Becoming More Human? Prosthetics and Normalizing Objects

My reading of The Prosthetic Impulse was a bit chaotic. To me, it seems prosthetics are a postmodern text for this collection. Although some may argue that the functional nature of a prosthetic limb reflects a ‘modern’ sentiment, the differentiated examples covered in this text and connection to language games makes a stronger case for prostheses as indicative of postmodernity. The editors’ introduction and use of the term “posthuman” suggest they, too, agree with this characterization. If we’re to read the ‘post’ in posthuman the same way we it in postmodern, then it seems Smith and Morra agree that there’s more than one way to define prosthetics’ role in defining human experiences. Willis, in his chapter focusing on speed and displacement, evokes Derrida’s philosophy of language games to discuss how quickly one moves from “normal” to “other” (p. 245).

Prosthetics serving a function.

The negotiation of “normal” appears as a frequent theme within the text. In this sense, prostheses provide normalcy. In one chapter, this characterization raises the issue of agency and whether prostheses limit human agency. In clearer terms: is a person still ‘normal’ or a ‘human’ without their prostheses? Does the normalizing effects of prosthetics inform what makes its more human? The difficulty in answering these questions lays in the chaos. Semiotics theory reminds us that there are many ways to read a text. Such is the case when considering prosthetics. One ‘reading’ of prosthetics that I find a bit more interesting than the rest is that of Vivian Sobchack. Sobchack, herself an amputee, weaves personal experience into her discussion of the prosthetic metaphor.

Still a prosthetic? More expressive than functional?

Now the interesting part: How does this apply to Capt. Brown’s waistcoat?

Immediately, this appears difficult and potentially impossible. If we read prosthetics as a vehicle by which it’s owner reaches a desired end (being more “human”), we see a connection to the waistcoat. An interesting piece of information I discovered about Capt. Brown was documents about owned pew space in his church. Essentially, parishioners would lease pew space to reserve a spot for crowded services. Repeatedly we see Capt. Brown sharing pew space with other high-ranking Philadelphia officials (e.g. other military officials, future political leaders, etc.). In sum: Capt. Brown was a symbol of high society in Philadelphia. The waistcoat, to me, was a vehicle for maintaining this status.

Robert Rodriguez's take on prosthetics in Planet Terror.

Beyond this relationship, I find myself thinking more about “class” or “success” inherently placed in an object like the waistcoat. This, on the other hand, week’s reading has me thinking more philosophically about objects, like prostheses, being more “human.” Class or prominence is one thing because you can perform a specific classes or successes… but can you perform humanity? I guess this is where the discussion of agency comes back into the fold. But, I guess that’s the nature of reading a postmodern (or even hypermodern) text: it’s thought provoking because of multiple and fractured meanings. Because this collection is so different from the articles we've read so far this semester, I think it'll add a different element to what objects philosophically are and what they do.

Prosthetics: More 'human' than human?