The important consideration here is that Helva was -- and remains even to the current reader -- human. With human feelings, thoughts, and desires. If we recall, Darth Vader, in his death scene, also retained a tremendous amount of his humanity -- to the point that we seriously regretted his death. And HAL, who was never human, but had been endowed with mortal characteristics, became a human-like entity. We also grieved at his demise. The ability to feel sorrow, and the ability to understand the concept of death, are very human attributes. Harking back to earlier in this discourse, Haraway herself began her trek into the studies of technology and the cyborg as a result of her close friend/ex-husband, dying of AIDS. To understand the "augmentive" factor of machine to human, we must first understand a bit of the history and definitions of "cyborg." Many pages of information were found in cyberspace, but I will begin with the cut-and-dried variety:

[in A Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Haraway] "A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction ("Nathalie" 1997, http://ernie. bgsu.edu/~alan/SF/fem/ hbbegin.html)."

"[CYBORG] An abbreviation for 'cybernetic organism', a cyborg is an individual with a high percentage of computerized electro-mechanical replacement body parts (FarFuture Ent., TRAVELLER 1997, http://pcug.org.au/ ~davidjw/libdata/ALPHABET/C/cyborg.htm)."

---

(top of page)

---

I can hear the thought processes of many readers! Whether coming from Haraway, or from the distant reaches of some cyber-science-encyclopedia, this all sounds REAL cold, and very inhumane. What could this concept possibly provide in the way of becoming an extension of one's self, a tool . . . and especially a tool that will help bring us together (Feminists, women, the vulnerable, ANYBODY?) rather than further deepening the cracks that threaten to rip this pale blue dot (thank you, Carl Sagan) apart? I will now add dozens of considerations, in the sincere hope that an over-abundance of possibly preposterous ideas will illogically bring about ONE saving concept -- that we are all cyborgs, and we all are better for it!

I mentioned previously that, many times, the verbiage used within any group of people is intrinsic to that group. Many times, "outsiders" are truly left in the dark, because of incorrect or incomplete choices in the wording of a passage. In New Feminist Criticism, Tamblyn committed this sin of omission in her passage concerning Haraway and the cyborg concept. Research showed a multi-faceted explanation of the derivations of the word, and also continued in leaps and bounds to show the growth of the concept. "Cyborg" has come to mean much, much more than the joining of meat and metal parts (as Haraway so aptly described it). In the years of its existence, the "cyborg among us" has become THE STANDARD IN OUR SOCIETY . . . and so very few of us are even aware of it! Again, it would be my wish that Feminists, in their writings, would develop a more explanatory manner, for it is in the understandable details contained in the pertinent writings of our time, that we find our numbers of supporters increasing. For the non-believers who read the sterile definitions of "cyborg," I would like to present this utterly tempting explanation:

"There are many actual cyborgs among us in society. Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement (like pacemaker), anyone reprogrammed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/ feel better (psychopharmacology) is technically a cyborg. The range of these intimate human machine relationships is mind-boggling. It's not just Robocop, it is our grandmother with a pacemaker . . . our colleague with the myloelectric prosthetic arm . . . arguably one whose immune system has been programmed through vaccination to recognize and kill the polio virus . . . the potentially billions of humans yet unborn who will be the products of genetic engineering ("Nathalie" 1997, http://ernie. bgsu.edu/~alan/SF/fem/ hbbegin.html)" [The Cyborg Handbook by Gray, Mentor, and Figueroa-Sarriera].

And, furthermore:

"Cyborgs actually do exist; about 10% of the current U.S. population are estimated to be cyborgs in the technical sense, including people with electronic pacemakers, artificial joints, drug implant systems, implanted corneal lenses, and artificial skin. A much higher percentage participates in occupations that make them into metaphoric cyborgs, including the computer keyboarder joined in a cybernetic circuit with the screen, the neurosurgeon guided by fiber optic microscopy during an operation, and the teen game player in the local videogame arcade [Katherine Hayles, 'The Life of Cyborgs: Writing the Posthuman,' Cyborg Handbook, 322] (Landow 1997, http:// www.stg.brown.edu/projects/hypertext/landow/ cpace/cyborg/definition.html)."

---

(top of page)

---

Truthfully, it is easy to ask if, in our modern world, and probably for many living in Third-World countries, there could be even a single person who could not be considered a cyborg, when viewed in this extended light? The very miracles of modern technologies have produced a new variant of the human race -- people living within an a sphere of "extensions." An extended life because of reparative heart surgery; your baby's extended security because of the DPT series of vaccinations; a metal screw holding a shattered wrist together; your son's battle with Mario via his extended facile hand, the joystick; the cashier and her electronic scanning device when you purchased tonight's dinner
. . . these are the tools, the extensions of our lives. We take much of this for granted -- but, given the moment to ponder and really understand the new technologies that give us so much freedom, how can we then continue to fear, or at least be intimidated by, that extension of ourselves? It is now a part of us. The visions that Haraway presented are profuse, and the enlarged definition continues to grow:

"But she [Haraway] is not talking about some putative future or a technologically advanced corner of the present. The cyborg age is here and now, everywhere there's a car or a phone or a VCR. Being a cyborg isn't about how many bits of silicon you have under your skin or how many prosthetics your body contains (Kunzru 1997, http://wwww.wired.com/wired/5.02/ features/ffharaway.html)."

This, then, is the reality -- the height, width and depth of Haraway's vision. It is my opinion that, even with a crystal ball and wizard's regalia, she could not have performed as the prophetess more grandly, than is shown in this passage:

"Are you a cyborg? Is your neighbor? Do cyborgs have a gender? Will cyborgs live forever? These are only a few of the thought-provoking questions the authors in this handbook address. The Cyborg -- short for cybernetic organism -- is an entity that mixes the mechanic and the organic, for example a creature that is part human and part machine. Today's technology is transforming and maybe even transcending the human. People who have implanted pacemakers or attached prostheses are certainly cyborgs. Even the millions of people whose immune systems have been reprogrammed to resist disease can be considered cyborgs. Cyborgs are everywhere, multiplying. And many people, cyborged or not, now live in cyborg societies where humans and machines exist symbiotically. The Cyborg Handbook is an initial look at cyborg society and at the range of cyborg technologies, from the restorative and normalizing to the reconfiguring and enhancing. These technologies can restore some to health and they can prolong horrible deaths, but they can also remake humans into more effective killers. Cyborgs, good, bad, and indifferent, are with us (Gray 1995, http:// www.thomson.com/ routledge/feature/ 1995/cyborg.html)."

---

(top of page)

---

One highly important aspect of Haraway's discourses on cyborg theory, as I've mentioned before, is that of the "network" of humanity, and how this makes us so very similar to our new technologies:

"Networks are also inside us. Our bodies, fed on the products of agribusiness, kept healthy -- or damaged -- by pharmaceuticals, and altered by medical procedures, aren't as natural as The Body Shop would like us to believe. Truth is, we're constructing ourselves, just like we construct chip sets or political systems -- and that brings with it a few responsibilities (Kunzru 1997, http://wwww.wired.com/ wired/5.02/features/ffharaway.html)."

What is so often left out of discussions on the cyborg, both within general populations and within Feminist politics, is that of responsibility. As a woman, as an artist, as a Feminist who has sincerely tromped the trails of every adversity I could beat out of the bushes -- as a parent, and as a self-imposed "ecology-freak," it is difficult to believe that there are many among us who will not take responsibility for the very mechanizations that are so crucial in our lives. Literally, it brings to mind the old adage, " . . . like cutting off your nose to spite your face." Yet, this is the attitude of many. It is found at the mega-corporate level, where refusal to control the by-products of marvelous technology threatens to poison all of humanity. THAT is a mis-use of this marvelous extension of ourselves. Refusal to protect our children by means of immunization or enhanced foods is also an irresponsible act, in my estimation. At both ends of the scale, we MUST act responsibly toward the cyborg elements in our lives. Indeed, this same resource showed that Haraway has no doubt that: