Gendering Robotic Bodies in Ian McEwan’s Machines Like Me and Annalee Newitz’s Autonomous

Abstract

With the ubiquity of robotic devices in contemporary age, human-like robots have become protagonists of literary works, especially of science fiction which extrapolates from the existing technology and represents how the societies will be arranged or what kind of rules the individuals will be imposed on in the future. In Ian McEwan’s Machines Like Me (2019) and Annalee Newitz’s Autonomous (2017) humanoids are in the center of the narrative and though being mechanical human productions, they are expected to comply with heteronormative genders and required to perform their gender roles. Adams and Eves in Machines Like Me are produced in a limited number and created as factotum, while Paladin in Autonomous is a military bot who is produced as non-binary and without any gender marker; it is basically a machine with blades on its shoulders and hidden shields and weapons, yet because of its being in the military domain and its appearance, it is referred to as “he” by the humans until it was understood that he has a “woman’s brain.” From then onwards, Paladin was accepted as a woman, and she complied with the social expectations of femininity. When these novels are read through the prism of the classical theories of gender and posthuman feminism, it is observed that just like those of human beings, bodies of robots are also compelled to perform culturally constructed gender roles. Through a comparative examination of these novels, this paper investigates how humans are unable to leave their anthropocentrism behind and how human-centered perspective functions as an entrapment for the nonhumans and thus they are required to comply with the anthropocentric understanding of gender, which is still constructed in a binary logic in regulating the lives of nonhuman entities.

Keywords

• gendered robots
• performativity
• compulsory heterosexuality
• science fiction.

Ian McEwan’ın Benim Gibi Makineler ve Annalee Newitz’in Otonom Romanlarında Robotik Bedenlerin Cinsiyetlendirilmesi

Abstract

Cinsiyetlerine bağlı olarak, insanların belirli şekillerde hareket etmeleri, konuşmaları ve davranmaları beklenir. Günümüzde robotik cihazların yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte, insan benzeri robotlar edebi eserlerin, özellikle de mevcut teknolojiden yola çıkan ve gelecekte toplumların nasıl düzenleneceğini ya da bireylere ne tür kurallar dayatılacağını temsil eden bilim kurgu eserlerinin baş kahramanları haline geldi. Ian McEwan'ın Machines Like Me (Benim Gibi Makineler, 2019) ve Annalee Newitz'in Autonomous (Otonom, 2017) adlı eserlerinde anlatının merkezinde yer alan insansı robotların, mekanik insan üretimleri olmalarına rağmen, heteronormatif cinsiyetlere sahip olmaları ve toplumsal cinsiyet rollerini yerine getirmeleri beklenir. Benim Gibi Makineler 'deki Adam ve Eve robotlar sınırlı sayıda her işi yapacak kapasitede üretilirken, Otonom'daki Paladin askeri bir robottur. Adam görünüş olarak klişe bir erkek olarak yaratılmıştır, dolayısıyla erkek rolünü oynaması beklenir ve o da bunu başarıyla gerçekleştirir. Paladin ise herhangi bir cinsiyete ait olmadan üretilmiştir; aslında omuzlarında bıçakları, gizli kalkanları ve silahları olan bir makinedir, ancak askeri alanda olması ve görünüşü nedeniyle, "kadın beynine" sahip olduğu anlaşılana kadar insanlar tarafından "erkek" olarak adlandırılır. Kadın beyni meselesi ortaya çıkınca Paladin bir kadın olarak kabul edilmiş ve toplumun kadınlık kimliği beklentilerine uymuştur. Bu çalışmada, yukarıda adı geçen romanlar cinsiyet kuramları çerçevesinden, özellikle de Judith Butler’in cinsiyet edimliliği ve Adrienne Rich’in zorunlu heteroseksüellik kavramı ışığında analiz edilecektir ve robotik bedenlerin de tıpkı insanlar gibi kültürel olarak yapılandırılmış cinsiyet rollerine uymaya zorlandıkları gözler önüne serilecektir.

Keywords

• cinsiyetli robotlar
• cinsiyet edimi
• zorunlu heteroseksüellik
• bilim kurgu.

References

1. Åsberg, C. & Braidotti, R. (2018). Feminist posthumanities: An introduction. In C. Åsberg & R. Braidotti (Eds.), A feminist companion to the posthumanities (pp. 1-22). Springer.
2. Balsamo, A. (1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Duke UP.
3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831.
4. Butchvarov, P. (2015). Anthropocentrism in philosophy: Realism, antirealism, semirealism. De Gruyter.
5. Butler, J. (1986). Sex and gender in Simone De Beauvoir’s Second Sex. Yale French Studies, 72, 35-49.
6. Butler, J. (1994). Gender as performance: An interview with Judith Butler, Radical Philosophy, 67, 32-39.
7. Butler, J. (1996). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
8. Butler, J. (2004). Imitation and gender subordination. In S. Salih & and J. Butler (Eds), The Judith Butler reader (pp. 119-137). Blackwell Publishing.

9. Büyükgebiz, M. (2021). Posthuman experiences of men and masculinities in Ian Mcewan’s machines like me. Masculinities Journal of Culture and Society, 16, 59-72.
10. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press.
11. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
12. De Beauvoir, S. (1973). The Second Sex. (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). Vintage Books.
13. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.) Vintage Books.
14. Haraway, D. (1990). Simians, Cyborgs and Women. Free Association Press.
15. Haraway, D. (2016). A Cyborg Manifesto In Manifestly Haraway, Minnesota UP.
16. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press.
17. Hayles, N. K. (2023). Subversion of the human aura: A crisis in representation. American Literature, 95(2), 255-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00029831-10575063
18. Irigaray, L. (1985). This sex which is not one (C. Porter & C. Burke, Trans.). Cornell UP.
19. McDuff D., Kodra E., Kaliouby R. & LaFrance, M. (2017). A large-scale analysis of sex differences in facial expressions. PLoS ONE 12(4), 1-11. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0173942
20. McEwan, I. (2022). Machines Like Me. Jonathan Cape.
21. Meyerson, D. & Kolb, D. (2000). Moving out of the ‘armchair’: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7, 553-571.
22. Newitz, A. (2019). Autonomous. Tor.
23. Pitts, V. (2005). Feminism, technology and body projects. Women’s Studies, 34 (3-4), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497870590964129
24. Rich, A. C. (2003). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Journal of Women's History, 15 (3), 11-48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2003.0079
25. Tolman, D. L (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality development within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 112, 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.163
26. Wiggert N., Wilhelm F. H., Derntl B. & Blechert J. (2015). Gender differences in experiential and facial reactivity to approval and disapproval during emotional social interactions. Front. Psychol. 6:1372, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01372
27. Wittig, M. (1992). The straight mind and other essays. Beacon Press.
28. Wood, W. & Eagly A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey Handbook of social psychology, (5th ed., pp. 629-667). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.