Google Glass as a Cybernetic System

Paola Gulian 18/06/2013 p.gulian@me.com Stavangerweg 352, Amsterdam 1013AX Telephone: +359 888 88 30 81 Student Number: 10396144 Thesis supervisor: Michael Dieter Media Studies: New Media and Digital Culture Universiteit van Amsterdam

1

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction / 3

2. Chapter 1 – History of Cybernetics theory, Systems Theory, Cyborg and Posthumanism / 6 2.1. Introduction to Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetics / 6 2.2. Gregory Bateson on second-order cybernetics / 8 2.3. The kinship between human, animal and machine, Donna Haraway’s theory of the cyborg / 12 2.4. The disembodiment of the human being, Katherine N. Hayles’ theory of the posthuman / 14 3. Chapter 2 – Google Glass, Individuation and the Black Box / 21 3.1. Introduction to Google Glass / 21 3.2. Google Glass and Gregory Bateson’s theory of self-corrective systems / 24 3.3. Industrialization of memory through Google Glass and Bernard Stiegler’s theory of the exterior milieu / 26 3.4. Google Glass as a black box and W. Ross Ashby’s theory of the black boxing / 29 3.5. Experience Design, Olia Lialina and the disappearing user / 30 3.6. Miniaturization of technology, Google Glass as a ubiquitous computer through Mark Weiser’s theory / 32 4. Chapter 3 – Google Glass as an Extension of the Human Being: MediumSpecificity and Becoming Posthuman / 34 4.1 Media ecology through Marshall McLuhan and Google Glass as an extension of the human being / 34 4.2 Perceptual and behaviour change through Google Glass / 39 4.3 Change of time and space perception, McLuhan and the global village / 41 4.4 Human being’s freedom to ideological change through Donna Haraway’s cyborg theory / 42 5. Conclusion / 44 6. Bibliography

2

INTRODUCTION Google Glass is a technological device designed and created by the media giant Google. The device is an upcoming project, which will be available for retail in 2014. Beta prototypes of Google Glass, or as they have been termed “Explorer editions” have been created and made available thus been sold to web application developers and influential users who will further develop the device and perfect the experience for the future user. However, due to the extensive media coverage Google Glass has been having, the device has come to a number of issues concerning accumulation of personal data and overall anxieties about privacy. Those scares and anxieties have driven the potential users of the product to confusion and panic. One of the examples of the fear the device awakens in the user’s minds are the media responses and opinions different potential users have. Giving an example out of the bunch is the case of the device being banned from public areas due to the possibility of invasion of privacy. On the 5th of March 2013, The 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, Washington stated through a post on their Facebook page that they are banning users who are wearing Google Glass on their premises in advance of the device’s launch. Their post stated: “For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. Seriously” (2013). The bar’s Facebook post received a highly involved positive reaction from the public, receiving more than 500 likes, which shows the disbelief and perhaps fear people have of this emerging technology. The 5 Point Cafe’s reaction towards the device is one of the many negative reactions towards Google Glass expressed in the media. Much like any new advanced technologies; it creates anxieties and discomfort in the public’s mind. Following 5 Point’s ban, a Google’s spokesperson reacted to it stating, “it is still very early days for Glass, and we expect that as with other new technologies, such as cell phones, behaviours and social norms will develop over time” (CNET, 2013). Furthermore, with technology vastly improving and becoming an even more prominent part within everyday life, one can only imagine the fast pace in which change of habits and behaviour is bound to occur. Moreover, it is precisely the aforementioned development of “behaviours and social norms” towards technological devices, Google Glass in particular, that will be addressed at the heart of this thesis. This thesis will look at the issues around the influence that Google Glass will have in terms of technological and human agencies, as well as how human agency has and could be redistributed through Google Glass. I will foremost reflect conceptually on the issues mentioned, doing so by looking at the history of cybernetics as a broad paradigm. I will consider the relationship between

3

human being and Google Glass as a system situated within a broader environment of feedback loops of information and knowledge. I will do so by considering Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetics as an introduction to the way human beings and technology interrelate, as well we how they function within a cybernetic exchange of information with technology. This will be complemented by Donna Haraway’s theorization of cyborg politics, and N. Katherine Hayles’ view of embodied information, which will be addressed at the end of the first chapter of this thesis where issues arising from the vastly growing connectivity between human beings and technology will be considered. The second chapter of this thesis will expand on Wiener’s theory of cybernetics and draw from Gregory Bateson’s theory of systems, especially his view of the “self-corrective”, to reflect on the key case study of Google Glass. I will begin by analysing the way Google Glass has been introduced through a media perspective to the public by the company itself, particularly by Google’s co-founder, Sergey Brin. This section clearly identifies a number of characteristics introduced by Google and interprets these through the theories and views of cybernetics I have previously introduced. Following Google Glass’ introduction, the thesis turns to the way the device influences categories of the human, and how the interactions between the user and the device function in terms of collecting and understanding information and knowledge. I examine the way a user’s opinions, course of action and behaviour change towards the environment due to the interaction with a technological device such as Google Glass, and that influence will be viewed through a systems and cybernetics theory perspective in order to reveal a machinic perspective of the relationship between living and non-living systems. This section reflects on, in particular, the way information and knowledge are stored within the device’s infrastructure and the symmetries between machines and embodied acts of storing information. Furthermore, in addition to understanding the way human beings’ behaviour change through the view of Bateson’s theory, I will look at Bernard Stiegler’s theory of the ‘industrialisation of memory.’ Stiegler’s theory will be used to show how Google Glass as a technological device stores and uses communicated information as well as how that exteriorization of information and knowledge affects the entire behaviour users have towards advanced technology in terms of engagement and understanding. In order to look at the way the engagement and understanding towards Google Glass functions, Ashby’s theory of the black box will be applied to the case study in depth. Through the black box, I will explain the blind engagement human beings sign up through operating with machines without being familiar with the background of the

4

system and the way they work. This thesis will further look at the exact way users connect with technological devices in contemporary society as well as compare the interaction engaged with today with that of machines in the past. The blind engagement with technology has undoubtedly assisted with the computer gradually being made invisible to the user. In that line of thought, the conclusion of the second chapter focuses on the way the design of technological devices and interfaces has turnedto experience design and affect. Furthermore, through Olia Lialina’s work, I will look at how experience design has contributed to the disappearance of the idea of the user along with the miniaturization of the computer or the technological device itself. It will be argued that this miniaturization of technology is linked to Mark Weiser’s theory of the ubiquitous computer, particularly the way human beings opt for convenience when acquiring knowledge and information, which has led to the socalled obfuscation of computation as well as its simultaneous advancement. Contrary to the discourse that surrounds systems theory, information and cybernetics charted at the beginning of this thesis, the final chapter will shift focus to critically analyse McLuhan’s theory of media ecology and media specificity in relation to the change and development of human behaviour, perception and social norms. This body of knowledge will be discussed since media theory tells us crucial things about Google Glass as an advanced technological device. Subsequently, if we want to fully reflect on those broader stakes of change of behaviour, perception as well as the aforementioned issue of accumulation of data, we need to have a critical understanding of cybernetics, information and systems theory. Both media and systems theory will aid towards the process of answering the main questions and concerns expressed throughout this thesis. What some issues this thesis will be looking at are issues surrounding the way users become familiar with technological devices and the way their behaviour shifts over time with technology becoming more advanced. In order to be able to analyse and view this process of change of perception, this thesis will go through the history of cybernetics and the history of technological development and improvement as well as what kind of relationship human beings have had with technology throughout the decades. Looking at the history of technology and the user is important in order to create a background of how technological devices have been influencing human being’s entire agency throughout history.

5

CHAPTER 1 Cybernetics, Systems Theory, the Cyborg and Posthumanism To understand the way modern technology operates one has to be open towards the idea of looking at technology’s past. Subsequently, in order for the relationship between human being and the machine to be understood, the history of that relationship must be examined. Furthermore, every particle of the system within the relationship between the organic and the non-organic and the exchange of knowledge they embark must be analysed. And it is due to these demands that systems and cybernetics theory will serve as an infrastructure to this thesis argument. The foundation of this thesis draws from Norbert Wiener’s body of work, particularly his concepts of information and communications within his ground-breaking theory of cybernetics. His theory will be utilized to examine the way advanced technological machines function, as well as how human interaction with technology can be explained. Wiener’s theory of cybernetics was initially developed in his “technical book” (16), Cybernetics, or, Control and Communication in the Animal and Machine (1948). It was in this text where he first started developing the theory of cybernetics as a new way of looking at how humans and machines function together. His theory continued to take shape in the publication of The Human Use of Human Beings Cybernetics and Society (1950) where he coined the term cybernetics’and advanced an analysis of how human, machine and animal operate through communication and control collectively. This body of knowledge partly derived from a desire to “create and assist” in the automation of “military tasks previously performed by human beings” (113), leading to the inclusive mechanization and replacement of human labour. From then on the subject of cybernetics continued to grow based on Wiener’s research shared with Warren Weaver and Claude Shannon, the latter of which represents another key influence to the theory of cybernetics due to his mathematical framework for the exchange of information. Norbert Wiener’s theory of the affinity between organisation and control within a system was also influenced by the outcome war times had on automated devices such as servo-systems on which I will touch upon further in this discussion. Despite coining the term, Wiener borrowed the word “cybernetics” which is originally derived from the Greek word “kubernetes” in translation meaning “steersman” (Oxford Dictionary, 2013). His theory is fundamental to the subjects that will be addressed in this thesis, as it is also central to the field of science and technology in contemporary society. Through his early concepts and theories, he was able to explain the characteristics of technology and information that are apparent in

6

contemporary society by basing his argument on a consideration of cultural behavior in the past. He further supported that claim by commending that “the thought of every age is reflected in its technique [. . .] If the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are the age of clocks, and the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constitute the age of steam engines, the present time is the age of communication and control” (2). Within that idea, one of Wiener’s beliefs revolved around the human being functioning as the aforementioned steam engines through communication and control. Wiener believed that humans and their relations as well as their behavior could be examined and understood through the study of “the messages and the communication facilities that belong to it” (16). He suggested that communication between humans and machines is not different from how a human being would interact with another human being, proposing that the way humans exchange information with machines successfully, through sending and receiving messages, is the same way that the interaction between people should go, with the aim of being as competent as the interaction with technology. He further added: When I give an order to a machine, the situation is not essentially different from that which arises when I give an order to a person. In other words, as far as my consciousness goes I am aware of the order that has gone out and of the signal of compliance that has come back. To me, personally, the fact that the signal in its intermediate stages has gone through a machine rather than through a person is irrelevant and does not in any case greatly change my relation to the signal. (Wiener 1948: 17) Wiener aimed to apply the principles of cybernetics to the way the human being interacts with other individuals as well as the ‘external world’. He described how individuals perceive and process received content from their surroundings; and termed that content “information”, claiming that “information is a name for the content of what is exchanged with the outer world as we adjust to it, and make our adjustment felt upon it” (18). Wiener also advocated that in order for humans to lead an effective life within themselves as well as in the outside world without distress, they should live by the rules of cybernetics, thus commenting that “communication and control belong to the essence of human’s inner life, even as they belong to his life in society” (18). However, for Wiener, life cannot be “effective” unless the messages communicated are adequate. In his view, messages are the means through which sufficient communication is achieved or could be achieved; and successful message exchange needs to be systematized. Subsequently, Wiener’s conviction is that

7

“messages are themselves a form of pattern and organization… the information carried by a set of messages is a measure of organization” (21). By way of explanation, the more certain and organized the message – the more information it should give. This equation, therefore, worked to support his claim that control is a valuable element of an effective human way of living. Consequently, as previously mentioned, Wiener believed that the messages sent to humans from the external world influence their behavior and the way an individual is going to react to those messages. In the same line of thought, he equally affirmed that a machine ‘acts’ and reacts to the external world by means of messages (23), much like how the human being is affected by the influence of other individuals i.e. the external world. Wiener then further mentioned the machine “which is conditioned by its relation to the external world, and by the things happening in the external world” (23). That notion, in itself is a comparison of human to machine. Wiener also applied his theory of cybernetics to the way animals behave similarly to machines and humans. He gave an example of the behavior of a kitten and the way it reacts to the exchange of information throughout the sending and receiving of messages. He stated: “I call to the kitten and it looks up. I have sent it a message which, it has received by its sensory organs, and which it registers in action. The kitten is hungry and lets out a pitiful wail. This time it is the sender of a message” (22); the course of this communication layout or outline essentially corresponds to the outline of human beings interacting with technology that will become evident and will be addressed later in this chapter. Depending on the messages communicated, moreover, whether simple or complicated, the response of the animal can vary and change. Wiener described that procedure by giving an example of the way the kitten’s process of thought functions within its nervous system and how it influences its response, again by the means of exchanging messages: “through certain nerve endbodies in its joints, muscles, and tendons; and by means of nervous messages sent by these organs, the animal is aware of the actual position and tensions of its tissues” (23). Crucially, this exchange of information within animals and their relevance to human beings will be expanded on later in this chapter through Donna Haraway’s theory of the relations between human, animal and technology. The aforementioned notion of the exchange of messages could apply to the course in which human being’s behavior operates as well as how a human being would react to an encounter from the external world. The reasoning, moreover, behind why human behavior and reactions change could be, as previously discussed, due to the content and complexity of the messages exchanged within the communication system. Wiener’s example of a simple exchange of messages in the

8

operation of the ‘automatic photoelectric door’ could be seen as an archetype of elementary exchange of information. His example explains how “when a message consisting of the interception of a beam of light is sent to the apparatus, this message actuates the door, and opens it so that the passenger may go through” (23). However, just because the process can be seen to appear simple, does not mean that the way the apparatus works is understandable. Subsequently, the human behavior cannot be understood unless the process and entities that are part of a communication are explained. In order for Wiener to explain the concept of the information exchange in more depth, he introduces the theory of the ‘complex action’ in “which the data introduced, which we call the input, to obtain an effect on the outer world, which we call the output, may involve a large number of combinations ” (24), these combinations could include both the data put in the moment during communication and data which has been taken from the past which Wiener terms as the “memory” (24). He then further applied this theory to be defined through “computing machines”, claiming that they are the most ‘complicated’ apparatuses. Consequently, by claiming human beings are involved in the input and output of information, or the “feedback loop” (Wiener, 57), that therefore compares human beings to “computing machines” or to mechanical organisms in general. Wiener’s cybernetics was influenced by and focused around the period leading to the Second World War as well as towards the end of the eighteenth century (137). That being the time when, according to his theory, the first industrial revolution began (138), when human beings manufactured machines that would be able to build other machines that assist handling ‘heavy duty labor’ (139) that workers were unable to perform. Wiener’s model of the way self-governing organisms and machines operate is a part of what is termed as the ‘first-order’ cybernetics. As previously explained, first-order cybernetics or Wiener’s notion of cybernetics will analyze an organism, technological or living, in a disengaged manner or by passively comparing the technological organism to the living. As opposing to first-order cybernetics, ‘second-order’ cybernetics would engage with the organism and analyze it in detail, admitting it as an autonomous system. To introduce the notion of second-order cybernetics, it is important to consider Gregory Bateson’s work. As previously admitted, first-order cybernetics was developed throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s. Gregory Bateson’s work on cybernetics began in 1972 when he published his book entitled Steps to an Ecology of Mind which accommodated many of his different works in anthropology, including his essay on alcoholism examined through the theory of cybernetics ‘The Cybernetics of “Self”: A Theory of Alcoholism’. That essay integrated his view on cybernetics, in

9

which he examined both technological and living organisms thoroughly. Bateson believed that in order for us to understand the environment we live in and to comprehend the way different systems work is to take advantage of the application of theory, suggesting that “extraordinary advances have been made in our knowledge of what sort of thing the environment is, what sort of thing an organism is, and, especially, what sort of thing a mind is. These advances have come out of cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, and related sciences” (225). Bateson mainly focused on the way each system, especially the system of living and technological organisms (human beings and machines), functioned according to the environment they were situated in and what influence that environment had on them and their actions. His key claim was that any accumulation of events be it technological or living, human or nonhuman, would be able to ‘understand’ and react to communicated information, complex or not; further alleging that “we can assert that any ongoing ensemble of events and objects which has the appropriate complexity of causal circuits and the appropriate energy relations will surely show mental characteristics. It will compare, that is, be responsive to difference (in addition to being affected by the ordinary physical ‘causes’ such as impact or force)” (229). Henceforth, he claimed that every entity or system has the ability to ‘process information’ that assists it into having the ability to maintain a centralized balance by adapting to the influence of the external world. Following that notion, every system could be seen as a ‘self-correcting’ system, in the way that it will assess any information given, archive it, and store it in what Wiener describes as the ‘memory’, which in Bateson’s theory is viewed as the consciousness. That information then will influence the organism’s future reaction to similar types of information. Analogous, in his view, communicated messages or even a small amount of information could be “a difference that makes a difference” (229) thus an entity, which has an impact on the system. Consequently, Bateson believed that no element of an ‘internally interactive system’ could have independent control over the balance or any other part of the system [the consciousness], but that “the characteristics are inherent or immanent in the ensemble as a whole” (229). Agency across a system is, therefore, interconnected, rather than possessed by a single entity or component. He further supported his argument by suggesting that the ‘mental characteristics’ inherent to any simple selfcorrective system is manifested as an aggregate figure or character that has control over the core of the conformity; thus giving an example of the administrative character in Wiener’s case of the steam engine:

10

Governor, the very word ‘governor’ is a misnomer if it be taken to mean that this part of the system has unilateral control. The governor is, essentially, a sense organ or transducer, which receives a transform of the difference between the actual running speed of the engine and some ideal or preferred speed. (Bateson, 1972: 229) That claim determining that every organism, human or non-human, although receiving information and being influenced by it, handles that information according to the mental character it possesses or has imbedded. Arguably, although he goes on to claim that differences cannot influence the balance of the system or of the whole, he then contrastingly comments that the “behavior of the governor is determined… by the behavior of the other parts of the system, and indirectly by its own behavior at a previous time.” (316) This then introduces a sort of ‘recursive-ness’ of information, which we have found evident simultaneously in Wiener’s work. There is the existing notion that the governor’s behavior is affected by its own previous behavior and it thus influences the way in which the system as a whole is formed and the mental character is determined, which then again brings us to Wiener’s notion of human beings functioning as communicative organisms. Bateson, however, also claimed that the system adherence or the so-called self-correcting aspects of the system does not, however, depend on the governor, but rather on the “relation between the operational product of all the transformations of difference around the circuit” (316) thus it is the information and messages received in the past that have been stored in the system’s memory that determine a human being’s balance of the system. Subsequently, according to Bateson, human beings have to alter their future actions according what their past actions have been in order for balance to exist. For Bateson, the system / living or non-living organism “must adapt his own actions to its time characteristics and to the effects of his own past action” (230). This theory can further be linked to Stiegler’s notion of “memory industrialization” and its relation to Google Glass, on which I will further expand on in the second chapter of this thesis. Moreover, receiving messages and information from the outside world goes on to determine an individual’s behavior towards themselves and others around them as well as their behavior towards entities such as animals and technology overall. Following his theory, the relationship a human being has with a machine or a ‘technological organism’ cannot simply be compared to the way he or she acts in machinic ways, but according to the way they interact with and are influenced by the environment. In other words, a milieu contributes to how human beings can correlate their relations with machines in their everyday life. For Bateson, if we desire to comprehend any course of action a human being engages with whilst handling

11

technological organisms, “we must take into account the system” (230). For instance, the process of learning how to interact with technology and the entire cooperation with a device is in itself a series of self-corrective course of actions. Accordingly, Bateson gives an example of a human being “felling a tree with an axe” explaining how every next action the human being takes is in accordance to the result of the previous action or “according to the shape of the cut face of the tree left by the previous stroke” (230) – the next stroke is determined. Similarly whilst cooperating with technological objects, an individual would learn from their previous actions therefore that would reflect upon their future actions as well as the entire interaction itself. Therefore, becoming more kindred with technology and also being compared to it, human beings could become more like technological objects themselves. Similarly it must be noted that the non-human, in this case the technological object is also bound to take on human aspects within that cooperation. Bernard Stiegler (2004) termed that process as the “transduction”, interpreted from Gilbert Simondon, which claims that technical individuation influences human beings behavior and consciousness, which then drives the individuation of collectives. Stiegler’s theory can be further linked to McLuhan’s theory of media ecology, which I am going to extend in the third chapter of this thesis, which will primarily focus on media specificity. Furthermore, with the apprehension that I could be repeating myself, I will go on to say that the way a computer always takes the input and output of information into consideration affecting the way it determines future actions it is about to embark on, both human being and environment can give us the notion of the human as functioning like a machine, which is what Wiener’s notion of living organisms appeared to be in his early work. Altogether cybernetics as a science implied that human beings and technology could be examined, altered and understood in precisely identical ways due to the fact that its extended character of behavior rendered the human and nonhuman now interchangeable, we must also be able to not only explain the relationship of the human with machine, but what the ‘machine’ really is, how it is perceived to be identical to the human. Through the conception of cybernetics and the theory of the ‘black box,’ the contrast between human and non-human begins to become difficult to distinguish or even invisible. Subsequently, due to that theory, every mentioned component and actor are listed as black boxes; consentingly, those black boxes do not function individually for themselves, rather they function as one, one single channel that was as if constructed for information. This idea then brings us to Ashby’s notion of the black box, which proposes a “theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to the question, relating object and observer, about what

12

information comes from the object, and how it is obtained” (110). In addition he claimed that the notion of the black box is about more than just the sender and receiver of information, it is mainly focused on the messages communicated between them, Ashby then further stated that “the theory of the Black Box is simply the study of the relations between the experimenter and his environment, when special attention is given to the flow of information” (110). According to this theory, all physical borders between the human and non-human could end up becoming insignificant. Similarly to Bateson’s belief of the ‘mental characters’ of systems, Ashby believed that from looking at the way separate entities behave, one could determine the way in which the other entities would behave and how they are as a whole. Accordingly, he stated that if a “number of Black Boxes are given, and each is studied in isolation until its canonical representation is established, and if they are coupled in a known pattern by known linkages, then it follows that the behavior of the whole is determinate” (110). Ashby’s idea of black boxing technologies and the exchange of information and knowledge between human beings and technological devices will be further expanded on in the second chapter of this thesis. The suggestion, moreover, that “behavior [of the whole system] is determined” (110) through the close examination of black boxes links us to the notion that human could essentially become one with the non-human, and the entire interaction between the organic and the non-organic and their behavior can be further determined. As the boundaries between human and non-human are becoming significantly more imperceptible that, therefore, suggests that the bodily freedom of the boundaries is now solely dependent on the information streaming between them. That claim corresponds to the linkages between human being, animal and machine within Donna Haraway’s theory of the relationship and similarities between living and non-living organisms grounded in her essay ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’ (1985) and the fact that these intersections are interfaces and, therefore, sites of power. Haraway not only supported the claim about the limits of living and non-living becoming nonexistent, she further questioned the uniqueness of the human by proposing that the “boundary between animal and human” has been “thoroughly breached” (8). Further noting that the determination human beings have of protecting animals could as well be seen as a realization on their side of the similarities they share with them, therefore, animal’s rights are not seen as “irrational denials of human uniqueness; they are a clear-sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach of nature and culture” (9). Such a claim recalls of the aforementioned example of “the kitten” Wiener referred to previously in this chapter. Much like that connection, Haraway acknowledged the relationship between human and machine in her work

13

and the “leaky distinction… between animal-human (organism) and machine” (10). Her conviction was the fact that the way machines are seen today in contemporary society is not as they have been seen in the past. The conception of the machine, and particularly the human-machine relationship being self-moving and self-designing or as Bateson terms it, as self-corrective, has been seen as a quite “paranoid” (10) concept. Arguably, that pre-conception human beings have had of the technical and the digital has been reconstructed in the late twentieth century when “machines have made thoroughly ambiguous the difference between natural and artificial, mind and body, self-developing and externally designed, and many other distinctions that used to apply to organisms and machines” (10). Which then brings to attention the assumption that the boundary between human and machine as well as the “physical and non-physical is very imprecise for us” (12). Moreover, that disappearance of boundaries between the organic and non-organic shifts the discussion towards the notion of technological devices and organisms becoming quite obscured. Haraway supported her argument by envisioning how machines are used in the modern world today. In her view “modern machines are quintessentially microelectronic devices” (13) which are perceived as being better if they are either difficult to spot or invisible. Likewise, the size and visibility of technology has become a measure of power and importance. Haraway notes that “miniaturization has turned out to be about power; small is not so much beautiful as pre-eminently dangerous” (13). Therefore, size, proportion and visibility in general have begun to create anxieties in people’s minds similar to the fear that machines could become autonomous. This notion of technology not being visible and seen as deceptive will be thoroughly expanded on through Mark Weiser’s (1991) theory of the “ubiquitous computer” in the second chapter of this thesis. Perhaps the anxiety of machines becoming autonomous could be triggered by the clear distinction that human beings are “both material and opaque”, therefore, nowhere as “fluid” as modern technology. This is where Haraway notes that the “cyborg” – the human correlating with technology – is ultimately celestial or as she terms it: “ether.” Furthermore, this is where the anxiety lies, the “ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs” and that is “precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly” (13). In Haraway’s definition, one perspective of a cyborg world is one where people accept how they are interconnected with machines and animals and where “people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints” (15). Her opposing perspective is one where “a cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the planet.” The only issue human beings seem to have, however, is not

14

being able to understand and view both perspectives contiguously due to the fact “each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from the other vantage point” (16). Indeed, this is exactly how humanist theory defies the posthumanist way of being able to “see” and understand the interconnection between a living organism and machine, the non-physical and physical through the different standpoints. Given Haraway’s theory and claims regarding the ever-increasing invisible boundaries between the physical and non-physical is precisely what the human standpoint on post-humanism seems to be. Moreover, a post-humanist view is undoubtedly one where the human accepts and views the world in a utopian way and where any accord is viewed acceptable, as Haraway notes, a postmodernist view on the world is the “utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end” (6) likewise, a world where humanity’s relationship and unification with any other entities, organic or not is viewed orderly. However, as opposed to that notion of a utopian dream, the cyborg body or cyborg entity itself is seen as quite a dystopian one. Cyborg unities are seen as elicit and as Haraway stated even “monstrous” (16). And it is precisely this dystopian “kinship” of animal, human and machine, and the “monstrous” combination between the organic and non-organic that sets an end to the humanist view of the world in contemporary society. Fundamentally, it is being asserted that the noted technological advancement has led to the dissolution of the human being and the humanist view, that dissolution leads to N. Katherine Hayles’ argument that “the age of human has given way to the posthuman” (321). In her book How We Became Posthuman (1999), Hayles discussed her theory on “posthumanism” by examining both “human” and “posthuman” views on technology, information, the physical and non-physical by also noting the eradication of embodiment from the abstract in both “human” and “posthuman”. She began by noting that the way we view and understand the world is undoubtedly radically shifting: “humanism transforms itself into something that we must helplessly call post-humanism” (1). According to Hayles, it is the initiation of information becoming invisible, as Haraway previously termed it, along with its ability to move through feedback loops between human and machine as well as human, machine and environment in an independent way that marks the beginning of the posthuman. Hayles noted that, “the idea of the feedback loop implies that the boundaries of the autonomous subject are up for grabs [since] feedback loops can flow not only within the subject but also between the subject and the environment” (2). For Hayles, it is this autonomous flow of messages and information, which “has been associated with the deconstruction of the liberal humanist subject” (2). In her

15

view, information is viewed as a “disembodied entity” as a result of the apparent free movement that it possesses; therefore, when it is considered immaterialized “equating humans and computers [becomes] especially easy, for the materiality in which the thinking mind is instantiated appears incidental to its essential nature” (2). Similar to Haraway, Hayles acknowledged the “anxieties concerning boundaries” between human and nonhuman have become apparent and are continuing to become more intense. And it is the way technology has continued to evolve with the “changes in speed and communication … forcing technologies of control into a reorganization” (113) that essentially caused those anxieties to emerge. Moreover, as cybernetics theorizes human beings as being somewhat technological, as well as essentially being systems that exchange information, the “body boundaries [became] problematized” (113). Hayles further supported Haraway’s theory on the existence of cyborgs in contemporary culture. In her view there are two types of cyborgs, she acknowledges the existence of “cyborgs in the technical sense” (114), which would include people that have engaged in modifying their body with the help of technology by inserting “artificial joints, drug-implant systems… artificial skin” and so on. The other cyborg present, being the “metaphoric cyborg” the cyborg that a large part of the modern day population have become, one that as Hayles gave an example is connected to technology as simply operating a computer keyboard “joined in a cybernetic circuit with the screen” (115) i.e. exchanging information. This figure of the metaphoric cyborg, which Hayles envisioned in her work, has become increasingly re-established and conceptualized differently in recent times. The metaphoric aspect she talked about has beyond question changed and become more literal in contemporary society. Furthermore the entire meaning and understanding of the notion of the human is undoubtedly becoming reconstructed with the emergence of new technology thus the impact of a “posthuman” analogy, as believed by Hayles, has increasingly become more evident. As the aspect of the human begins to fluctuate, the human being then changes as a whole, inclined through not only engrained cybernetic /ubiquitous artifact, physical and non-physical, but throughout distortions of agency and the reconstructing of the entire meaning or motion of the human being. The ever-increasing growth and use of technology mentioned by Hayles, along with the human being staying connected to technological objects and technology in general is close to the idea of human beings being constantly connected to a boundless array of knowledge. As theorized by Hayles, the boundless bundle of knowledge human beings are linked to is “The Cognisphere” (2006). She described the term as simply assigning “a name and shape to the globally interconnected

16

cognitive systems in which humans are increasingly embedded” (161). Likewise, the way in which the concept of the human being changes and the way human beings are interconnected with technology and ubiquitous immateriality, “joined in a cybernetic circuit with [a] screen” (115), is what could be referred to as an “unmistakably doubled articulation” (Bukatman cited by Hayles)1 which signals the decay of the conventional concepts “of identity even as it points toward the cybernetic loop that generates a new kind of subjectivity” (115). In line with her previous work, Hayles extends her analysis of the exchange of information in terms of the internet and the way human beings are constantly connected to each other as well as this new domain of the cognisphere. In her essay, she additionally introduced the notion of cyborgs as human beings connected to technology, not only through their bodies but their minds as well. In her essay, Hayles acknowledged Haraway’s previous view of the cyborg2 and it being “deeply connected to the military” (159) and noted the emergence of new technologies that have been and continue to evolve. These new technologies “have sprung up from the same nexus of forces that gave birth to the cyborg” (159). They include “the Internet and the world-wide web, along with a host of networked information devices, including cell phones, sensor networks (including ‘smart dust’) yielding real-time data flows, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags, GPS networks and nanotechnology” (160). Indeed, any commencing technological devices deriving from the examples above and connected to the Internet are a way to connect to the cognisphere, and become a part of what was previously termed as the “feedback loop” (Wiener, 57) or what Hayles termed as the “cybernetic loop” (1999, 115). These new technologies, as a consequence, transform human agency and the principles and rhythms of everyday life. This notion of the cyborg concept now being altered by such new technologies will, therefore, be expanded on in the second chapter of this thesis through Bernard Stiegler’s theory as well as further examined through the use of the case study addressed- Google Glass. Returning to Haraway’s theory of the cyborg (1991), of the technics of domination, as well as the entire cyborgization of society, Hayles argued that such previously noted anxieties come “mostly from the implication that the human body would be modified with cyber-mechanical devices” (160). As more technological

1 Bukatman, S. cited in “How We Became Posthuman”, N. Katherine Hayles p. 115 - “A much higher percentage participates in occupations that make them into metaphoric cyborgs, including the computer keyboarder joined in a cybernetic circuit with the screen, the neurosurgeon guided by fiber-optic microscopy during an operation, and the adolescent game player in the local video-game arcade. "Terminal identity" Scott Bukatman has named this condition, calling it an "unmistakably doubled articulation" that Signals the end of traditional concepts of identity even as it points to- ward the cybernetic loop that generates a new kind of subjectivity.” 2 Donna Haraway in “A Cyborg Manifesto”: ”a cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction.” (1991:149)

17

devices have emerged, however, it has become apparent that the linkage between the physical and non-physical does not necessarily have to be a bodily one. Indeed, Hayles suggested that the human body does not have to be modified in order to become a cyborg. She has further noted, “although research on implants continues, contemporary formations are at once more subtle and more far-reaching than the figure of the cyborg allows” (160). In this respect, her claims that the notion of “reality [being] fundamentally computational” (161) are very much like the theory of “post-humanism”, viewing them as “as a formation to be interrogated rather than something simply to be believed or disbelieved, accepted or rejected” (161). Following that notion, one could affirm or not believe in the theory of the cyborg being connected through an “invisible” connection to technology. That approach / comprehension of the “cyborg” therefore comes closer to Hayles’ idea of the “metaphorical cyborg” (1999) which was mentioned previously in this chapter. It is apparent that in contemporary society human beings are in a position where an abundance of information and data is available for them to use and take advantage of. As Hayles advocated, “[in] highly developed and networked societies… human awareness comprises the tip of a huge pyramid of data flows” (161) Much of that data is available due to the fact there are technological advancements / “machines” in between which there is the data that travels and is exchanged (161). The exchange of information and data between machines, which has been made available for human beings to access and advance through, has been termed as “the cognisphere” by Thomas Whalen (2000). According to Whalen “the cognisphere”, also termed “the global knowledge sphere” (1) referring to “the Web”, is more than just a place where human beings could acquire “information”. And although believed to be the original purpose of the web,3 Whalen stated, “the primary purpose of the web is to navigate through the human knowledge sphere” (1). Therefore, by exchanging information between ourselves as well as sharing it with third parties, “we have created, for ourselves, a knowledge sphere” (1). Although talked about and coined in recent years, Whalen’s beliefs stated that the existence of the cognisphere goes way back to “millions of years ago when people first passed information from one person on to a third party; that is, it started with the invention of the spoken word. Since then, the cognisphere has grown with every innovation in communications” (1). In that line of thought, the internet becomes merely another one of those innovations that has helped accumulate human beings’ capability to access and navigate through the knowledge made available. Moreover, Hayles

3 “Most people think that the Web is primarily a way to get information. That is what it was used for when it was first developed; that is how it was described to them when they first heard about it; that is what most Web sites do.” (Thomas Whalen, 2000: 1)

18

supports Whalen’s theory noting that the cognisphere does not only accommodate the internet within its realms “but also [includes] networked and programmable systems that feed into it, including wired and wireless data flows across the electromagnetic spectrum” (161), therefore, envisioning the previously mentioned electronic devices and the information, data and knowledge that they exchange between them as well as between human beings. This again can be seen as a case of “feedback loop” (Wiener) between organic and the non-organic within a cybernetic system. Considerably, human beings are not the only prominent part within this system, technological devices seem to be playing as much as a crucial role in the cognisphere. The technological devices available in contemporary society have become significantly more advanced thus playing a more prominent part within the system and as Hayles further claimed, machines are “more intensely cognitive than ever before in human history” (161). Machines and technological systems become progressively more connected to the way human beings interact and use them. Furthermore, the more advanced machines become, the more human beings take advantage of their ability to assist them in ordinary everyday tasks, which has resulted in machines replacing as well as assisting human beings in basic mundane tasks. Hayles further noted, “[as] intelligent machines become more important in the cognosphere, the resulting re-evaluations of human agency, rationality, and affective capacities catalyze re-evaluations of human–animal relations as well” (162); this brings the discussion to a place where it is important to note that although the body of the human being is not affected or modified, that does not mean it crosses out the evident change in the human nexus. Indeed, it recalls Haraway’s account of human, animal and machine kinship and her work on “companion species”4 where she has acknowledged the “understanding that humans and animals have” (163) and the way they have “co-evolved together is entirely consistent with the contemporary but nevertheless potent phenomenon of humans and machines co-evolving together” (163) as stated by Hayles. Overall, this interrelationship between human beings and machines, particularly the understanding of technological devices, will be further addressed in the second chapter through examining the case study addressed, that is Google’s project – Google Glass.

4 "I have come to see cyborgs as junior siblings in the much bigger, queer family of companion species, in which reproductive biotechnopolitics are generally a surprise, sometimes even a nice surprise." (Donna Haraway, 2002: 12)

19

20

CHAPTER 2 GOOGLE GLASS, INDIVIDUATION AND THE BLACK BOX This chapter focuses primarily on the wearable ubiquitous computer that is Google Glass. I will emphasize Gregory Bateson’s theory of cybernetics and the exchange of information, paying attention in particular to his notion of the ‘self-correcting system.’ My aim is to introduce Google Glass and present how human beings interact with it as a self-correcting system, along with the way their memory and information about their lives goes through a process of deprival of receiving information. Google Glass in this case will be viewed as both a “system” and a “machine”, as well as “milieu” as termed by Stiegler, in correlation with the human being. Furthermore, I will be focusing on human beings engagement in storing moments or, as termed by Stiegler, memory and becoming a part of the feedback loop that is the trade of ‘industrialized memory.’ Moreover, the focus will fall on Ashby’s notion of the “black box” which has been touched upon in the previous chapter. His theory will be used to examine the way individuals interact with the technological device that is Google Glass, and how they view and understand it. Moreover, his theory will be used to show the way human beings become a part of the system that is Google Glass whilst engaging in a feedback loop that is ultimately leading to them converging with the machine due to the lack of knowledge they possess regarding the system as well as their own level of engagement. In that line of thought, an introduction to the product itself is mandatory; therefore, the beginning of the chapter will focus on the introduction and discourse on Google Glass. Google Glass is a ‘head-mounted display’ also referred to as HMD that allows the user to connect to the Internet through voice command operations. It can be viewed as a personal assistant of sorts, much like the iPhone application - Siri. Google Glass is a development by Google and is part of the Project Glass project. The device is not available for retail as yet, but a few thousands copies, named “Explorer Editions”, have been sold to developers and researchers in order for them to develop platforms and applications as well as to expand the possibilities available to the consumer. According to Google’s co-founder, the creation of new networking platforms and applications make this product an even more exciting development to contribute to the technological world (TED, 2013). Google Glass essentially is a “ubiquitous computer” which the consumer can wear as glasses. The design of the product is still under development, due to the fact that prescription glasses for Google Glass has not yet been announced. However, Google have confirmed that the

21

device will be made available to attach to any prescription eyewear. The headpiece itself has a piece of glass that allows the user to view what is seen as a display at any time. The display itself replicates the experience of one looking at a screen interface. Furthermore, it has been described by developers that the sensation of looking through the headpiece is as if looking through glass. This display is known as a ‘virtual retinal display,’ a technology where “the image is drawn directly onto [the user’s] retina;” (2013), furthermore, the device “paint[s] a raster image onto [the user’s] retina, in a way similar to how an old cathode ray display would work” (2013), thus it is that technological element that essentially allows the user to look at a page and view the screen as if they are looking at a big computer screen at all times. Moreover, the feature of a big display available at all times gives the idea of the user being part of “augmented reality”, which is essentially another one of the company’s purposes. Likewise, the aforementioned display view as well as the idea of an “augmented reality” further confirms Google’s idea to be able to have a computer with you at all times, thus staying constantly connected, as well as supporting Sergey Brin’s argument he makes about “information coming to you as you needed it” (TED, 2013). Other features that the Google Glass possesses are the ability to take highresolution pictures and record videos, as stated by Google the videos Google Glass will be able to record are in 720p (2013). But one of the most important features of Google Glass is the unlimited connectivity mentioned and marketed by the developer. This unlimited constant connectivity as Brin further states is the way “information would come to you as you needed it” (TED, 2013); furthermore the ways a user is constantly connected is the ability for a user to experience real-time video conversations and share pictures and videos through Google+ and Google Hangouts anywhere, anytime; as well as the ability to surf the web and look for any information on any subject at any available time. In order for the user to be able to connect, send information and interact with the device, they have to either use the touchpad located on the device or the built in microphone that responds to voice commands. The touchpad is situated on the right hand-side of the head mounted display; it allows the user to control Google Glass by scrolling and clicking through desktops and applications. The other way to control the device, as I mentioned previously, is the option of voice command, which can activate the search engine built in the device, browse the internet as well as capture video and pictures. However, the only way Google Glass can connect to the Internet and have those aforementioned features available for the user is if the device is connected to an Android smartphone. Essentially, the headpiece [“HMD”] serves as an extension not only to the human being, but also as an extension to a smart phone.

22

Likewise, it could be seen that the idea and purpose Google has of Google Glass serving as a personal computer diminishes with the fact that it has to be connected to another technological device in order to function. Furthermore, without the internet connectivity being available, the only perks Google Glass seems to be left with are the options to record a video or capture a photograph. The device has not been properly introduced to the public as of yet. A teaser website vaguely explaining the features of Google Glass has been launched, together with trailers and advertisements. However, the reason for that is due to the fact that Google Glass has not been launched and made available for retail. Many misconceptions have emerged due to the lack of information provided about the product. These misconceptions will be discussed further in this chapter. Consequently, the misconception of the device by the public and the press has led to a misinterpretation of its features and purpose. Such misconceptions including the way of connecting the technological device to the internet, as well as the legal contracts with phone companies that have to be paid for in order for Google Glass to function. As a result of these misconceptions and the confusion about Google Glass, Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, introduced the product and talked about it at a TED press conference in 2013. At TED, Brin talked about the features Google Glass has and the reasoning behind them. This presentation is one of the earliest ones, as the product has not yet hit the market, it is to say a virgin territory to most scholars and professionals due to the fact there is still only so much to be learned about the product. Sergey explained where the inspiration for Google Glass originally came from and what the original questions asked for the idea to come to the company. One of the main questions present was whether looking at a phone or a computer screen as well as “holding it in your hands”, or any sort of big computational device is how human beings would want to be connected in the future. Moreover, the question he asked is whether the future envisions a handheld device at all. Subsequently, Brin introduced the main purposes of Google Glass, some of them including the way a user would need to be connected and how that connection would not require the need of using hands or being fully bodily occupied; therefore, that would give human beings an opportunity for a new kind of digital perspective and a new way of connectivity. Sergey noted that it is also important for developers to create a product that would free the user in every way possible. For example, with the smartphone, while engaging with the device, all other sensors a human being would normally rely on end up getting blocked. So in a holistic view, the entire body of the human being is blocked and the only attention given in that contact is the attention that is given to the smart phone or any other technological device. Subsequently, Sergey’s claims as

23

well as Google’s claims as a company regarding their product go towards the idea of the human having the ability to be connected to the internet i.e. to the system without having to address his entire bodily attention to the product. Furthermore, that relationship, no matter exclusive or not, between human being and machine will be discussed in much more detail through Bateson’s theory of cybernetic systems in this chapter. Referring to Bateson’s theory of human beings interacting with machines and his concept of “self-correcting systems”, which was previously introduced in the first chapter of this thesis, we can examine the course of action Google Glass takes in terms of communication between human beings and the relationship human beings have with Google Glass as a technological device. Recall that Bateson believed that it is the information a human being acquired in the past that would consequently determine his present and future actions. Furthermore, it is the kinship with technology and the relationship human beings have and will have with Google Glass in particular that would affect the way the world is viewed, according to Bateson. Consequently, as it has been previously stated, the unlimited information human beings would be able to have access to would change their behavior towards themselves as well as the ‘outside world’. In accordance to that claim, it is both the man and the machine that would regenerate their behavior towards the ‘outside world’ due to that information acquired. In that line of thought, as Bateson’s idea is that both the man and the machine, in this case Google Glass, behave in accordance to their environment [“the outside world”]. Furthermore it is that environment mentioned that, as reviewed in the previous chapter, would have an impact on their actions [the man and the machine]. As Bateson further theorized a technological system, human or not, in this case envisioning the case study being examined – Google Glass, would “show mental characteristics” (229) and will undoubtedly “be responsive” thus would further get “affected… by physical causes” (229); these causes being no other than the interaction a human being / consumer would have with Google Glass. Correspondingly to that notion, as a “self-corrective” organism / system, as well as a system that possesses “mental characteristics”, Google Glass could react to commands given by the user [human being]; these commands being the request for the device to perform options it allows such as capturing moments through taking digital pictures and videos. The human being sending messages as commands to Google Glass would result in the headset to “process [the] information given” (229) and thus become “responsive” to the command by performing the tasks requested. Therefore, the “self-correctiveness” of Google Glass lies within the way the device would collect the information given / communicated to it from the user and

24

store it in its “consciousness” (Bateson, 229). Furthermore, we could view how that stored information would determine the device’s future actions in terms of history and search behavior of the user. In that line of thought, much like an internet browser would save and refer to previous search queries a user has performed, Google Glass would save a user’s search preferences and consequently accustom its responsiveness within the system. Thus then, Google Glass’ algorithm would personalize the future results to previous search queries therefore functioning as a “self-corrective”5 (Bateson) as well as a “communicative” (Wiener) organism / system. Subsequently, Google Glass could be compared to this theory of “self’corrective” that Bateson introduces of the computer. Google Glass as a device is a computer in itself due to the tasks it is able to perform. Bateson further supports that “[a] computer is self-corrective in regard to some of its internal variables. It may, for example, include thermometers or other sense organs, which are affected by differences in its working temperature, and the response of the sense organ to these differences may affect the action of a fan, which in turn corrects the temperature” (230) which goes on to supporting the previously noted claim about the way Google Glass would respond to commands and external information, he then further believed that it may be said that due to the noted differences, the computer reacts accordingly therefore showing “mental characteristics”. However, the fact that the “computer” [Google Glass] might show mental characteristics does not “say that the main business of the computer—the transformation of input differences into output differences—is “a mental process” (230). Thus that notion then further answers Bateson’s question whether “a computer [can] think”. Therefore the previously mentioned relationship that the man has with the entire information system i.e. the internet as well as the loop between the human being and the machine becomes very relevant in this theme. According to Bateson though, it is not only the human being that would reconfigure his course of actions and behavior in the whole; the machine, in this particular case – Google Glass, would function as the same “self-corrective” system Bateson has been referring to. Moreover, he talked about an adaptation process, one that human beings have to go through in order to adapt to the information received from technological objects /devices, he then further claims, as previously acknowledged, that a human being “must adapt his own past actions” (230) which then will be stored within his “consciousness”. Likewise, that storage place Bateson referred to as the “consciousness” (also referred to as the “memory” by Wiener) links us to the body of theory that examines the industrialization of memory, which Bernard Stiegler has analyzed.

25

According to Stiegler the same “memory” Wiener has examined in his theory of systems and communication between the man and the machine is one that could become more extended. According to Stiegler an imperial factor for technical devices / systems or as he terms them “technical memory aids” (3) is their intimate articulation with anamnesis” (3). He went onto explaining the bodily /physical memory as the previously mentioned “anamnesis” and the disembodied memory of the technical objectification as “hypomnesis”. His theory mainly focuses on the change of “ecology” of memory. Giving an example of what he has seen memory as, Stiegler went onto explaining how contemporary modernized technical devices, such as Google Glass, or as he termed them “technical memory aids” facilitate within them the “industrial hipotemata of technical recording” (3). He then further noted that technology and technological devices are not necessarily “external and contingent” (65) but they are “an essential - indeed, the essential - dimension of the human” (65). This theory is as if an extension to and a derivation from the study of communication and exchange information between human beings and machines; he believed that in order for memory to be preserved “the human evolves by exteriorizing itself in told, artifacts, language, and technical memory banks” (65). Google Glass in itself can be seen as a “technical memory bank” due to the information it stores both intentionally / knowingly or unknowingly. With that being said, although Stiegler claimed that “memory banks” are essential, they are external due to the fact the mechanical is not solely connected to the non-mechanical structure. Perhaps in this case, the real connection is the information flow that goes on between the human being and the machine, in this particular case the machine being – Google Glass. Furthermore an example of the memories termed by Stiegler could be the ability of Google Glass to contain personal contact information of the user / consumer as well as information such as memory of places and moments, which according to Stiegler are difficult to store for the human being; that is, subsequently, when the machine would come in use - serving as an external memory container. Consequently, Stiegler believed that human beings’ memory is “finite” and thus why they would “require artificial memory aids” (65) like Google Glass or any modern technological devices such as smart phones and computers; therefore in order to make that memory more permanent or to give it the chance to be infinite it would have to be stored / recorded onto the infrastructure of a “technical memory bank” (65). Moreover, it has been stated that human memory whilst being documented, whether it is on paper or technological device, has been “originally exteriorized” (67) again dating to a significantly long time before when human beings originally started to document memories, information and knowledge. Therefore, although not initially thought of

26

using it in means of communicating to technology and taking advantage of it, Hansen, quoted in Stiegler, claimed it has been “technical from the start” (67). Then deriving from that notion, Stiegler believed was that due to the fact memory has been “originally objectified and exteriorized”(67), it is in the constant process of expanding in the technical sense thus “[extending] the knowledge of mankind” (67); Similarly to that claim, we can observe the way modern technological devices have vastly expanded and developed in the recent years, to a point where the size of the computer or the device and its memory storing and sorting capabilities have gone beyond the human grasp and understanding. Furthermore as I mentioned previously, the machine and the process of communicating complex information have become virtually non-existent or even “invisible”, which would then lead us to the notion of the “invisible computer” or “disappearing computer” on which I will expand further in this chapter. Additionally the power memory possesses “simultaneously escapes our grasp and supposes us, calling into question our psychical as well as our social organization” (67), this process of losing our way of understanding, as Stiegler points out “is particularly apparent in the transition from mnemotechniques to mnemotechnologies - from individual exteriorizations of memory functions to largescale technological systems or networks that organize memories” (67). Likewise Google Glass is a device that connects the human being to the giant infrastructure of the system that is the World Wide Web or the internet and stores human beings’ memory and information and organizes them in a way that would be useful in the future. Therefore the theory of “recursiveness” could be viewed as relevant here due to the fact that it is that process in the “feedback loop” where the technological device would access the stored information in this case the “external memory” Stiegler talks about and rely on it upon further requests as well as in terms of further actions it will perform. Furthermore, according to Stiegler memory in contemporary society “has become the major element in industrial development; everyday objects increasingly serve as supports of objective memory and, consequently, as forms of knowledge” (67), similarly to that claim it is seen that a smartphone or an iPod, which have now become ordinary “everyday objects“ are a means of recording valuable information, pieces of memory that would seem, as Stiegler put it, “finite” in other circumstances. In that line of thought, Google Glass due to the reason of encompassing many if not all the qualities of the above mentioned “everyday objects”, can be seen as a “form of knowledge” and a means to acquire more “knowledge”. In addition to that claim the “new technological forms of knowledge” that have emerged which are stored and “objectified in equipment and apparatus” (67) have come to a point of a “loss of knowledge” therefore there comes a moment when human beings begin to question

27

that form of technological knowledge in general and thus start “speaking of “knowledge societies,” “knowledge industries”, and that has come to be known as “cognitive” or “cultural” capitalism” (67). Moreover, in order to be a part of the aforementioned “knowledge societies” one has to engage in the ownership and usage of technological devices. In a way, this process becomes a sort of a capitalist fad where the more advanced a machine is – the more knowledge and possibilities it would allow for the user to take advantage of and explore; therefore, users would want to own the machine in order to acquire that information and the knowledge talked about / addressed thus in order to be a part of that so-called “knowledge society”, the user needs to own the technological device. Stiegler further supported that notion by claiming that the current situation we live in has gone “to the extent that participation in these new societies, in this new form of capitalism, takes place through mechanic interfaces beyond the comprehension of participants, the gain in knowledge is exclusively on the side of producers” (67). Human beings would engage in communication and exchange of memory, information and knowledge with the machine, in this case Google Glass, without knowing where that information goes and what it is used for; therefore it is the producer – Google that is essentially the participant with more power. It is the process during this concept that Stiegler terms as “the industrial exteriorization of memory” (66). It is that lack of knowledge that could essentially lead us to thinking that Google Glass could be viewed as a “black box”.6 Moreover, it is precisely here, where it would be appropriate to contest the idea that Google Glass can be explained through the theory of systems and cybernetics. Although seeming to understand how the technological device is made and what beliefs lay behind the process of its making, one cannot foresee the aims and goals of the corporation, which lies behind the device. Consequently, one cannot fully understand the infrastructure of the corporation that runs the technological device or decipher the way the algorithms present in the device store and accumulate information and knowledge. Human beings engage in activities in the online virtual space. They register on many different platforms as well as give permission to technological and internet services very often without being able to understand the nature of the device itself as

6 W Ross Ashby believes that the theory of the black box is not necessarily about systems, he goes onto claiming more about the “experimenter and his environment”, in this case the environment being the computational world and technologies within it. He claims: “The theory of the Black Box is merely the theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to the question, relating object and observer, about what information comes from the object, and how it is obtained. Thus the theory of the Black Box is simply the study of the relations between the experimenter and his environment” (1996:110)

28

well as the nature of the reasoning behind the demand of information. Subsequently, human beings communicate information to technological devices without truly knowing the process of storing that information in as well as where that information ends up and what it is used for. Essentially by looking at that invisible model of communication we come to realize the computer or any machine, or in this particular case addressed Google Glass, can be seen as a “black box” as originally coined by Ashby (1996). As I have talked about in the previous chapter Ashby’s beliefs were that human beings interact and “work” with “black boxes” in their “daily lives” without even realizing or being able to set them apart. Furthermore human beings assume to be able to comprehend how everyday tools / machinery works just as they “apt to think, for instance, that a bicycle is not a Black Box, for we can see every connecting link. We delude ourselves, however. The ultimate links between pedal and wheel are those interatomic forces that hold the particles of metal together”(110) and those forces mentioned, much like in other machines are exactly the particles that we cannot see; yet we seem to think to understand them as well as their process. Going back on Ashby’s bicycle example, the “interatomic forces” are forces of which human beings “see nothing, and the child who learns to ride can become competent merely with the knowledge that pressure on the pedals makes the wheels go round” (110). Therefore, Ashby commended that it is the memory and knowledge that we have of the process of interaction with the “black box” or the machine that we understand, without further being able to comprehend how the machine operates behind curtains. Similarly, looking at the way Google Glass operates as well as looking at the simple instructions provided of how to command the device such as the options to swipe, watch videos and view pictures as well as the ability to send voice commands; those commands give information about the way human beings are meant to operate the device, although not explaining what the process is and how these commands are stored and what they are used for. However it seems that it is sufficient enough information to let the human being engage in a feedback loop with Google Glass. Furthermore, it is that blindness and lack of knowledge that ultimately, according to Ashby, can determine Google Glass as a “black box”. And it is the way we interact with technology daily and while doing everyday tasks that ultimately makes this theory of the “black box” so applicable to Google Glass, Ashby further noted:

To emphasize that the theory of Black Boxes is practically coextensive with that of everyday life, let us notice that if a set of Black Boxes has been studied by an observer, he is in a position to couple them together to form designed machinery. The method is straightforward: as the examination of each Box has given its canonical representation.

29

(Ashby, 1996: 110) What Ashby further went on commending was the fact that black boxes have changed their behavior over time and the way which they behave now is similar to the way “real objects behave”, further supporting: “Black Boxes behave somewhat like real objects but that the real objects are in fact all Black Boxes, and that we have in fact been operating with Black Boxes all our lives” (110). With that being said, because of that misconception and the notion of “invisibility”, human beings will continuously engage in relationships with technological devices whilst being in the dark about their policies, terms and consequences over the user’s lives and their behavior. Whilst envisioning Google Glass, this claim of human beings’ continuous blind interaction with technology will be further expanded in the second chapter of the thesis where the user’s privacy, rights and anxieties will be addressed through McLuhan’s theory of media ecology. We can further note that the aforementioned “invisibility” goes hand in hand with the process of misunderstanding technology in contemporary society. As I mentioned previously, technological devices and the entire connected system have become virtually non-existent. Human beings engage in daily activities with things they cannot see or understand. Consequently, it wasn’t only the computer that had become invisible, nor was the understanding human beings had of modern technological devices. In Olia Lialina’s essay “Turing Complete User”, she addressed the subject of designing interfaces, experience design and how the role of pleasing the user has shifted therefore becoming invisible. Lialina also noted that with “the disappearance of the computer, something else is silently becoming invisible as well the user”, which perhaps would hint us to the idea of the way users are continuously ignored when technological devices are being introduced and talked about. It has become more prominent that the experience, which that device would bring to the user, is the most valuable part of the device itself. Developers focus on designing new and exciting experiences for the user to not only reel them in, but also compete with other devices simultaneously. Lialina pointed out the past and the future of computer in her essay, she made the point that the invisibility of the computer does not necessarily mean that it cannot be seen, but that the method of engagement has vastly evolved and significantly changed from the past, she further noted that “buttons ceased to be our main input method and touch and multi-touch technologies hinted at our new emancipation from hardware” (1). With that being said, there is an evident pattern of less physical interactivity with technological devices, which can undoubtedly be viewed in the usage of Google Glass. As Lialina stated, what was once being operated by buttons is now operated by touch, similarly

30

envisioning Google Glass - what was once a device, which needed to be held in order to be operated with, had now become wearable. Furthermore, due to the large percentage of controllability being through voice control, not only the minimization of technology was evident, but the minimization of physical interaction. As Lialina commended, those mentioned actions human beings engage with and the evolvement technological products have gone through “began to turn [human beings’] interactions with computers into pre-computer actions or, as interfaces designers prefer to say, “natural” gestures and movements” (1); moreover, these so-called “natural” movements links us to the idea of technological devices being black boxes and human being’s becoming accustomed with interactions without knowing the descent of the background or the interface of the technological device (in this case Google Glass). Moving from the notion of the black box and onto the idea of the “invisible” computer, as previously noted Lialina stated that it is apparent that “computers are still distinguishable and locatable, but they are no longer something you sit in front of” (1), consequently it is not the look or the feel of a technological device that is of utter importance, but the way it operates. Further considering that idea, as I previously mentioned Sergey Brin’s points were not revolving around the way Google Glass looks, in his introduction of the product, he was focusing on the functions of the device and the experience it would bring to the human being using it and operating with it. In light of that thought, Lialina has quoted Apple Inc., their claim about the technological device that is the iPad comes close to the overall idea of technological devices’ purposes: We believe that technology is at its very best when it is invisible, when you are conscious only of what you are doing, not the device you are doing it with […] iPad is the perfect expression of that idea, it’s just this magical pane of glass that can become anything you want it to be. It’s a more personal experience with technology than people have ever had. (Apple Inc, 2012) Furthermore, similarly to that claim, Google Glass although having the appeal and appearance of just a pair of glasses could virtually become anything mobile the human being desired it to be; from a screen through which you can view images, videos and essentially anything available on the world wide web to a camera, phone or a navigating system. Thus it is due to these so many actions that Google Glass can provide for the human being that makes it more than just glasses, it makes it a device that creates experiences. Following the notion of experience, Lialina has paid close attention to the word, with her belief that the more computers and “interfaces” are talked about, the more prominent they become. Mentioning the experience and forgetting to talk about the device itself is ultimately one of the reasons of it becoming

31

invisible, thus “this is why Interface Design has started to rename itself to Experience Design - whose primary goal is to make users forget that computers and interfaces exist.” (2) Consequently to Lialina’s claims and the idea of “invisibility”, I am bound to continue this by discussing Mark Weiser’s theory of “ubiquitous computing”. In his theory of “ubiquitous computing”, Mark Weiser (1991) emphasized and expanded those thoughts by talking about his theory of the “invisible” and “disappearing computer” as well as the entire notion of the “miniaturization” phenomenon. In his essay, Weiser has made the point that “specialized elements of hardware and software, connected by wires, radio waves and infrared, will be so ubiquitous that no one will notice their presence” (94), which embodies the process that modern technology has gone through. Technological devices have consistently become more advanced and considerably smaller. From looking at mobile phone devices and the computer, to cameras and the entire wireless world we live in today. Human beings no longer need cables, not only do they not understand where the information they have communicated goes to, but with this loss of “presence”, the trail of where the information travels through has become “invisible” as well. It is that idea of “disappearance”, that Weiser describes as well that “the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (94). He described that way of technology becoming “indistinguishable” by giving an example of the information that human beings encounter and are exposed to in their everyday lives without even acknowledging it. In the 1990’s, the time when Weiser developed his theory, he gave an example of all the information available in / on objects that the human being encounters in his daily life such as “books, magazines and newspapers… street signs, billboards, shop signs and even graffiti” and subsequently all of those objects “convey written information” (94). Similar to his theory, in contemporary society, human beings are constantly part of this information clutter that is impossible to escape from, even more so now that the Internet is such a huge part of life itself. Human beings are exposed to an unlimited array of information and knowledge, which could be acquired with just a click of a mouse. Furthermore with the notion of “disappearance” and “invisibility” of technology, we can view how the ways, which looking for information have improved and similarly become more acquirable. It started from only being able to find information on certain devices and the only way a user could connect to the Internet was in certain places and with certain technologies. With technology evolving, the ways of communication have evolved with it thus the ways of finding out information and acquiring knowledge have become faster and easier. By saying that, we could envision Google Glass and

32

compare it to a smart phone or any other handheld device. What Google Glass has done is present to the consumer an incredibly fast way to be able to connect and collect information without having to use both his hands and without having to focus his entire body into the one device he needs to use in order to get information; as Weiser further notes: “the constant background presence of these products of “literacy technology” does not require active attention, but the information to be transmitted is ready for use at a glance” (94) or as Brin commended in his talk about Google Glass “information comes as you need it” (TED, 2013). Furthermore, this embedded information and knowledge mentioned by Weiser continues to remind us of Stiegler’s idea of exteriorization of memory, or as he termed it the “exterior milieu” as well as the idea that although exterior, this information has been made available to the human being through the emergence of advanced technological devices such as Google Glass.

33

CHAPTER 3 - Google Glass as an Extension of the Human Being: Medium-Specificity and Becoming Posthuman The primary focus of this chapter will fall on the way human beings access, understand and interpret information and knowledge. The discussion about Google Glass will continue in this chapter, envisioning Google Glass as an “extension” to the human body and mind, and of the human being in general. I will focus on the influence that knowledge acquired through technological products has on human beings in terms of perception and overall mind and body behavior. This chapter will aim to explain and present two ways of looking at human beings and the way they interconnect and interact with information, messages and knowledge through technological devices / machines. Contesting the previous machinic view of the technological relationship between human beings and machines examined through cybernetics, this chapter will solely focus on viewing Google Glass and its relationship to individuals through media theory, particularly, McLuhan’s theory of media ecology. Moreover, one view will accommodate Marshall McLuhan’s view of the kinship between the organic (human beings) and the non-organic (technological device) or as termed by McLuhan the “extensions of man”. Furthermore, the way those “extensions” work and affect the human being’s behavior and perception will be addressed. McLuhan focused on the way human beings evolve and grow, both psychologically and physically, through their involvement with “mechanical technologies” (3). Thanks to technological devices and the fast growth and evolution of their kind, the way human beings think and operate has vastly changed and adapted to the technologies / technological devices they have come in contact with. McLuhan supported that by envisioning the fast growth of “electric technology” and the way that human beings have death with the issue of space, distance and time due to the evolution of technology, as McLuhan further describes, “[t]oday, after more than a century of electric technology, we have extended our nervous system itself in a global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far as our planet is concerned” (3). With the vast growth of technology and the emergence of highly intelligent technological devices, such as the envisioned Google Glass, as McLuhan has predicted, human being is in the “final phase of the extensions of man” (3) where machines would function as human beings, as McLuhan believed this phase is the time when “the technological simulation of consciousness” (3) will become apparent. Moreover, every sense of the human being’s nervous system would be altered due to the excessive amount of knowledge that has been made available by technological devices as well as the influence the interaction with them has on human beings, or as

34

termed by McLuhan, when “the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society, much as we have already extended our sense and our nerves by the various media” (4). In his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964), McLuhan contemplated whether the “extension of consciousness” is a positive outcome to the relationship between human beings and technological devices. He went on by analyzing these so-termed “extensions” extensively, as he believed that the question of the appendage of consciousness would require the consideration of the extensions altogether; He further believed that “any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex” (4). Therefore, envisioning his theory, Google Glass as an extension holds the ability and the power to affect the entire nervous system thus affecting the behavior as well as the perception of the human being using it. This point, however, will be further expanded on later in this chapter. The aforementioned views McLuhan has had of technology and media, or as he termed it as “the medium”, give a notion of how ahead of his time he has been. And the way his theory could apply to the relation between human being and machine in the contemporary technological age we live in today even more so now than it has in the past. Especially in the way human beings would interact with the technological device studied in this thesis - Google Glass. For instance, McLuhan’s idea of time has considerably changed with the evolution of technology and the emergence of communication technology such as the internet and devices, which function solely through the internet, such as the envisioned Google Glass. Human beings have been given the ability to access any information or knowledge at any given time, even more so through interacting with Google Glass, due to the idea of “search without searching” (exercising voice command). Furthermore, with the characteristics and abilities internet possesses, there is an expectance of information being received as soon as it is requested, which shows the way the perception of time (in this sense distance as well) has been re-envisioned throughout the years. As McLuhan commended: In the mechanical age now receding, many actions could be taken without too much concern. Slow movement insured that the reactions were delayed for considerable periods of time. Today the action and the reaction occur almost at the same time. We actually live mythically and integrally, as it were, but we continue to think in the old, fragmented space and time patterns of the preelectric age. (McLuhan, 2001: 4) With the perception of time changing, and the almost limitless access to information and knowledge human beings possess, the notion of the world and the environment

35

is bound to change with it. McLuhan called the contemporary now we live in the “Age of Anxiety” (5), the reason for that abbreviation has come, without a doubt, due to the reason of the recently acquired “awareness” human beings have been exposed to through the access of information from technological devices. The distortion of time perception is undoubtedly apparent within the usage of Google Glass due to the speed in which information is handed to the user / human being. As well as the minimum effort required for that information to reach the user. And it is that lack of effort that can ultimately change human beings’ behavior towards technology and shift their perception of time, distance and the environment in whole. Consequently, the idea of time perception changing brings us to the view McLuhan had of the space / distance diminishing can be seen in his theory of the “global village” where he talked about the way technology has allowed human beings to communicate between each other as well as the way they access information anytime and from any part of the globe. He then further acknowledged the way the globe has become virtually smaller due to that idea of distance and time diminishing, further assessing that “the globe is no more than a village” (5). Moreover, McLuhan believed that it is due to the access human beings have to technological devices and fast / instant body of knowledge, such as the aforementioned qualities Google Glass possesses as well as the ability of instant way of connecting and searching through information and knowledge that have made human beings have more ‘responsibility’ and higher sensitivity of issues occurring around the globe, as stated is “electric speed [that brings] all social and political functions together in a sudden implosion that has heightened human awareness of responsibility to an intense degree.” (5) Moving away from the idea of the change in time and space perception, I would like to further expand on the notion of anxiety, which undoubtedly derives from the ingrained adornment technology possess of the drive and “aspiration” the human being has for acquiring more knowledge and having more “depth of awareness” (8) of / about technological devices themselves as well as their descent. Perceptions human beings have of the surrounding environment as well as the perception they have of themselves has been changing overtime, according to the relationships and the knowledge they attain through technology. For McLuhan, what marks the perception / view human beings have of the technological world today is the “revulsion against imposed patterns” (8). This so-called revulsion seems to also be derived from the need human beings have of being able to control the way technological devices work together with them. Furthermore, human beings are anxious of not possessing enough knowledge about the technological devices they are surrounded by and are in relation with; which therefore leads us to McLuhan’s belief

36

that there is a possibility to “win an understanding of these forms [of technology / media] that will bring them into orderly service” (8). It is seen as mandatory to be able to understand the past of technological devices and technology in whole in order to understand the now and have an idea of what the future would hold. As McLuhan additionally proposes that understanding would derive from us looking at the past by examining “the origin and development of the individual extensions of man” (8). Consequently, in order to fully grasp the idea of new and emerging technological “extensions” such as Google Glass, one must be familiar with the background of the device thus being familiar with the inspiration behind the design of the interface and the overall experience. The drive human beings possess of having to understand technology and having knowledge of technological devices’ origins lays in the need human beings have of having control over their lives and their relationship with the environment as well as their relationship with technology. And it is through that want of control and the anxieties of not bearing it / maintaining it that human beings get reminded, as McLuhan’s axiom states, that “the medium is the message” (9). He believed that the change of behavior and perception were the “consequences of … any extension of ourselves” (9), in this case the “extension” being Google Glass, and the quality and information which that extension carries. He further gives an example of automation and the way “the new patterns of human association tend to eliminate jobs [with automation]… automation creates roles for people, which is to say depth of involvement in their work and human association that our preceding mechanical technology had destroyed” (9). The described change of “human association” and change of human being’s behavior is, as believed by McLuhan, due to the way the machine is designed to operate and not what “one did with the machine” (9). Therefore, by looking at the technological devices we engage with, and as stated previously examining the way their interface works and the intentions behind it, human beings will be able to comprehend the message technological devices are conveying, thus bringing us back to McLuhan’s axiom that it is the “medium [that] is the message”. Contrary to human beings’ needs of control over technology and understanding of they way it works; one thing seems to be forgotten, which is the fact that technological devices are “extensions” of human beings, which have been designed and created by and for human beings. And with the obsession of having to understand and own technological devices, human beings seem to forget that a technological device is merely a reflection “or repetition” of themselves (52). According to McLuhan, the process of forgetting whilst engaging with any technological device is the process of human beings becoming “numb” therefore

37

“numbing” their own cognizance and failing to understand not only the descent of technological devices but what consequences they have over human beings’ lives, behavior and perception. This process was termed by McLuhan as the “Narcissus as [n]arcosis” (52). McLuhan compares the process human beings / the man goes through to the Greek myth of Narcissus where he “mistook his own reflection in the water for another person” (51); much like the way human beings mistakenly view technological devices as separate and / or alienated parts of themselves, rather than as “extensions”. Accordingly, in the Greek myth, Nacissus’s “extension of himself by mirror numbed his perceptions until he became the servomechanism of his own extended or repeated image” (51). Moreover, that envisioned process of numbing, has made human beings blind / non-assertive not only to technological devices themselves, but to what consequences come from the engagement with them. McLuhan goes onto claiming that technological products / devices are more than just “extensions to man”, they are also forms of “amputation” thus asserting that technologies serve the purpose of a prosthesis. This notion brings us to the idea of human beings attempting to become one with technology by understanding the way it works as well as its descent as a way of creating a balance of sorts, or as McLuhan suggests, these attempts of gaining knowledge about technology are attempts to maintain a state of equilibrium. Furthermore, the process of “auto-amputation” of human beings “is resorted to by the body when the perceptual power cannot locate or avoid the cause of irritation” (53), in this case using Google Glass can be seen as an amputation to the human being, but the process of “auto-amputation” would begin once the user starts to get used to the unfamiliar and new ways the device functions through. Therefore, by becoming used to the functionality of Google Glass and the correct way that human beings should operate it would turn the device into the sotermed “extension of man”. Continuing to address Google Glass and my attempt to examine the way Google Glass operates as an extension of the human being as well as an advanced technology. It must be noted that the device, as previously touched upon, works towards the change of human beings consciousness and aids in the process of distance and time perception changing, also known as the idea of “the global village”, as previously stated. I must repeat myself and note that it is a fact that advanced technological devices all have an immense impact on human beings lives and it is in fact mandatory that in order for us to be able to understand the way Google Glass works, we must understand the way it works as an “environment”. As McLuhan further states: All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal,

38

political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the message. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without knowledge of the way media work as environments. All media are extensions of some human faculty, psychic or physical. (McLuhan, 2001) It has become apparent that with the designed advances of Google Glass, the user is exposed to a number of cutting-edge new modern actions that could be viewed as means of making communication with other users easier as well as the overall demand and receiving of information and knowledge faster. Human beings relationship / kinship with machines has been evolving just as the digitalization process has become more advanced and evolved therefore users have accustomed themselves accordingly to the evolution of digitalization itself. The opportunity Google Glass gives the user to be able to acquire information at any given time and contact or communicate information to any other user anywhere else in the world / on the globe inevitably brings us back to McLuhan’s concept of “the global village”. Furthermore, he states that “electric circuitry has overthrown the regime of “time” and “space” and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns of all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale”. Similarly, the emergence of Google Glass has raised concerns throughout society addressing the privacy issues of the device as well as the way it would ultimately change the internet experience in contemporary society. And the mentioned concerns, due to the existence of the internet have become concerns of global proportions. As I have previously noted, Google Glass and such advanced technological devices shift the way human beings perceive themselves, others and the environment they are situated within. Another prominent change that human beings go through whilst interacting with technology is the questioning of their own identity and the concerns they have of privacy. With the existence of a number of social networking platforms that enable the user to transform the way others could see them and the ability for the user to solely shape their own identity, as seen by the outside world. One must feel safe in the outside world where the profiles they have created for themselves are not visible. With the usage of Google Glass, however, that safety is compromised due to the fact the user can capture or record anything or anyone without the use of any indication. This is an issue that seems to not be concerned with the user’s environment, but it seems, as the main concern of Google Glass is the user himself. This issue, however, does not concern the human being that is interacting with the technological device due to the reason that his privacy has not been compromised therefore he is still part of the experience. Whilst designing the

39

interface that is Google Glass, Sergey Brin’s previously mentioned thoughts on the focus of the user experience come to mind. This idea brings us to one of McLuhan’s claims that it is in fact “the user [that] is the content” (27), this can be further seen on other platforms as well as through looking at almost every aspect of the internet and every other advanced technological device. The functionality and purpose of technology revolves solely around the user, his satisfaction and his experience. An advanced technology such as Google Glass gives the user the opportunity to further exemplify his representation of himself in society. McLuhan further supports that claim with his belief that the medium, in this case Google Glass / Google as a corporation, is being intrusive towards the user of sorts, and it is when the medium is demanding an abundant amount of information from the user by asking questions in order to please him where the feel of privacy becoming compromised becomes apparent. Endless research and questioning goes into the process of a corporation, such as Google, attempting / aiming to understand the human being better in order to design the ultimate, private experience for him. Moreover, by being constantly connected to a technological device such as Google Glass, more of the previously mentioned anxieties are bound to emerge, such as the anxiety of possessing control over surveillance. McLuhan further commends: Electrical information devices for universal, tyrannical womb-to- tomb surveillance are causing a very serious dilemma between our claim to privacy and the community’s need to know. (McLuhan, Fiore, 2005: 14) Following that claim, in their interaction with advanced information devices, human beings become lost in what privacy has been promised to them by corporations. Although the users have been given the required information in order for them to become familiar with the boundaries of their privacy, the research corporations go through in order to please the user seem to be crossing a set of thought out boundaries whilst demanding personal information such as location, contacts and access to a large amount of accounts information. Moreover, the once existing idea of human beings being able to have private thoughts and the freedom to go to places privately and communicate with the environment without being an object of surveillance or without being in contact with any sort of technological device has recently become impossible. With the vast evolution of personal assisting technology which carries a number of information retrieval devices built in, it has become harder for human beings to obtain real privacy. As McLuhan believed, it is more so apparent in contemporary society that “the older, traditional ideas of private, isolate thought

40

and actions - the patterns of mechanistic technologies - are very seriously threatened by new methods of instantaneous electron information retrieval” (12) such information retrieval can be recognized in the gathering of location data at all times from users. It is apparent that, once connected to the internet through a technological device, such as Google Glass in this case being, an immediate information retrieval comes in action. And it is that constant exchange of information that continues endlessly just after a user agrees to the terms of service and privacy policy of a corporation / company, which is what ends up shadowing the feeling of safety and privacy a human being should be able to have. Once the user has agreed to the terms the technological device requires, whatever choice he makes whether it is wrong or right ends up being / getting recorded, thus resulting in the human being always possessing an anxious feeling in the back of their minds. McLuhan compares those privacy concerns and the collection of unwanted information to a “big gossip column that is unforgiving, unforgetful and from which there is no redemption” (12), thus the user is left with no control over his past actions and with anxieties about their future actions. And it is this compromise of privacy that is ultimately one of the reasons human beings are bound to change their behavior towards the outside world, towards technology and their change of perception of what behavior is seen acceptable. The course of human beings interacting with technological devices that McLuhan has described in his theory, although being ahead of its time surely points toward the direction of cyborg theory. Although never using the term cyborg in what he describes as the human being interacting with technological devices, which could serve as his extensions, McLuhan certainly seems to be one of the roots of Donna Haraway’s theory and her idea of the cyborg. Through his views on the way human beings extend their bodies through engaging in technological relationships to the behavioral and perceptional change that human beings go through during their process of acquiring information from technology; The entire described process hints of the way Haraway theorizes the cyborg of contemporary society through human beings kinship with animal and machine. Therefore, shifting away from the notion of Google Glass aiding to the idea of the “global village”, I would further like to examine the way the device is classed as an extension of the human beings’ body viewed through Haraway’s theory as well as touch upon the way Google Glass has become a prominent example of a posthumanist way of thinking about kinship between the man and the machine. In this view of the cyborg, I would like to step away from the very banal way of thinking of this term through man literally becoming one with technology. As it has been prominently seen throughout McLuhan’s theory of media ecology, Haraway’s views of the cyborg and the mental and posthuman behavioral

41

change that has been cardinal throughout Hayles’ theory, the human being’s relationship with technology, and the described process of the merging between the human being and the machine is a metaphorical one. Moreover, this idea of the cyborg being a literal merge between the human being and the machine is quite a utopian view, and an ideal vision of the exceptional, more advanced human body, which could be achieved through a relationship with technological devices. Looking at Haraway’s views of the cyborg, her belief is seen to be that the cyborg is more than human in his way of mental behavior, she views the cyborg as being above gender and race as well as having the power to diminish social boundaries in the sphere of the digital, therefore suggesting that her argument is “an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction. It is also an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, nonnaturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender” (150). Furthermore, her beliefs link to the possibility that the interaction with technological devices give human beings the possibility of being able to form their own identity in the virtual world. Comparing this theory to the number of possibilities of such descent given to the user by social networking platforms, envisioning Google Glass in this sense makes us realize that through engaging with Google Glass, due to the fact the human being is constantly being connected with the digital, he is essentially becoming part of it. By being a constant part of the digital, the user has the freedom to form their identity and, as mentioned previously, their entire behavior towards the environment. She further tries emphasize on that claim of identity freedom by trying to show the cyborg in a different light other than the usual categorization of the way cyborgs are constructed, not per say by claiming that a new affinity has been proclaimed, but by showing how merging of identities through technology leads the human being in a state where he has the freedom to be more than a construction within the polarity of the “private and public”. Going onto saying that “The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence. No longer structured by the polarity of public and private, the cyborg defines a technological polls based partly on a revolution of social relations in the oikos [ i.e. the entire ecology], the household.” (151). By mentioning this, Haraway as if stated that due to human being’s relationship with technological devices and the freedom the web gives to the human being, a freedom of sorts is felt. Consequential to that, human beings begin and continue to have that idea that technology is giving them an opportunity to become a better version of themselves. Therefore, Haraway’s idea of the cyborg is one where the human being, thanks to technological devices is a better human being.

42

Moreover, as stated previously, human beings become as subject of ontological change due to their relationship with technology, and again, according to Haraway this ontological change is for the better; or that is the way that it seems to be understood as by the human beings themselves. Sequential to that claim, it must be noted that Haraway views the entire relationship between human being and machine through both the systematic view of cybernetics theory and the McLuhan-esque media approach. In a way, the approach that Haraway accepts is quite a utopian one. She views the human being’s relationship with technology as an advanced kinship, where the human being is seen to benefit from technology. Haraway as if claimed that during the process human beings go through within their interconnection with technological devices they could essentially become a better version of themselves. In a way, it could be seen that with the abundance of information and knowledge human beings acquire through their kinship with machines is the reason why the world we live in today is so advanced and thus viewed as a better one. Furthermore, due to the previously unimaginable opportunities technology has given human beings in contemporary culture, especially personal assistant devices such as Google Glass, the human being ends up being trapped / put in this position of imagining life in the future to become better with the fast pace in which technology is advancing. Therefore, with technology becoming more advanced – life itself could become more advanced and essentially better. By claiming that, we must not step away from the idea that technological devices like Google Glass are pitched to us. These devices are designed in a McLuhan-esque way thus in a sense, it is individualized as a technology. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that we need to think more environmentally about technologies like Google Glass. As McLuhan has suggested, human beings are led to believe that these technologies are extensions of ourselves, but when you analyze them in terms of how they operate, store information and collect the user’s memory and personal data, it becomes more of a broader ecology of commercial values and a commercial way of exchanging those values, information and knowledge.

43

CONCLUSION Human beings acquire information in many different forms, one example could be in the form of memory / memories from technological devices not necessarily always our own. Our entire behavior towards the environment, technology and other human beings gets modified with the development of technology. Throughout this thesis I have attempted to make the point that in order for us to be able to understand how technology functions as well as how our relationship with it functions it is mandatory to be able to look at it through different perspectives. Furthermore, in order to understand the way any advanced technological device operates, we must be able to see through its background. The background and the coding of advanced technological devices, Google Glass in particular have all been black boxed. Human beings do not understand what goes on in the background of those technologies they are so invested in. They sign up and exteriorize their memory, all information and knowledge in order to be a part of this environmentally all connected system. Moreover, with that development of technology, it has become evident that not only the world would develop and therefore change, but also the values human beings posses and their behavior towards the environment and other human beings have radically shifted. And, as I have pointed out throughout this thesis, it is this change of behavior and the fast paced changeover of technologies, which is the reason why anxieties arise in the human's mind. Due to the reason those anxieties date back from the beginning theories of systems and cybernetics, they continue to exist today. And it has become even more evident that the black boxing of technological devices has come to increase the anxieties human beings have of technology taking over. Although, having this utopian idea of being smarter and better because technology exists, this overall idea becomes quite a dystopian one due to the aforementioned anxieties. As it has become apparent throughout this thesis, the moments of collecting information and knowledge and the entire moments of coding within technological devices have been black boxed, which has made it difficult, or even impossible for human beings to understand there is real potential within advanced technologies. One of the real potentials modern technological devices posses is the fact that it allows human beings to be all interconnected, therefore giving human beings the opportunity to think of the world in terms of solidarity. And it is only through the theory of cybernetics that human beings are able to do that. Moreover, it is evident that Google Glass as a technology its capable of doing all of these things, which are useful and interesting, such as being constantly connected to an abundant amount of

44

data and knowledge, but the way Google Glass has been advertised today it comes with many problems private accumulation of data, which is difficult for the user to spot or comprehend. The intention of this body of work has been to look at Google Glass and examine it both as a system and as an advanced medium. In order to understand how any device is accepted, used and integrated within a human beings’ lifestyle, it is important to look at the background as well as what history surrounds that device. It is also important to look at the background and history of the way human beings have reacted to similar things / technology in the past. The theory of systems and the exchange of information and knowledge between human beings and technology have showed how deeply connected human beings have been to technology since it has become such a prominent part of society. Furthermore, it has also become apparent how much repetition of similar scenarios of relationships between the organic and non-organic there has been. Perhaps, this repetition shows that no matter what technological devices emerge and how different they seem, the reactions human beings have will remain the same. New technologies will always emerge, and there will always be misinterpretations, anxieties and overall miscomprehension. But although new, any new technology or change in the system will cause an effect on the entire system; Human beings have experienced change in perception and behavior due to technology developing since the very beginning of technology becoming a part of their lives. And as stated, the repetition in reactions is bound to continue, as human beings’ ontology and agency will continue as long as technology continues to exist and develop.

45

Bibliography
Bateson, Gregory. “Steps To an Ecology of Mind” Collected Essays In Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, And Epistemology. London: Jason Aronson Inc. 1972 Google Glass. What It Does. Google. 8 May, 2013. Google Glass. Wikipedia. 8 May, 2013. Google. “How It Feels [through Glass]”. February 20, 2013. May 21, 2103. GoogleDevelopers. “Project Glass: Live Demo At Google I/O”. YouTube. June 27, 2012. May 20, 2013. Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and SocialistFeminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991. Haraway, Donna. “The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness” Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. 2003 Hayles, N. Katherine. “How We Became Posthuman” Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1999 Hayles, N. Katherine. “Unfinished Work: From Cyborg to Cognispehere” Theory, Culture & Society 2006 23: 159. SAGE Publications. 2006 Healey, Nic. “How Google Glass works: now and tomorrow”. CNET. May 1, 2013 Lialina, Olia. “Turing Complete User.” Invisible and Very Busy. Contemporary Home Computing. 2012. May 20, 2013. MadAssGamers. ""The New iPad" (iPad3) Official Introduction Video. March 7, 2012. May 20, 2013. McLuhan, Marshall & Fiore, Quentin. “The Medium is The Message. An inventory of Effects”. California: Gingko Press Inc. 2001 McLuhan, Marshall. "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man". London: The MIT Press. 1964

46

Newton, Casey. “Seattle dive bar becomes first to ban Google Glass”. CNET. 2013. June 7, 2013. Perlow, Jason. “Beyond Google Glass: The cybernetic headband” ZDNet. May 7, 2013. Ross, W. Ashby. “An Introduction to Cybernetics” London: Chapman & Hall LTD. 1957 Scolari, A. Carlos, Almeida, de Cristina Miranda, Ciastellardi, Matteo. “McLuhan Galaxy Conference. Understanding Media, Today” Barcelona: Book-Print S.L. 2011 Stiegler, Bernard. “Critical Terms For Media Studies”. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2010 Tedleaks. “Sergey Brin talks about Google Glass at TED 2013.” YouTube. March 20, 2013. May 20, 2013. TEDTalksDirector. “Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?” YouTube. May 17, 2013. May 20, 2013. Verge Staff, “Google Glass: science fiction you can wear”. The Verge. April 4, 2012. Weiser, Mark. "The Computer for the 21st Centrury" Scientific American. Septermber, 1991. 94-104 Whalen, Thomas. "Navigation through Knowledge Spaces" Ottawa: Communications Research Centre. 2000. May 16 2013. Wiener, Norbert. “The Human Use of Human Beings” Cybernetics and Society. London: Free Association Books. 1964 Wolfe, Cary. “Critical Environments. Postmodern Theory and Pragmatics of the “Outside”” Mennesota: University Of Minnesota Press. 1998

47