1-Donna Haraway tells us that her essay on the Cyborg expresses two crucial arguments (hint: look at the end of her essay). In your own words – simpler language! — what are the two arguments?
At the end of the article, which published in the year 1991, Donna Haraway presents two crucial points. The first point is regarding the attempt, by traditional feminists and progressive (Marxist/socialist) political parties/institutions to produce a universal and totalizing theory about gender, social evolution and role of technology in redefining perceptions regarding genders, relations between humans and animals and role of technology. She further asserts that such theory was never comprehensive/conclusive/relevant and it was never contemporary, as it was based on dualism and only aims to reshape the perceptions regarding humans, genders, and society. She suggests that it would be more appropriate to eliminate gender (entirely) and to explain the systematic elimination with the aid of technology (social aspect of it), she used the metaphor of Cyborg. The other point is regarding the social aspect of technology (taking responsibility for the social-relation of science). Donna Haraway encourages the use of technology for the reconstruction of the boundaries.
2-Explicate (explain) this quote by Donna Haraway: “Cyborg imagery can suggest a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves…” Given what you know about binary oppositions or dualisms what does Haraway mean?
Donna Haraway asserts, in her article, that the justification, of Western traditions, such as colonialism, essentialism, patriarchy, and naturalism, is not just problematic, but also directly associated with antagonistic dualism. All sorts of dualisms, which she has also discussed in her article, “have all been systematically to the logic and practices of domination of women, people of color, nature, workers, animals… all [those] constituted as others”. She insists that dualisms, such as self/others, give birth to inward-looking attitude and pitches one against another, causing individuals to adopt aggressive domination behavior and strategy.
3-How does Nietzsche’s claim that “humans are a skin disease” inform ec-consciousness?
Nietzsche understands the life and social values very differently. He believes that humans are a consequence of the Great Event (one of many) and they have the potential to be quasi-god. The earth is the prime emphasis of Nietzsche, and he asserts that the earth has sickness, which is “Mankind.” It suggests that human self-restrict themselves, by self-imposing values and traditions upon them. The sin against the earth and the earthly life, he suggests, is the greatest of all the sins, which contemporary humans must acknowledge or recognize. However, in his work, he also admits that self-restricting oneself, from exploiting the pleasures and delights that earthly life has to offer, is not a blasphemy, as humans are not committing this sin knowingly, but rather unknowingly.
4-What does Nietzsche mean by “active” and “reactive” forces?
The concept, of active and reactive forces, is related to thought, feeling and practice. For instance, when a person is sad or happy, but he/she does not know why he/she is sad or happy, at that time that individual is a reactive force. When an individual knows why he/she is sad/happy or why he/she is at work, at that point/time that individual is an active force. It must be understood that Nietzsche does not consider the reactive state as a negative state. It is a different and passive state, which we must not understand as an intrinsically bad state. These states exist simultaneously in space and time, which bring harmony and discord to the world. Nietzsche emphasizes on active force, as it looks for a cause to understand or address the state (which is state of resentment).
5-In “Dogfighting: Symbolic Expression and Validation of Masculinity,” the author argues that the dog is a reflection of the man. How?
In the article, Rhonda Evans (and others) asserts that there are apparent similarities between a dog and man. During the argument, she and others (Dean Kalich and Craig Forsyth) do not imply that men are like animals and therefore, inferior to their opposing genders, but rather, it is asserted that men try to impose their values and views in a manner, which is quite primitive. Also, man establishes his position very much in a manner that is very common in various variants in dogs. However, the prime subject, of the study is the influence of masculinity in dogfighting. In fact, Rhonda Evan also asserts that many masculine sports have great commonalities with dogfighting.
+447462439809