Cyborgs and Present of Anthropology

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge] On: 18 March 2014, At: 05:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reviews in Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/grva20
Keep Calm and Remain Human: How We Have Always Been Cyborgs and Theories on the Technological Present of Anthropology
JOSHUA J. WELLS Published online: 11 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: JOSHUA J. WELLS (2014) Keep Calm and Remain Human: How We Have Always Been Cyborgs and Theories on the Technological Present of Anthropology, Reviews in Anthropology, 43:1, 5-34, DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.872460 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2014.872460
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Reviews in Anthropology, 43:534, 2014 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group,LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print/1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.872460
Keep Calm and Remain Human: How We Have Always Been Cyborgs and Theories on the Technological Present of Anthropology
JOSHUA J. WELLS
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014
Fischer, Michael M. J. 2009. Anthropological Futures. Durham: Duke University Press. Kansa, Eric C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. 2011. Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Stringer, Chris 2012. Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. New York: Times Books. Whitehead, Neil, and Michael Wesch 2012. Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
The cybernetic organism, or cyborg, is a recognized but often misunderstood concept in anthropology. However, the cyborg concept has the capacity to holistically cross-cut a wide swath of anthropological investigations and effectively problematize many anthropologically interesting characteristics of human subjects who, in all times and places, are dependent upon technology. The complex relationships between human beings and their technologies can be obscured with incompletely understood evolutionary forces, biased histories, mythologies, and ambiguous tensions (biological, cultural, economic, sexual, social, etc.). These can be illuminated by understanding the systems of tool use and feedback that cybernetically inform people and help guide their existence. KEYWORDS cyborg, holism, post-human, science, technology
Address correspondence to Joshua J. Wells, Department of Sociology and Anthropology& Department of Informatics, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634, USA. Email: jowells@iusb.edu 5
J.J. Wells
INTRODUCTION
Among social scientists and critical theorists engaged with issues of science, technology, and society, there is considerable discussion and semantic wrangling about what it means to be human, both in the current technological zeitgeist, and in the near future that is plausibly foreseeable. Varied concepts of computer revolutions, post-humanities, and alternative modernities flow freely through anthropological discourses on the ways in which information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed socio-cultural behavior, as we along with our subjects continually discover the next iteration of technological behavior. This creates an epistemological succession of high-tech trees that is frequently missed as a cohesive forest because of the bright lights and rapid speeds of the ICTs in question, a problem exacerbated by technological fetishism at all levels of consumer society in any number of alternatively modern contexts. Each text reviewed here, in its own way, succeeds at illuminating an aspect of technological praxis that helps us understand the longitudinal continuity of Homo sapiens as a technological animal. Each describes important aspects of humans using extrasomatic means to survive in natural, built, and socio-cultural environments, without lapsing into a flawed Heideggerian (1977) refusal to consider the social construction of technology in pursuit of a pristine essence of techne (cf. Shore 1996:143144). Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth (Stringer 2012a) provides a thorough overview of an updated recent African origins hypothesis, and demonstrates how genetics, anatomy, and behavior must be holistically considered in defining the origins of modern Homo sapiens, and the growing role of ICTs in managing paleoanthropological data to yield new analytical results and interpretations. Stepping into the present, Anthropological Futures (Fisher 2009) describes a broad anthropological synthesis of science, technologies, and society, at levels from the global to the local to the personal, ending with a powerfully multiscalar perspective on how alternative modernities are constructed. Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology (Whitehead and Wesch 2012) serves up a compilation of technologically themed essays that are wide-ranging, yet the book is delightfully internally organized and referential, exploring numerous facets of worlds and communities constructed through ICTs, and boldly testing the boundaries of how anthropos and non-human entities may form a cohesive subject for socio-cultural anthropology. Finally, Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration (Kansa et al. 2011) provides a series of essays that demonstrate in detail and richly reflect on the power of networked ICTs to reinvent subjects and investigators, aims and methodologies, and professional practice across an entire subfield of anthropologywith an ethically laudable emphasis on digital openness as the prescribed order for the coming decades.
Keep Calm and Remain Human
HISTORY AND THEORY OF THE CYBERNETIC ORGANISM CONCEPT

One concept that has the potential to overlay some order on all of this activity is that of the cybernetic organism. The cyborg is a hybrid of organism and technology that augments the organism with capabilities (extended or new), which provide the cyborg with otherwise unattainable affordances. A cyborgs control of its augmentations is conceived as cybernetic, conducted through information flows in a feedback loop that ultimately serve to regulate the organic-technology system. The word cybernetic, like cyberspace and a host of other cybers, derives its meaning from the ancient Greek term for a steersman. As a basic example we could consider the cybernetic qualities of a hammerstone and an iPhone: both fit well in your hand, and are about the same size; a skilled knapper (with knowledge of siliceous raw materials) receives direct physical feedback about her manufacturing process through the hammerstone, while a technology worker (with knowledge of communicative contexts) interprets a text message received through her iPhone screen; we could plausibly (but briefly) swap the two items between their users and quickly recognize the limitations of both augmentations for their new tasks, as the hammerstone becomes covered with writing and the iPhone shatters after a short bout of direct percussion. In this article we can consider the place of chosen augmentations, limited affordances, and informative feedback loops within both the origins of Homo sapiens and the search for it (Stringer 2012a), in the bricolage of ways in which technologies are variously peopled through iterative communications about culturally constructed needs and choices (Fischer 2009), in the multitude of social worlds built and accessed through ICT media wherein the community itself takes the form of an augmentation (Whitehead and Wesch 2012), and in the interpretive information flows generated by archaeologists choices of standards, software, and practical networks as they augment their discipline substantially through ICTs (Kansa etal. 2011). The cyborg has a respectable place in anthropological theory, notably through the enlightened efforts of Donna Haraway (1991, 1997), most especially her Cyborg Manifesto that described a creature of social reality as well as a creature of science fiction and a monster that defines the limits of community (1991:149). Haraways themes were expanded in the biomedical and biosciences arenas by Robbie Davis-Floyd, Gary Lee Downey, and Joseph Dumit (Davis-Floyd and Dumit 1998; Downey and Dumit 1998) wherein the overarching themes were of socio-political expedience and hegemony in the way personhood could be redefined through cultural lenses enforced by bio-technological processes. These were followed in fairly rapid succession by theorists interested in computing, especially ubiquitous computing (a pervasive trend where computing power may exist in many elements of the build environment)
J.J. Wells
and otherwise networked computing environs and their relationships with humanity. Early on, Shore (1996:136) described the neuromantic frame of mind wherein word processing, coding, and digital environments replace organic contexts for the socio-cultural integration of meaning. Forays into political bodies of and by cyborgs (e.g., Gray 2002) presaged some of the socially mediated and technologically augmented mobocratic possibilities advocated by current proponents of wiki-governance (Noveck 2008, 2010). Others like Hayles (1999) advocated introspection about whether all this digital technology constituted a post-human moment in consideration of the species, and even if it does not, whether the strength of cyborg ideology itself demanded new dehumanization of others; Hayles (1999) has been especially important to Whitehead (2009) and for the contributors to Human No More (Whitehead and Wesch 2012), which will be discussed more fully below. Finally, there were the determined ethnographers of cyberspace: at their most fruitful, they were often in pursuit of a RANT (realist actor network theory as advocated by Hakken [1999]). A RANT considers the agency of ICT artifacts and processes built and left to autonomously run by humans who subsequently navigate environments populated with non-human activity. Earlier Escobar and colleagues (1994) had articulated the need for determined ethnographic research to overcome technophilic or technophobic imaginings. Later, Hanson (2009) articulated a model of possible changes in Western concepts of ethics to one of joint responsibility that understands responsibility as shared processes between augmented, networked humans and their affordances. Cyborg anthropology is even bleeding into the mainstream, as Amber Case (2011) deftly rebuilds it for the masses in terms and examples that relate to their own user experiences. However, in order to consider the full utility of the cyborg-as-human argument, we must also examine the rarely considered, deeper origins of the concept in the 20th-century space race before its filtration into anthropological discourse. The cybernetic organism was coined by aerospace inventor Manfred Clynes and medical doctor Nathan Kline (1960) in order to define what they believed would be necessary technological and pharmaceutical augmentations, and associated information-based behaviors, that would be required of a human organism for space flight (Madrigal 2010; Schneider 2005). At the time, the first space chimpanzees (and humans) were still a year away, and the first monkeys to survive space flight had only been flown into orbit the year before. The authors were perhaps naively straightforward in their unreflective consideration of how a very real human could be augmented for space travel, and why this was both proper and necessary:
If a fish wished to live on land, it could not readily do so. If, however, a particularly intelligent and resourceful fish could be found, who had studied a good deal of biochemistry and physiology, was a master engineer and cyberneticist, and had excellent lab facilities available to him, this fish could conceivably have the ability to design
an instrument which would allow him to live on land and breathe air quite readily. What are some of the devices necessary for creating self-regulating man-machine systems? This self-regulation must function without the benefit of consciousness in order to cooperate with the bodys own autonomous homeostatic controls. For the exogenously extended organizational complex functioning as an integrated homeostatic system unconsciously, we propose the term Cyborg. The Cyborg deliberately incorporates exogenous components extending the self-regulatory control function of the organism in order to adapt it to new environments. If man in space, in addition to flying his vehicle, must continually be checking on things and making adjustments merely in order to keep himself alive, he becomes a slave to the machine. The purpose of the Cyborg, as well as his own homeostatic systems, is to provide an organizational system in which such robot-like problems are taken care of automatically and unconsciously, leaving man free to explore, to create, to think, and to feel. (Clynes and Kline 1960:2627)
The authors listed several pages of mechanical and pharmaceutical augmentations to a human organism and its immediate encapsulated environment that were plausible with early space-age technology. Setting aside the obvious cosmetic differences of degrees of invasiveness (for some) and industrial production (for all) in their cultural augmentations, it is striking as to how similar are the degrees of reliance on technology in inhospitable environments between a cyborg-astronaut and a traditional Netsilik catalog (Balikci 1970) of life-sustaining implements for the arctic. Furthermore, the unaugmented human organism requires tool use for survival in all terrestrial environments, not just arctic extremes, and the extension of such augmentations and dependent behaviors into extraterrestrial environments is largely a difference of degrees, not of kinds. This begs the question, recognizable to any student of evolutionary science: at what point should a conceptual cut be made in clinal changes to define a new form, a new species, a post-human? Clynes and Kline (1960) were unabashedly post-humanist in the speciation sense regarding their expectations for the long-term evolutionary implications of their proposals:
[Introduction] Space travel challenges mankind not only technologically but also spiritually, in that it invites man to take an active part in his own biological evolution. Scientific advances of the future may thus be utilized to permit mans existence in environments which differ radically from those provided by nature as we know it (Clynes and Kline 1960:26). [Conclusion] Solving the many technological problems involved in manned space flight by adapting man to his environment, rather than vice versa, will not only mark a significant step forward in mans scientific progress, but may well provide a new and larger dimension for mans spirit as well. (Clynes and Kline 1960:76)
10
J.J. Wells
This example of technological fetishism from the early 1960s makes a great deal of sense in cultural context. The modernist, capitalist, and Americanized Western expectations about a technological tomorrow and a space-faring future for the human species were certainly pervasive, if not throughout America in general, then definitely in the privileged strata for whom Clynes and Kline were working. Nevertheless, science fictions of ICTs and their presumed species-altering trajectories are well entrenched today, especially regarding consumer ICTs and through the realization of a global, wired-and-wireless, ubiquitous computing environment. Whether the fetishized cyborg is considered sexually empowering through reified science fiction (Fernbach 2000), or socio-culturally and species transformative like the supposed biologically transcendent singularity of Kurzweil (2006), or driven by dreams of omniscient political power such as the Pentagons Total Information Awareness program (ACLU 2003, 2006), it is important to note that the supposed omniscience and omnipresence of technological powers is, to date, more mythical than real (although the potential to target individuals and groups for abuse is real). Meanwhile, the more mundane civic hackers of everyday computing life help provide free and open-source contexts for many participatory and more egalitarian alternative futures (Coleman 2012; Noveck 2010; Open Source Initiative 2013; Pirate Party 2012; Raymond 2000). Nevertheless, the power of mythic structures will not be denied here. As was written recently about the mythic emergent financial power of Courseras failed commercialization of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in academia, Nobody ever got rich telling people that the revolution wasnt coming (Usher 2013). However, even though Kurzweils futurist graphic of exponential computational expansion that results in a human-machine singularity is used to explain the growing threat of computer power within annual reports by the United States Joint Force Command (2010:35), it bears mentioning that 53 years onward the model of a post-human astronautcyborg as predicted by Clynes and Kline (1960) has not become reality. Perhaps we should consider ever more strongly that the cyborg concept simply (perhaps ironically) describes us as we already are, as we have been for some time, and as we are likely to continue. Let us reconsider the astronaut. For instance, the first American to orbit the Earth, John Glenn, was seen as human enough to include in the very human United States Senate. There is a very human-and-actor-network tragedy in the terrible end of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov, who in 1967 died in a reentry crash because of probably known construction flaws in his space capsule. The political obfuscations, historical questions, interpersonal relationships, and present-day media wrangling around Komarovs mission demonstrate the essential humanity of both the cosmonaut and his environment (Doran and Bizony 2011; Krulwich 2012). Many Americans of my generation vividly recall the shared human experience of watching the live
11
explosion of the space shuttle Challenger on television as part of an ill-fated school assembly. More recently, Chris Hadfield, the Canadian commander of the International Space Station, became a YouTube sensation not as a post-human oddity but as a human primate floating in a tin can, singing a David Bowie tune with an acoustic guitar that itself has anthropomorphically found its home on the space station for a decade (Hadfield 2013; Soderman 2013). What these astronauts do exemplify, as do their spaceborne life-support apparatuses, and all of their human and technical terrestrial support systems, is a deeply networked amalgamation of humans and ICTs. These amalgamations can still be considered cyborgic, but not because they result in a post-human redefinition of the species. They are cyborgic because they fulfill Clynes and Klines (1960) vision of augmentation in ways that are transformative of socio-cultural processes through changing roles and tools by which humans enact interdependent relationships, and because the cybernetic organism is itself a powerful theoretical tool for considering not just the affordances of ICTs but of material culture in general.
CYBORGS FROM THE GROUND UP

In Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer (2012a) has written a superb summary of the socio-cultural and technological transformations that have enabled scientists to build stronger theoretical models about our speciation. He makes well-supported and compelling arguments about evolutionary processes of socio-cultural and technological change that were instrumental in that speciation as a fact. This book will be a useful addition to any student or faculty collection as a broad overview of the current state Although the word cyborg does not appear anywhere in the text, this is a book about the emergence of cyborg augmentations and affordances from the ground up, for investigators and subjects alike. Since the late seventies, Stringer has been a key force in the development of the recent African origin hypothesis (RAO, now with limited hybridization) about the speciation of modern Homo sapiens that is the most widely accepted model, and supported through independent streams of fossil, archaeological, and genetic evidence. Known colloquially as the out of Africa hypothesis, this model supposes that our species developed into our genetically, anatomically, and behaviorally recognizable form within the space of the African continent in the last 200,000 years. It was only very recently (perhaps 60,000 years ago) that we began to leave Africa and, fairly rapidly on an evolutionary scale, replaced other, older populations of humans throughout Eurasia (genetic discoveries indicating low levels of hybridization through limited reproductive contact with Neandertals, Denisovans, and
12
J.J. Wells
remnant archaic humans in Africa will be discussed below). African modern Homo sapiens, with fully developed symbolically artistic and mundane technological dependencies, and with cognitive structures and social behaviors that facilitated the development of new symbol sets and technological experimentation, were already cyborgs in my estimation. Stringers conclusions, that there were many possible alternatives to our species modernity, many technology-dependent evolutionary relatives whose descendants do not populate the earth today, is humbling, an important point of departure for much research, and a rich statement that indicates the cyborgic capacity of alternative modernities and our hominin ancestry:
[The phrase know thyself] harks back to ancient Greece but was also Linnaeuss directive in describing the species he named Homo sapiens. Knowing thyself, for me, has meant a journey from measuring fossil skulls in European museums forty years ago to looking at almost every aspect of our origins. Knowing ourselves has meant recognition that becoming modern is the path we perceive when looking back on our own evolutionary history. That history seems special to us, of course, because we owe our very existence to it. Those figures of human species (usually males) marching boldly across the page have illustrated our evolution in many popular articles, but that have wrongly enshrined the view that evolution was simply a progression leading to us, its pinnacle and final achievement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were plenty of other paths that could have been taken; many would have led to no humans at all, others to extinction, and yet other to a different version of modernity. We can only inhabit one version of being humanthe only version that survives todaybut what is fascinating is that paleoanthropology shows us those other paths to becoming human. (Stringer 2012a:277278)
The discovery of those pathways is a cyborgic story itself. Throughout the text Stringer makes plain how instrumental developments in the physical sciences (physics, geology, genetics, computation, etc.) have ushered in much of the evidence that supports the RAO+hybridization theory. Taking a multitude of published advances since 2010 in anthropological genetics as one example, Stringer illuminates the ways that combined examinations of genetic and archaeological data have helped to outline what was emergently human at the origin of our species in Africa and during its global dispersal, and also asks us to consider what speciation means in an era where we recognize the possibilities for genetic exchanges between populations of organisms that we have previously categorized as isolated species. Whether or not one agrees with researchers like those summarized by Appenzeller (2013), who provides a current summary of evidence for Neandertal symbolic creativity, the cyborgic implications are clear. H. sapiens and Neanderthals were quite obviously not reproductively isolated species given the pervasively
13
small amount (2.5 percent) of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans outside Africa, compounded with remnant DNA from other archaic African populations (2%), among present-day people in sub-Saharan Africa, and Denisovans (5%) in present-day Australasians. Given the affordances this new information offers for racist misuse and abuse, Stringer takes great pains to defend the rights and capacities of all humans today, explained by him in a recent Nature article that echoed the book: All living humans are members of the extant species H. sapiens and, by definition, all must equally be modern humans. The majority of our genes (>90%) derives from our common African heritage, and this should take precedence over the minor amount of DNA that is different (Stringer 2012b:35). Stringers (2012a) argument is that the behavioral demands for information communication that had differentially evolved between H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and other archaic populations to support technological behaviors and culture created a barrier that was not impermeable, but less likely to be traversed. The shared genetic heritage that has caused many species of cyborgs within genus Homo may have become, by the time our species emerged, more like a flexible container than a mold in the way it determines and sets limits on how we behave (Stringer 2012a:118). Among Homo sapiens we have pushed the container in a direction that demands the cybernetic persistence of information flows through social learning and communication to the exclusion of almost any other adaptive traits. Stringer explains this through the invocation of the social brain hypothesis (SBH), which models our uses of information as social, while environmental hypotheses tend to assume that animals solve problems individually by trial-and-error SBH proposes that such problems are solved socially in the case of humans it is very difficult to argue that general environmental demands have been anywhere near as important as social ones (Stringer 2012a:114). Evidence of cyborgic SBH differences between Homo sapiens and archaic populations is demonstrated by Stringer through demographic patterns of African Homo sapiens populations before the diaspora that included lesser rates of infant and elder mortality. In an SBH scenario it could be advantageous to have a more dense population of Homo sapiens, with more children to learn and store group knowledge; and also more grandparents, aunts and uncles, and extended kin to serve as alloparents who teach, share, and grow the capacity for intra- and transgenerational knowledge exchange about tool use and behaviors in changing physical and social environments. Such evolutionary issues may still appear in our lives through concepts such as Dunbars Number, a hypothesized effective limit of information-rich relationships a person can manage at any one time, between about 100 and 220 (average 148) (Stringer 2012a:117), which raises important questions about the emergent industrial-scale roles of social networking utilities as socio-cultural augmentations of the human cyborg (cf. Gowlett etal. 2012; de Ruiter etal. 2011).
14
J.J. Wells
Throughout this text, a theme of cyborgic change within the discipline of paleoanthropology itself unfolds alongside the broader story of Homo sapiens and our evolutionary relations. Important developments in analytical data management were under way in the early 1970s, when, as research computing power and availability began to influence the biological sciences, multivariate programs were becoming available that could look at large numbers of [fossil] measurements and specimens simultaneously, allowing more sophisticated studies of differences in size and shape (Stringer 2012a:61). Similar trends are the subjects of portions of two other items reviewed here (Fischer 2009; Kansa et al 2011). The intimate integration of computing with the organic messiness of human life, of scientific methods and daily praxis, are displayed early in the book through a wonderful photograph of the shirtless author, drying laundry on the exterior of his car at a campsite in Yugoslavia as he traversed Europe to gather computational data from archived fossils. Stringer provides readers with numerous reminders about the humanity of cyborgs, himself, other paleoanthropologists dependent on radiometric dating and particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider, and the various species of Pleistocene humans who are the focal point of the book. All were (are!) part of information webs that are simultaneously small and vast, thoroughly modern and extending into deep time.
ALTERNATIVE MODERNITIES AND CYBERNETIC ORGANISMS

Anthropological Futures (Fischer 2009) is a text as exciting, prescient, and expansive as could be expected from a successful attempt to coordinate the past, present, and future of socio-cultural anthropological inquiry with the field of science, technology, and society (STS) studies. Fischer takes the reader through an explanation of what he calls the trials of anthropology to come, if anthropology is to remain pertinent in an era of continually developing technoscientific phenomena, while making a variety of theoretically sound, multiscalar examples of emergent cultural systems that deal with information from the hard sciences and the very cultural ways those information are embodied by human cyborgs. The trials of anthropology to come as explained in this text will be environmental in that they will test the anthropological imagination to cope with nature and natural systems in a world defined by humans. Whether or not one subscribes to the concept of the Anthropocene (literally, it is also the title of a new journal from Elsevier in 2013) as the inadvertently humanmanipulated end to the Holocene (Steffen et al. 2011; Stromberg 2013), Fischer informs us that it is only good practice in anthropology to attempt to comprehend the ways in which globally connected cultures alternatively define nature and alterity as they attempt to struggle with existential issues
15
of phylogenetic embodiment, information and communication networks, and the ability to model our very planet itself. As these issues dominate the interactions between people, so too will civic epistemological differences become increasingly important as efforts proceed at harmonization of standards in quality control, safety, health, environmental protection, and trade. These are only in part technical issues in which scientists and engineers are involved; equally they are social organizational, cultural, and historical issues for which a social anthropological sensibility is required (Fischer 2009:270). An elegant feature of this book is the way in which Fischer attempts to demonstrate the multiscalar and longitudinal processes involved in developing a social science of cultures of science in a way that is reminiscent of Franklins (1995) synthesis more than a decade earlier. The text contains illustrative examples of humans acting at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of analysis that build refreshingly on a pervasive theme of alternative modernities in order to consider the intra- and inter-cultural contests between modes of being human in a world dominated by the technosciences. The most intriguing microcosmic example is also the most personal; Fischer guides the reader through an intimately detailed professional life history of his mother, Dr. Irene K. Fischer, a mathematician and geodesist whose mathematical models of the planet were fundamentally important during the early days of unmanned and manned human space exploration. The recitation of the sexist slights (personal, structural, and cultural) against the elder Dr. Fischer are unfortunately no surprise to anyone, yet they provide an important window into the hegemonic creation and protection of an elite scientific community in the middle of the last century when many modernist expectations for technoscience began to take global root (coinciding of course with the coinage of the cyborg concept). The numerous official and unofficial celebrations of her work recounted by her son are thus all the more satisfying. It is intriguing and inspiring to learn the ways in which Dr. Fischer participated in a global network of mathematical scientists who struggled to model the earth with an aspiration for the human utility of accurate geodetic models, navigating courses between cultural, nationalist, and cold war ideologies in order to slake their cybernetic thirst for information with one another. As her son describes it, The geoid for me., is a material-semiotic object and also a transitional object that draws me into mathematics, history, far-away places, and a community of people from Eratosthenes to OKeefe, mathematicians to astronauts The geoid islike my mothers career, my ethnicity, and other aspects of my identitysomething that most people know little about, something obscure and marginal to most people but preciously constructed over many generations, and in its own minor key is quite central to the harmonics of the worlds we inhabit (Fischer 2009:212). In order to explicate the meso- and macro-level phenomena of technoscientific adoptions, Fischer considers the historical trajectories of both the sciences and the social studies of science in a detail of emergent qualities that
16
J.J. Wells
is reminiscent of the scope achieved by Wolf (1982). Whereas Wolf sought to disassemble the myths of European expansion, so Fischer dismantles the Eurocentric parochialisms of the precursors of globally conscious STS and the pernicious legacy of exceptionalism in the 20th centurys core economies. Fischer suggests that in order to comprehend the cultural shape of technology as nature (an odd job word) the anthropology to come will need to be collaborative and inter-cultural, not only across traditional cultures, but across cultures of specialization, and it will need not only to incorporate the lively languages of the new technosciences, but also reread, redecipher, and redeploy the palimpsests of traditional knowledges (Fischer 2009:158). As meso-level examples Fischer fruitfully compares the disastrous environmental examples of Bhopal, Chernobyl, and Love Canal, debates over genetically modified organisms that repeatedly invoke Haraways work, and numerous dangerous moments of local knowledge development about technoscience in laboratories and mundane domestic settings. All of these are illustrative instances of repeated processes of social regulatory failure and the necessity of both citizen organizations and corporate defenses to engage scientists and wield data as weaponry in ethical, politico-religious, and litigious arenas. On the present-day technoscientific globe, according to Fischer, there is now coevolutionary presence of dilemmas and decision making that can only be understood through their production in inter-cultural negotiations. Ultimately Fischer brings us around to his appeal that we must try to apprehend the global movements in cosmopolitics that are the largest waves in his multiscalar approach, the dialectic between cosmos and polis that create new possibilities and alterities in social structures that experiment with legitimacy (Fischer 2009:236238). As with the book as a whole, Fischer brings a voluminous, longitudinal sensibility, hearkening back to Kant (2006[1798]) to elaborate his definitions of cosmopolitanism that simultaneously involve reflexive nostalgia for idealized pasts of industrial life, novel experiments with new ways of individual and institutional beings that emerge from awareness of inescapable developments in the technoscientific ecosystem, and globally distributed republics of science and technology (Fischer 2009:239) that support the movement and enculturation of technoscientific concepts, practices, and products.
CHALLENGES OF THE POST-HUMAN

The question of how to conceive of human beings and their augmentations (their techne, automated material culture, intelligent stuff) then becomes a significant issue for anthropology. As is frequently argued by the various contributors to the volume Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology (Whitehead and Wesch 2012), anthropology as a social science is grounded anachronistically in a
17
concept of human exceptionalism that was fleshed out and codified during the nineteenth century while anthropology began to classify the modern and primitive peoples of the planet (Whitehead 2012:221; cf. Whitehead [2009] for earlier iterations of these concepts). The thoughtful ethnologist, Neil Whitehead, unfortunately passed away prior to the publication of this book, and it is dedicated to his memory with the partial Shakespearean quote of Julius Caesar, Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. This could be easily mistaken as a bit of threatening text, considering the title of the book, foreshadowing the end to the discipline as we understand it. However, the unquoted remainder of Caesars stanza that follows is certainly fatalistic, but guardedly optimistic that transitions are, in the end, a part of life itself: Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, / It seems to me most strange that men should fear; / Seeing that death, a necessary end, / Will come when it will come. If anthropos should cease to be the subject of our discipline, we may consider the emergence of cyborgology as less to be feared than as an opportunity to explore new wonders. This much was also indicated by White (2012) in the subtitle of his own chapter, The End of Anthropology Is Beyond the Human. How then do we clarify the character of the new disciplinary subject, whether cyborg, post-human, unhuman, or some Other? As explained by the editors in their introduction, It is time to expand and refine our approach so that we are equipped to grapple with the relationship between humans and technology, while also recognizing that humans are part of much larger systems that include relationships with animals, insects, microorganisms, spirits, and people who are not always considered human by others. And as humans become more digitally connected, we must also recognize that the sociality that emerges might not always be immediately analogous to traditional social formations (Whitehead and Wesch 2012:9). The use of ethnography (with all due caveats for methodological and semantic anachronisms) then is portrayed as having the power to disassemble previously constructed borders of the virtual, digital, criminal, insane, and insurgent, through limitations defined in a bygone era (Whitehead 2012:227). I, for one, agree with Anne Allison, who in her afterword suggested that the cyborg gives us a rubric and apparatus for contemplating and challenging the inadequacies, social biases, and disparities (ideological and of real power) so attached to the naturalistic world and human bodies within it (Allison 2012:233). The post-human is generally considered to either be an entity which is beyond human beings evolutionarily, or the production of an aesthetic quality that is devoid of human concerns (Oxford English Dictionary 2013), and anthropological literature is most often concerned with the former. The recognition of the cybernetic organism as a useful classification of what human beings are evolutionarily (with their dependencies upon unhuman augmentations), how they survive (through feedback loops), and how they relate to
18
J.J. Wells
one another (through information flows), then provides us with the scaffold upon which we can redefine and expand the modes of being human without resorting to negative proofs. The contributors to Human No More are themselves excellent sources of positive proofs. The chapters by Cool, Tufekci, and Bernius provide three introspective views into the definition of the subject in the new discipline heralded by this volume. Cool (2012) expresses the challenge of the posthuman concept and its difficult gradient with transhumanism, and seamless human-machine intelligence, in the definition of a San Francisco-based social group (itself called Cyborganic) composed of interwoven online and on-ground relationships; ethnography, in this case, speaks to the mutual coconstruction of self and group identity through the related subjectivities of the interwoven electronic and physical arenas. Tufekci (2012), by contrast takes a particularly critical stance in the essay, We Were Always Human, in his appreciation of our species longitudinal symbolic capacities; he makes an empirical argument that the same capacity for symbolism and displacement that allows the production of cave paintings and telephone calls, can also help comprehend our use of the Internet to create and intermingle multiple selves without resorting to a definition of post-humanity. Bernius (2012) takes an explicit cyborg approach in his examination of virtual peers as therapeutic treatment for children with autism spectrum disorders (Bernius 2012:62), suggesting important upgrades to Haraways historic definitions of cyborg anthropology, such as scalar concepts of recursioncyborgs as systems within systems (Bernius 2012:61)and the extrapolation of information technologies to a kind of companion species that coevolves alongside us; Bernius arguments are reminiscent of a comment by the founder of the responsible development telecommunications corporation, Grameen Phone, that a cell phone could be a cow for women in rural or impoverished sectors of Bangladesh (Quadir 2005) and of attempts to account for multiple species in ethnography (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010). Other contributors to Human No More provide thickly described examples of how ethnography can account for the perpetuation of ethnic and other identities through information and communication technologies. The chapters by Gajjala and McComas, Alemn, Hoesterey, and Wisniewski each demonstrate how the definitions of self-absorbed by an individual, created and reinforced through a community, can incorporate a strong technological component that is a significant mechanism for establishing the boundaries of reinterpretation. Gajjala and McComas (2012) describe with rich detail the digital environment of the Indian global diaspora wherein aesthetic expressions of identity are readily reproduced and consumed at levels ranging from the lowly app icon to shared digital Bollywood videos, and the construction of ethnically themed virtual spaces in Second Life for socialization and professional networking. Hoesterey (2012) presents a sort of ICT paleoecological discussion, examining the pros and cons (mostly cons) of poorly
19
represented, pabulum-quality anthropological subject matter on high-production-value television in the short-lived Mark and Olly: Living with the Tribes series from the BBC; in a world where ever more indigenous groups find online outlets, and even indigenously constructed legal voices through organizations like Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) (cf. Kansa 2009), the last gasps of poorly conceived television may presage online ethnic misunderstandings and direct actions to come, broadcast through more nimble and social media. Alemn (2012) and Wisniewski (2012) provided independent examples of cyborg life in Amazonia, among indigenous and caboclo communities respectively. Both contributors demonstrate the importance of alternative modernities as a descriptive framework: Alemn explains how Waiwai with Internet access maintain a coherent identity, framed through traditional concepts of people as divisible beings with identities dependent upon social context; Wisniewski describes the importance of ethnographic partnership with marginalized (unhuman) caboclos to fruitfully synthesize information from competing viewpoints, and extrapolates that lesson into the digital arena. The final theme of Human No More is how to account for intersections of being between the digital and physical aspects of cyborg lives. Ryan (2012), Wesch etal. (2012), Graffam (2012), and Heckenberger (2012) capably demonstrate that although the hypothetical dichotomy between online and in real life should be disposed of, it is in the flows of behavior across the constituent arenas of a persons life where we find the most apparent meanings. Ryans (2012) exploration of the Digital Graveyard and memories of the deceased through social networking sites shows us how the embodied actions of digital natives, accustomed to seeing their deceased loved ones online, build upon and elaborate these mechanisms of interpersonal communication in order to maintain their connection to the dead in way that is tangibly inextricable from their connection with the living, and just as habitual in its own way as prayer and other ritual invocations of memories. Wesch et al. (2012) delve into the social experiment of Anonymous and 4chan that actively denies traditional concepts such as groups and identity through almost entirely anonymized image and chat boards; yet Anonymous is a prolific and cutting-edge process of Internet culture that succeeds in drawing attention to new representations and ideas solely through its pervasive reach. The authors intuitively demonstrate how the cyborg capabilities of Anonymous members to heavily manipulate their digital environment generates this symbolic power (the future illegality of such general purpose computing power is itself an interesting question [Doctorow 2008, 2011a, 2011b]). Graffam (2012), conversely, portrays the mythic power of media to generate (especially through film, video, and gaming) a fetishized concept of the cyborg other that a present-day Internet user might become as modeled by the use of on-screen avatars; in this sense, the post-human is in actuality a far-off and likely unattainable state (all apologies to Ray Kurzweil), yet
20
J.J. Wells
remains as vibrant a concept for modeling action (especially consumerism and scientism) as the stereotypical fictions of colonized savages or Homo Sovieticus were in their own contexts. Finally, Heckenberger (2012) illustrates the extent to which cyborgs can and will dehumanize and manipulate their fellow sentient beings through their technological access, or lack thereof, using an example of a digital and physical panopticon of repression in Sao Paulo, Brazil; the subjective and selective physical and online action by the government and technically savvy, moneyed interests against homeless and drug-addicted populations in the Centro Sao Paulo is so pervasive that Heckenberger demonstrates ethnography among the unhuman subjects as the only way to untangle the abusive webs of official information surrounding them.
ARCHAEOLOGY IS CYBERNETIC OR IT IS NOTHING

If the cyborgification of anthropology results in a broader account of humanitys alternative modernities, techno-scientific artifacts and processes, and ICTenabled network communication writ large, it seems reasonable to predict that anthropologists will find themselves skirting into the arena of data science. Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration (Kansa etal. 2011) is written with the explicit recognition of the arrival of the archaeological subfield to this altered state. The now endemic Web 2.0 concept that the book embraces symbolizes technologies that allowed Web users to interact with Internet information in dynamic, participatory, and social ways, often in real time. The contributors to this volume each provide software- and hardware-driven models for Web 2.0 behavior in archaeological practice. As presented, the potential for ICT and big-data-driven (for archaeology) changes to this subdiscipline may sometimes result in new ways of relating to the past as a practitioner and ethical researcher, and at other times may be simply a more industrial version of the old way of doing things. This book is an excellent example of the ways in which cyborg nature is accumulative and contextual, not transformative in and of itself, as best explained by Hakkens (1999) challenge to the myth of a computer revolution (which can mislead archaeologists, anthropologists, and everybody else), and of how affordances and augmentations each carry strengths and limitations that can only be understood in the contexts of their use. The contributions to Archaeology 2.0 consider existential issues for a professional discipline that finds itself recast on the Internet: including positive and negative aspects of particular software and hardware implementations at scales from the user to the community, the impact of online data management and collaboration on representation and communication, and dilemmas of sustainability and continuity within a shifting digital environment for researchers accustomed to thinking in terms of centuries and millennia.
21
The Web of Archaeological Data (Kansa etal. 2011:27) is addressed by Richards (2011) and by Kansa and Kansa (2011), who explain how current technological choices are made to represent archaeology online. Richards (2011) uses the example of the United Kingdoms Archaeology Data Service (ADS) implementation of semantic web standards (very simply: software that can process text and recognize signifiers to aid queries of textual or other data, and reuse of data in different contexts) and ADS efforts in natural language processing to recognize important terminology, named entities, and facts within archaeological reports and primary data sets; this has the effect of simultaneously attempting to account for the variability in language surrounding a culturally defined issue, and operationalizing that account for users of that jargon (with ongoing refinements and error management at each end) to enable those users to access their literature and information through more intensive and newly informative ways that would not be possible without augmentation. Kansa and Kansa (2011) describe the human side of semantic web practices through the history of their awardwinning Open Context service for open-source archaeological data publication, through which they necessarily interact with various archaeological folk taxonomies, and ambiguous expressions of tacit knowledge, in the migration of archaeological information into searchable and shareable formats; the recognition of these classificatory practices for researchers then serves as a reflexive investigation of disciplinary assumptions through the social frames of technological choices. The socio-cultural ramifications of these technological choices, as emergent qualities of augmentation, are considered by Dunn (2011), and Boast and Biehl (2011), who help identify new trends in archaeological theory and ethics that incorporate these new ideals. The prediction of a spade to [computer] screen (Dunn 2011:113) documentation process for archaeological work has already found some validation within the American archaeological communitys adaptation to new National Science Foundation standards for data management (SAA 2013). Similarly, the Interactive Archaeological Knowledge Management System discussed by Watrall (2011), and the Virtual Environment for Research in Archaeology explained by Rains (2011), were both developed to delineate a flexible data collection, archive, and sharing system through which archaeological teams could reuse a similar data management system internationally while retaining important ontological controls on their work; recently a comparable project, the Federated Archaeological Information Management System (FAIMS 2012), has begun development in Australia. Kansa and Deblauwe (2011) provide glimpses of important subcultural experiences involving user-generated content in middle spaces (neither journals nor e-mail lists) for the zooarchaeological community, with the complementary sites of BoneCommons and the Zooarchaeology Social Network as examples; the former is a more public-facing content system to share professional materials and pose questions about imaged faunal
22
J.J. Wells
skeletal elements, the latter is a more private network through which to seek professional advice that is more popular with junior researchers than those with seniority who rely more on their unique interpersonal relationships. Boast and Biels (2011) contribution could plausibly have found a home within Human No More, exploring how the open Web can both informationally invigorate and ethically justify archaeological work through the online mash-up (or interactions) of diverse classificatory schemes, and the sharing of important perspectives between archaeologists and non-archaeologist stakeholders with newfound access to reports and data. Finally, Archaeology 2.0 recounts the reflexive and participatory process by which archaeologists as a community are assessing their migration online. Xia (2011) tackles perhaps the most terrifying question for archaeologists, that of digital sustainability, and in a particularly cyborgic solution describes the importance of open-access subject repositories for archaeological literature that can give the interested public (professional and otherwise) the opportunity to share information and functionally maintain it as a digital derivative of the reuse process through which users reengage with a body of literature. Wendrich (2011) describes the obvious tensions (to any reader in the academy) surrounding questions of professional scholarship in the era of Web publication for everything from raw data to book-length manuscripts, and suggests how community adherence to the cultural values of peer reviews and editorial qualities can be touchstones for shared behavior and signifiers of intellectual quality in a fluid and dynamic cyberspace. Conversely, Eiteljorg (2011) presents a well-considered argument that Web 2.0 practices in archaeology are, today, simply unrealistic given the expense of infrastructure and the general lack of technical expertise around the community; with his suggestion for experimental dual tracks of digital and analog community development, he demonstrates quite well the ways in which technological choices are both contextual and key influences on identity construction. Limps (2011) conclusion to the volume makes the important case that the ultimate influences of Web 2.0 on archaeology will only in part be driven by the technologies available to archaeologists, but also by a host of evolving social, political, and economic relationships that make up the world that archaeologists currently inhabit; in the long view, it will be the social and institutional choices made to support, reward, and teach technological practices to another generation that will differentiate the cyborg future of archaeology from its cyborg present.
A HOLISTIC CYBORG ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropological holism must now account for technology explicitly. People emotionally connect w/ devices: there is no online and offline, just life (iKeepSafe 2013). This recent tweet from iKeepSafe, a non-profit
23
group of technology and education leaders that promotes digital literacy and citizenship, exemplifies just how pervasive (if understated) the cyborg concept is in daily discourse. Anthropology, as the holistic, evolutionary, and longitudinal intersection of the humanities and sciences, is well positioned to help investigate our continuing socio-cultural experiments in alternative modernities. The three subfields (archaeological, biological, and socio-cultural) exhibited in the texts reviewed here each provide important critiques to the ways in which we have come to the present moment on this planet, and also the modes of investigation and professional discourse we use to develop those critiques. This review has not touched upon anthropological linguistics, but certainly could have delved into an incomplete series of books and articles that represent the augmented needs and aspirations of both cyborg researchers and subjects surrounding that subfield (e.g., Bird et al. 2009; Cook 2004; Croft 2008; Doostdar 2004; Fernando etal. 2010; Hammond 2002, 2003; Holman etal. 2011; Keating 2005; Salama 2011). The cybernetic organism model of very real humans evolvingadapting to natural and anthropogenic environments physically, culturally, and technologicallymay well be the vehicle through which anthropology gets a kick in the pants to engage communities with real academic and scientific research (Hawks 2011). Even if we do not control the processes of evolution, the cyborg gives us another framework with which to consider the ethics of our actions as we tinker with the reproduction of non-human machines, non-human species, and of course other humans in our shared world (Alter 2007). A collective recognition of the importance of informatics (e.g., Kling etal. 2005) and the digital humanities (e.g., Lunenfeld etal. 2012) will also help anthropologists recognize their important niche within the academic and research sectors. Anthropology wields tremendous interpretive power for the cyborg world. Ethnographies of, and manuals for anthropological research within, virtual and/or ubiquitous computing spaces have proliferated in the last 15years (e.g., Bainbridge 2010; Boellstorff 2008; Boellstorff etal. 2012; Chayko 2008; Coleman 2010, 2012; Forsythe 2001; Hakken 1999; Helmreich 2007; Horst and Miller 2012; Ito 2008; Vertesi 2012; Wilf 2013). There is a great potential for anthropology to address our technological environment, especially inequalities of the technological present and future, whether it is abusive, sweatshop-like, virtual work by gold farming gamers (Castronova 2008; Lee and Lin 2011; Toscano 2007), or the myriad of economic and political issues surrounding digital workshops that proliferate in newly wired global slums and their reborn neighbor cities (Rangaswamy 2007, 2008; Rangaswamy and Nair 2012; Rangaswamy and Sambasivan 2011; cf. Brickwork India [2013] on related corporate business models). Furthermore, the Internet has become a global arena for local politics as the oppressed and urban poor find a powerful voice
24
J.J. Wells
online, whether in Brazilian favelas (Glickhouse 2013; Peteranderl 2013) or Iran (Doostdar 2004). Anthropologists of alternative modernities must now take the augmentation of the body politic into account as well, with full recognition of the humanity of those asserting their rights. Activities to engage regional and international politics now necessarily address technological rights and responsibilities of governance. Maturing entities like the Pirate Party International, which has seen affiliate party members elected to numerous national and local offices, advocate for direct technocratic experience in government, while coeval emerging behaviors like the CryptoParty advocate for shared public knowledge in cryptography to combat and evade government abuses (CryptoParty 2013; Slade School of Fine Art 2012; Thomas 2013; Wikipedia 2013). A proliferation of loosely intermeshed national and international organizations and ideologies now support generally liberal and open practices surrounding software and operating system production and licensing (e.g., Free Software Foundation, Linux Foundation, Open Source Initiative, Open Source Geospatial Foundation), governance with and of technology (e.g., Code for America, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Open Government, Pirate Party International), and the protection of free speech and conscience for information-based and digital behaviors (e.g., Creative Commons, Open Knowledge Foundation, Wikimedia). Anthropological studies of the deep-time processes of human inequalities, and the history of our needs as physical organisms, are important because of growing global recognition of the fact that the neoliberal proliferation of technology alone does not guarantee human rights or economic justice (Leye 2007; Noh and Yoo 2008). Similar realizations among anthropologists about their own professional communities have led to important discussions in blogs and journals about the rights and responsibilities of anthropologists as information producers and digital citizens ( Jackson 2010; Kansa etal. 2013; Lende 2012a, 2012b; Osten 2012; Thompson 2012). This review itself was composed through a technosocio-legal mash-up of Google Docs, Zotero, fee-licensed Microsoft Office software, licensed academic search engines, public Web search engines, blogging services, library content licenses, publication agreements, and a variety of university-owned and personal hardware. Without the technological and social affordances (including the training) available to a humble academic researcher, it would not exist. Without the proper technology or licensing you may never have read it, or you put yourself in severe economic and legal jeopardy to do so by violating copyright law (Tehranian 2007; cf. Doctorow [2008, 2011a] on the selective legalities of international copyright). To be a cyborg dependent upon affordances is not necessarily to be empowered, it is to be precarious, it is to have a history, it is to have context, it is to need things, it is to need others, it is to be human.
25
REFERENCES CITED
Alemn, Stephanie W. 2012 Technology, Representation, and the E-thropologist: The Shape-Shifting Field Among Native Amazonians. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 147156. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Allison, Anne 2012 Afterword. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 231234. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Alter, Joseph S. 2007 The Once and Future ApemanChimeras, Human Evolution, and Disciplinary Coherence. Current Anthropology 48(5):637652. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 2003 Data Mining. American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/data-mining, accessed June 6, 2013. 2006 Eavesdropping 101: What Can the NSA Do? American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/eavesdropping101.pdf, accessed September 28, 2013. Appenzeller, Tim 2013 Neanderthal Culture: Old Masters. Nature 497(7449):302304. Bainbridge, William Sims 2010 The Warcraft Civilization: Social Science in a Virtual World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Balikci, Asen 1970 The Netsilik Eskimo. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press. Bernius, Matthew 2012 Manufacturing and Encountering Human in the Age of Digital Reproduction. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 4970. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Bird, Steven, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper 2009 Natural Language Processing with Python. Beijing: OReilly. Boast, Robin, and Peter Biehl 2011 Archaeological Knowledge Production and Dissemination in the Digital Age. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 119156. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Boellstorff, Tom 2008 Coming of Age in Second Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boellstorff, Tom, Bonnie Nardi, Celia Pearce, and T. L. Taylor 2012 Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brickwork India 2013 Indias ISO 27001 Certified Virtual Assistance Company. Brickwork India. http://www.brickworkindia.com, accessed June 4, 2013.
26
J.J. Wells
Case, Amber 2010 We Are All Cyborgs Now. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. http://www.ted.com/ talks/amber_case_we_are_all_cyborgs_now.html, accessed June 7, 2013. Castronova, Edward 2008 Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games. University of Chicago Press. Chayko, Mary 2008 Portable Communities: The Social Dynamics of Online and Mobile Connectedness. Albany: State University of New York Press. Clynes, Manfred E., and Nathan S. Kline 1960 Cyborgs and Space. Astronautics (September):2627, 7476. Coleman, E. Gabriella 2010 Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:487505. 2012 Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cook, Susan E. 2004 New Technologies and Language Change: Toward an Anthropology of Linguistic Frontiers. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:103115. Cool, Jennifer 2012 The Mutual Co-Construction of Online and Onground in Cyborganic: Making an Ethnography of Networked Social Media Speak to Challenges of the Posthuman. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 1132. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Croft, William 2008 Evolutionary Linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:219234. CryptoParty 2013 The CryptoParty Handbook. GitHub. https://github.com/cryptoparty/handbook, accessed September 28, 2013. Davis-Floyd, R., and Joseph Dumit, eds. 1998 Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots. New York: Routledge. De Ruiter, Jan, Gavin Weston, and Stephen M. Lyon 2011 Dunbars Number: Group Size and Brain Physiology in Humans Reexamined. American Anthropologist 113(4):557568. Doctorow, Cory 2008 Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future. Craphound. http://craphound.com/content, accessed December 1, 2013. 2011a Context: Further Selected Essays on Productivity, Creativity, Parenting, and Politics in the 21st Century. Craphound. http://craphound.com/context, accessed December 1, 2013. 2011b The Coming War on General Purpose Computation. Boing Boing. http:// boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-purp.html, accessed December 7, 2012. Doostdar, Alireza 2004 The Vulgar Spirit of Blogging: On Language, Culture, and Power in Persian Weblogestan. American Anthropologist 106(4):651662.
27
Doran, Jamie, and Piers Bizony 2011 Starman: The Truth behind the Legend of Yuri Gagarin. New York: Walker. Downey, Gary Lee 1998 Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Joseph Dumit, ed. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Research Press. Dunn, Stuart 2011 Poor Relatives or Favorite Uncles? Cyberinfrastructure and Web 2.0: A Critical Comparison for Archaeological Research. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 95118. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Eiteljorg, Harrison 2011 What Are Our Critical Data-Preservation Needs? In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 251264. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Escobar, Arturo, David Hess, Isabel Licha, Will Sibley, Marilyn Strathern, and Judith Sutz. 1994 Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 35(3):211231. Federated Archaeological Information Management System (FAIMS) 2012 Federated Archaeological Information Management Systems Project. Creating eResearch Tools for Archaeologists. https://www.fedarch.org/wordpress/, accessed September 30, 2013. Fernando, Chrisantha, Riitta-Liisa Valijarvi, and Richard A. Goldstein 2010 A Model of the Mechanisms of Language Extinction and Revitalization Strategies to Save Endangered Languages. Human Biology 82(1):4775. Fernbach, Amanda 2000 The Fetishization of Masculinity in Science Fiction: The Cyborg and the Console Cowboy. Science Fiction Studies 27(2):234255. Fischer, Michael M. J. 2009 Anthropological Futures. Durham: Duke University Press. Forsythe, Diana 2001 Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Franklin, Sarah 1995 Science as Culture, Cultures of Science. Annual Review of Anthropology 24(1):163184. Gajjala, Radhika, and Sue Ellen McComas 2012 Splitting and Layering at the Interface: Mediating Indian Diasporas across Generations. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 105130. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Glickhouse, Rachel 2013 Interview: Voz Da Comunidade in New York. Adventures of a Gringa. http:// www.riogringa.com/my_weblog/2013/03/interview-voz-da-comunidade.html, accessed June 5, 2013.
28
J.J. Wells
Gowlett, John, Clive Gamble, and Robin Dunbar 2012 Human Evolution and the Archaeology of the Social Brain. Current Anthropology 53(6):693722. Graffam, Gray 2012 Avatar: A Posthuman Perspective on Virtual Worlds. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 131146. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Gray, Chris Hables 2002 Cyborg Citizen: Politics in the Posthuman Age. New York: Routledge. Hadfield, Chris 2013 Space Oddity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo&feature= youtube_gdata_player, accessed June 4, 2013. Hakken, David 1999 Cyborgs@Cyberspace?: An Ethnographer Looks to the Future. New York: Routledge. Hammond, Michael 2002 Programming for Linguists: Java Technology for Language Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell. 2003 Programming for Linguists: Perl for Language Researchers. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hanson, F. Allan 2009 Beyond the Skin Bag: On the Moral Responsibility of Extended Agencies. Ethics and Information Technology 11(1):9199. Haraway, Donna J. 1991 Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. 1997 Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge. Hawks, John 2011 Whats Wrong with Anthropology? Anthropologies. http://www.anthropologiesproject.org/2011/10/whats-wrong-with-anthropology.html, accessed December 10, 2012. Hayles, N. Katherine 1999 How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press. Heckenberger, Michael 2012 Marginal Bodies, Altered States, and Subhumans: (Dis)Articulations between Physical and Virtual Realities in Centro, So Paulo. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 199216. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Heidegger, Martin 1977 The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row. Helmreich, Stefan 2007 An Anthropologist Underwater: Immersive Soundscapes, Submarine Cyborgs, and Transductive Ethnography. American Ethnologist 34(4):621641.
29
Hoesterey, James 2012 The Adventures of Mark and Olly: The Pleasures and Horrors of Anthropology on TV. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 157176. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Sren Wichmann, Andr Mller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarstrm, Sebastian Sauppe, et al. 2011 Automated Dating of the Worlds Language Families Based on Lexical Similarity. Current Anthropology 52(6):841875. Horst, Heather A., and Daniel Miller 2012 Digital Anthropology. London: Berg. http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=604001, accessed September 24, 2013. iKeepSafe 2013 When Talking #DigitalDrama W/ Parents, Remind Them Teens Emotionally Connect W/ Devices: There Is No Online and Offline, Just Life. #chatstc. Microblog. @iKeepSafe. https://twitter.com/iKeepSafe/status/382946399580479488, accessed September 29, 2013. Ito, Mizuko, ed. 2008 Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackson, Jason Baird 2010 Boasian Ethnography and Contemporary Intellectual Property Debates. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 154(1):4049. Kansa, Eric 2009 Indigenous Heritage and the Digital Commons. In Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia Pacific Region, Pp. 219244. Alphen Aan Den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Kansa, Eric C., and Sarah Whitcher Kansa 2011 Toward a Do-It-Yourself Cyberinfrastructure: Open Data, Incentives, and Reducing Costs and Complexities of Data Sharing. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 5792. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Kansa, Eric, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Lynn Goldstein 2013 On Ethics, Sustainability, and Open Access in Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 13(4):1522. Kansa, Eric C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. 2011 Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship. org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher, and Francis Deblauwe 2011 User-Generated Content in Zooarchaeology: Exploring the Middle Space of Scholarly Communication. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 185206. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www. escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013.
30
J.J. Wells
Kant, Immanuel 2006[1798] Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Trans. Robert B. Louden. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Keating, E. 2005 Homo Prostheticus: Problematizing the Notions of Activity and ComputerMediated Interaction. Discourse Studies 7(45):527545. Kirksey, S. Eben, and Stefan Helmreich 2010 The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25(4):545576. Kling, Rob, Howard Rosenbaum, and Steve Sawyer 2005 Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework for Studying and Teaching the Human Contexts of Information and Communication Technologies. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Krulwich, Robert 2012 Cosmonaut Crashed Into Earth Crying In Rage: NPR. NPR.org. http://www. npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earthcrying-in-rage, accessed June 6, 2013. Kurzweil, Ray 2006 The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Books. Lee, Yu-Hao, and Holin Lin 2011 Gaming Is My Work: Identity Work in Internet-Hobbyist Game Workers. Work, Employment & Society 25(3):451467. Lende, Daniel 2012a American Anthropological Association Changes Opposition to Open AccessPlus a Proposal to Do More. Neuroanthropology. http://blogs.plos.org/ neuroanthropology/2012/02/04/american-anthropological-association-changesopposition-to-open-access-%e2%80%93-plus-a-proposal-to-do-more/, accessed September 18, 2013. 2012b American Anthropological Association Takes Public Stand against Open Access. Neuroanthropology. http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/01/31/american-anthropological-association-takes-public-standagainst-open-access/, accessed September 18, 2013. Leye, V. 2007 UNESCO, ICT Corporations and the Passion of ICT for Development: Modernization Resurrected. Media, Culture & Society 29(6):972993. Limp, W. Fredrick 2011 Web 2.0 and Beyond, or On the Web, Nobody Knows Youre an Archaeologist. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 265280. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Lunenfeld, Peter, Anne Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp 2012 Digital Humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/ default/files/titles/content/9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.pdf, accessed December 1, 2013.
31
Madrigal, Alexis C. 2010 The Man Who First Said Cyborg, 50 Years Later. The Atlantic. http://www. theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/the-man-who-first-said-cyborg-50years-later/63821/, accessed June 3, 2013. Noh, Yong-Hwan, and Kyeongwon Yoo 2008 Internet, Inequality and Growth. Journal of Policy Modeling 30(6): 10051016. Noveck, Beth Simone 2010 Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Open Source Initiative 2004 The Open Source Definition. http://opensource.org/docs/osd, accessed May6, 2013. Osten, Joslyn 2012 American Anthropological Association Position on Dissemination of Research. American Anthropological Association. http://blog.aaanet.org/2012/02/03/ american-anthropological-association-position-on-dissemination-of-research/, accessed September 18, 2013. Oxford English Dictionary 2013 Post-human, Adj. and N. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/263433?, accessed June 5, 2013. Peteranderl, Sonja 2013 Internet Opens Windows on Life in Brazilian Favelas. Development and Cooperation. http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/internet-opens-windows-life-brazilian-favelas, accessed June 5, 2013. Pirate Party of the United States 2012 No Safe Harbor: United States Pirate Party. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. http://www.calpirateparty.org/uploads/1/2/0/5/12058130/ no_safe_harbor_-_united_states_pirate_party.pdf, accessed December 1, 2013. Quadir, Iqbal 2005 How Mobile Phones Can Fight Poverty. TED.com. http://www.ted.com/talks/ iqbal_quadir_says_mobiles_fight_poverty.html, accessed September 18, 2013. Rains, Michael 2011 Creating a Virtual Research Environment for Archaeology. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 159170. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/ item/1r6137tb#page-1. Rangaswamy, Nimmi 2007 Representing the Non-Formal: The Business of Internet Cafs in India. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2007(1):115127. 2008 Telecenters and Internet Cafes: The Case of ICTs in Small Businesses. Asian Journal of Communication 18(4):365378. Rangaswamy, Nimmi, and Sumitra Nair 2012 The PC in an Indian Urban Slum: Enterprise and Entrepreneurship in ICT4D 2.0. Information Technology for Development 18(2):163180.
32
J.J. Wells
Rangaswamy, Nimmi, and Nithya Sambasivan 2011 Cutting Chai, Jugaad, and Here Pheri: Towards UbiComp for a Global Community. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15(6):553564. Raymond, Eric Steven 2000 The Cathedral and the Bazaar. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/, accessed May 6, 2013. Richards, Julian, Stuart Jeffrey, Stewart Waller, Fabio Ciravegna, Sam Chapman, and Ziqi Zhang 2011 The Archaeology Data Service and the Archaeotools Project: Faceted Classification and Natural Language Processing. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 3156. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Ryan, Jenny 2012 The Digital Graveyard: Online Social Networking Sites as Vehicles of Remembrance. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 7188. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Salama, A. H. Y. 2011 Ideological Collocation and the Recontexualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islam Post-9/11: A Synergy of Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 22(3):315342. Schneider, Joseph W. 2005 Donna Haraway: Live Theory. New York: Continuum. Shore, Bradd 1996 Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Slade School of Fine Art 2012 The CryptoParty Handbook. Slade Knowledge Base. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ slade/know/2969, accessed September 29, 2013. Soderman, Teague 2013 Astronaut Chris Hadfield Performs Space Oddity Onboard ISS. Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (formerly NASA Lunar Science Institute). http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/astronaut-chris-hadfield-performs-spaceoddity-onboard-iss/, accessed June 6, 2013. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill 2011 The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369(1938):842867. Stringer, Chris 2012a Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. NewYork: Times Books. 2012b Evolution: What Makes a Modern Human. Nature 485(7396):3335. Stromberg, Joseph 2013 What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It? Smithsonian Magazine, January 2013. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/What-is-theAnthropocene-and-Are-We-in-It-183828201.html, accessed July 6, 2013.
33
Tehranian, John 2007 Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap. Utah Law Review 2007:537. Thomas, Greg 2013 Pirates in Germany Dodge the NSAs Watchful Gaze. The Atlantic, September 10. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/ pirates-in-germany-dodge-the-nsas-watchful-gaze/279516/, accessed September 29, 2013. Thompson, Matthew 2012 Digital Research Hub. 01anthropology. http://01anthropology.wordpress. com/, accessed September 18, 2013. Toscano, Alberto 2007 From Pin Factories to Gold Farmers: Editorial Introduction to a Research Stream on Cognitive Capitalism, Immaterial Labour, and the General Intellect. Historical Materialism 15(1):311. Tufekci, Zeynep 2012 We Were Always Human. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 3348. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. United States Joint Force Command 2010 The Joint Operating Environment 2010. Norfolk, VA: United States Joint Force Command Public Affairs. http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/ JOE_2010_o.pdf, accessed December 1, 2013. Usher, Alex 2013 Coursera Jumps the Shark. Higher Education Strategy Associates. http://higheredstrategy.com/coursera-jumps-the-shark/, accessed June 6, 2013. Vertesi, Janet 2012 Seeing Like a Rover: Visualization, Embodiment, and Interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Social Studies of Science 42(3):393414. Watrall, Ethan 2011 iAKS: A Web 2.0 Archaeological Knowledge Management System. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 171184. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb#page-1. Wendrich, Willeke 2011 UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Archaeological Data, and Web 2.0. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 211232. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013. Wesch, Michael, and The Digital Ethnography Class of 2009 2012 Anonymous, Anonymity, and the End(s) of Identity and Groups Online: Lessons from the First Internet-Based Superconsciousness. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 89104. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
34
J.J. Wells
Whitehead, Neil 2012 Are We There Yet? The End of Anthropology Is Beyond the Human. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 217230. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Whitehead, Neil L. 2009 Post-Human Anthropology. Identities 16(1):132. Whitehead, Neil, and Michael Wesch, eds. 2012a Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. 2012b Introduction: Human No More. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 110. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Wikipedia 2013 CryptoParty. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=CryptoParty&oldid=558678790, accessed June 7, 2013. Wilf, Eitan 2013 Toward an Anthropology of Computer-Mediated, Algorithmic Forms of Sociality. Current Anthropology 54(6):716739. Wisniewski, Kent 2012 Invisible Caboclos and Vagabond Ethnographers: A Look at Ethnographic Engagement in Twenty-First-Century Amazonia. In Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End of Anthropology. Neil Whitehead and Michael Wesch, eds. Pp. 177198. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Wolf, Eric R 1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Xia, Jingfeng 2011 Open Access for Archaeological Literature: A Managers Perspective. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Pp. 233250. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb, accessed December 1, 2013.
Joshua J. Wells, PhD (Assistant Professor of Social Informatics, Indiana University South Bend), is an anthropological archaeologist with a specialty in computer science. His active research is on interoperability issues between large-scale archaeological databases for heritage management and on facilitating the use of archaeological data in cross-disciplinary research. He also investigates the uses of technology-enabled active learning, and open-source-based pedagogy in anthropology. Dr. Wells sits on the editorial board of OpenContext.org, a resource for linked data publication of primary archaeological data. Since 2010, he has convened the Digital Data Interest Group of the Society for American Archaeology.

Cyborgs and Present of Anthropology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cyborgs and Present of Anthropology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge] On: 18 March 2014, At: 05:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

HISTORY AND THEORY OF THE CYBERNETIC ORGANISM CONCEPT

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

CYBORGS FROM THE GROUND UP

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

ALTERNATIVE MODERNITIES AND CYBERNETIC ORGANISMS

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

CHALLENGES OF THE POST-HUMAN

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

ARCHAEOLOGY IS CYBERNETIC OR IT IS NOTHING

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

A HOLISTIC CYBORG ANTHROPOLOGY

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Keep Calm and Remain Human

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 05:51 18 March 2014

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen