FCJ-184 Interpassive User: Complicity and the Returns of Cybernetics

  • Matviyenko S
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This essay discusses the notions of “extension” and “prosthesis” as two different logics and modes of being with technology. I trace the two terms to the work of Marshall McLuhan, influenced by the work of Norbert Wiener and Buckminster Fuller. I argue that the logic of softwarisation (Manovich, 2013) is similar to the logic of extension, while the logic of appification (IDC, 2010) is similar to that of prosthesis. I argue that these logics also map onto the logics of metonymy and metaphor. I explain why such a distinction is useful for reading mobile apps and the computing practices they enable. I conclude by raising questions about users’ complicity within the bio-technological cybernetic assemblage: What does the user of these technologies want? Is she able to confront her desire through their use? Why is the demanding swarm of parasitic ‘media species’, such as apps, so determined to get under the user’s skin? \rhttp://twentyfive.fibreculturejournal.org/

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Matviyenko, S. (2015). FCJ-184 Interpassive User: Complicity and the Returns of Cybernetics. The Fibreculture Journal, (25), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.15307/fcj.25.184.2015

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free