Shaping Identity in William Gibson's Neuromancer
The number “one” is not a thing. Math has no definitive reality. Numbers are a social construct, a system of symbols designed to express the abstractions through which properly developed societies explain aspects of reality. It follows that, as humanity seeks to understand more of what it is to exist, bigger numbers are needed. Soon, we need machines to understand the numbers. Society plants a base on information technology, efficiency, and a mechanical precision that is startling. What is desirable in a product is distilled to a formulaic essence and packaged neatly. Humans, too, are boiled down to science. Glossy shots, red lipstick, concrete biceps, and an ever-decreasing waistline set the standard. People are reduced to little more than the sum of their parts, a pair of matchstick legs, a rippled midsection, the right shoes and right make-up. Information technology makes the dissimilation of these trends mercilessly easy: In response to the Atkins Diet, tens of thousands of Americans strike carbohydrates from their diets. A cell phone that simply calls someone is archaic at best; people need infinite text messaging and a built-in digital camera (with no roaming charges) so that they can e-mail pictures of their new car to their friends in California, New York, or Antarctica. Jessica Simpson mistakes canned tuna for chicken and millions of viewers laugh at her in unison. Still, “one” is not a thing. These societal constructs chip away at the very humanity of the people who live amidst them. In William Gibson’s Neuromancer, a motley cast of characters face this cold steel reality, that their humanity is being systematically stripped, and that even attempts to take advantage...
... middle of paper ...
... as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer.” 1996. Retrieved November 16th, 2004. http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html.
Meyer, Chuck. ”Human Identity in the Age of Computers: Cyberpunk Identity.” April 1997. Retrieved November 20th, 2004. http://fragment.nl/mirror/Meyer/CyberpunkIdentity.htm.
Myers, Tony. ”The Postmodern Imaginary In William Gibson's Neuromancer.” 2001. Retrieved November 20th, 2004. http://www.postanarki.net/myers.htm.
Saffo, Paul. ”Consensual Realities in Cyberspace.” Phrack Magazine. 1989. Retrieved November 16th, 2004. http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=30&a=8.
Shaw, Debbie. ”THEREFORE I AM - TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN IDENTITY.” Updated January 1997. Retrieved November 16th, 2004. http://learning.unl.ac.uk/humanIT/cybersf/ident.htm
People all around agree that technology is changing how we think, but is it changing us for the better? Clive Thompson definitely thinks so and this book is his collection of why that is. As an avid fiction reader I wasn’t sure this book would captivate me, but the 352 pages seemingly flew past me. The book is a whirlwind of interesting ideas, captivating people, and fascinating thoughts on how technology is changing how we work and think.
Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.
Individuals conceived between the years of 1980 and 2000, as indicated by this article, experience serious difficulties finding their actual self due to the online networking outlets; they regularly depict another person life of a fantasy dream American life on the web. As today’s more youthful era makes the transition to adulthood, trying to accommodate between online and offline characters can be hard. “Van den Bergh asked 4,056 individuals, ages 15 to 25, when they felt they were or weren't being genuine online or logged off, with companions, folks, accomplices or employers.” Through this research he found,
Like all works that have been taught in English classes, Frankenstein has been explicated and analyzed by students and teachers alike for much of the twentieth and all of the twenty-first century. Academia is correct for doing so because Frankenstein can appeal to the interests of students. Students, teachers and experts in the areas of medicine, psychology, and sociology can relevantly analyze Frankenstein in their respective fields. However, Peter Brooks explains in “Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein” that Shelly had presented the problem of “Monsterism” through her language. According to Brooks, Monsterism is explicitly and implicitly addressed in Shelly’s language. While this may be correct, Brooks does it in such a way that requires vast knowledge of subjects that many readers may not be knowledgeable in. After summarizing and analyzing the positive and negative qualities of Brooks’ work, I will explain how the connection of many different fields of study in literature creates a better work.
While at the university victor’s passion for science and knowledge was soon well recognize. He was also very fascinated with the science of anatomy the professors were teaching, “ By degrees I made a discovery of still greater moment. I found that these people possessed a method of communicating their experience and feelings to one another by articulate sounds. I perceived that the words they spoke sometimes produced pleasure or pain, smiles or sadness, in the minds and countenances of the hearers. This was indeed a godlike science, and I ardently desired to become acquainted with it “. Mary Shelly’s: Frankenstein.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus, explores the monstrous and destructive affects of obsession, guilt, fate, and man’s attempt to control nature. Victor Frankenstein, the novel’s protagonist and antihero, attempts to transcend the barriers of scientific knowledge and application in creating a life. His determination in bringing to life a dead body consequently renders him ill, both mentally and physically. His endeavors alone consume all his time and effort until he becomes fixated on his success. The reason for his success is perhaps to be considered the greatest scientist ever known, but in his obsessive toil, he loses sight of the ethical motivation of science. His production would ultimately grieve him throughout his life, and the consequences of his undertaking would prove disastrous and deadly. Frankenstein illustrates the creation of a monster both literally and figuratively, and sheds light on the dangers of man’s desire to play God.
...ty of the human brain utilized as a computer modem to operate multi- national capitalistic corporations shows frightening possibilities for the future of everyday human life. The main issues of this dystopia, exaggerated and distorted as they are in the novel, originate from existing problems in our society. Discussions about cloning and genetic engineering, as well as robotics places our society at a crossroad, how to develop future strategies for an appropriate technology. The other concept imbedded in Neuromancer dates back to Plato's idea of dualism, prioritizing mind over body, men over women and logic over emotions. Gibson shows us a possibility of a future, certainly not one we want, but the dangers of which we have to consider in order to create a better world and not to destroy it.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is ‘one of the pioneering works of modern science fiction’, and is also a frightening story that speaks to the ‘mysterious fears of our nature’. Mary Shelley mocks the idea of “playing God”, the idea that came from the Greek myth of Prometheus, of the Greek titan who stole Zeus’ gift of life. Both the story of Frankenstein and Prometheus reveal the dark side of human nature and the dangerous effects of creating artificial life. Frankenstein reveals the shocking reality of the consequences to prejudging someone. The creature’s first-person narration reveals to us his humanity, and his want to be accepted by others even though he is different. We are shown that this ‘monster’ is a ‘creature’ and more of a human than we think.
Science fiction somehow manages to place human characters in situations where the ideas and the thoughts of science and morality are intertwined. Science fiction must have some idea components and some human components to be successful. This novel seems to be a contrast to the believers in technological progress as it presents a colorful, but depressing and desolate future. The loss of individuality due to technological advances becomes a major theme in cyberpunk. This presents a dismal view of the individual in society. The cyberpunk genre developed from “a new kind of integration. The overlapping of worlds that were formerly separate: the realm of high tech, and the modern pop underground” (p. 345) 1. Neuromancer not only falls into this category, it may be the first cyberpunk novel ever written.
In summary, both the article and the novel critique the public’s reliance on technology. This topic is relevant today because Feed because it may be how frightening the future society may look like.
Before the internet, our characteristics such as style, identity, and values were primarily exposed by our materialistic properties which psychologists define as the extended self. But people’s inferences to the idea of online self vs. offline self insisted a translation to these signals into a personality profile. In today’s generation, many of our dear possessions have been demolished. Psychologist Russell W belk suggest that: “until we choose to call them forth, our information, communications, photos, videos, music, and more are now largely invisible and immaterial.” Yet in terms of psychology there is no difference between the meaning of our “online selves” and “offline selves. They both assist us in expressing important parts of our identity to others and provide the key elements of our online reputation. Numerous scientific research has emphasized the mobility of our analogue selves to the online world. The consistent themes to these studies is, even though the internet may have possibly created an escape from everyday life, it is in some ways impersonating
To begin with, we technically are not born with identity; it is a socially constructed attribute. Identity is a transient thing, which changes over time as we grow and mature. The self-concept, which is our own personal understanding of who we are, combines with self awareness to cultivate a cognitive representation of the self, called identity (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2010, p.118). In other words, who we are is controlled by internal and external factors that combine to make us who we become. Bring new media outlets into the equation, such as the internet, and media is now regarded as an "extension of everyday life and a tool of cultural change" (Singh, 2010). Thus, identity formation, as a social concept, is being transformed in new and even more global ways.
In Conclusion William Gibson created a cyberpunk/ postmodernism tale that has blurred not only the physical state between mechanics and human anatomy, but has as well blurred the line between the natural and virtual world. He is making the reader contemplate how both software and hardware have influenced the natural world. Gibson’s fictional world would have not been possible without the existence of software and hardware, that is why the distinction between them is very crucial and play a different part within the text. Without these two things, the reader would not be able to comprehend and relate to Gibson’s view on how our society is interlocking with the advances of technology and the normality of today will no longer exist in the future.
Multiple identities have been increased by the creation of cyberspace communications according to "Cyberspace and Identity" by Sherry Turkle. Turkle uses four main points to establish this argument. Her first point is that online identity is a textual construction. Secondly she states that online identity is a consequence-free moratorium. Turkle's third point is online identity expands real identity. Finally, her last point states that online identity illustrates a cultural concept of multiplicity. I disagree with many aspects of her argument and I have found flaws in her argument. Technology is an area that does not stand still and consequently outpaced Turkle's argument.