The Living Logo
  • Width: Topic Centrality
  • Color: Semantic Hub
  • Opacity: Freshness
  • Overlap: Topic Intersection
  • Sound: Site Complexity

Becoming cyborgs Class notes

Week 11: In the loop: Humanity as a network effect

Week 11: In the loop: Humanity as a network effect

ANTH 3608: Becoming cyborgs—Technology and society (Semester 2, 2025)
October 24, 2025

Main reading: Reno (2012); Rutherford (2021)

Notes

As Temple Grandin famously says of herself, “My mind is similar to an Internet search engine that searches for photographs” (Grandin 2009).

Subjective experience of the world is uniquely private, yet we tend to assume that it rests on the same universal attributes even if the content—the experience—is different for each person. Many people do not process information about the world in the same way, yet communication is still possible. The communication, and the network it both creates and on which it rests is more real than the people, since the idea of a person is really just an ideal. What does that mean for anthropology?

Keywords

semiotic ideology, cybernetics (particularly distributed communication), linguistic technics

Learning outcomes

  • Be able to identify the ideological biases embedded in communication technology
  • Be able to explain the distinctive qualities of a network paradigm when applied to human culture in general

Class agenda

  • Check up on the final project: Go to https://menti.com and use code 5430 7070.
    • Poll: How far have you gotten?
    • Poll: What medium are you using for your presentation?
  • Presentation from Ryan
    • P-doom, superintelligence, and AI psychosis
    • The Turing Test and the “Durkheim test” (Star 1989, 40)
      • Mental privacy and theory of mind
    • The person as both complete and incomplete
    • The naturally competent speaking subject and the subject in dialogue
    • Analogy and homology
  • Opener presentations: Madeleine E., Ziyu Z., Lifeixue Y.
    • Consider how we communicate, not just through technologies, but through gestures? How much do we verbalise? How much are we informed by ‘interpreters’ and transmission of gesture and ‘turn of phrase’? How much can we separate how we interact with each other and the world and technologies?

References

Grandin, Temple. 2009. “How Does Visual Thinking Work in the Mind of a Person with Autism?: A Personal Account.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1522): 1437–42. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0297.
Reno, Joshua. 2012. “Technically Speaking: On Equipping and Evaluating “Unnatural” Language Learners.” American Anthropologist 114 (3): 406–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01442.x.
Rutherford, Danilyn. 2021. “Becoming an Operating System.” American Ethnologist 48 (2): 139–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.13013.
Star, Susan Leigh. 1989. “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogenous Distributed Problem Solving.” In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, edited by Michael N. Huhns and Les Gasser, 2:37–54. San Mateo, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=94079.94081.