Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture [and Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Arturo Escobar, David Hess, Isabel Licha, Will Sibley, Marilyn Strathern, Judith
Sutz
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jun., 1994), pp. 211-231
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744194 .
Accessed: 20/02/2012 06:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, June I994
? I994 byThe Wenner-Gren Research.All rightsreserved
FoundationforAnthropological 0OII-3204/94/3503-OOOI$2.50

Significantchanges are takingplace in both the charac-

Welcome to Cyberia
teroftechnologyand ourunderstanding ofit. Computer,
information,and biological technologies are bringing
abouta fundamentaltransformation in the structureand
meaningofmodernsocietyand culture.Not onlyis this
transformation clearlysusceptibleto anthropologicalin-
Notes on the Anthropology
of quirybut it constitutesperhaps a privilegedarena for
Cyberculture advancinganthropology'sproject of understandinghu-
man societies fromthe vantage points of biology,lan-
guage,history,and culture.This paperreviewsthe types
of culturalanalysis that are being conducted today on
by ArturoEscobar the social nature,impact, and use of new technologies
and suggestsadditional contexts and steps toward the
articulationof an "anthropologyof cyberculture."'l
As a new domain of anthropologicalpractice, the
studyof cybercultureis particularlyconcernedwith the
Significant changesin thenatureofsocial lifeare beingbrought cultural constructionsand reconstructionson which
aboutby computer, information, and biologicaltechnologies, to
theextentthat-some argue-a new culturalorder,"cybercul- the new technologiesare based and which theyin turn
ture,"is coming into being.This paperpresentsan overview of help to shape. The point of departureof this inquiry
thetypesofanthropological analysesthatare beingconductedin is the belief that any technologyrepresentsa cultural
theareaofnew technologiesand suggestsadditionalstepsforthe invention,in the sense that it bringsfortha world; it
articulation ofan anthropology ofcyberculture. It buildsuponsci-
ence,technology, and societystudiesin variousfieldsand on crit- emergesout ofparticularculturalconditionsand in turn
ical studiesofmodernity. The implicationsoftechnoscience for helps to createnew ones. Anthropologists mightbe par-
bothanthropological theoryand ethnographic researchare ex- ticularlywell preparedto understandthese processesif
plored. theywere to open up to the idea that science and tech-
nologyare crucial arenas forthe creationof culturein
ARTURO ESCOBAR is AssociateProfessorofAnthropology at today's world. Anthropologistsmust ventureinto this
SmithCollege(Northampton, Mass. OIO63, U.S.A.). Bornin worldin orderto renewtheirinterestin the understand-
I95I, he was educatedat theUniversidad del Valle (Cali, Colom-
bia) (B.S.,I975), CornellUniversity (M.S., I978), and theUniver- ingand politicsofculturalchangeand culturaldiversity.
sityofCalifornia,Berkeley(Ph.D., i987). He taughtin theLatin
AmericanStudiesProgramoftheUniversity ofCalifornia,
Santa
Cruz,beforejoiningthefacultyat Smithin I989. His researchin- Modernity,Technology,and the Social
terestsare theanthropology ofdevelopment, ofsocial move-
ments,and ofscienceand technology. Amonghis publications Sciences
are (coeditedwithSonia Alvarez)The MakingofSocial Move-
mentsin LatinAmerica:Identity,Strategy, and Democracy New trendsin the social studyoftechnologyare dramat-
(Boulder:WestviewPress,i992) and Encountering Development: icallychangingconventionalnotionsin the field.In con-
TheMakingand Un-makingof theThirdWorld(Princeton:
Princeton UniversityPress,in press).The presentpaperwas sub- ventionalapproaches,technologyis narrowlyidentified
mittedin finalformI VIII93. with tools or machines and the historyof technology
withthe historyofthese instrumentsand theirprogres-
sive efficacyin contributingto economic development
and well-being.As a formof "applied science," technol-
ogy is held to be autonomous fromsociety and value-
neutral;since it is seen as neithergood norbad in itself,
it cannot be faultedforthe uses to which humans put
it.2The underlyingtheoryis thatscience and technology
induce progressautonomously-a beliefrepresentedby

i. David Hess andJennifer Terryprovidedme withusefulinforma-

tionon aspectsofthispaper;I thankthemfortheirhelpand sup-
port.Froman etymological theterms"cyberculture,"
perspective,
"cyberspace," "cyberocracy,"andthelike,aremisnomers. In coin-
ingtheterm"cybemetics," NorbertWienerhadin mindtheGreek
work for "pilot" or "steersman"(kybernmtes); in otherwords,
thereis no Greekrootfor"cyber."Giventhewide acceptanceof
the prefix"cyber,"I will use cyberculturehereas an elementof
analysis.
2. This posturewas modifiedby the technology assessmentthat
emergedin the earlyI970S and has since become an important
field.As criticsobserve,however,moreoftenthannotthepurpose
oftechnology assessmentis not the reorientation
oftechnologies
buttheadaptationofhumanstotheactualorpotentially dangerous
effectstheassessmentreveals(Sanmartin and Ortii992).

21T1
2I21 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, June1994
the metaphorof "the arrowof progress."The arrowof
progress,which pervades studies in a varietyof disci-
plines,embodiesan evolutionarydeterminismthatgoes,
roughly,fromscience to technologyto industryto mar-
ket and,finally,to social progress.Prominentexceptions
to this technologicalimperativeare foundin the work
ofradicalcriticsoftechnologicalsocietyfromHeidegger
and Ortega y Gasset to Marcuse, Illich, Mumford,and
Ellul.
Scholarsofmanypersuasionsarguethatthe eventsof
the I96os heraldeda new understandingof science and
technology.The emergenceof "big science," the spread
of consciousness about the negative effectsof nuclear
and industrialtechnologiesand the concomitantrise of
appropriate-technology movements,and the appearance
of a class of expertsin science and technologypolicy
and assessment were among the factorsthat led to a
new questioningof the traditionalview of science and
technologyas independentof socioeconomic and politi-
'cal contexts(Sanmartlnand Lujan I992). New views be-
gan to be craftedbothwithintechnoscientific communi-
ties and in the social sciences. In the latter arena, an
entirefieldof teachingand researchtook shape around
two different but interrelatedprojects:science and tech-
nologystudiesand science, technology,and societypro-
grams.These projectshave become institutionalizedin
various forms,including associations such as the Na-
tional Association forScience, Technology,and Society
(NAST), the Society forSocial Studies of Science (4S),
and the Society forPhilosophyand Technology (all in
the United States).
Science, technology,and societyprogramsalreadyex-
ist in many universitiesof the world, albeit with no
unifyingorientationbeyond the aim of analyzing sci-
ence and technologyas complex enterprisesshaped by
socioeconomicand politicalprocesses.Science and tech-
nologystudies(STS), moregenerally,attemptto explain
the implicationsofthe constitutionofscience and tech-
nologyas dominantformsof knowledgeand practicein
modernculture.The analysis sometimes leads to con-
siderationofethical and political questions to "help ori-
ent our understandingof the place of technologyin hu-
man affairs"(WinnerI993a:364). It is widely held that
science and technologystudies have radically altered
past approaches to technology,displacing the linear
view of technologicalchange and openingup powerful
researchprogramsthat are resultingin a veritabletheo-
reticalrenewal.At the heartofthisrenewalis the meth-
odology of social constructivism,cultivatedespecially
by sociologistsand historians;in orderto studyscience
and technologyas social constructs,scholarshave taken
to researchlaboratories,technologyinterestgroups,and
historicalarchiveswith new eyes. Constructivistsdem-
onstratethat,contraryto the technologicaldeterminism
ofpast times,contingencyand flexibilityare the essence
of technological change; by showing that social pro-
cesses are inherentto technologicalinnovations,they
deal a fatalblow to the alleged separationof technology
fromsocietyand of both of these fromnature.The gen-
eral belief is that science and technologysystems are
regulated according to flexible technosocial arrange-
mentswhich,withincertainstructuralconstraints,con-
stitute social closure around concrete developments.
Some researchershave gone beyond this to assert that
natureand machines have become importantactors in
the historical processes that determinetechnological
change.3
Besides the methodologicaldecision to look closelyat
the technologiesthemselvesand the systemsthat sur-
round them-a step with which anthropologistscould
certainlysympathize-social constructivismhas intro-
duced severalsuggestiveconceptualinnovations.One of
these is the notion of "interpretiveflexibility,"which
refersto the fact-long known to anthropologists-that
differentactors ("relevant social groups," in the con-
structivists'parlance)interprettechnologicalartifactsin
different ways. The purposeofanalysisis seen as identi-
fyingthevarioussocially relevantgroups,thevariability
in theirinterpretations of the technical entityin ques-
tion, and the mechanisms by which such variabilityis
reduced and closure achieved around a given option.
This would explain why particular technologies are
adopted and not others.The result of all this research
is a multipath and multilevel evolutionarymodel of
technological change. In Callon and Latour's "ac-
tion-networktheory," research and development are
similarly studied in terms of the way in which
actors-human and nonhuman-struggleto identifythe
problemto be solved (San Martlnand Lujan I992).
Despite its importance and visibility, social con-
structivismhas aroused controversyand critique.That
the constructivistsseek to explain why technologies
arise and certain social constituenciesprevail but not
the effectsof specific technologies on people, power
structures,and communitiesis seen by some as an easy
and perhapsirresponsibleformof relativism;theyalso
remain silent on the "irrelevant"social groupswhich
are neverthelessaffectedby technology(WinnerI993a).
In a more philosophical vein, according to the same
critic,the constructiviststake for grantedthe deeper
culturalbackgroundthat shapes technologicalinterpre-
tationand practice.To look at interpretive flexibilityis
appropriate"up to a point,"but withouta parallelanaly-
sis ofthe meaningsthatparticulartechnologicalaccom-
plishmentshave forpeople it "soon becomes moral and
political indifference"(WinnerI993a:372). From a dif-
ferentperspective,it is said that social constructivism
underplaysthe role of science in technologicaldevelop-
ment and minimizes the effectof otherfactorsin that
processsuch as the economy,the media, and the public
sector(Sanmartlnand Ortl I 992). At the veryleast,anal-
3. This in no way pretendsto be an exhaustiveaccountof the
constructivist
approach,whoseproponents do notnecessarilycon-
stitutea homogeneousgroup.Amongthe most-citedworksby
these authorsare Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (i983), Latourand
Woolgar(I979), Bijker,Hughes,and Pinch (i987), Latour(i987,
i988), and Woolgar (i988, i991). Other importantnames associated
withconstructivism
are Michael Callon,H. M. Collins,Thomas
Hughes,and JohnLaw. For reviewsof theseworks,see Winner
(I993a) and Medina (i992).

ysis oftechnosocialclosuremust be supplementedwith
questionsabout the suitabilityofthepersonaland social
practicesinformedby the technologiesunder consider-
ation-questions that, again, the constructivistsseem
to overlook(MedinaI992).
Some of the critiquesreviewedabove are considered
in other anthropological,philosophical,and poststruc-
turaliststudiesofscience and technology.Foranthropol-
ogists,inquiryinto the natureofmodernityas the back-
ground for current understanding and practice of
technologyis of paramountimportance.In this anthro-
pologyis closer to the philosophythan to the new soci-
ologyof technology.Cybercultureis in factfosteringa
freshreformulationof the question of modernityin
waysno longerso mediatedby literaryand epistemolog-
ical considerations.Whetherour era is postmodernor
modifiedmodern("late," "meta-," or "hyper-,"as some
have proposed)is a question that cannot be answered
priorto investigationofthe presentstatusofscience and
technology.To the extentthat science and capital still
functionas organizingprinciplesof dominantsocial or-
ders,some insist,we have not yettaken leave ofmoder-
nity,despite the unprecedentedmodes of operationde-
veloped by both of these principlesin recentdecades.4
According to Foucault (I973), the modern period
broughtwith it particulararrangementsof life, labor,
and language embodied in the multiplicityof practices
throughwhich life and society are produced,regulated,
and articulatedby scientificdiscourses. In what ways
does cyberculture continueto act on these domains?Are
thesystemsthataccountfortheproductionoflife(body,
self,nature),labor (production,the economy),and lan-
guage (discourse,communication,the speakingsubject)
beingsignificantly modified?WhetherFoucaultian bio-
politics and disciplinarygrids are being supersededby
technology and genetic engineeringis a matter for
heated debate. Anthropologistsmightbecome guests of
honorin this debate.
Modernityhas been characterizedby theoreticians
suchas Foucault(I973), Habermas(I987), and Giddens
(I989) in termsofthe continuousappropriation oftaken-
for-granted cultural backgroundsand practices by ex-
plicit mechanisms of knowledge and power. With mo-
dernitymany aspects of life previouslyregulated by
traditionalnorms-health, knowledge,work,the body,
space,and time-were progressively appropriated bydis-
coursesof science and the accompanyingformsof tech-
nical and administrativeorganization.Organic and me-
chanical models of physical and social life gave way to
models centeredon the productionand maximizationof
life itself,includingthe coupling of the body and ma-
chines in new ways in factories,schools, hospitals,and
familyhomes. There began an intimateimbricationof
4. That therecenttransformations ofbiologicaland technological New York,a similargroupat theUniversidad
arrangements are not the resultof a radicalshiftin culturaland cia (INVESCIT),and the SocietyforPhilosophyand Technology.
epistemological but a deepeningoftheprocessofmod- 7. A genreofsciencefictionknownas "cyberpunk"
structures
emizationand creationoflife-worlds thatstartedin thelate i8th risesincethe I984 publicationofWilliamGibson'sNeuromancer,
century is thepointofdeparture oftherecentcollectionIncorpora- considered thepointoforiginofthecyberspatial
tions(Craryand Kwinteri992). The pointhas also been madeby ductionto cyberpunk,
Rabinow (Igg2a).
ESCOBAR The Anthropologyof CybercultureI 2I3
processesofcapital and knowledgeforthe simultaneous
productionof value and life.5The spreadof the written
word,the preeminenceof the machine, the controlof
timeand space, and the biologicaland biochemicalrevo-
lutions of the past ioo years produced unprecedented
biotechnicalarrangementswhich todayfindnew forms
of expressionin cyberculturalregimes.
Althoughthe relation between science, technology,
and culture has remained insufficiently theorized(Le-
court I992), science and technologyor, better,techno-
science has been central to the modernorder.Heideg-
ger'streatmentoftechnologyas a paradigmaticpractice
ofmodernityremainsexemplaryin this regard.Science
and technology,forHeidegger,are ways of creatingnew
realities,new manifestationsof being. Modern science
necessarilyconstructs("enframes")natureas something
to be appropriated, somethingwhose energymust be re-
leased forhuman purposes. This is "the dangerin the
utmostsense" to the extentthat enframingleads to de-
structiveactivitiesand, particularly,to the destruction
of other,more fundamentalways of revealingthe es-
sence of being ("poiesis") which Heideggersees present
in the artsand in certainEasternphilosophies.Technol-
ogyforHeideggeralso has an importantontologicalrole
in thattheworldbecomes presentforus throughtechni-
cal links of various kinds; it is throughtechnicalprac-
ticesthatthe social characteroftheworldcomes to light
(Heidegger i962). More recently, some philosophers
have judged technical rationalitythe primarymode of
knowingand being, thus reversingthe traditionalpri-
macy of science over technologyand theoryover prac-
tice (Medina and SanmartlnI989, Mitcham I99o).6
For these philosophers,the priorityaccorded science
and theoryover technical creativityhas led modems to
believe that they can describe nature and society ac-
cordingto laws. Ratherthan as the effectof practices,
natureand society appear as objects with mechanisms
and are thereforetreated instrumentally(Medina and
SanmartlnI989). The new technologiesseem to deepen
thesetrendsin ways thatare best visualized by contem-
poraryscience fiction.New science-fictionlandscapes
are populated with cyborgsof all kinds (human beings
and otherorganismswith innumerableprosthesesand
technological interfaces)moving in vast cyberspaces,
virtualrealities,and computer-mediated environments.7
5. This imbricationof capital and life is capturedin Foucault's
notionof"bipower,"whichhe explainsin termsoftwoprocesses:
an anatomo-politics ofthehumanbody,effected bythenormaliza-
tionand disciplining ofeveryday life,and a bio-politicsofpopula-
tion,effected by planning,regulatory, and administrative mecha-
nisms (i980:I35-59). See also Guattari(i992) and Deleuze and
Guattari(i987).
6. The philosophy oftechnology tookoffin theseventiesandeight-
ies (see Mitchami990). Important in thisregardwerethecreation
of Carl Mitcham'sPhilosophyand TechnologyStudiesCenterin
Polit6cnicade Valen-
has beenon the
era.Foran intro-
see McCaffrey (is9i). While some see in
cyberpunk a veiledcritiqueoftheReaganyears,thewayin which
2I4 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, June1994

But while science-fictionwritersand technologybuild- tutionof a new order-which we cannot yet fullycon-
ers are generallyuncriticalofthese trends,it remainsto ceptualize but must try to understand-through the
be seen to what extentand in what concreteways the transformation of the rangeof possibilitiesforcommu-
transformations envisionedby them are in the process nicating,working,and being.Modernityconstitutesthe
ofbecomingreal. This is anothertask forthe anthropol- "backgroundof understanding"-the taken-for-granted
ogyof cyberculture.8 traditionand way of being in termsof which we inter-
pretand act-that inevitablyshapes the discoursesand
practicesgeneratedbyand aroundthe new technologies.
The Nature of Cyberculture This backgroundhas createdan image of technologyas
a neutral tool for releasing nature's energyand aug-
While any technologycan be studied anthropologically mentinghuman capacities to suit human purposes(Hei-
froma varietyof perspectives-the ritualsit originates, deggerI977). This backgroundmust be made explicitas
thesocial relationsit helps to create,thepracticesdevel- a steptowardsreorientingthe dominanttradition.Some
oped around them by various users, the values it fos- see theultimatepurposeofthisreorientationas contrib-
ters-"cyberculture"refersspecificallyto new technol- utingto the democratizationof science and technology
ogies in two areas: artificialintelligence (particularly and to the developmentof technologiesand technoliter-
computerand information technologies)and biotechnol- ate practicesbettersuitedto human use and humanpur-
ogy.9It would be possible to separateout these two sets poses than the presentones (Winogradand Flores I986,
oftechnologiesforanalyticalpurposes,althoughit is no WinnerI993a, Medina I992).
coincidencethattheyhave achieved prominencesimul- Given this brief presentation,anthropological re-
taneously.While computerand informationtechnolo- search might be guided by the following overall in-
gies are bringingabout a regime of technosociality quiries:
(Stone i99i), a broad process of socioculturalconstruc- i. What are the discoursesand practicesthat are gen-
tion set in motion in the wake of the new technologies, erated around/bycomputersand biotechnology?What
biotechnologiesare givingrise to biosociality(Rabinow domainsofhuman activitydo these discoursesand prac-
I992a), a new orderforthe productionof life,nature, tices create?In what largersocial networksof institu-
and the body throughbiologicallybased technological tions,values, conventions,etc., are these domains situ-
interventions.These two regimes form the basis for ated? More generally, what new forms of social
what I call cyberculture.They embody the realization constructionof reality("technoscapes") and of negotia-
thatwe increasinglylive and make ourselvesin techno- tion of such construction(s)are introducedby the new
bioculturalenvironmentsstructuredby novel formsof technologies?How do people routinelyengage techno-
science and technology. scapes, and what are the consequences of doing so in
Despite this novelty, cybercultureoriginates in a termsof the adoption of new ways of thinkingand be-
well-knownsocial and cultural matrix,that of moder- ing? In what ways do our social and ethical practices
nity,even though it orients itself towards the consti- changeas the projectof technoscienceadvances?
2. How can these practices and domains be studied
themovementhas grownandbeenpresented bythemediais trou- ethnographically in various social, regional,and ethnic
bling;see,forinstance,thelead storyon cyberpunk and "theelec- settings?Whatestablishedanthropologicalconceptsand
tronicunderground" in the February8, I993, issue of Time. See methodswould be appropriateto the studyof cybercul-
also Mondo 2,000, perhapsthe most visibleprintedmediumof
cyberpunk, and its User's Guide to the New Edge (i992). For a ture?Which would have to be modified?How, forin-
criticalanalysisofthesetrends,see Rosenthal(i992). stance,will notionsof community,fieldwork,the body,
8. The literature on cyberspace andvirtualrealityproducedbytheir nature,vision,the subject,identity,and writingbe trans-
chroniclers andpractitioners is characterizedbythegrandiosity of formedby the new technologies?
itsclaims.Two examples,bytwoprominent designers, ScottFisher
and MyronKruger, maysuffice:"The possibilitiesofvirtualreali- 3. What is the backgroundof understandingfrom
ties,it appears,areas limitlessas thepossibilitiesofreality.They which the new technologiesemerge?More specifically,
can providean interfacethat disappears-a doorwayto other which modernpractices-in the domains of life,labor,
worlds" (Fisher,quoted in Rheingold I99I:I3 I). More interesting, and language-shape the currentunderstanding, design,
fromKruger:"We are incredibly attunedto the idea thatthe sole and modes of relatingto technology?What continuities
purposeofourtechnology is to solveproblems.It also createscon-
ceptsand philosophy.We mustmorefullyexplorethisaspectof do the new technologiesexhibitin relationto the mod-
our inventionsbecause the next generationof technologywill ern order?What kinds of appropriations, resistances,or
speaktous,understand us,andperceiveourbehavior.Itwillenter innovationsin relationto moderntechnologies(forin-
every home and office. . . . We must recognize this if we are to stance, by minoritycultures) are taking place which
understand and choose what we become as a resultof what we mightrepresentdifferent approachesto and understand-
have made" (quote in Rheingold I99I:II3, emphasis added). Some
likenthe currenttransformation to the industrialrevolution,al- ings of technology?What happens to non-Westernper-
thoughthistime"fuelednotbyoil butbya newcommodity called spectivesas the new technologiesextendtheirreach?
artificialintelligence" (Kurzweil I990:I3). 4. What is the political economy of cyberculture?In
9. It is not apparentwhycomputerand information technologies what ways,forinstance,are the relationsbetweenFirst
bothfallunderthe rubricof artificialintelligence.To the extent
thatcomputers can be thoughtofas today'sdominantintellectual and Third World restructuredin the light of the new
technologies, it is valid to proposethat "all informatics may be technologies?What new local articulationswith forms
thoughtof as artificialintelligence" (L6vy i99i:8). ofglobalcapital based on hightechnologyare appearing?
 ESCOBAR ofCyberculture
The Anthropology 12I 5

How do automation,intelligentmachines,and biotech- nization and generalized acculturation,cosmopolitan

nologytransform the laborprocess,the capitalizationof science and technologyare now viewed in termsoftheir
nature,and the creationofvalue worldwide?If different real or potentialcontributionto the formationofhybrid
groups of people (classes, women, minorities,ethnic culturesand to processes of self-affirmation of theirse-
placed in new technologi-
groups,etc.) are differentially lective and partiallyautonomous adoption.'3 There is
cal contexts,how can anthropologiststheorizeand ex- also hope thatadvances in biotechnologymightbe used
plore this orderingof technoculturalconstruction?Fi- by local groupsin biodiversity-rich regionsof the world
nally, what are the implications of this analysis for a to defendtheirterritories and articulatenovel economic
culturalpolitics of science and technology? and cultural strategies.As David Hess (I993) argues,
however, the effectof cosmopolitan technologies on
ThirdWorld groupsremains insufficiently understood,
The AnthropologicalProject particularlyfromthe vantagepoint of the culturalpoli-
THEORETICAL FORMULATIONS
tics thattheyset in motion,includingissues ofcultural
destruction,hybridization,and homogenizationand the
Interestin science and technologyon the partof social/ creationofnew differences throughformsof connected-
culturalanthropologists has been growingsteadilyin re- ness fosteredby the new technologies-another aspect
centyears.Steps have alreadybeen takentowardsbuild- of what ArjunAppadurai(i99i) calls "global ethno-
ing an institutionalpresence for the anthropologyof scapes." Work on these issues is advancing rapidly,
science and technologywithinthe AmericanAnthropo- particularly in connectionwiththeredefinition ofdevel-
logical Association.'0 Several panels related to science opment(Hess I993, EscobarI994).
and technologyissues were held at the I992 and I993 Anthropologicalreflectionon the relation between
AAA meetings."Topics ofinterestto anthropologists in cultureand technologyis ofcoursenot new. The impact
recentyears have included ethnographiesof scientists, of Westerntechnologieson cultural change and evolu-
studiesofreproductiveand medical technologies,topics tion has been a subject of studysince the early ig9os.14
in genderand science,ethicsand values, and science and Questions of technologicalcontrol and political econ-
engineeringeducation. The more fashionablestudies of omyhave been broached.Nevertheless,studiesofmate-
computerand biological technologies,virtual reality, rial culture and technologyhave sufferedfromdepen-
virtualcommunities,and cyberspaceare attractingin- dence on what a reviewerof the field recentlycalled
creasingattention.An effortto theorizethe anthropol- "the standardview oftechnology"(based on a decontex-
ogyof science and technologyis also underway.'2 tualized teleologythat goes fromsimple tools to com-
Althoughmost anthropologicalscience and technol- plex machines).Only with modernscience and technol-
ogy studies have taken place in highlyindustrialized ogy studies has the possibilityarisen of seeing science
countries,increasingattentionto issues in ThirdWorld and technologyin relationto complex technosocialsys-
contextscan be expected,giventhatthe globalizationof tems. This "lays the foundationonce again forfruitful
culturaland economic productionrelies moreand more communicationamong social anthropologists, ethnoar-
on the new technologies of informationand life. chaeologists,archaeologists,and studentsofhumanevo-
Whetherit is in the domains of biotechnology-driven lution"(Pfaffenberger I 992: 5I 3). It also fosters
exchange
development,information,or warfare,the encounter betweenanthropologistsand otherdisciplinesinvolved
between North and South continues to be heavily in these studies such as philosophy,cognitivescience,
mediated by technologies of many kinds. Recently, and linguistics.
the impact of technologies such as television and In the FirstWorld,attemptsat articulatingan anthro-
videocassetteson local notionsofdevelopmentand mo- pological strategyexplicitlycenteredon new informa-
dernityand theireffecton long-standingsocial and cul- tion,computer,and biologicaltechnologieshave just be-
tural practiceshave been approachedethnographically gun.An importantprecursorin thisregardwas Margaret
(Abu-Lughod I990, Dahl and Rabo I992, GarciaCan- Mead's work in the contextof the emergenceof cyber-
clini I990). Once seen as producingworldwidehomoge- netics duringWorldWar II and up to the middle of the
i960s.15 At the beginningof the I99Os, it is possible
io. The firststep was taken at the i992 annual meetingof the
Societyforthe Social StudiesofScience,wherea groupofAmeri- I3. The case ofthe Kayapoin the Amazonrainforest,who have
can anthropologists (Michael Fischer,Sharon Traweek,Rayna becomeadeptat usingvideocameras,airplanes,andrevenuesfrom
Rapp,DavidHess,Lisa Handwerker, ShirleyGorenstein, andDavid goldminingin theirstruggleforculturalautonomy,is alreadybe-
Hakken)metto discussstrategies a Committeeon
forestablishing cominglegendary.
Scienceand TechnologywithintheAAA. This processis detailed I4. Among the best-known studies is Godelier's (I97I) work on
in thei992 editionoftheSocial/Cultural Anthropology ofScience theeffectsoftheintroduction ofsteelaxes on AustralianAborigi-
and Technology Newsletter, editedbyDavid Hess. nes andtheBaruyaofPapua New Guinea.Foran excellentdiscus-
i i. Panelsat the i 992 meetings includedcyborg anthropology, cul- sion ofearlierstudies,see Hess (I993).
turalperspectives on computing, culturalbarriersto technological I5. Mead was an activeparticipant in the Macy Conferences on
innovation, virtualcommunities, consequencesof interactive in- Cybernetics(Mead ig50-56) as well as a centralfigurein the
formation technology forcultureand education,and cyborgsand foundingof the AmericanSocietyforCybernetics(Mead i968).
women(in honorofDonna HarawayJ. The life of this illustrious"cyberneticsgroup,"which included
12. Fora directory andbibliography ofanthropological scienceand besidesMead Gregory NorbertWie-
Bateson,Heinz von Foerster,
technology studies,see Hess (i992), Hess and Layne(i992), Pfaf- ner,and KurtLewin,amongothers,is chronicledin a recentbook
fenberger (I992), and Hakken(n.d.). (Heimsi99i). It shouldbe pointedout thattheMacyConferences
 2I6 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, JuneI994

to identifythree different proposals. The first,by the ginningto be articulated,most notablyin visual anthro-
anthropologistDavid Thomas, builds upon the growing pology.Given the importanceof vision forvirtualreal-
literatureon the notions of "cyberspace"'16 and "cy- ity,computernetworks,graphics,and interfacesand for
borg"-broadly speaking,a mixtureof human and ma- imagingtechnologies-fromsatellite surveillance,war-
chine.ArguingthatadvancedformsofWesterntechnol- fare,and space explorationto medical technologiessuch
ogy are bringingabout a "rite of passage" between as tomography and the visualizationofthefoetus(Hara-
industrialand "postorganic"societies,between"organi- wayI988, deLandaI99I, Cartwright
andGoldfarbI992,
cally human and cyberpsychicallydigital life-forms as DudenI99o)-it is notsurprising
thatthebranchofan-
reconfiguredthrough computer software systems," thropologymost attunedto the analysis of visualityas
Thomas (I 99 I: 3 3) calls on anthropologiststo engage a culturaland epistemologicalregimehas been the first
"virtualworlds technologiesduringthis early stage of to reactto uncriticalcelebrationofcyberspatialtechnol-
speculation and development," particularlyfrom the ogies(e.g.,Benedikti99i, Rheingoldi99i). Claimsby
pointofview ofhow these technologiesare sociallypro- cyberspace designers that the new technologies will
duced. Fromprint-basedparadigmsof visual literacyto "make the body obsolete, destroysubjectivity,create
the virtualworlds of digitizedinformation, we are wit- new worldsand universes,changethe economic and po-
nessing a transitionto a new postcorporealstage that liticalfutureofhumanity,and even lead to a posthuman
has greatpromiseforcreativesocial logics and sensorial order"areforthese criticsat bestwishfulthinkingmoti-
regimes.Cyberspaceaffordsunprecedentedpossibilities vated by the seductiveness of virtual realityand like
foranthropologistsin termsof realizingthis promise. technologies and at worst misguided effortsat engi-
The second project,"cyborganthropology,"formally neeringsocial reality(Grayand Driscoll I992:39). So,
launched with a two-panelsession held at the annual theyargue,is the seeminglyexclusive focus on a cybor-
meetings of the AAA in San Francisco in December giansocietymediatedbyhuman-machineinteractions.18
I992, takes science and technologystudies,in particular Ratherthan suggestingthat a whole new anthropologi-
feministones, as a point of departure.While its domain cal subdisciplineis needed, Gray and Driscoll preferto
is the analysisofscience and technologyas culturalphe- speak of "anthropologyof, and in, cyberspace." From
nomena, the main goal of cyborganthropologyis the this perspective,anthropologistswould studytechnolo-
ethnographicstudyof the boundariesbetween humans gies in the culturalcontextsfromwhich theyoriginate
and machinesthatare specificto late-2oth-century soci- and in which they operate, including their continued
eties. Believingthat "anthropos"as the subject and ob- links to the dominantvalues of rationality,instrumen-
ject of anthropologymust be displaced, the emerging tality,profit,and violence. It is no coincidence, these
cyborganthropologists arguethathuman and social real- writerscontinue,thatvirtualreality-one of the recent
ityis as much a productofmachines as ofhuman activ- developmentsat the heart of the cyberspatialmove-
ity,thatwe should grantagencyto machines,and that ment-has been and is likelyto continueto be circum-
the propertask foran anthropologyof science and tech- scribedby militaryand economic interestsand that,de-
nologyis to examine ethnographically how technology spite its much-touted potential for liberatory and
servesas agentof social and culturalproduction.'7 humanizingpurposes, the militaryand profit-oriented
Criticalpositionsregardingthese two projectsare be- applicationswill undoubtedlyremain dominant.Their
prescriptionis for examining these technologiesfrom
theperspectiveofhow theyallow variousgroupsofpeo-
tookplace in the contextofthe Cold War,thefirstwave ofcom- ple to negotiatespecificforms
putertechnology, and thedevelopment ofgeneralsystemstheory.
of power,authority,and
Today'shistoricalandepistemological contextsarequitedifferent. representation.
i6. The term"cyberspace"-first coinedbyWilliamGibson(1984) The anthropologyofcyberculturesimilarlyholds that
and introducedto intellectual,artistic,and academic circlesin we can assume a priorineitherthe existence of a new
Benedikt'scollectionCyberspace:TheFirstSteps(i9I (-refersto era nor the need fora new branchof anthropology.In-
thegrowing networksand systemsofcomputer-mediated environ-
ments.As a spatialized,computer-mediated networkof interac- deed, the discipline is in principlewell suited to what
tions,cyberspace is seen as "enablingfullcopresenceand interac- must startas a rathertraditionalethnographicproject:
tionofmultipleusers,allowinginputand outputfromand to the to describe,in the mannerof an initial culturaldiagno-
fullhuman sensorium,permitting situationsof real and virtual sis,what is happeningin termsofthe emergingpractices
realities,remotedata collectionand controlthrough telepresence, and transformations associated with risingtechnoscien-
and total integration and intercommunication with a full range
of intelligentproductsand environments in real space" (Novak tificdevelopments.However, given that these develop-
i99i:225). For introductions to the conceptof cyberspace,see ments are increasinglyunprecedentedsites of articula-
Rheingold(i99i) and Stone (i99i, i992). For a presentation of tions of knowledge and power, it is also pertinentto
globalcomputernetworks,see Dertouzos(i99i) and Cerf(I991). raise the question of the theoreticaladequacy of estab--
A briefreviewof recentguides to the Internetis foundin the
ChronicleofHigherEducation,Decemberi6, i992, p. Ag. i8. ForRoseanneStone(I99I, i992), theemphasison "postcorpo-
I7. This description is based on the paperpresentedat the panel rality"arisesfromthetraditional male discomfort
withthebody.
"CyborgAnthropology i: On the ProductionofHumanityand Its This bias will be corrected,Stone believes,when morewomen
Boundaries," by GaryLee Downey,JosephDumit,and SarahWil- participatein the designofvirtualand cyberspatial
technologies.
liams(i992). Paperswerepresented on suchtopicsas theparticipa- Althoughthis is beginningto happen,the resultsremainto be
tionofwomenin high-energy physicsin Japan,medicalimaging seen. Fromanotherangle,it can be arguedthatthe emphasison
technology, science-fictionfandom,computer-assistedpsychother- transcending the bodyin the cybercontextis anotheraspectof
apy,"low-techcyborgs"(cyborgs in theThirdWorld),reproductive disembodied"virtualtheorizing"thatat timeshas tenuouslinks
technology, and culturalconstructions ofbiotechnology. withreality(Tsugawai992).

lished concepts in light of theirhistoricaland cultural
specificity.
One ofthemost fruitful insightsis thattechnoscience
is motivatinga blurringand implosion of categoriesat
various levels, particularlythe modern categoriesthat
have definedthe natural,the organic,the technical,and
thetextual.The boundariesbetweennatureand culture,
betweenorganismand machine are ceaselessly redrawn
accordingto complex historical factorsin which dis-
courses of science and technologyplay a decisive role
(HarawayI991 ). "Bodies," "organisms,"and "communi-
ties" thus have to be retheorizedas composed of ele-
mentsthatoriginatein threedifferent domainswithper-
meable boundaries: the organic, the technical (or
technoeconomic),and the textual (or,broadlyspeaking,
cultural).While nature,bodies, and organismscertainly
have an organic basis, they are increasinglyproduced
in conjunctionwith machines, and this productionis
always mediated by scientificnarratives ("discourses"
of biology,technology,and the like) and by culturein
general.Cyberculturemust thus be understoodas the
overarchingfieldof forcesand meanings in which this
complex productionof life, labor, and language takes
place.Forsome(HarawayI99I, RabinowI992a), while
cyberculture can be seen as the impositionofa new grid
ofcontrolon the planet,it also representsnew possibili-
ties forpotent articulationsbetween humans, nature,
and machines. The organic,these criticssuggest,is not
necessarilyopposed to the technological.Yet it must
also be emphasizedthatnew knowledgeand powercon-
figurationsare narrowingdown on life and labor,as in
theHuman Genome project;indeed,the new genetics-
linked to novel computertechniques,its promisemost
eagerlyvisualized in the image of the biochip-might
proveto be the greatestforceforreshapingsociety and
life ever witnessed. Nature will be known and remade
throughtechnique; it will be literallybuilt in the same
way thatcultureis, with the difference thatthe making
ofnaturewill take place throughthe reconfiguration of
social lifeby micropracticesoriginatingin medicine,bi-
ology,and biotechnology(Rabinow i992a). Evelyn Fox
Kellersimilarlypointsout thatthe relationbetweenna-
tureand cultureis likely to be radicalLyreconceivedto
the extentthat molecular biologyis creatingthe sense
of a "new malleabilityof nature." This is easily seen
in the discourseon geneticdiseases (Keller I992b). The
"rightto normal genes" mightwell become the battle
cryofan armyofhealthexpertsand reformers deploying
practicesof biosocial transformation of a scope not wit-
nessed since "the birthof the clinic" two centuriesago
(Foucault I975).
The corollaryof these analyses is the need to pay at-
tentionto the social and culturalrelationsofscience and
technologyas centralmechanismsforthe productionof
lifeand culturein the 2Ist century.Capital, to be sure,
will continueto play a crucial role in the reinventionof
life and society. The worldwidespread of value today,
however,takes place not so much by the directextrac-
tion of surplusvalue fromlabor or conventionalindus-
trializationas by the further capitalizationofnatureand
society throughscientificresearch and development,
ESCOBAR The Anthropologyof Cyberculture 22I7
particularlyin the areas ofartificialintelligenceand bio-
technology.Even thehuman genomebecomes an impor-
tant area forcapitalistrestructuring and, thus,forcon-
testation. The reinvention of nature and culture
currently underway-effectedby/withinwebs ofmean-
ing and productionthat link science and capital-must
thereforebe understoodaccordingto a political econ-
omy appropriateto the era of cyberculture. Anthropolo-
gists need to begin in earnest the study of the social,
economic,and political practicesrelatedto the technol-
ogies throughwhich life,language,and labor are being
articulatedand produced.
ETHNOGRAPHIC DOMAINS
As I have said, the general questions to be raised by
the anthropologyof cybercultureinclude the following:
What new formsof social constructionof realityand of
negotiationof such constructionsare being created or
modified?How are people socialized by their routine
experienceofthe constructedspaces createdby the new
technologies?How do people relate to their techno-
worlds (machines, reinventedbodies, and natures)?If
people are differentlyplaced in technospaces(according
to race, gender,class, geographicallocation, "physical
ability"),how do theirexperiencesofthesespaces differ?
Finally,would it be possible to produce ethnographic
accounts of the multiplicityof practices linked to the
new technologiesin various social, regional,and ethnic
settings?How do these practicesrelateto broadersocial
issues such as the controlof labor,the accumulationof
capital, the organizationof life-worlds,and the global-
ization of culturalproduction?
One can begin to think of these questions in terms
ofpossible ethnographicdomains and concreteresearch
strategies.Some clues concerningthese domains may
be foundin currentresearchprojects.Several domains
ofethnographicinvestigationcan be distinguishedas an
initial approximation,to be refinedas the researchad-
vances:
i. The productionand use of new technologies.Here
anthropologicalresearchwould focus on scientistsand
experts in sites such as genetic research labs, high-
technologycorporations,and virtualrealitydesign cen-
ters,on the one hand, and the users of these technolo-
gies, on the other.Ethnographiesin this domain would
generallyfollow in the footstepsof the handfulof eth-
nographiesofmodernscience and technologyconducted
to date (Latourand WoolgarI979, MartinI987, Visvana-
than I985, Latour I988, Traweek I988, Kondo I990),
science and technologytheorizing,particularlyin rela-
tion to anthropology(Hakken n.d., Pfaffenberger I992,
Hess and LayneI992, Hess I993), andfeministstudies
ofscienceandtechnology(HarawayI989, I99I; Jacobus,
Keller,and Shuttlewort1990; Wajcman199I; Keller
I992a), although they would have to be resituated
withinthe conceptual space of the anthropologyof cy-
berculture.A handful of ethnographicstudies of this
kind are alreadyunderway.'9
ig. These includeDeborahHeath's studyofa molecularbiotech-
2I8 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, JuneI994

A salient aspect of researchin this domain is the eth- not only forunderstandingwhat these new "villages"
nographicstudyof the productionof subjectivitiesthat and "communities" are but, equally important,for
accompanies the new technologies.That the computer imaginingthe kinds ofcommunitiesthathuman groups
is "an evocative object," a projectivemedium for the can create with the help of emerging technologies.
constructionof a varietyof privateand public worlds, Again, researchin this area is just beginning.We can
has been shown by SherryTurkle (i984). As the com- anticipateactive discussion on the propermethods for
puter culture spreads, Turkle shows in a pioneering studyingthese communities,includingquestions of on-
study,more and more people come to think of them- line/off-line fieldwork,the boundaries of the group to
selves in computerterms.Computersare changingno- be studied,interpretation, and ethics.22
tions of identityand the selfin ways that are little un- A variantofthis line ofresearchis what Laurel (i990:
derstood. Cybercultureis indeed creating a host of 9I-93) has termed"interface anthropology." The cre-
veritable"technologiesof the self" that go beyondthe ation of human-computerinterfaceshas been treated
view of self as machine, and the cultural productivity narrowlyas a problemof engineeringdesign which at-
of these notions can only be assessed ethnographically. tempts to match the tasks to be performedwith the
Virtualworlds,forinstance, such as the use of anony- tools at hand. Yet the key question of the distinctuser
mous computerrole-playinggames (MUDs) as therapeu- populationsforwhom the technologiesare intendedis
tic media, can be a way of moving out of the self and oftenignoredor inferredfromstatistical information,
intotheworldofsocial interactions.Althoughtheseme- and the criticalquestion ofwhat the technologyin ques-
dia are frequentlythoughtofnegatively,Turkle's (i992) tiondoes to users and what it allows themto do is never
recentworkindicatesthattheycan become instruments raised.Children,teachers,computergame designersand
for reconstructingidentities in interactiveways and users, fictionwriters,architects,communityactivists,
sources of knowledgeabout otherculturesand the out- and othershave different needs and approachesregard-
side world.There is also a global componentto the pro- ing these basic questions. An "interfaceanthropology"
ductionofsubjectivitiesthatneeds to be explored.What thataddressesthis lack would focus on user/contextin-
is the meaningof the globalizationof Nintendo,forin- tersections,finding"informants"to guide the critical
stance,in youthcultureworldwide?How are computer (not merelyutilitarian)explorationof diverseusers and
games "consumed" in societies that have different cul- contexts.23
turalcodes? 3. Studies of the popular cultureof science and tech-
To the extentthat the reconstructionof space entails nology,includingthe effectof science and technology
thereconstruction ofthe body,this also needs to be the- on the popularimaginary(the set ofbasic elementsthat
orized. How is the body being reconfiguredand reim- structurea given discourse and the relations among
agined throughinscriptionsat the level of the relation them)and popularpractices.What happens when tech-
between body and machine? What would be a post- nologiessuch as computersand virtualrealityenterthe
structuralistunderstandingof the body in cyberspace, mainstream?The emergenceof a "technobabble"(Barry
if this understandingis to avoid the trappingsboth of I992) is only the tip of the icebergwith regardto the
thefrontier (thebodythatcan or cannotbe transcended)
and ofhumanism(thebodyone can "remake")?A fruit- WholeEarth'LectronicLink(WELL),locatedin theSan Francisco
ful theorizationof posthumanitymightlie in this area Bayarea,withsubscribers frommanypartsof the UnitedStates.
of inquiry.If new technologiesaffordopportunitiesfor The WELL maintainsongoingdiscussionson themeaningofvir-
the reproductionof life throughmachines, must the tual communities,virtualreality,multimedia,and the like. An
computerbe included in the ensemble of reproductive ethnography oftheWELL is in progress(BessingerI993).
22. Questionsofethicsare significantin virtualcommunities, in-
technologies?What would "female body" mean froma cludingthepossibilityofassumingdifferent personas,therelation-
feministperspectiveon these matters?20 shipbetween"virtual"and "real"personas,thedisclosureofone's
2. The appearance of computer-mediated communi- socialmarkers, suchas one's gender,race,and class,andthepossi-
ties,such as the so-calledvirtual communities and, gen- bilityof "lurking"(observinga community withoutmakingone's
presenceknownto thoseobserved).Thereis a richsetofconcerns
erally,what one ofthe most creativecomputerenviron- to be exploredherebyanthropologists (see BessingerI993). Ques-
ment designershas called "the vibrantnew villages of tions of exchangeof information betweenanthropologists from
activitywithinthelargerculturesofcomputing"(Laurel variouspartsofthe worldand betweenanthropologists and those
I990:93).21 Anthropologicalanalysis can be important theyworkwithin the fieldtake on a novel dimensionwiththe
advanceof electronicnetworks.In some situations,virtualcom-
munitiesbecomepartof "the field"ratherthanmerelyan exten-
nologylaboratory(i992), BarbaraJoans'sethnography of virtual sionofit. An effort to connectanthropologists andothersthrough-
realitydesigners(i992), and David West'sresearchin progress on out the world electronically to discuss the kinds of questions,
virtualrealityusers(personalcommunication; forinformation on ideas,books,conferences, etc.,thataremostrelevantforanthropol-
thisproject,contactDavid Westat "dmwest@stthomas.edu", or ogyis underwayunderthedirectionofArjunAppaduraiandCarol
at theWELL). Breckenridge ofthejournalPublic Culture.
2o. These thoughts on thebodyareJenniferTerry's(personalcom- 23. Walker(X990) distinguishes fivephasesin the historyofuser
munication). interfaces:(i) knobsanddials,(2) batch(a specialistcomputer oper-
.2I. Virtualcommunities areformedbygroupsofpeoplewhorelate atorrunning a stackofjobs on punchedcards),(3) timesharing, (4)
to each othermainlythrougha computermediumsuch as elec- menus,(5) graphics,windows.The nextphase will take the user
tronicmail and specializednetworkssuch as Peacenet,Econet, directly"inside"the computer, throughthe screento cyberspace,
and a largevarietyof academic,community, and business-based so to say.This will be a three-dimensional space such as theone
bulletinboardsand conferencing systems,usuallylinkedthrough achievedbyvirtualrealitytoday.The hope ofdesignersis thatit
Internet, Bitnet,and Usenet.A unique on-linecommunity is the will replacemorepassiveviewingwithactiveparticipation.
 ESCOBAR of Cyberculture1.29
The Anthropology

changesthatare takingplace at thislevel. FortheArgen- face-to-face interaction.This mightinclude researchon

tinianculturalcriticBeatrizSarlo(i992), theprincipal talk,interaction,and technologyin work (Goodwin and
need in this regardis to examine the aestheticand prac- Harness Goodwin i992) and leisure contextsand on the
tical incorporationof technologyinto daily life.At the shapingand reshapingof social and culturalboundaries
level ofthe popularsectors,the technologicalimaginary both between a given computer-mediatedcommunity
elicits a reorganizationof popular knowledgesand the and othercommunitiesand within such communities.
developmentof symbolic contentsthat,while undeni- A particularaspect of this area of research is hyper-
ablymodern,differsignificantly fromthose intendedby text-a computertextdesignedto be recreatedor trans-
scientists.This has to be takeninto account in the study formedthroughcollaborativeacts involvingone person
of the technoliteratepracticesthat enable people to re- and an originaldatabase or manyusers performing oper-
late actively to new technologies (Penley and Ross ations upon a given text or texts-to the extentthat it
i99i). Since the mid-ig8os,ethnographicstudiesofpop- is the virtualenvironmentof the hypertextthat allows
ular culture(FiskeI989, Willis i990) have been grap- a "matrix" of knowledgeableusers to interact(Barrett
plingwith some of these issues. The imbricationofcul- I989, Piscitelli I99I).25
tural forms with social questions can be studied A barelyexploredquestion in this domain is the hy-
ethnographically; it can also be gleaned fromliterature pothesizedtransitionto a postscripturalsocietyeffected
and other popular productions,as the work of Sarlo by informationtechnologies.If writingand its associ-
(i992), Seltzer(i992), and Jenkins(i992) demonstrates.24 ated logical modes of thoughtreplaced oralityand its
4. The growthand qualitativedevelopmentofhuman associated situationalways ofthinking,the information
computer-mediatedcommunication,particularlyfrom age would be markingthe abandonmentof writingas
the perspectiveof the relationshipbetween language, the dominantintellectualtechnology.In the same way
communication,social structures,and culturalidentity. thatwritingincorporatedorality,information would in-
While computer-mediated communicationsharesmany corporatewriting-but only afteran importantcultural
featureswith otherformsof mediated communication mutation.Theoretical and hermeneuticalknowledge-
well studiedby linguistsand linguisticanthropologists, so closely linked to writing-would likewise enterinto
such as telephoneand answeringmachine messages,it a periodofdecline or,at least, ofconversionto a second-
also differsin importantrespects. Human interaction aryform.New ways ofthinkingdeterminedbythe oper-
throughcomputersmust be studied not only fromthe ational needs ofinformationand computationwould be
perspectiveof the transcultural/transsituational princi- instituted.Time would no longerbe circular(as in oral-
ples and discourse strategies(Gumperz i983) govern- ity)or linear (as with the historicalsocieties ofwriting)
ing any typeof human interactionbut also in termsof but punctual. Punctual time and the accelerationof in-
thespecificityofthe communicativeand linguisticprac- formationwould entail that knowledgebe not fixed,as
tices that arise fromthe nature of the media involved. in writing,but evolving,as in an expertsystem (Levy
Threedimensionsofthe processofconstructionofcom- i99i). Werethesemomentouschangesto take place,
puter-mediated communicativecommunitiesare partic- theywould pose difficultquestions foranthropology, so
ularly relevantin this regard(Celso Alvarez, personal dependenton writingand hermeneuticalinterpretation.
communication,i992): (a) the relationshipbetweenma- One thingseems certain:despitewidespreadarguments
chines and social subjects as producersof discourse at to the contrary,electroniccommunicationhas effected
thethresholdofthe birthofan international"cyberliter- basic changesin languageexperiencesand the construc-
ate" society; (b) the question of the creationand distri- tion of events. "What is at stake are new languagefor-
butionofand access to the "authorized"or "legitimate" mations that alter significantlythe networkof social
computer-mediatedcommunication codes and lan- relations,that restructurethose relationsand the sub-
guageswhose masteryand manipulationgrantsparticu- jects they constitute"(Poster i990:8). The understand-
lar groupsof practitionerssymbolicauthorityand con- ingofthese changesdemandsventuringintounexplored
trol over the circulation of cyberculture;(c) the role domains of analysis.
of computer-mediatedcommunication in establishing 5. The politicaleconomyofcyberculture. Anthropolo-
linksbetween,givingcohesion to, and creatingcontinu- gistshave paid close attentionin recentdecades to the
ities in the interactionalhistoryofgroupmembers,side analysis of communities in historical and global con-
by side with telephoneconversations,regularmail, and texts(Wolfi982, Roseberry i992). Cyberculturepre-
sents new challenges forthe continued articulationof
24. Seltzer'sbookexamines"theanthropology ofboyhoodandado- an anthropologicalpolitical economy. What has been
lescenceat the turnof the centuryand the social and cultural variouslycalled "the silicon order,""microchipcapital-
technologies for'themakingofmen"' (p. 5) fromtheFoucaultian ism," and "the informationeconomy" entails profound
perspectiveof the productionof subjectivitiesand docile bodies.
Sarlo'sbook deals withthe introduction of moderntechnologies
in Argentina in thei9.2S and I93Os. One ofSarlo'sstrongestpoints 25. Alvarezclaimsthatthecharacterization ofcomputer-mediated
is that,in historicalmomentsat whichnewtechnologies areintro- communicative groupsas "virtual"communitiesis a misnomer,
duced,as in thepresent, ofa certainoriginal
thereis thepossibility sincefromtheperspective theyare"real"
oflinguisticinteraction,
popularconstruction in connectionwiththem.Penleyand Ross's communities. A questionabouttheadequacyofthemodelofcon-
book examinesthe enablingpracticesof groupssuch as hackers versationfordealingwith computershas been posed by Walker:
andscience-fiction fans.Jenkins's advocacyofthestudyof"textual "Whenyouareinteracting witha computer youarenotconversing
poaching"byscience-fiction writersandbycomputeruserspoints withanotherperson.You areexploring anotherworld"(I990:443).
in thesame direction. Heremightlie some challengesforlinguisticanthropology.
2.201 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, June1994

changes in capital accumulation, social relations,and biotechnologyin the name of efficientand rationaluse.
divisionsof labor at many levels. Local communitiesand social movements are enticed
What is the relationshipbetween "information"and to participatein these schemes as "stewards"ofnatural
"capital"? Is it appropriateto postulate, as some do and social capital. Communities (or theirsurvivors)are
(Posteri990), theexistenceofa "modeofinformation"finallyacknowledgedas rightfulownersof"the environ-
akin to a mode ofproduction?How can we theorizethe ment" only to the extentthattheyagreeto treatit (and
articulationbetweeninformation, markets,and cultural themselves)as capital (O'Connor I993). The whole issue
orders? The shift to new informationtechnologies of "intellectualpropertyrights"linked to Third World
markedthe appearance of more flexible,decentralized naturalresources-including the patentingby multina-
laborprocesseshighlystratifiedby gender,ethnic,class, tional corporationsof seeds and plant varietiesand sub-
and geographicfactors.This "post-Fordistregime"(Har- stancesderivedfromstocksused by ThirdWorld"tradi-
vey i989) elicits novel articulationsof global capital tional" societies-is emerging as one of the most
with local cultures;we are witnessing"the production disturbingaspects of the ecological phase of capital
of cultural differencewithin a structuredsystem of (ShivaI993, Kloppenburg i99i). Whatare theimplica-
global political economy" (Pred and Watts I 992: i 8). In tions of these developmentsforstudies of materialcul-
what specificways are these global processes mediated tureand biological anthropology? Anthropol6gists have
and constitutedlocally? What happens to local notions maintained that the transformationof ecosystems by
of developmentand modernityas new mechanisms of capital is mediatedby the culturalpracticesof the spe-
local-globalinteractiontake shape? cific societies in which such appropriationtakes place
The appearance of a "society of control" (Deleuze (Godelier i986). Today, genetic engineering,molecular
I993b) and of cyberocracy, or "rule by way of informa- biology,and thenew sciences ofnaturalproductsqualify
tion" (Ronfeldti99i), calls for institutionalethnogra- the concept of "mediation" in such a way as to make
phies conducted fromthe perspectiveof the political established anthropologicalinsights no longer suffi-
economy of information.What are the major institu- cient.26
tional sites withinwhich and fromwhich key informa- Finally,the restructuring of the macroeconomicand
tional categoriesand flows are created and circulated? political relations between rich and poor countriesin
What perspectivesof the world do these categoriesrep- the wake of cyberculturemust be considered.As some
resent,and how do they enact mechanisms of ruling argue, high technologyis resultingin a "new depen-
that depend on certaingroups' relationto the mode of dency" of technology-poorcountrieson the leaders in
productionof information?These ethnographieswould the innovationof computer,information, and biological
move fromcomputer-mediated productionof informa- technologies(Castells I986, Castells and Laserna I989,
tion to its receptionand use, investigatingat each level Smith I993). ThirdWorld countries,accordingto these
the cultural dynamics and politics that "information" writers,must negotiatethis dependencythroughaggres-
sets in motion. sive technologicalmodernizationcoupledwithsocial re-
As is information,science and technologyhave be- form.Froman anthropologicalperspective,this sugges-
come crucial to capitalismin that the creationof value tion is problematic;it amounts to the continuationof
todaydependslargelyon scientificand technologicalde- thepost-WorldWar II policies of "development"which
velopments.The concreteformsof the scientificappro- have had for the most part deleterious effectson the
priationoflifeand laborby capital exhibitnovel features economies and cultures of the Third World (Escobar
such as the ever-tighterimbricationof academy and in- I994). Like development,technologiesare not culturally
dustryin the biotechnologicalfield (Rabinow i992b). neutral.
These new forcesare bringingabout a "biorevolution" Are theredifferent possibilitiesforThirdWorldsoci-
in the ThirdWorld: "New technicalforms. . . will sig- eties-other ways ofparticipatingin the technocultural
nificantlychange the contextwithinwhich technologi- conversations and processes that are reshaping the
cal change in the Third World is conceptualized and world?How can social movementsin Asia, Africa,and
planned.We suggestthat the clusterof emergenttech- LatinAmericaarticulatepolicies thatallow themto par-
niques generically called 'biotechnology' will be to ticipatein cybercultures withoutfullysubmittingto the
the Green Revolution what the Green Revolutionwas rules of the game? Will most social groupsin the Third
to traditional plant varieties and practices" (Buttel, Worldbe in a positioneven to know about the possibili-
Kenney,and Kloppenburgi985:32). Plant genetics, ties afforded by the new technologies?An especiallyim-
industrial tissue culture, and the use of genetically portantquestion is whetherThird World govemments
manipulated microorganismsrepresentunprecedented will be interested in constructingthe technological
interventionsin the context of Third World develop-
26. It is no coincidencethatthe WorldBank,throughits Global
ment.Corporationsare alreadyin the lead withregardto Environment Facility(GEF), is leadingefforts
forthe conserva-
researchand development.As the analysis of corporate tion of biologicaldiversity.In Latin America,Colombia,Brazil,
behaviorby these researchersshows, the prospectsfor andMexicoalreadyhaveGEFprojectsfortheirtropicalrainforests.
theThirdWorldare ominous,because corporationssim- OtherGEF projectsarein themakingin themostbiodiverseenvi-
ply do not care about ThirdWorldinterests. ronments oftheworld(all ofthemin theThirdWorld).The strug-
In the case of regionswith high biological diversity, gle betweencorporations, social movements,and statesoverthe
resourcesoftheseareasis intense;it is thebasisfora multibillion-
the biophysical milieu (nature) is increasinglyrepre- dollarindustry.So is the struggleoverthepatentingofgenesand
sentedas a reservoirof value in itselfto be exploitedby life-forms.

"imaginaries"thatwill be requiredforaccess to thenew
technologiesfromthe perspectiveof more autonomous
design (Sutz I993): "there will not be a genuine social
transformation without transforming the relation be-
tween society and the technologiesit incorporates"(p.
I38). To startpayingattentionto Third World techno-
logical innovationis a firststep towardsgaining"tech-
nological self-esteem." A more general question is
whetherthe new technologiescan be conceptualizedin
ways thatdo not reduce them to theirrole in economic
development,and anotheris what cyberculturesmean
fromdifferent ThirdWorldperspectives.
Of special importancein discussing these issues in
the ThirdWorldis the role of women in the electronics
industryworldwide.The developmentof cyberculture
rests,in many ways, on the labor of young women in
NorthAmerican,Japanese,and Europeanelectronicen-
claves in Southeast Asia, Central America, and other
partsof the Third World (Ong I987, Mies i986). There
is everyreason to believe that electronicswill continue
to be favoredin industrialschemes in the ThirdWorld
underthe aegis ofmultinationalcorporations,and there
is also everyreason to believe that youngwomen will
continueto be seen as the "ideal" labor forceby these
industries.The effectsof this process on the dynamics
of genderand cultureare enormous,as the few studies
ofmaquiladoras and sweatshopsconductedto date have
shown. Feminist anthropologyand political economy
have a greatdeal to contributeto this fundamentalas-
pect of the constructionof cyberculture.
Anthropologists can contributeto in-depthstudies of
the class, gender,and race aspects of the makingof cy-
bercultureand challenges to it, including analyses of
technoscientificelites, on the one hand, and of the po-
tentialof individuals,groups,and social movementsto
articulateparallel or alternativetechnologies,ways of
knowing,and social relationsof science and technology
(Darnovsky,Epstein,and Wilson i99i). Anthropological
studiesofcyberculturescan help us to imaginecontexts
in which possibilitiesforrelatingto technoculturethat
do not exacerbatethepowerimbalancesin societymight
emerge.
RethinkingTechnology?Anthropologyand
Complexity
Technological innovations and dominant world views
generallytransformeach other so as to legitimateand
naturalizethe technologiesofthe time.Nature and soci-
etycome to be explainedin ways thatreinforcethe tech-
nological imperativesof the day, making them appear
the most rational and efficientformof social practice.
In the modern age, this mutual reinforcement has re-
sulted in the universalizationof the European techno-
scientificimaginary.For some, the visualization of a
post-technoscientificsocietywould depend on the abil-
ity to set limits to this technological imperative; it
shouldbe a matterof studyingclosely the reach oftech-
noscience,decidingwhich domains should be defended
fromit, and demarcatingappropriatetechnicaldomains
ESCOBAR The Anthropology
of CybercultureI 22I
and stylesofcompetence(Medina i992). Whetheror not
this positionis viable or even useful,new languagesare
needed that allow differentgroups of people (experts,
social movements,citizens' groups)to reorientthe dom-
inant understandingof technology.Some of these lan-
guages are being craftedwithin science itself(ecology,
feminist science, non-Western scientific traditions).
One such new languagewhich is rapidlyachievingpres-
tigeis the languageof complexity.
Accordingto thosedevotedto thisenterprise, develop-
ments in thermodynamicsand mathematicsduringthe
past 2o years (the thermodynamicsof irreversiblephe-
nomena and the theoryof dynamical systems)forced
scientiststo recognizethat the separationbetween the
physicochemicaland the biologicalworlds,betweenthe
"simple" and the "complex," and between "order" and
"disorder"is neitheras sharp nor as greatas was once
thought.The discoverythat "inert" matterhas proper-
ties that are remarkablyclose to those of life-formsled
to the postulate that life is a propertynot of organic
matterperse but ofthe organizationofmatterand hence
to the concept of nonorganiclife (de Landa i992). In a
similarvein,scientistsbeganto pay attentionto thefact
thatsimple systemssuch as a simple chemical reaction
and a mechanical pendulum can generate extremely
complex behaviors,while extremelycomplex systems
can give rise to simple and easily quantifiablephenom-
ena.27The realizationthat eventspreviouslyconsidered
outside the purview of science because they could not
be describedby systemsof linearequations were in fact
centralto the universe led this group of scientiststo
launch the theorizationof complexityas the crucial sci-
entificresearchprogramforthe last decades of the 2oth
centuryand many decades to come.28
Much as the designersofthenew technologiesbelieve
thattheyare changingthe world,so the scientistswork-
ing on the developmentof the science of complexity
have no doubt that theyare on the thresholdof a great
scientificrevolution.Insteadofemphasizingstabilityin
nature and societies, they emphasize instabilitiesand
fluctuations;in lieu of reversiblelinear processes,non-
linearityand irreversibility are placed at the heart of
scientific inquiry. Similarly, "conservative systems"
(physicalsystemsconsideredin isolationfromtheirsur-
roundings)have givenway to "self-organizing" systems,
staticequilibriumto dynamicequilibriumand nonequi-
librium,orderto chaos, fixedelementsand quantitiesto
patternsand possibilities,and predictionto explanation.
27. The examplesmostcommonlygivenaretheso-calledchemical
clockforthefirsttypeofsystemand solitonsandtsunamisforthe
second.
28. Researchon complexity has been spearheadedbythe SantaFe
Institute,establishedmostlyby physicistsand economistsin the
mid-ig8os.However,some of the basic ideas go back severalde-
cadesto workdonein systemsscienceand systemsphilosophy in
the I950S and I96os, ecology,biology,mathematics, and theearly
theoriesofself-organization (suchas Prigogine and Stengersi983).
Mostoftheseprecursors areoverlookedin theotherwiseinforma-
tiveaccountof the historyand workof the Santa Fe Instituteby
Waldrop(i992). An introduction to complexityforreaderswith
some yearsof college science is foundin Nicolis and Prigogine
(i989). Usefulintroductions to chaos and self-organizationare de
Landa (i992), Hayles (i99i), and Kauffman (i99i).
222 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, June1994

The science of complexity has also replaced i gth- strictedto complexity.Maturana,Varela,and coworkers
centuryphysicswithmodernbiologyas a model; it stud- (Maturana and Varela I987, Varela, Thompson, and
ies physicalphenomenaas complexbiologicalprocesses Rosch 1991) have made self-organization(the auto-
and employskindsofanalysisthatare based on the con- poiesis of the living)the cornerstoneof theirtheoretical
creteand the heterogeneousratherthan on the abstract, biologyand epistemology.Foucault's (I972) conceptual-
the homogeneous,and the general.Whereas Cartesian ization of discursiveformationscan likewise be seen as
epistemologyand Newtonian science sought to model a theoryof the self-organizing characterof knowledge
theorderofthingsaccordingto laws, the science ofcom- systems.Perhapsthe most thoroughview of the perva-
plexity-althoughstill searchingfora generallaw ofpat- sive characterofself-organizing processesis the workof
tern formationfor all nonequilibriumsystems in the Deleuze and Guattari(I987; Deleuze I 993a). Whetherit
universe-espouses a pluralistic view of the physical is in the domains ofinertmatter(geology),the sciences,
world,webs ratherthanstructures,and connectionsand political economy, or the self, what these researchers
transgressions instead of neat boundariesisolatingpris- findat workis "machinic" processes,stratifications and
tine systems. territorializations that develop into the structureswe
The popularityachieved by fractalsand chaos theory know.3'
(a relativelysmall subset of complexity)in the mid- Technologyhas been essential to the appearanceand
I980s helped immenselyto put these developmentson consolidationof modernstructures.Modern structures
themap forthe largerpublic. Chaos became the signifier belong with the line, boundary-making, disciplinarity,
formany things,few of which perhapshad to do with unity, and hierarchicalcontrol. Fractals, chaos, com-
the actual scientificwork going on. This popularity plexity,nomadologywould perhaps dictate a different
raises an importantquestion recentlytaken up by a dynamicsand arrangementoflife:fluidity,multiplicity,
groupof literarytheorists:the extentto which science plurality,connectedness,segmentarity,heterogeneity,
and culture intertwinein the production of popular resilience;not "science" but knowledgesofthe concrete
imaginaries. Chaos theory,according to these theo- and the local, not laws but knowledge of the prob-
rists (Hayles iggia, b), echoes and participatesin cul- lems and the self-organizing dynamics of nonorganic,
turalcurrentssuch as poststructuralist theoryand post- organic,and social phenomena.Thereis some awareness
modernism.The birthof chaos and complexityis not among scientistsof complexitythat they are reversing
independentofthe historicalfermentwhichgave rise to a centuries-olddualisticattitudeofthe West,the binary
"thepostmoderncondition":a worldthatwas becoming logic, the reductionistand utilitariandrive.Some have
at once more chaotic and more totalized, with small attempteda link with Easternthought(Varela,Thomp-
eventshavinggreateffectson the economy and the so- son, and Rosch i99i). These scientists (in contrastto
cial orderand withtheworldwidespreadofinformation. the poststructuralist philosophers)still, however,place
"Chaos" must thenbe seen as a forcethatis negotiated too much emphasis on orderand generallaws and have
at diverse sites within the culture,including science, perhapstoo quickly joined in the intellectualgame of
poststructuralism, and postmodernism;it is partof the applyingthe ideas of complexityto social phenomena
postmoderncondition,whetherreflectedin literature, such as economies,social orders,evolution,and the rise
the human sciences, or the science of complexity.29 and fallofcivilizations.Their tendencyto produceover-
Be that as it may, the science of complexityhas al- encompassingtheoriesthatwould link thephysical,bio-
readydevelopedan impressivevocabularyand theoreti- logical, social, and culturalworlds withoutmakingex-
cal corpus (Nicolis and Prigogine i989:5-78). At the plicit the epistemological processes and assumptions
heart of complexityis the idea of self-organizing phe- involved in this endeavor is troubling (see Winner
nomena generatedby complex systems under certain g993b).32
conditions.30The idea of self-organizationis not re- Complexity,in otherwords,needs to be anthropolo-
gized,but at the same time it may offerinsightsto an-
29. Anotherattemptat relatingcomplexity chaos)to
(particularly
thehumansciencesis Argyros's (199I) critiqueofdeconstruction. systemsthushave a historicaldimension(an "ontogeny," in Ma-
30. The conceptofself-organization simpleandtheo- turanaand Varela'sterminology).
is intuitively
reticallycomplex.An initialperturbation mightlead certainsys- 3I. Deleuze and Guattariopposethetree-the mastertropeofthe
temsintoa typeofnonequilibrium and chaoticbehaviorwhichis modemworld-to therhizome.In contrastto thetree,therhizome
not,however,total disorder.In fact,recurrent patternsand self- assumesdiverseforms,branchesin all directions, andformsbulbs
organizing behaviormay appeararoundcertainstates(attractors), andtubers.Ithas different principlesofconnectionandheterogene-
turning partof the system'senergyinto an orderedbehaviorof a ity;it is multiple,givingriseto its ownstructure butalso breaking
new type(a dissipativestructure).This structure is characterized downthatstructure accordingto the "lines offlight"it contains.
bythebreakingdownofprevioussymmetry andtheappearanceof "We are tiredof trees,"theywrite."We shouldstopbelievingin
multiplechoices.In otherwords,self-organizing systemscan de- trees,roots,and radicles.They'vemadeus suffer too much.All of
velopdifferentpatternsout ofthesame initialconditions.Beyond arborescent cultureis foundedon them,frombiologyto linguis-
a certainpoint,these systemscan undergobifurcations towards tics" (I987:I5).
multiplestatesorsolutions;a givensolutionis dictatedbychance 32. See theSantaFe InstituteStudiesin theSciencesofComplexity
and cannotbe predictedbeforehand. Anysubsequentevolutionof and,foran applicationofcomplexity theoryto economics,Ander-
thesystem,however,will dependon thechoicemadeat a bifurca- son,Arrow,and Pines (i988). Workin complexitycontinuesat a
tionpoint.Bifurcation pointsmarkthe system'spassagetowards rapidpace,includingareassuchas artificial life,adaptivecomputa-
complexity:theyrepresentinnovationand diversification, since tionalmodels,autocatalysis, neuralnetworks,cellularautomata,
theyentailnew solutionsor pathwaysforchange.Self-organizing emergence, and coevolution.
 ESCOBAR The Anthropology
of Cyberculture| 223

thropology. Anthropologicalquestionshave hardlybeen again reaching,as in the anthropologyof this century,

tackled within the science of complexity,with the ex- prematureclosure around the figuresof the other and
ception of a reformulationin progressof the theoryof the same. These questions, and cyberculturegenerally,
evolution to account for the role of learningand self- concernwhat anthropologyis about: the storyof life as
organization(in addition to natural selection) and the it has been lived and is beinglived at this verymoment.
articulationof a more complex concept of adaptation. Whatis happeningto lifein the late 2oth century?What
In fact,the Santa Fe Institute sees a good part of its is comingin the next?
workas theunderstanding ofcomplexadaptivesystems.
Althoughthereis some interestin culturalcomplexity,
the question has not been broached to any significant
degree.Anthropologists,
Comments
it can be argued,have generally
been attunedto the complexityof lifeand have resisted
reducingit to magical formulasand laws. Nevertheless, DAVID HESS
fromthe igth centurythroughMalinowski,Boas, Bene- Departmentof Science and TechnologyStudies,
dict,and Levi-Straussto Geertz,the tendencyto reduce RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute,Troy,N. Y.
the manifoldcomplexityof culturalrealityto neat de- 12180-3 590, U.S.A. 23 XI 93
scriptionsof institutions,patterns,structures,or exem-
plars has persisted.Only in recent years has this ten- Escobar's essay is a welcome addition to the rapidly
dencybeen modifiedwith the developmentof formsof growingfieldofanthropological/cultural/feminist/anti-
analysis that emphasize partiality,finallyabandoning racist/anticolonialist/etc. studies of science and tech-
any pretenseat generallaws or objectiveaccounts. nology.In just a few shortyears,studies of science and
Can the complexityenterprise-seeminglyso differ- technologywithin American anthropologyhave gone
entfromconventionalscience,yetso clearlyentrenched froma somewhat backwater status to somethingof a
in scientificculture-help to reorientthe prevailingun- fad. At any moment,the predictablebacklash/critique
derstandingof technology?The perspectivethat com- will probablyappear,perhapsin this journal. So far,the
plexityscientistsare attemptingto bringto the scien- field seems to be in the phase of programmaticstate-
tificcommunityand the public is indeed powerful,and ments and introductory edited volumes, both of which
its influenceis likely to grow. Its implicationsforthe are probablyhelpfulat this point because theyserve to
reorientationof technosciencehave yet to be explored, connect and position what is still not even, to use the
and this is true of poststructuralist theoryat this level STS phrase,a "cocitation cluster."
as well. Is it possible to destabilize (destratify,deterrito- Escobaris in an especiallygood positionto contribute
rialize)moderntechnosocial,politicoeconomic,and bio- to the process of mapping because of his expertisein
social systemsas Deleuze and Guattari(I987) propose? global political economy and developmentpolitics. I
The widespreadarticulationand adoptionoftechnologi- findthe sections of his essay on those topics the most
cal understandings and policies thatmightcontributeto exciting,and I look forwardto readinghis forthcoming
people's autonomous lives and self-organizingexperi- book. He has also done a crediblejob ofpointinganthro-
ences are at best many years in the future.If we are to pologiststo some of the useful(although,as he and oth-
believe those workingon new ways of understanding ershave noted,simultaneouslyproblematic)theoretical
the universe and social life-whether in science or in developmentsin the more generalfield of science and
the humanities-a social "nomadology" of technology technologystudies beyond anthropology.Those inter-
maybe possible. Perhapsthe languageofcomplexitysig- ested in exploringthis area in more detail mightwant
nals thatit is possible fortechnoscience(s)to contribute to consult, in addition to reviews alreadylisted, those
to thedesignofformsoflivingthatavoid the most dead- by Hakken(I993), Heathet aL (I993), Hess (n.d.),and
eningmechanismsforstructuring lifeand the worldin- Traweek(I993).
troducedbythe projectofmodernity.It is not a question I wish to build on Escobar's paper by focusingon the
of bringingabout a technosocialutopia-decentralized, questionof labels, institutionalization,and boundaries/
self-managed, empowering-but one of thinkingimagi- exclusions. As I understandit, the various versions of
nativelywhethertechnosciencecannot be partiallyre- "cyborganthropology"or the "anthropologyof cyber-
orientedto servedifferent culturaland politicalprojects. space" emergedin a historicalcontextin which panels
on science and technologywere being rejectedby AAA
programcommittees.The renamingand repositioningof
Anthropologywithout Primitives? the fieldvia the cyberpanels,togetherwith legitimation
fromincreasingnumbersofseniorpeople,helpedchange
Anthropology,it continues to be said (e.g., Trouillot thatsituation.My understanding fromdiscussionswith
I99I), is still enframedwithin the orderof the modern the panel organizersis that the term "cyborg" was
and the savage, the civilized self and the uncivilized meantnot onlyas an ironicoxymoron(an anthropology
other.If it is to "reenterthe real world" and "work in of the post- or technohuman)but also as a pointerto-
thepresent"(Fox I99I), it will have to deal withthe wardaffiliationwithfeminist,ethnic,and culturalstud-
steadyadvance ofcyberculture. Cyberculture, moreover, ies perspectives on contemporarytechnoscience. In
offersa chance foranthropologyto renewitselfwithout otherwords,the termwas meantto broadendisciplinary
224 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, fune I994

horizonsratherthan to exclude voices and limit fields logical analysis now being undertakenin the field of
ofdiscourse.I thinkmostparticipantsin thisratherspir- social studiesofnew technologies.Escobarappropriately
ited dialogue on the nature of cyborologywould agree pointsto the paramountimportanceof inquiryinto the
thata narrowfocuson cutting-edge science and technol- natureof modernityas the backgroundforthe current
ogy (especiallywhen it is definedin disciplinaryterms understandingand practiceof technology.He identifies
such as computersand biotechnologies)runsthe riskof a set of importantquestions in the political economy
leavingout of the discussion otherrelatedareas of cru- of cyberculture, forexample, the articulationof global
cial importance:to name a few, the environmentand capitalwithlocal cultures,local notionsofdevelopment
the environmentaljustice movement,religion-science- and modernity,new mechanismsof local and global in-
medicinehybrids,appropriationsand counterappropria- teraction,and the restructuring of macroeconomicand
tions in the flows of cosmopolitan culture and local political relations between rich and poor countriesin
knowledge(includingareas coveredin the classical an- the wake of cyberculture.In particular,he calls atten-
thropologicalstudies of ethno-knowledgesand material tion to the various possible ways in which ThirdWorld
culture),reconstructionsand new uses of conventional societies may participatein the technoculturalprocess
technologies (especially in the development context, that is reshapingthe world and asks whether social
the so-called low-tech cyborgs),new managerial tech- movementsin Asia, Africa,and Latin America can de-
nologies in the workplace,and new reproductivetech- velop strategiesthat will allow them to participatein
nologies (perhapsincluded under biotechnologies).Fur- cyberculturewithout submittingto the rules of the
thermore,discourse on the new can easily eclipse game imposed by the developing countries. In high-
much-neededstudieson the veryold social technologies lightingthesequestions,so rarelyattendedto in thefield
ofexclusionthatcontinueto operatethroughoutthepa- ofsocial studiesof science and technology,especiallyin
triarchal,Eurocentricworld of cyberspaceand techno- Latin America,Escobar suggeststhatresearchbe under-
science.As all ofus know onlytoo well, formanypeople takento answerthem.Froma broaderperspective,Esco-
in the worldmost of Cyberiais a distantSiberialocated bar remarksthat technoscienceis increasinglya point
well above the global glass ceiling. of articulationof power and knowledge and therefore
Largelyout of a concernforquestions of exclusion,I new conceptsare needed to make clear its historicaland
have tended to use more inclusive termssuch as "the culturalspecificity.His ideas on what mightconstitute
anthropology/cultural studies of science and technol- an anthropologyof cybercultureare suggestiveand in-
ogy," sometimes even "of knowledge and artifacts."I sightful.
have also helped connect researchersby joining with
othersin subdisciplinaryinstitutionbuilding,which in
the arcane virtualkinshipterminologyof the new AAA WILL SIBLEY
now seems to be at a "General AnthropologyDivision II90 Cedar Ave., Shady Side, Md. 20764, U.S.A.
committee"level ratherthan a bonafidesubdisciplinary 7 XII 93
"section" level. For many of the people who have been
involvedin the effort, the developmentof a disciplinary My commentsin responseto Escobar's elegantlyency-
site is a troubledbut welcome forumforthe exchange clopedic article must be viewed as only a modest and
of ideas. Yet, although people may speak in terms of homely complement. The article greatlyexpands my
an "anthropologyofX" or an "X anthropology"or work understanding ofrecentresearchand findingsbyanthro-
on subdisciplinarycommittees,theyare not necessarily pologists.Since I findmyselfin agreementwith the ma-
advocatinga specificsubdisciplinaryprogram.Many of jor thrustsof the article,my remarkswill reflectthe
us are more interestedin cross-disciplinarycoalition small partthat my own careerdevelopmentmay repre-
buildingand theorizing,includingworkingas/alongside sent in the directionof goals Escobar proposes.
technoscienceactivists.I am especiallyinterestedin the Escobarnotes thatuntil recentlyfew culturaland so-
activist/engaged componentin some of the recentproj- cial anthropologists have interestedthemselvesmuch in
ects, and I hope this directionwill continue to receive how technologyshapes and is shaped by the societal
prominencein any discussion ofthefield(e.g.,Downey, and culturalcontextin which it develops and changes.
Dumit, and Traweek n.d.). Escobar,as an engaged,Latin I agree,surmisingthat the strongerinterestin technol-
Americanintellectualwith an interestin development oqgyon the part of archaeologistsis in part,at least, a
and politicaleconomyissues, promisesto playan impor- reflexof the factthat the archaeologicalassemblagere-
tantrole in the ongoingdialogue. veals much about technologybut oftenmuch less about
the societies and culturescarriedby the personsmaking
the materialremains.
ISABEL LICHA Lookingbackward,I regretnow thatI did not pursue
Centrode Estudios para el Desarrollo, Universidad more aggressivelyin printsome of my own interestsin
Centralde Venezuela, Apartado Postal 6622, technology,beginningthreedecades ago with my study
Caracas,Venezuela.I3 XII 93 in Page, Arizona, of dam builders at the Glen Canyon
site. In a paper presentedduringthe annual meetingof
The major achievementof this article is the overview theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation (SibleyI96I)
thattheauthorhas constructedofthekindsofanthropo- I describedthe ways in which the technologiesinvolved

in buildinga major dam influencedthe social relation-
ships developed by the dam builders. The purposive
manner in which dam workers built and maintained
criticalsocial relationshipswith key individualsspread
overthebroadgeographicallandscape fordam workwas
quite contrastivewith the constructionof social nets
by,forexample,urban workerswith the same skills.
In the late I970S I workedformore than a yearin the
Facilities RequirementsDivision of the U.S. Environ-
mental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in Washington,D.C.,
as a "sewer anthropologist."The Division managed a
$5 billionfundforassistingmunicipalitiesin rebuilding
theirsewer systemsunder the provisionsof the Clean
WaterAct. In my workforthe EPA (describedin partin
SibleyI979) I was made aware ofthe reciprocallinkages
between the developmentof sewer systems and con-
duits and the residentialdemographyofhuman popula-
tions.I was also introducedto the political side of sew-
ers-the political problems and processes entailed in
puttingsuch technologicalproductsin place and into
use. Somewhat later,I presenteda paper (Sibley i982)
on theretentionin a Midwesterncountyofa "low-tech"
system(septic tanks) to achieve social goals (exclusive-
ness,segregation, exclusion ofindustryand high-density
housing).More "modern" conventionalgravitysewers
were being promotedboth by developersand by public
health officersconcerned with threats to health re-
sultingfroma high rate of failureof septic systemsal-
readyin place.
One otherincidentmay exemplifythe recencyof cul-
turalanthropologists'interestin technology-an inter-
est whichI believe is relatedto and a reflexofthe legiti-
matingof researchwithin our domestic frontiers.The
manifoldbarriersto research abroad have broughtan-
thropologistsnow doing research at home closely in
contactwiththeirfellowhumansin a societyconstantly
confrontedby potent and rapidly changing technolo-
gies-for example, the computer-basedtechnologies
which Escobar discusses at length. The legitimacyof
domesticresearchas a route to the Ph.D. is reallyquite
recent.In I970 I guided and encourageda Ph.D. candi-
date in his study of Alaskan carpenters'social adapta-
tions to carpentrywork in a physical environment
which caused theirwork to be intermittent. Had I not
been a senior facultymember in the departmentin-
volved,I thinkit would have been difficult ifnot impos-
sible forthe studentto pursuethis dissertationresearch.
Today, only two decades later, many students in the
most prestigious graduate schools pursue domestic
work.
Finally,I offera commenton a complex set of issues
touchedupon gentlyby Escobar: should anthropological
researchabout technologysimplytheorizeand describe,
or should it be prescriptive?Anthropologistscomplain
fromtime to time that theirfindingsare not listenedto
bydecisionmakers.Is thisnot in partbecause theyhave
failedto resolveforthemselvesthe question ofwhether
theyremain"pure" and "scientific"or enterthe policy
arena,offering both theirfindingsand the implications
of those findingsforpublic policy and social change?
ESCO BAR The Anthropology | 22
ofCyberculture 5
While thereis dangerin oversellingone's wisdom,I be-
lieve thatanthropologistsshould riskparticipatingmore
fullyin public and policy debates about technologyand
its potent role in organizingand shaping human life.
Not all anthropologistsneed to involve themselvesin
public engagementsand missionizing,but we should
hold those who choose such a route in esteem equal
to that which we have traditionallyaccorded to "pure
researchers."
MARILYN STRATHERN
DepartmentofAnthropology,University
of Cambridge,
Cambridge,U.K. 25 XI 93
I welcome this plea foran anthropologisationof com-
plexity. It carries with it the acknowledgementthat
complexityneed be neitherdenigratednorpraised.Both
happen.Anthropologists are castigatedforbeingcompli-
cated (whentheyshould be simple),obscure(whenthey
should be clear),and thus in a worldoftheirown (when
theyshould be in "the real world"). At the same time,
anthropologistswould oftenwish to be subtle (rather
thancrass),to have pluralperspectives(ratherthanuni-
taryones), and to followthroughinterrelationsbetween
phenomena (ratherthan rely on stereotype).There is
rhetoricattachedto the conceptof complexitythatper-
haps a "science" of it would clarify.
However, and this is Escobar's intriguingtale, a sci-
ence ofcomplexityalreadyexists,and it is thathe would
see anthropologised.Certainlythereis an aspect ofsuch
alreadyformulatedconcernsthatanthropologists would
do well to play back. My own plea would be to reinforce
the message thatwe not confusecomplexitywith scale
or, if we wish to preservethe hybrid,that we observe
the different workingsof each.
There is nothingnecessarilytrivialisingor aggrandis-
ing about being complicated/subtle.Yet we are accus-
tomed to imaginingthe complex as itselfone end of a
scale. To thinkthatone can move "from"the simple to
the complex (as in developmentaltheories)or that one
can reducethecomplex"to" the simple (as in appeals for
communicationalclarity)belongto the same modernist
rhetoricas imagininga historicalmove fromstatus to
contractin theorganisationofrelationships(anthropolo-
gists talk of simple and complex societies) or reducing
societyto the behaviourofindividuals(whereit is soci-
etyitselfthat is complex and individualsseem less so).
This is not of course to say that scale has no signifi-
cance. As JohnLaw has observed(personalcommunica-
tion),theinterestingquestionis thepointat which scale
is made significantand thus^works to sortphenomena/
knowledgeby their different implications.It is one of
the importantclarifying devices which Latour(I993) as-
cribesto a world that thinksitselfmodern.
But were we to locate complexitynot in its effects
(how the worldappears)but in the instrumentthatpro-
duces that effect(human perception),then the anthro-
pologistwould commentthatthereis no social lifethat
is not complex,as indeed mightothers(see Munron.d.).
226 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, fune I994
We would be dealing with a generalorganisationalfac-
ultyforthe productionand disposal of detail. Indeed,to
introducemy own clarification, I would preferto deploy
the conceptof "complexity"forthatpropertyofpercep-
tionwhich conservesthe detail ofphenomenaregardless
of scale. We see it in being able to see thingsclose to
hand and faraway at the same time. We inscribeit in
the effortit takes to writean ethnography, an effort
that
cannotbe measuredby whetherthe societyunderstudy
is allegedlysmall-scale or large-scale.
Fromthatpointofview, the vocabularythatimagines
the instabilityand pluralismsto which decriptiveeffort
gives rise as "transgressions"belongsto an olderpurifi-
catoryimpulse,as ofcoursedoes theverydichotomising
of two kinds of science ("sorting"science into new and
old). I would ratherpursue Escobar's otherformulafor
analysis.Insofaras complexityis evidentin the concrete
and heterogeneous,then it is ubiquitous,as ordinaryas
it is extraordinary. We simplymake it visible in those
descriptions/interventions that point to "the concrete"
and to "heterogeneity."Technologyis one ofthe devices
(makingthe world presentforus) that Euro-Americans
currentlyuse. Technologymakes explicitthe natureof
the lived worldpreciselyin termsof the concrete(tech-
nologyworks)and the heterogeneous(it bringstogether
different ordersof knowledge,mixes of materials and
personnel,and so forth[see Mol and Law n.d.]). Thus
the new reproductivetechnologiesmake explicita con-
ceptualisationof kinshipas foundedin both natureand
culture (see Franklin I993). Escobar's paper raises the
question of the culturalspecificityof such devices.
Now thatwe seehybrids
everywhere
(LatourI993:43),
it was probably inevitable to see hybridisationas a
higher-order fusingof technologyand culture as such.
My only concernabout Escobar's otherwisefascinating
conceptualisationof cyberculture, a concernhe himself
raises with regardto scientistsof complexity,is that it
is scaled-up.That is, the neologism is presentedas an
encompassingsummaryof concreteand heterogeneous
events-a gatheringtogetherof everything that appears
new. Hence his hortation:"Anthropologistsmust ven-
tureinto this world." Of course,except that,as he also
implies,theyare alreadythere.They do not have to buy
into the anticipatoryeffectof imaginingthat a culture
is about to be "created"by science and technology.That
is a real-worldfantasy(like the real world, culture is
always elsewhere). Rather they might recognise in
"technology" (an apparatus that at once makes the
workingsof thingsexplicitand is identifiableby how it
works) the same figurethey are familiarwith in (say)
the "participantobserver":simultaneouslythe register
ofthe social lifethathe/shemakes visible and an inter-
ventionist in it, for every participantobservermust
make social relations work. There is nothing "post-
human" about this complex figuration.
Escobar argues that the issue is "the realizationthat
we increasinglylive and make ourselves in techno-
bioculturalenvironmentsstructuredby novel formsof
science and technology."Absolutely.But therealisation
can only come fromexistingorganisationalcomplexi-
ties,fromthe cyborgspersonseverywherealreadymake
out of theirdealings with one another;social relations
are hybridphenomena.Indeed, of the many reasons for
anthropology to engagewith what Euro-Americansper-
ceive as science and technology,one is to querythe eth-
nocentric rhetoric that celebrates the joining of life
(body) and technology(machine) as though humanity
were therebyto be transcended.
This paper takes up an importantcritique,but to the
democratisingmove of asking what effectcyberculture
will have on "the Third World" I would add a further
one: thatwe do not turnthis into anotherfrom-simple-
to-complexgame. Social life,as Haraway (I988) might
have said, only ever moves fromthe complex to the
complex (fromthe concrete and heterogeneousto the
concreteand heterogeneous).Cyberculturemightmake
this newly evident;but by the same token,and forthe
sake of argument,it would follow that therewas never
any pre-cyberculture.
JUDITH SUTZ
Comision Sectorial de InvestigacionCientifical
CoordinadoraAcademica, Universidad de la
Repu'blica,EduardoAcevedoI494/1OI,
II200 Montevideo, Uruguay.I5 XII 93
Perhaps the most valuable contributionof Escobar's
"Welcome to Cyberia" is its understandingof technol-
ogy in general and new technologyin particularas a
cultural construction.This provides good groundsfor
a generalanthropologicalapproach to the evolution of
technologyand to the way in which society, through
communitypower,popularconcerns,and prevailingval-
ues, shapes the productionof technology.This point of
departureis particularlyimportantwithregardto under-
developedcountries.When it comes to new technologies
the underdevelopedworld importsalmost everything-
fromdevices to needs, fromtechnical systemsto sys-
tems of thought.Nevertheless,culturalinventionplays
a determinantrole in the concreteway in which tech-
nologyis perceivedand used.
Many of the questions Escobar raises can be seen as
crucialones fora researchprogramattemptingto under-
standtherelationshipbetweensocietyand particularso-
cial groups and the intellectual and practical devices
that permanentlyalter their routines, their acquired
wisdom, theirhopes, and theirsense of belongingto a
community.It is not easy to foreseewhetherthe an-
swers to them will be universal or highly specific or
whetherthey will at least clearly distinguishbetween
developmentand underdevelopment.For some technol-
ogies, some featuresof the recipientsociety,and some
questions,the answersfora highlyindustrializedcoun-
tryand an underdevelopedone will probablybe remark-
ably similar. For otherstheywill probablybe verydif-
ferent.
For example, the discourses generated around/by
computers are probably almost identical around the
worldwhile practicesdiffer.Elites and bureaucracies
 ESCOBAR The Anthropologyof Cyberculture| 227

private and public-everywhere deeply believe that fashion.This is done at severallevels: geographical(First
computersare the veryembodimentof rationalityand Worldand ThirdWorld;regionalvariationsand intensi-
truth.Their discourse of infallibility-ultimatelywin- ties),technological(information, computer,and biologi-
ningthebattleagainstchaos-is universal.But theprac- cal technologies),and disciplinary(social and human
tice of these same elites could not be more different. sciences approaches,with anthropologysomewherein
In developedsituations,computersinvolvedan advance between). This approach has advantages (identifying
froma fairlyhighlevel ofmanual complexityto an auto- connections,effects,and mechanismsthatmightother-
mated one. Entryinto the informationera was quite wise remain invisible) and drawbacks (overgeneraliza-
smooth,prefiguredby social, economic, and technical tion, lack of depth). Strathernis right,however,when
evolution.In situations of underdevelopment,none of she points out that my account of cybercultureis
these typesof evolution heraldedthe new informatics, "scaled up," too encompassing,thus underminingthe
and thereforepractice carriesa heavy burdenreflected very principleof complexityit seems to invoke. The
in the inefficiencyand irrationalitythat persistalong- paperdoes not,however,tryto make a statementabout
side an impressive amount of computer technology. a "total truth";it is an attemptto come to termswith
When Escobar asks about the implicationsof the politi- new technologiesfromthe perspectiveof the historical
cal economyof cybercultureand the transformation of and geographicaleffectsof present-daycapitalism and
values associated with the emergence of information modernity.It is impossibleto neglectthe universalizing
technologiesfora culturalpolitics of science and tech- forceofmodernknowledgeand ofthe accumulationand
nology,he is in factaskingus to explorewith anthropo- circulationof capital. This forceis reflectedin techno-
logical tools two types of situation. Perhaps afterthe logical arrangementsas well as in the structuring of so-
questionshave been answeredforeach a synthesiscould cial labor.The challengeis to theorizesuch effectswith-
be produced showing an underlyingidentity.Surely, out overlookingthe manifoldformsthey take and the
however,wide differences would remain.Fromthe par- endless variationsin which theyoperate.
ticularlyappealingperspectiveof the constructionof a As one of a handfulof participantsin the collective
cultural politics of science and technology,one can effortto articulatean anthropologyof science and tech-
guess what these differences mightbe. nology,Hess is in an excellentpositionto contextualize
When people are too proud, too self-confident, too any contributionto this enterprise.Since I have not par-
close to blind faithin theirown technologicalomnipo- ticipatedin the meetingsof this groupduringthe past
tence,a culturalpolitics ofscience and technologymust fewyears,I welcome his clarifying remarkson my brief
stressthe assessment side, rejectthe motto "What can account of them. These early efforts,he says, were
be done must be done," and raise consciousness about meant to broadendisciplinaryhorizonsratherthan cre-
theneed forsocial meaningand usefulnessin the activi- ate new fields,and this is still the state of affairstoday.
ties of science and technology.When people combine He also warnsus not to overlookthe need forcontinued
blind admirationfor informationtechnologieswith a studies of well-knowntechnologies,particularlyin the
deep convictionthat thereis no room forany creative ThirdWorld.I agree. I am less in agreementabout the
exerciseofthem,culturalpoliticsmuststresstechnolog- dangershe sees in focusingon cutting-edgetechnolo-
ical self-esteem,fosterthe capacityforinnovationwher- gies.On the one hand,a numberofcomputerand biolog-
everit can be found,and encouragepreciselythe belief ical technologiesare already vastly dispersed; on the
that "What can be done must be done" as opposed to other,thereis a culturalparticularityabout these tech-
"What has been done elsewheremust be boughthere." nologies thatis importantto signal.As he insists,how-
Escobar'schallenge,primarilyaddressedto anthropol- ever,thisfocusshouldnot be at theexpenseofanthropo-
ogists,can be taken up by anyone involvedin research, logical studies of technologiesof otherkinds.
reflection,and action on science, technology,and soci- We also need, forinstance,more thoroughretrospec-
ety in this time of vertiginouschange,blurringof the tivelooks at anthropologicalstudiesofscience and tech-
boundariesbetweennatureand artifact,and shiftsin the nology.This is one of Sibley's strongpoints.The exam-
social actorscapable ofdecisivelyinfluencingthe "com- ple he gives of how sewer systems contributeto the
mon wisdom." It is a work program,and if it is carried shapingof population dynamicsin cities raises a more
out the answersmay suggestan alternativeway ofbeing generalquestion: the relationshipbetween technology
welcomed to cyberculture. and modernity.Rabinow (I989) has demonstratedhow
planningpractices in French and North Africancities
shaped the social productionof space, populations,and
subjectivities,becoming instrumentalin creatingmo-
Reply dernityas a cultural order.To what extentshould the
study of "practices of reason"-practices combining
truthand power-be incorporatedinto the anthropology
ARTURO ESCOBAR of science and technology?Does a physicist,for in-
Northampton, Mass., U.S.A. I5 I 94 stance,constitutea morelegitimatefocusofscience and
technologystudies than, say, the planner of a World
One of the featuresof "Welcome to Cyberia" is its em- Bank-sponsoreddevelopmentproject?Whatview ofsci-
phasis on looking at new technologiesin an integrated ence and technologywould underliesuch a belief?There
228 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, fune I994

is a relationbetweenthe anthropology ofmodernityand therenever was a precyberculture, that social life has
the anthropologyof science and technologythat needs always been complex and technologyhas been part of
to be workedout. that complexity-which is not the same as sayingthat
One ofthe strongerpreoccupationsthatemergesfrom the new technologiesare not fosteringimportantcul-
the various comments is the differential treatmentof tural transformations. As scholarly constructions,the
science and technologyin First World as opposed to discourseon complexityand the anthropology ofscience
Third World societies. Hess's notion of "low-tech" cy- and technologyare attemptingto catch up with the vi-
borgsis a way of givingformto this difference;people brantcreativityof social and naturallife.In perhapsun-
in the Third World also "make cyborgs"out of their precedentedways, the new technologiesare facilitating
dealings with one another, as Strathernreminds us. this new look into life.
This, of course,takes place throughmultiple technolo- This latterpossibilityis adumbratedin the last writ-
gies, "high" and "low" (by which I do not mean more ingsof Guattari(I993), particularly in his notionof a
and less complex).The most generalpointin this regard postmedia society. Althoughhe acknowledgesthat in-
is made by Sutz. Again, she is in an excellent position formation,computer,and biological technologies still
to speak on this issue as the coordinatorof a Latin forthe most partreinforcethe alienatingand retrograde
America-wide researchprojecton technology.The his- systemsof capitalist modernity,he sees them as also
toricalcontext,she says,requiresthatwe developdiffer- providinggroundsfornew creative,self-referential sub-
ent ways oflookingat technologyin the ThirdWorldin jectivities.This, forGuattari,is a historicalpossibility
accordancewith the specificityof Latin Americanmo- thathas to be foughtfor;to become real, it requiresthe
dernity.Latin Americansubjectivitiesand structures- actualization of rightsto singularityand alterity,new
fromgovernmentand business groups to the popular typesofNorth-Southrelations,and a radical democrati-
classes-dictate different relations to technology.The zation of genderrelations.What he calls "ecosophical
conclusionis thatcriticalstudiesofscience and technol- practices" include a profoundtransformation of econ-
ogy will have to develop different politics in Firstand omies, urban and rural ecologies, science, and ways
ThirdWorldcontexts.The dominance of moderntech- of thinking-a question not of simple-mindedself-
nological imaginariesin the firstcase calls forcritical managementand autonomybut of a social complexity
studies and diagnoses; in the lattercase, studies might thatunderminesthe hegemonyof techno-capitalistval-
revealthe technologicalcreativitythatis always associ- orization.
ated with global technologiesas a way offostering more The developmentof this complexitycan be advanced
autonomoustechnocultures. by deterritorializations that make possible bifurcations
Strathernelaboratesher commentsaround the ques- ofexistingand potentialsingularitiesand the formation
tions raised in the last part of the paper-the scientific of diversecollectivesubjectivities.Here may lie yet an-
discourseon complexity.One of the featuresthatI find otherway of being welcomed to cyberculture.
most appealing in Strathern'swork is her remarkable
abilityto expose the groundon which anthropologists
stand. Everyanthropologicalinquiry,as she puts it in
The Genderof the Gift,should be accompaniedby "an
ethnography ofWesternknowledgepractices"(I988:xi).
This endeavor requires approachingcreations such as
ReferencesCited
the science of complexity"throughan appreciationof ABU-LUGHOD, LILA. I990. The romance of resistance. Ameri-
the culturesof Westernsocial science and its endorse- can Ethnologist I7:40I-55.
mentofcertaininterestsin the descriptionofsocial life" ANDERSON, PHILIP, KENNETH ARROW, AND DAVID PINES.
(p. 4). Her writingsremindus withunusual cogencythat Editors.I988. The economyas an evolvingcomplexsystem.
our ethnographicand scientificefforts are constructions New York:Addison-Wesley.
APPADURAI, ARJUN. I99I. "Global ethnoscapes," in Recaptur-
oftheworld.Hence herdefinitionofcomplexityas "that ing anthropology: Working in thepresent.Editedby Richard
property ofperceptionwhich conservesthe detailofphe- Fox,pp. i9i-2io. SantaFe: SchoolofAmericanResearch.
nomena regardlessof scale.... We simplymake it visi- ARGYROS, ALEXANDER. I99I. A blessedragefororder.Ann
ble in thosedescriptions/interventions thatpointto 'the Arbor:University ofMichiganPress.
BARRETT, EDWARD. Editor. I989. The societyof text.Cam-
concrete'and to 'heterogeneity."' bridge:M.I.T. Press.
This is a needed correctiveforboth scientistsof com- BARRY, JOHN. I99I. Technobabble.Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
plexity(many of whom are still committedto realist BENEDIKT, MICHAEL. I99I. Cyberspace:The firststeps.Cam-
epistemologies)and anthropologistswho persist in a bridge:M.I.T. Press.
I993. Virtualcommunities, post-
modernistunderstandingof complexity,with its anach- BESSINGER, KRISTA BETH.
organicanthropology, and thenew social relationsofcyber-
ronistictales of simple and complex societies. It is this space.MS, DepartmentofAnthropology, SmithCollege,
anthropologicaltraditionthat Stratherninvites us to Northampton, Mass.
discardonce and forall by rethinkingthe relationship BIJKER, W. P., T. P. HUGHES, AND T. PINCH. Editors. I987.
betweenethnography and complexity-a theme she ap- The social construction of technologicalsystems:New direc-
tionsin thesociologyand historyoftechnology. Cambridge:
parentlydevelops in her latest book, Partial Connec- M.I.T. Press.
tions (i992), whichI havenothad thepleasureofread- BUTTEL, FREDERICK, MARTIN KENNEY, AND JACK KLOPPEN-
ing.Fromthisperspective,anthropologyteaches us that BURG. I985. FromGreenRevolutionto biorevolution: Some
 ESCOBAR The Anthropologyof Cyberculture| 229

on the changingtechnological
observations bases ofeconomic . i986. Thementaland thematerial.London:Verso.
transformation
in theThirdWorld.EconomicDevelopment GRAY, CHRIS HABLES, AND MARK DRISCOLL. i992. What's
and CulturalChange34:3I-55. realaboutvirtualreality?Anthropology of,and in, cyberspace.
CARTWRIGHT, LISA, AND BRIAN GOLDFARB. i992. "Radiogra- VisualAnthropology Review8(2):39-49.
phy,cinematography, and the declineofthelens,"in Incorpo- GUATTARI, FELIX. i992. "Regimes,pathways, subjects,"in In-
rations.EditedbyJ.Craryand S. Kwinter,pp. i90-2oi. New corporations. EditedbyJ.Craryand S. Kwinter, pp. i6-35.
York:Zone Books. New York:Zone Books.
CASTELLS, MANUEL. i986. Hightechnology, worlddevelop- I993. El constructivismo guattariano.Cali: Universidad
ment,and structural transformation:The trendsand thede- del Valle Press.
bates. Alternatives
I I:297-344. GUMPERZ, JOHN. i983. Discoursestrategies. Berkeley:Univer-
CASTELLS, MANUEL, AND ROBERTO LASERNA. i989. The sityofCaliforniaPress.
new dependency: Technologicalchangeand socioeconomicre- HABERMAS, JURGEN. i987. The philosophicaldiscourseofmo-
structuringin LatinAmerica.SociologicalForum4:535-6o. dernity.Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
CERF, VINTON. i99i. Networks.Scientific American HAKKEN, DAVID. I993. Computingand social change:New
265(3):72-85. technology and workplacetransformation, ig80-go. Annual
CRARY, JONATHAN, AND SANFORD KWINTER. Editors.i992. ReviewsofAnthropology 22:I07-32. [DH]
New York: Zone Books .
Incorporations. . n.d.Has therebeen a computerrevolution? An anthropo-
DAHL, GUDRUN, AND ANNIKA RABO. Editors.i992. Kam-ap logicalapproach.Journal of Computingand Societyi(I):
or take-off:
Local notionsofdevelopment.Stockholm:Stock- I I-28.
holmStudiesin Social Anthropology. HARAWAY, DONNA. i988. Situatedknowledges:The science
DARNOVSKY, MARCY, STEVEN EPSTEIN, AND ARA WILSON. questionin feminismas a site ofdiscourseon theprivilegeof
i99i. Radicalexperiments: Social movementstakeon techno- partial perspective. FeministStudiesI4:575-99. [Ms]
science. SocialistReview I(e2): 3I-33. i989. Primatevisions.New York:Routledge.
DELANDA, MANUEL. i99i. Warin theage ofintelligent ma- .99i. Simians,cyborgs, and women:The reinventionof
chines.New York:Zone Books. nature.New York:Routledge.
. i992. "Nonorganiclife,"in Incorporations. Editedby HARVEY, DAVID. i989. The conditionofpostmodernity. Ox-
J.Craryand S. Kwinter,pp. i28-67. New York:Zone Books. ford:Basic Blackwell.
DELEUZE, GILLES. I993a. The fold:Leibnizand thebaroque. HAYLES, KATHERINE. i99ia. "Introduction: Complex dynamics
Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress. in literatureand science," in Chaos and order:Complexdy-
. I993b. Controly devenir:Entrevista con Toni Negri. namicsin literatureand science.Edited by Katherine Hayles,
TranslatedbyEdgarGaravito.El Espectador:MagazinDomini- pp. I-36. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
cal (Bogota),no. 5II, February7, pp. I4-I8. . Editor.199 Ib. Chaos and order:Complexdynamicsin
DELEUZE, GILLES, AND FtLIX GUATTARI. I987. A thousand literatureand society.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
plateaus.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress. HEATH, DEBORAH. i992. Computers'bodies: Prosthesis
and
DERTOUZOS, MICHAEL. 1991. Communications, computers, simulation in molecular biotechnology. Paper presented to the
and networks.Scientific American265(3):62-7I. panel "Cyborg AnthropologyI" at the gIst annual meeting of
DOWNEY, GARY, JOE DUMIT, AND SHARON TRAWEEK. n.d. the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco,
Cyborgsand citadels:Anthropological interventionsinto Calif.,December2-6.
technocultures. SantaFe: SchoolofAmericanResearchPress. HEATH, DEBORAH, GERALD GLASER, SANDRA GUDMUND-
In press. [DH] SEN, SUE CURRY JANSEN, JUDITH LEWIS, AND PHYLLIS
DOWNEY, GARY, JOSEPH DUMIT, AND SARAH WILLIAMS. ROONEY. i99i. "STS and gender," in Teaching science and
i992. Grantingmembership to the cyborgimage. Paper pre- technologystudies: A guide forcurricularplanners. Edited by
sented to the panel "Cyborg Anthropologyi" at the gIst an- SteveFullerand SujathaRaman.MS. [DH]
nual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, HEIDEGGER, MARTIN. i962. Beingand time.New York:
San Francisco, Calif., December 2-6. Harper and Row.
DUDEN, BARBARA. I990. The womanbeneaththeskin.Cam- . I977. The questionconcerning New York:
technology.
bridge:HarvardUniversityPress. Harper and Row.
ESCOBAR, ARTURO. I994. Encounteringdevelopment:Themak- HEIMS, STEVE. i99i. The cybernetics
group.Cambridge: M.I.T.
ing and un-makingofthe ThirdWorld,I945-I992. Princeton: Press.
Princeton Press.In press.
University HESS, DAVID. Editor.i992. The social/culturalanthropology of
FISKE, JOHN. I989. Understanding popularculture.Boston:Un- scienceand technology. Social/CulturalAnthropology of Sci-
win Hyman. ence and TechnologyNewsletteri992.
FOUCAULT, MICHEL. I972. The archaeology
ofknowledge. . I993. Scienceand technology world.
in a multicultural
New York: Harper Colophon Books. MS.
I973. The orderofthings.New York:VintageBooks. .n.d. "Ifyou'rethinkingoflivingin STS: A guideto the
I975. The birthoftheclinic.New York:VintageBooks. perplexed," in Cyborgsand citadels:Anthropological interven-
ig80. The historyof sexuality.Vol. I. New York: Vin- tionsinto technocultures. Editedby G. Downey,J.Dumit,and
tageBooks. S. Traweek.SantaFe: SchoolofAmericanResearchPress.In
FOX, RICHARD. Editor.i99i. Recapturing anthropology:Work- press. [DH]
ingin thepresent.Sante Fe: SchoolofAmericanResearch. HESS, DAVID, AND LINDA LAYNE. Editors. i992. Knowledge
FRANKLIN, SARAH. I993. Postmodern procreation: Representing and society.Vol. 9. The anthropologyofscienceand technol-
reproductivepractice. Scienceas CultureI7:522-6i. [MS] ogy.Greenwich:JAIPress.
GARCiA CANCLINI, NESTOR. I990. Culturashibridas:Estra- JACOBUS, MARY, EVELYN FOX KELLER, AND SALLY SHUT-
tegiaspara entrary salir de la modernidad.Mexico, D.F.: Gri- TLEWORTH. Womenand the
Editors. I990. Body/politics:
jalbo. discoursesofscience.New York:Routledge.
GIBSON, WILLIAM. I984. Neuromancer. New York:Bantam JENKINS, HENRY. i992. Textualpoachers.New York:
Books. Routledge.
GIDDENS, ANTHONY. I990. The consequencesofmodernity. JOANS, BARBARA. i992. Outlawsand vigilantesin cyberspace.
Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. Paperpresentedto thepanel "VirtualCommunities"at the
GOD ELIER, MAURICE. I97I. "'Salt currency' and the circula- gIst annual meeting of the American AnthropologicalAssocia-
tion of commodities among the Baruya of New Guinea," in tion, San Francisco, Calif., December 2-6.
Studiesin economicanthropology. EditedbyGeorge Dalton. KAUFFMAN, STUART. i99i. Antichaosand adaptation.Scien-
D.C.: AmericanAnthropological
Washington, Association. tificAmerican265(2):78-84.
230 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 35, Number 3, JuneI994

KELLER, EVELYN FOX. i992a. Secretsoflife,secretsofdeath: NOVAK, MARCOS. i992. "Liquid architecturein cyberspace,"
Essayson language,gender,and science.New York: in Cyberspace:Thefirststeps.Editedby M. Benedikt,pp.
Routledge. 225-54. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
. i992b. "Nature,nurture, and theHumanGenomeProj- O' CONNOR, MARTIN. I993. On the misadventures ofcapitalist
ect,"in The code ofcodes: Scientificand social issues in the nature.Capitalism,Nature,Socialism4(4):7-40.
Human GenomeProject.EditedbyDaniel Kevlesand Leroy ONG, AIHWA. I987. Spiritsofresistanceand capitalistdisci-
Hood,pp. 28i-99. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press. pline.Albany:SUNY Press.
KLOPPENBURG, JACK. 199I. Alternative agricultureand the PENLEY, CONSTANCE, AND ANDREW ROSS. Editors.I99I.
new biotechnologies. Scienceas Culture2:483-5o6. Technoculture.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
KNORR-CETINA, K. D., AND M. J. MULKAY. Editors.I983. Sci- PFAFFENBERGER, BRYAN. i992. The social anthropology of
ence observed:Perspectives on thesocial studyofscience.Bev- technology.AnnualReviewofAnthropology 2I:49I-5I6.
erlyHills: Sage. PISCITELLI, ALEJANDRO. I99I. Los hipermedios y el placerdel
KONDO, DORIN. I990. Crafting selves.Chicago:University of David y Goliath(BuenosAires),no. 58,pp.
textoelectr6nico.
Chicago Press. 64-78.
KURZWEIL, RAYMOND. 1990. machines.
The age ofintelligent POSTER, MARK. I990. The mode ofinformation: Poststructural-
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. ism and social context.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
LATOUR, BRUNO. I987. Sciencein action:How to followscien- PRED, ALAN, AND MICHAEL WATTS. i992. Reworking moder-
tistsand engineersthroughsociety.MiltonKeynes:Open Uni- nity:Capitalismand symbolicdiscontent.New Brunswick:
versityPress. RutgersUniversity Press.
I988. Thepasteurization ofFrance.Cambridge:Harvard PRIGOGINE, ILYA, AND ISABELLE STENGERS. I984. Order
University Press. out ofchaos. Toronto:BantamBooks.
. I993. We have neverbeenmodern.Translatedby Cather- RABINOW, PAUL. I989. Frenchmodern.Cambridge:M.I.T.
ine Porter.London:HarvesterWheatsheaf. [Ms] Press.
LATOUR, BRUNO, AND STEVEN WOOLGAR. I979. Laboratory . i992a. "Artificiality and enlightenment: Fromsociobiol-
life:The social construction ofscientificfacts.Princeton: ogy to biosociality," in Incorporations. Edited by J.Craryand
Princeton University Press. S. Kwinter,pp. 234-52. New York:Zone Books.
LAUREL, BRENDA. Editor.I990. The artofhuman-computer in- . i992b. "Severing theties: Fragmentation and dignityin
terfacedesign.Reading,Mass: Addison-Wesley. late modernity," in Knowledgeand society:The anthropology
LECOURT, DOMINIQUE. i992. The scientistand the citizen:A ofscienceand technology, vol. 9. EditedbyDavid J.Hess and
critiqueoftechnoscience. PhilosophicalForum23:I74-78. LindaLayne,pp. I69-87. Greenwich: JAIPress.
LtVY, PIERRE. I99I. La oralidadprimaria, la escritura, y la in- RHEINGOLD, HOWARD. 199I. Virtualreality.New York:Si-
formatica: David y Goliath(BuenosAires),no. 58, pp. 4-I6. mon and Schuster.
MC CAFFREY, LARRY. Editor.I99I. Storming therealitystudio: RONFELDT, DAVID. I99I. Cyberocracy, cyberspace,and cyber-
A casebookofcyberpunk and postmodern fiction.Durham: ology:Politicaleffects oftheinformation revolution.Santa
Duke University Press. Monica: RAND Corporation.
MARTIN, EMILY. I987. The womanin the body.Boston:Bea- ROSEBERRY, WILLIAM. i992. Anthropologies and histories:Es-
con Press. saysin culture,history,and politicaleconomy.New Bruns-
MATURANA, HUMBERTO, AND FRANCISCO VARELA. I987. wick: RutgersUniversity Press.
The treeofknowledge.Boston:New ScienceLibrary/Sham- ROSENTHAL, PAM. i992. Remixingmemoryand desire:The
bhala. meaningsand mythologies ofvirtualreality.SocialistReview
MEAD, MARGARET. I968. "Cybernetics of cybernetics," in Pur- 22:IO7-I8.
posivesystems.EditedbyHeinz von Foerster, pp. I-I4. New SANMARTiN, JOSE, AND ANGEL ORT1. I992. "Evaluaci6nde
York:SpartanBooks. tecnologias,"in Estudiossobresociedad y tecnologia.Edited
MEAD, MARGARET, H. L. TEUBER, AND HEINZ VON FOERS- byJ.Sanmartin, S. H. Cutcliffe, S. L. Goldman,and M. Me-
TER. Editors. I950-56. Cybernetics. 5 vols. New York: Josiah dina,pp. 42-66. Barcelona:Anthropos.
Macy,Jr.,Foundation. SANMARTiN, JOSE, AND JOSE LUIS LUJAN. i992. "Educaci6n
MEDINA, MANUEL. I992. "Nuevas tecnologias, evaluaci6n de la en ciencia,tecnologiay sociedad,"in Estudiossobresociedad
investigaci6n tecnol6gicay gesti6nde riesgos,"in Estudiosso- y tecnologia.EditedbyJ.Sanmartin, S. L. Gold-
S. H. Cutcliffe,
bresociedady tecnologia.EditedbyJ.Sanmartin, S. H. Cut- man,and M. Medina,pp. 67-86. Barcelona:Anthropos.
cliffe, S. L. Goldman,and M. Medina,pp. I63-94. Barcelona: SARLO, BEATRIZ. i992. La imaginaci6ntecnica:Suenosmo-
Anthropos. demnosde la cultura argentina. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visi6n.
MEDINA, MANUEL, AND JOSE SANMARTiN. I989. Filosofiade SELTZER, MARK. i992. Bodies and machines.New York:
la tecnologia,INVESCIT y el ProgramaTECNAS. Anthropos, Routledge.
no. 94/95, pp. 4-7. SHIVA, VANDANA. I993. Monocultures of themind: Biodiver-
MIES, MARIA. I986. Patriarchy and accumulationon a world sity,biotechnology, and "scientific" agriculture. London:Zed
scale. London: Zed Books. Books.
MITCHAM, CARL. I990. "Threewaysofbeing-with-technol- SIBLEY, WILLIS E. I96I. Artisan nomads in a modernsetting:
ogy," in Fromartifacttohabitat:Studiesin thecriticalengage- A preliminary studyofprofessional dam workers.Paperpre-
mentoftechnology. EditedbyGayleOrmiston,pp. 3I-59. sentedat theannualmeetingoftheAmericanAnthropological
Cranbury,N.J.: Lehigh University Press. Association,Philadelphia, December.[WES]
MOL, ANNEMARIE, AND JOHN LAW. n.d. Regions,networks, . I979. An anthropologist in thebureaucracy. Practicing
and fluids:Anaemiaand social topology.MS, University of Anthropology I (5 and 6). [WES]
Limburg, University ofKeele. [Ms] . i982. Septictanksand sewers:Community conflictand
MONDO 2,000. i992. Mondo user'sguide to thenew edge. technological changein a Midwestemcounty.Paperpresented
New York: Harper Perennial. at theannualmeetingoftheAmericanAnthropological Associ-
MUNRO, ROLLAND. n.d. "Cybernetics and the social: Conversa- ation,Washington, D.C., December.[WES]
tionswithunspeakablemachines,"in Systemsscience:Ad- SMITH, DAVID. I993. Technology and the modernworldsys-
dressingglobal issues. EditedbyF. A. Stowellet al. New York: tem: Some reflections. Science,Technology, and Human Val-
Plenum Press. [Ms] ues I8:I86-95.
NICOLIS, GREGOIRE, AND ILYA PRIGOGINE. I989. Exploring STONE, ALLUCQUERE ROSANNE. I99I. Virtualsystems:The ar-
complexity. New York: Freeman. chitecture ofelsewhere.MS, Groupforthe StudyofVirtual
 ESCOBAR The Anthropology I 23I
ofCyberculture

Systems,CenterforCulturalStudies,University ofCalifomia, ogyi" at the gIst annualmeetingoftheAmericanAnthropo-

SantaCruz. logicalAssociation,San Francisco,Calif.,December2-6.
1 992. "Virtualsystems," in Incorporations.Editedby VARELA, FRANCISCO, EVAN THOMPSON, AND ELEANOR
J.Craryand S. Kwinter, pp. 608-25. New York:Zone Books. ROSCH. i99i. The embodiedmind. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
STRATHERN, MARILYN. I988. The genderof thegift.Berkeley: VISVANATHAN, SHIV. forscience.Delhi: Ox-
i985. Organizing
University ofCaliforniaPress. Press.
fordUniversity
SUTZ, JUDITH. I993. Los cambiostecnol6gicos y sus impactos: WAJCMAN, JUDY. i99i. Feminismconfronts technology.Uni-
Un largocaminohacia la construcci6n solidariade oportuni- versityPark:Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.
dades.Fermentum (Caracas)3:I24-50. WALDROP, M. MITCHELL. i992. Complexity:The emerging sci-
THOMAS, DAVID. I99I. "Old ritualsfornew space: Ritesofpas- ence at theedgeofchaos. New York:Simonand Schuster.
sageand WilliamGibson'sculturalmodelofcyberspace," in WALKER, JOHN. I990. "Throughthe lookingglass,"in The art
Cyberspace:Thefirststeps.EditedbyM. Benedikt,pp. 3I-48. ofhuman-computer interfacedesign.EditedbyBrendaLaurel,
Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. pp. 439-48. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
TRAWEEK, SHARON. I988. Beamtimesand lifetimes:The world WILLIS, PAUL. I990. Commonculture.Boulder:Westview
ofhigh-energy physicists.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Press. WINNER, LANGDON. I993a. Upon openingtheblackbox and
. I993. An introduction to cultural,gender,and social stud- finding it empty:Social constructivism and thephilosophyof
ies ofscienceand technology. Journalof Culture,Medicine, technology. Science,Technology, and Human Values i8:362-
and Psychiatry I7:3-25. [DH] 378.
TROUILLOT, RALPH. I99I. "Anthropology and the savageslot: . I993b. Ifyou likedchaos,you'lllove complexity. New
The poeticsand politicsofothemess,"in Recapturing anthro- YorkTimesBook Review,FebruaryI4, p. I2.
pology.EditedbyRichardFox,pp. I7-44. SantaFe: Schoolof WINOGRAD, TERRY, AND FERNANDO FLORES. i986. Under-
AmericanResearch. standingcomputersand cognition.Norwood:Ablex.
TSUGAWA, TRACEY. I99 2. Theoreticaldis/simulations and uto- WOLF, ERIC. i982. Europeand thepeople withouthistory.
pian dreams:The politicsoftheorizing withintheprojectof Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress.
culturalstudies.MS, Amherst, Mass. WOOLGAR, STEVEN. i988. Science:The veryidea. London:Tav-
TURKLE, SHERRY. I984. The secondself:Computers and thehu- istock.
man spirit.New York:Simonand Schuster. . i99i. The turnto technology in social studiesofscience.
. I992. Livingin theMUDs: Multiplicity and identityin Science,Technology, and Human Values i6:20-50.
virtualreality.Paperpresentedto thepanel "CyborgAnthropol-

Calendar

June12-15. gthInuit Studies Conference,Iqaluit, October 3-7. 2d InternationalCongressforthe Study

N.T., Canada. Write:Inuit Studies OranizingCom- of ModifiedStates of Consciousness, Lerida,Spain.
mittee,c/o ArcticCollege, P.O. Box 6oo, Iqaluit, Theme: Ethnocognition,Shamanism,Plants and Cul-
N.T., Canada XoA oHo. turalContext.Write:Institutde ProspectivaAntro-
July4-9. ThreatenedPeoples and Environmentsin the pologica,Av. Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 457,
Americas: 48th InternationalCongressof Ameri- 4rt.,080I5 Barcelona,Spain.
canists,Stockholm,Sweden. Write:Instituteof November.The Pleistocene/HoloceneBoundaryand
Latin America Studies,S-io6 9I Stockholm, Human Occupations in South America,Interna-
Sweden. tional Symposium,Mendoza, Argentina.Write:Mar-
Julyii-i6. Ist World Congresson AfricanLanguages celo Zairate,InternationalSymposiumThe Pleisto-
and Linguistics,Johannesburg, South Africa.Write: cene/HoloceneBoundary,Centro de Geologia de
R. K. Herbert,Departmentof AfricanLanguages, Costas y del Cuaternario,UNMP, Casilla de Correo
Universityof the Witwatersrand, PrivateBag 3, 2050 722-CorreoCentral,7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Johannesburg, South Africa. November 10-13. AmericanSocietyforEthnohistory,
July15-i8. The Social and Cultural Originsof Lan- Annual Meeting,Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A.-Write:Peter
guage,a conferencein association with the Language Iverson,Departmentof History,Arizona State Uni-
OriginsSociety,Berkeley,Calif.,U.S.A. Write:Bruce versity, Tempe, Ariz. 85287-250I, U.S.A.
Richman,conferencecoordinator,2200 Oakdale Rd., November17-19. Second United Nations Decade Con-
Cleveland Heights,Ohio 441 8, U.S.A. ferenceon InternationalDevelopment,Children,and
September.Texts and Images of People, Politics,and Women,Washington,D.C., U.S.A. Write:Mekki
Power: Representingthe Bushman People of South- Mtewa, Association forthe Advancementof Policy,
ernAfrica,Symposiumand Exhibitions,Johannes- Research,and Development in the Third World,
burg,South Africa.Write:T. A. Dowson and J.D. P.O. Box 70257, Washington, D.C. 20024-0257,
Lewis-Williams,Rock Art ResearchUnit, Depart- U.S.A.
ment of Archaeology,Universityof the Witwaters-
rand,Johannesburg 2050, South Africa.