Don't Fear the Cyborg: Toward Embracing Posthuman and Feminist Cyborg Discourses in Teacher Education and Educational Technology Research

Abstract

I argue that larger cultural concerns about human–technology interactions are seldom addressed in teacher education. This article seeks to trace cultural anxieties about technology by addressing the long-standing trope of human versus machine; examine how these concerns are manifested and addressed (or not) in popular culture, educational technology research, and teacher education; and propose how, in a counterintuitive turn, we might begin to use what has been called cyborg anthropology, feminist cyborg discourse, and feminist posthuman discourse to address those fears in a world where human–technology relationships are increasingly symbiotic.

Résumé

Je pose au départ que les préoccupations culturelles générales au sujet des interactions entre l’être humain et les technologies sont rarement traitées dans la formation des enseignants. Cet article trace les inquiétudes culturelles au sujet des technologies en analysant le trope qui oppose depuis longtemps l’être humain et la machine; il analyse également les façons dont ces préoccupations se manifestent et sont traitées (ou non) dans la culture populaire, la recherche sur les technologies éducatives et la formation des enseignants. D’une façon qui pourrait sembler contrintuitive, je propose de commencer à utiliser ce que d’aucuns appellent l’anthropologie cyborg, le discours cyborg féministe ou le postmodernisme féministe pour affronter ces craintes dans un monde où les liens entre l’être humain et les technologies sont de plus en plus symbiotiques.

Notes

As Leo Marx (1994) noted, the earliest use of the concept of “technology” is traced back to the 17th century but was not used widely until the mid-20th century, when it came to broadly signify the “realm of the instrumental … a particular kind of device, a specialized form of theoretical knowledge or expertise, a distinctive mental style, and a unique set of skills and practices” (p. 248). In this article, though this general understanding is certainly applicable, I am more specifically interested in what might be called digital, computer, or postmodern technologies, which are at the forefront of our conversations in educational technology. Thus, unless otherwise specified, this is what I mean when I use the word technology.

Though I do address gender most specifically here, I only briefly address the raced and classed nature of these topics. I am also conscious of the vast inequities in access to computer and digital technologies, and I acknowledge that “life has long remained the same for most people in most circumstances, and that many social inequalities will continue to persist” (Selwyn, 2011, p. 714) despite technological advances. I do not propose that technology is an educational panacea or should be adopted in schools with unbounded, uncritical enthusiasm, particularly when considering these social inequalities. Though I believe my analysis speaks to issues of privilege, race, class, ability, and sexuality, they must be explored in more depth elsewhere.

There is a distinction between artificial intelligence and artificial life. For a more in-depth discussion of this, see Hayles (1999).