Final Exam Prep Flashcards
How does Haraway define a cyborg? Using two other readings from class, explain if you think humans are cyborgs and why it matters.
Haraway describes a cyborg as a mix between reality, fiction, real, fake, human, and machine. There are many ways to describe it, but to sum those all up, I believe that she means it is basically half human, half robot. With technology, we can look at how much it has changed and almost taken over our lives. We have basically been “cyborgs” since the day we were born, and the realization of this is important. So, thinking about it, can we ever go back to the way our bodies were before? Collins mentions ideas where science and technology are conjoined, and how they affect the public and our everyday lives. At what point is there too much science in our lives, and are we too much like cyborgs? He looks at how technology is from the science and knowledge that differs from person to person. In this class we have talked a lot about colonization of land, but is the cyborg idea basically colonization of our bodies by science? Fanon’s idea behind colonization is that once you move towards the future, there is no way you can go back to the past. His idea was that the colonized could never go back to the way it was before the colonizers took over, and this also relates to science and the cyborg. It is possible we created something that has taken over our lives subconsciously, and just like Fanon said, there is no going back on the past for how it used to be.
In lecture, we discussed Goodnight and Collins’ theories on “expert” and “expertise”. Please explain what an expert is and then use two other readings from class to show how experts relate to public decision making.
Thomas Goodnight explains expert and expertise in a way of three different spheres that have different rankings when it comes to knowledge on different topics. There is the personal sphere, technical sphere, and the public sphere. He sees these different spheres as different methods, who they are better for, and there are different criteria that define it, and they are separate from each other. Collins sees that there is not just one expert, but there are more layers. These layers intertwine and work with each other rather than separate like Goodnight states. Yellow Rain is a good example of how sometimes this expertise can bounce off of eachother, and I feel like this goes more with Goodnight’s idea of expertise. There were so many different trials and errors happening, and they had many different ideas of what the yellow rain is or not. I believe that this was the different spheres bouncing off of eachother, and trying to mix, and it was not working and we could see that happening. It was big with the public decision making, because it dealt with health, and other issues regarding the public. We also can see how Spivak’s idea with the subaltern can tie in with the expertise because it is all about the “professionals” trying to do what is best for the public. But, if they are not technically in the public, do they actually know what is best for them with all factors being accounted for.
Explain how Patel and Moore define ‘nature’? Use one (or two) of the readings from the lecture as an example to explain their definition.
They do not mean nature as like a forest of trees specifically, but they are more referring to it as an idea. They say it is a way of organizing, and it’s more of a collective idea and a way to describe the world. They are mainly wanting to focus on the relationship it has with capitalism, and how nature and humans form that idea. The big issue is that humans can benefit from nature, and this allows humans to make profit while nature gets ruined. Beck weighs risk and benefit together in the means of production. His ideas go on how there are risks with the producer. In the case of nature and humans, I believe that the producer is nature, and in Beck;s eyes, nature is the one at risk. It also goes along with Patel and Moore because they state how nature gets the short stick of the relationship. Beck also shows how there is risk in society, and that is one of the other terms that Patel and Moore use when talking about nature, because nature and society are both not set and stone things, but more abstract. Humans look at nature for profit for a numerous amount of things, and so the risk that this poses to almost all types of nature is big.
In lecture, we discussed the idea of the ‘frontier’ based on the work of Ceccarelli and others. Please explain what a frontier is, and then give two examples from different readings of how ‘frontier’ shapes relationships and actions.
A frontier is new. A new place, new knowledge, new sciences, new ideas, and more. We can see how the frontier is almost a thing that everyone wants to work to produce “new”. Ceccarelli was about the frontier when it comes to science, which would be different if someone was thinking about the frontier as land. This is more of a thought and is just about furthering scientific knowledge. It was big with the science behind land ethics, and how the world was being used for resources. This is not necessarily a good thing though, there are a lot of environmental impacts that occur from this, but at the same time it helps us continue our knowledge. If we look at Darwin, he studied evolutionary aspects in plants, and how that is applied to humans. He took plants, and modified their breeding system, which furthered our understanding, but at the same time messed with the natural cycle of the pea plants. If we also look at the elephants on the palm plantations, we can see how because we changed the ecosystem to create this plantation, that not only our relationship changed, but also the animals to the land relationship. We took out their natural habitat, and replaced it with a new frontier for business, but we pushed back the frontier for the elephants. This goes along with Robins and how the Palm plantations changed and developed due to colonialism. This showed how they weren’t only changing the land, but also changing lives within the process, all to get to the frontier.
Explain how Patel and Moore define ‘energy’? Use one (or two) of the readings from the lecture as an example to explain their definition.
Patel and Moore use cheap energy as an actual thing, such as a physical piece of coal being burnt. But, it is more than just how to get the item cheap, but more so on how it influences the other cheap items. It is cheap energy that keeps work, lives, and even nature cheap. It is almost the idea of capitalism, because when people find ways to make the energy cheaper, the more profit and production comes out of it. We can see in the Palm Oil reports that there is a relationship between the cheap energy (in this case, the land), and how it relates to the well-being of the palm industry. There are many economic issues being debated all the time about the land use for these palm plantations, and it is being used cheaply in these scenarios. Because cheap land is being used, the companies are able to have cheaper workers, and therefore the process is cheaper. But, if the land/energy was not cheap, then the industry would not be as good. I think that another good way to describe how cheap energy affects the other topics is with Memmi’s example of dependence. He is talking about more colonization and human interaction, but in the case of cheap energy, there is this type of dependence that allows it to keep going. As I said earlier, the production is dependent on cheap energy to allow it to keep running smoothly and to make the most capital profit possible.
Explain how Patel and Moore define ‘food’. Use one (or two) of the reading from lecture as an example to explain their definition.
Patel and Moore define cheap food as the most calories produced to the dollar. The more calories that are produced in the cheapest manner is best for capital. This does not necessarily mean that it will be cheap for the consumer, but they are getting at the point from the producer; where the cheaper they can make the food, the better. A big example they use is the chicken nugget, because the chickens have been genetically modified to have more meat on them, reproduce more, and so that turns into big brands like Mcdonalds being able to make chicken nuggets for cheaper. We can look at Beck, and compare his idea of risk to risk in general, and how it relates to cheap food. When we think of risk, we think of it as having something to lose, but it relates to the consumer. Beck’s idea of risk is having to deal with the producer, and how the production always has risk coinciding with it. In the case with chicken, we can see how the risk lies heavily in the producers hands, and by making the chicken more “fake” there is a less probability of risk because it is altered to a more standard and with less variability between the meat. Also, with them making the cheap food, there is less risk financially with it. If the market fluctuates, or something happens, it will not have as much of an effect because they already have made the meat so cheap for their own betterment.
Bruno Latour argues that we have never been modern. Using two readings from before October 1st, and two readings after October 1st, agree or disagree with Latour.
I disagree with Latour. As a society, overall we are modern. Even though there is a circulation between the new and the old, there still is a huge emphasis on how we have moved forward in the world to modernity. If we look at Ceccarelli, who compares the frontier with science, and the furthering of knowledge. Society has always been pushing toward the frontier, and there will never be a stop to that unless we hit the frontier that ends us. There is ebb and flow with the frontier we are trying to reach, and within all of that is modernity because we are working towards new ideas. But, we need to step back and look at how we will never be able to actually reach 100% modern, but that still does not mean that we are not more modern than we have been in the past. If you look at technology, with Haraway and cyborgs we can see how the human body itself has become modern. From the day that we are born, we are vaccinated which is technology entering our bodies. This is new when looking at the timeline of history, and so not only the outside world is modern, but so is the inside of us, concluding that everything is modern. Looking back far in the past, we can see how technology has always advanced and made us more modern. With Galileo, he invented a telescope and learned that the moon was not actually smooth. This thinking and finding new knowledge frontiers allowed for us to break away from traditional thinking, where it questioned the leaders of the world and reached toward new frontiers. Also looking at De Silva, we can see how even though it was so long ago, we have always been inventing and coming up with new ideas to help life go a little bit smoother. Their irrigation systems were a new breakthrough, and have still affected the way we irrigate to this day. We have grown upon this idea, but it still took a beginning to allow us to be modern. So, to reiterate, I do believe that Latour is wrong when he says that we have never been modern, because we always have been, and always will be working towards new ideas.
Define Spivak’s idea of the subaltern in your own words, and then connect it to one other reading on theory (Fanon, Said, Memmi, Liboiron, Tsing, Haymes, Hicks, Mbebbe) from class to explain why it matters. Also, from a reading for class, give an example of a subaltern group and explain why it matters.
Spivak defines the subaltern as the lowest group in a society with the littlest amount of power. The entire premise of his argument is that they have never been heard or able to have spoken. Anytime someone has read an article, watched a documentary, or seen anything about these groups of people has not actually heard them speak up for themselves. It is all higher society groups that are doing it for them, giving them the opportunity, or translating the material for them. It is never directly the subaltern being able to speak up. Memmi focuses on dependence, and this idea goes hand-in-hand with the subaltern. Like said before, the subaltern is not able to speak or be heard without these higher societal groups. There is a dependence on them to be able to have their voices heard, and without the dependence, they would not have any sort of message out to the world. It still is not ideal, but it is what it is, and this dependence gives a piece of voice to them. If we look at the UN reports on Palm oil, we can see that child labor is a huge part of the system for the palm plantations. They are the subaltern, and would not be able to be known about if it wasn’t for other groups writing articles about them, translating their words, or telling their story. They have never been able to stand up for themselves, or communicate to the world about their issues they are facing. This is just one of the many subaltern groups we can focus on, but it clearly shows how both are not valued in society, and the dependence they have on others to share their story.
In lecture, we discussed Beck’s concept of “risk” and “risk society”. Please explain how Beck defines “risk”, and then give two examples from different readings about how and why risk is distributed.
When thinking about risk, we can see how Beck’s ideas can differ from everyone else’s. It shines a new light on the different sides that risk can affect, and how it changes from the consumer, to what Beck believes with the producer. An example would be a coffee shop. If the customer got burnt by their coffee, it would not be the ideology Beck thinks. But, let’s say that the barista got burnt while making the coffee, then it would be what Beck believes. A real life example of this is Robins with the palm plantations. They focus on the chemicals that are sprayed within the plantations in order to grow profit and alter to create more oil. But, in Beck’s eyes, this is a huge risk for the workers to be surrounded by this much chemicals, especially since it is mostly women who are doing the weeding in these situations. Their bodies are being close to many dangers with little to no protection. We can also see how risk is not weighed in a lot of working situations. Such as with L’Ouverture talking about the new regulations for field workers. He believes that there should be five new rules set in place and that they should be held to this standard. But, it can be hard when these field workers are set up dangerously at so many different levels within their work. They are at risk for getting hurt, ill, or not having enough to live off of.
Explain how Patel and Moore define ‘lives’? Use one (or two) of the reading from lecture as an example to explain their definition.
Patel and Moore describe cheap lives as the result of all of the other cheap items working together to create the effects they play on people’s lives. They mentioned the government, and did not want to focus on that side of it, but more how everything is accumulated to create “cheap lives”. They are almost every single category that Patel and Moore talked about, in one. All of the other topics work and mix with each other to keep eachother cheap. But, with cheap lives, it is more that everything else makes the lives cheap; which is capitalism. We can see an example of this with slavery, which is also a type of cheap work. We can see how this all flows with the Palm plantations. With the workers being stuck in a form of slavery, the companies have achieved cheap work. In order to have this cheap work, it is based on the fact that they can use the land and have it as cheap nature. The oil they produce is sent off to create cheap food, and all of this creates cheap lives. The lives themselves are cheap for the workers, and the people are paying more money so that the companies can make more money, and it is all a reflection of the cheap lives and how it is also about the state. It is a mix of all, and everything cheap is to affect the lives.
