may possess.  In this sense, the Internet is not totalizing, as you have to, first of all, have access to the Internet, and secondly be online in order to be fully enveloped within this technology.  I do agree with his argument that the Internet is the most totalizing of media so far, beating our films and television, but I am not convinced that the Internet is the be-all end-all of totality within our society.

The aspect of the article that lost me was the idea of discourse and code.  This may stem from my ignorance of how this technology works at a very basic form, however I am left with this question to throw out to the masses: If code is invisible, but what it creates (the Internet) is not, then what is meant by Winokur’s argument that the Internet creates what it defines, unlike language?

I found a few websites on Michael Foucault that helped me get a better understanding of who he is and what he is about.  Thanks for reading, and feel free to check out the sites listed below.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Michael Foucault." 17 September 2008.  10 Feb 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/>.

Clare O'Farrell. "Michael Foucault." Key Concepts. 30 October 2010.  . 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html>.

Eric Oakley. "Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism." Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism. 14 November 2005.  Associated Content. 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13822/michel_foucault_the_panopticon_and.html?cat=37>.