What does it mean to be human?

“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project, the body is continually reinterpreted as a limit to what it means to be human.” Discuss critically.

My main tool in researching this subject was Google and although it returned many findings not all were valuable sources of information. I then turned my search towards Google Scholar using search phrases such as “Frankenstein human”, “Visible Human Project human”, “Frankenstein Visible Human Project humanity” and “Frankenstein human nature.” I found that Google Scholar brought up some findings but not as many as I had hoped therefore I returned to Google and once I had got past all the commercial sites I found some good pages with relevant information.

Robert W. Anderson’s Article, Body parts that matter: Frankenstein, or the Modern Cyborg? [1] talks about Frankenstein’s monster and how this “transgender man”[2] gives us a post-modernist view of the monster. The monster is constructed surgically and is shunned from society. In society today exactly the same applies to males who have become females through surgery and vice versa. This does not mean that these human beings are any less human because of alterations to their body – they still have the ability to think, act and feel the world around them. Anderson argues that “the monster is a man made gender rather than a natural gender.”[3] I found it interesting that Anderson talked about the reactions society had Frankenstein – the fact that he was beaten up for being abnormal shows us that what is “normal” can be defined by society as a whole. “The monster…exists as a category of ‘Other’ on to which the anxieties of the ‘normal’ are displaced.”[4]

Stuart J. Murray examines the way that Catherine Waldby views the Visible Human Project. He discusses how the inside of the body becomes deprivatized due to the Visible Human Project – what should be a private space no longer is. Waldby argues that, “Translating Jernigan’s body into information renders it strangely atemporal…without worldy context, not only on display but able to be integrated into interactive virtual surgeries, and otherwise virtually reanimated.”[5] The body becomes something else in the virtual – it can be seen from different viewpoints and angles and manipulated to serve the world of medicine. The Visible Human Project is infinite and therefore not really representative of ‘true’ human form but an altered form. Murray discuses “value” and “worth”[6] in determining humanity. I found this idea thought provoking as it raises the question of personality and the fact that “a human life is meant to count as something; its rhetorical value is often priceless.”[7]

Neil Osterweil writes a short article entitled, Artificial Intelligence, Real Issue: Smart Box or Real Boy? [8] Osterweil asks the question, ‘Is independent reasoning life?’ Does something that can function and ‘think’ on its own at any time make it human? He compares Shelley’s Frankenstein to Steven Spielberg’s film AI in which both characters desired affection and love and they both desperately desired to be a part of ‘normal’ society. I thought about this point for a while and it occurred to me that incorporating these ‘monsters’ into society may mean that society is no longer ‘normal’. If we do not view these creatures as human then surely they can never be incorporated into human everyday society. This article although interesting may be bias due to the fact that it is an opinion and Osterweil does not list references but it does raise some interesting points to think about and follow through with other research.

Culture Machine: Generating Research in Culture and Theory [9] is an article by Eugene Thacker and he asks the questions, “When the body is technically understood through an informatic logic, in what sense can a ‘virtual’ body be said to exist?”[10] Thacker discusses the history of the body and how bodily views have changed over time as medicine has advanced. What we know now we did not know during Medieval times – the concept of blood pumping around the body was completely alien to these people yet is a known factor now. This raised the question in my mind of what we may consider as ‘human’ in twenty years time. With ever changing technologies the Visible Human Project may be a version of humanity in the future if it is not seen that way now. Thacker states that there are two consequences of digital anatomy. The first being, “technically optimized bodies”[11] and the second, “producing a set of norms that is in excess.”[12] Thacker shows us that accepting different forms of what is human will always have effects.

Verena Kuni’s Article shows how humanity is unbreakable even after death. “Because the body donor in the <> was made this offer while he was still alive and he consented to the deal, in <> he resecures – at least virtually – the unity of his contour.” [13] Kuni raises an interesting point here – Jergen knew about his ‘life after death’ and therefore he obviously had feelings towards this – does this not mean that his virtual life is still human? His assembly in the virtual world is exactly as it was in real life but it is simply in virtual space. Kuni talks about “liberating the body from its bond to the materiality of the organic.”[14] I think this viewpoint is far stretched as I don’t believe we are bound to our organic nature but it is who we are and part of what makes us ‘human’. It is still an interesting point to put into contemplation though. This article was interesting but I did find that Kuni contradicted herself in some ways - Kuni goes on to argue that the ‘Visible Human’ cannot be human because “it is impossible to establish communication with it.”[15] This article must be read with care as it is opiniated and hence should not be taken for face value. It does raise interesting points that could be further researched and talked about.

It is interesting to note how what is deemed ‘human’ differs from person to person. I believe that there is no set answer to what is ‘human’ but that each and every person can make up their own mind in relation to their life experiences and beliefs. Humanity in my opinion embodies life, communication and emotion. I also believe that the view of ‘human’ is going to change increasingly over time as technology advances beyond what we know now. The fact that prosthesis does not change a human nowadays into a non-human form but 20 years ago may have seemed unnatural shows us just how much people’s views are changing as we head into the future.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Robert W., Body parts that matter: Frankenstein, or the Modern Cyborg? www.womenwriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm, May 1999.

Kuni, Verena, Cyborg configurations as formations of (self-) creation in the imagination space of technological (re)production, Media Art Net, http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/themes/cyborg_bodies/mythical_bodies_II/

Murray, Stuart J., Catherine Waldby: The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine, http://reconstruction.eserver.org/021/revVisibleHP.htm

Osterweil, Neil, Artificial Intelligence, Real Issue: Smart Box or Real boy?, WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/artificial-intelligence-real-issue, 2001.

Thacker, Eugene, Culture Machine: Generating Research in Culture and Theory, http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j003/Articles/Thacker/Impossible.htm, 1999.

Waldby, Catherine, The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine, New York and London, Routledge, 2000.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Robert W. Anderson, “Body parts that matter: Frankenstein, or the Modern Cyborg?” (May 1999) www.womenwriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm (accessed 19/08/2008)
[2] Anderson.
[3] Anderson.
[4] Anderson.
[5] Stuart J. Murray, “Catherine Waldby: The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine”, http://reconstruction.eserver.org/021/revVisibleHP.htm (accessed 26/08/08)
[6] Murray.
[7] Murray.
[8] Neil Osterweil, “Artificial Intelligence, Real Issue: Smart Box or Real boy?”, WebMD Feature (2001), http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/artificial-intelligence-real-issue (accessed 24/08/2008)
[9] Eugene Thacker, “Culture Machine: Generating Research in Culture and Theory” (1999), http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j003/Articles/Thacker/Impossible.htm (accessed 25/08/08)
[10] Thacker.
[11] Thacker.
[12] Thacker.
[13] Verena Kuni, “Cyborg configurations as formations of (self-)creation in the imagination space of technological (re)production”, Media Art Net, http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/themes/cyborg_bodies/mythical_bodies_II/ (accessed 26/08/08)
[14] Kuni.
[15] Kuni.