Living Machines: Metaphors We Live By

Abstract

Within biology and in society, living creatures have long been described using metaphors of machinery and computation: 'bioengineering', 'genes as code' or 'biological chassis'. This paper builds on Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) argument that such language mechanisms shape how we understand the world. I argue that the living machines metaphor builds upon a certain perception of life entailing an idea of radical human control of the living world, looking back at the historical preconditions for this metaphor. I discuss how design is perceived to enable us to shape natural beings to our will, and consider ethical, epistemological and ontological implications of the prevalence of this metaphor, focusing on its use within synthetic biology. I argue that we urgently need counter-images to the dominant metaphor of living machines and its implied control and propose that artworks can provide such counterimages through upsetting the perception of life as controllable. This is argued through discussion of artworks by Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr, by Tarsh Bates and by Ai Hasegawa, which in different ways challenge mechanistic assumptions through open-ended engagement with the strangeness and messiness of life.

Metabolism Instead of Machine: Towards an Ontology of Hybrids

“…Definitions, conceptualisations, metaphors and the general use of language all structure our thinking about phenomena. This fact is presupposed by philosophers who have argued that synthetic biology is committed to certain ontological positions (Deplazes & Huppenbauer, 2009;Boudry & Pigliucci, 2013;Nicholson, 2014;Bensaude-Vincent & Loeve, 2018;Boldt, 2018;Vaage, 2020). Our qualitative analysis of the synthetic biology literature contributes to these debates.…”

“…Scrutinising scientists' uses of metaphors offers a one way of disentangling their underlying ontological assumptions. Metaphors have a structuring effect on thought and have ontological significance(Bensaude-Vincent & Loeve, 2018;Boldt, 2018;Vaage, 2020). They imply a certain way of talking and thinking about concepts, engendering the risk of obscuring their status as metaphors, and, therefore, shaping our views on the concept at issue(Lakoff & Johnson, 2008).3 While synthetic biologists generally define "design" in engineering terms, as a specification or process for the construction of a system(Ebrahimkhani & Levin, 2021), it is often unclear what they mean by the term(Rabinow & Bennett, 2008).…”

Living Capsules: Reflections on an Ongoing Art-Sociology Collaboration

“…These selected Bioart examples provide powerful counter images, sounds, and narratives to the idea of non/living matter as distinct entities, while simultaneously disrupting the perception of life as controllable [18]. Notably, Bioart that engages with themes of non/living is being created and shared in leading artistic laboratories such as SymbioticA [19].…”

Ethical and social insights into synthetic biology: predicting research fronts in the post-COVID-19 era

“…Merritt et al (2020) used the novel living media interfaces (LMIs) to show the case of the interaction between biological materials and digital systems as responsive living media and SynBio, as engineered biology, could offer plenty of options for the feasible fusion practice. Vaage (2020) appealed to expand the utility of artworks to provide counter-images to challenge mechanistic assumptions, i.e., the living machines metaphor and the perception of life as controllable in the context of SynBio. Meanwhile, Calvert and Schyfter (2017) (3) The role of knowledge of SynBio…”