Summary of "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century" by Donna Haraway
In her article Donna Haraway (1991) defines cyborg, as not only a hybrid between machine and a living organism, but also a creature of social reality and function. Thus from the late 20th century we have been creating cyborgs and many of us are cyborgs, regardless if we recognize it or not. She breaks down and dissipates the distinction between human and animal: between human and machine; and between physical and non-physical.
The author explores and criticizes the western social system in which we live in and she concludes that the future belongs to creatures that don't have gender, or race, or religion. The origins of the cyborg, however, are connected to the military and to patriarchal society. To Haraway this is not necessary a bad thing, because it opens doors to feminism. The whole middle section of the article is a commentary and critique on feminism and politics. To her the African- American women have cyborg's characteristics and they are the ones that understand and can lead “affinity” politics, instead of “identity” politics. Donna Haraway sees cyborgs as the creature of the future, not only in its hybrid nature between human and machine, but also as a creation that is free from religion, or gender, or race.
People who critique moving pictures fall into 3 general classes:
1. Reviewers - are generally journalists who describe the contents and general tone of a movie, with only incidental emphasis on aesthetic evaluation.
2. Critics - are also journalists for the most part, but their emphasis is more on evaluation than on mere content description.
3. Theorists - are usually professional academics, often the authors of books on how movies can be studied on a more philosophical level.
I'm a film critic and I like to write about films that are exceptional and stand above the rest.
"The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work that they could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if by his understandings and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience. The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others." ( Pauline Kael )