Dear Diary,
25/02/2021, Amsterdam
Dear Diary,
Today was a sunny day. The thermostat showed a temperature of 19,5 degrees.
Okay, enough chit-chat, let me get straight to the point. For some time now, I’ve been wanting to ask you a question. I’ve been talking to you for years, you know who I am. But who are you? Are you my friend? Are you a creature? Or are you just a book?
Who are you, my friend?
Who are you? My friend?
Have you ever heard of subjectification? It means that we (I mean we humans, not you and I) project emotions, feelings or intentions onto non-human objects. It means that something can have no heart, but I will still try to save it from dying. Objectivication happens actually quite often with robots.
I tried to define a robot: a robot is an often electronic (or mechanical) object or machine, often reacting to it's surrounding, or giving an output when you provide the input.
I think it’s hard to imagine subjectifying a robot that is a machine. On the other hand, when I'm super irritated about my vacuum cleaner, I might possibly have loudly asked: why don’t you *** work?! Also, when working on different sewing machines, 3D printers, or laser cutters, I noticed that they all have slightly different ways of handling, different limitations. Almost as if they have their own character. But does that mean I subjectify these machines? I am not sure. But when I put another, very clear, example next to it, I would say no.
The most beautiful robot I have ever seen (on YouTube) is this well-made dolphin. If I would see it swimming In real life, I would 100% subjectify it. Compared to the dolphin, my vacuum cleaner doesn’t deserve empathy.
Something can have no heart,
but I will still save it from dying.
There seems to be a need for a subjectified, (non)-robot to have something magical. Like when I had so many feelings for my favourite stuffed cow. Do you remember, how heartbroken I was, for weeks, when I forgot it on the bus? But nowadays, I think it’s hard for me to subjectify a stuffed animal. Maybe I should subjectify my plants, so they’ll finally survive. Although they don’t have a heart, they are alive, so let’s admit that doesn’t count. I did find an adult version of a stuffed animal, though. This man married a woman doll. I would say, that is a very clear example of a human subjectifying a non-robot, as they lived happily ever after.
Will you, sexdoll, take this man
to be your lawfully wedded husband?
So now, I think I described two situations here. A robot that gets subjectified, and a non-robot that gets subjectified. Is there also a robot and a non-robot that I won’t subjectify? Well, I think the easiest one is a non-robot that I won’t subjectify. In fact, when I don’t subjectify, I objectify, right? So a non-robot, that I objectify, is just an object? I’m now looking around my room, I see only objects. And plants. And books! One of the books is de Grens van de Mens (the Human Boundry) by Peter Paul Verbeek. I remember reading this. This will help me explain examples of robots that I won’t subjectify. During art school we discussed this topic, there was a model, I believe made by Don Idhe, that described human-technology relationships.
Embodiment relationship (human – technology) -> world
Hermeneutic relationship human -> (technology – world)
Alterity relationship (human -> technology) - world
Background relationship human – (Technology / world)
When I don't subjectify,
I objectify,
right?
So,
a non-robot,
that I objectify
is just an object?
I’ll give shortly some examples. I have an embodiment relationship with my glasses. I perceive the world through this technology. As the word embodiment says, technology is often embodied. So, while I lay here, writing this, I can think of already three objects that I have an embodiment relationship with. Namely, my night lenses, my IUD, and a piece of metal behind my teeth.
A hermeneutic relationship is a relationship where a human does not interact with the technology itself, but the representation of it. For example with the thermostat. It showed 19,5 degrees. This is a representation of the temperature.
An alterity relationship is often mentioned as ‘quasi-other’. In this relationship, humans and technology interact. Technologies seem to behave as another entity, it reacts to my behaviour. Like my phone just reminded me to put the charger in the socket
The last relationship, a background relationship. In this relationship, I would not immediately interact with the technology, but it plays a submissive role. An example, the technology that regulates the temperature I set, behind my back.
Now, let’s talk about a robost that I don’t subjectify. I think this has to do with the relationship I have with the robot. For example, I can very well imagine, that If I would be in the hospital, and I need heart surgery, done by a medical robot, I will definitely subjectify it. The robot affects me immediately and the relationship I have with the medical robot is an alterity relationship. I think, that a robot where I have a background relationship with, would be hard to love. The same goes for my hermeneutic relationship with the temperature display of my thermostat. It doesn’t feel like that’s going to happen. I think an embodiment relationship might be possible, for example, if a person has a pacemaker. This is definitely an embodiment relationship. And as your life depends on it, I would completely understand if someone projected feelings on it. Though, I think these cases are more the exception than the rule.
Back to the beginning. What is my relationship with you? I mean I know you’re a diary. But you’ve been here for so long, I feed you with my best day-to-day stories, and in return, you keep my secrets. You are just an object, that is subjectified, by me. Or, can I give you more credit, call you an artificial creature?
Honestly, I wish.
x.
