Marketing the Prosthesis: Supercrip and Superhuman Narratives in Contemporary Cultural Representations

Abstract

<jats:p>This paper examines prosthetic technology in the context of posthumanism and disability studies. The following research discusses the posthuman subject in contemporary times, focusing on prosthetic applications to deliberate how the disabled body is empowered through prosthetic enhancement and cultural representations. The disability market both intersects and transcends race, religion, and gender; the promise of technology bettering the human condition is its ultimate product. Bionic technology, in particular, is a burgeoning field; our engineering skills already show promise of a future where physical impediment will be almost obsolete. I aim to cross-examine empowering marketing images and phrases embedded in cinema and media that emphasize how disability becomes super-ability with prosthetic enhancement. Though the benefits of biotechnology are most empowering to the disabled population, further scrutiny raises a number of paradoxical questions exposed by the market’s advance. With all these tools at our disposal, why is it that the disabled have yet to reap the rewards? How are disabled bodies, biotechnology, and posthuman possibilities commodified and commercialized? Most importantly, what impact will this have on our society? This paper exemplifies empowering and inclusive messages emphasized in disabled representation, as well as raising bioethical concerns that fuel the ongoing debate of the technological haves and have-nots. Furthermore, this paper challenges the ideals of normative bodies while depicting the disabled as an open, embodied site where technology, corporeality, and sociology interact. To conclude, I believe that an interdisciplinary approach that balances the debate between scientific advance, capital gain, and social equality is essential to embracing diverse forms of embodiment.</jats:p>

Human Enhancements and Voting: Towards a Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Beings

“…Advanced technology is only open to those who can afford the purchase, causing people in one country to experience the same impairment differently, based on their socioeconomic status. The "have nots" and the "haves" will lead directly to an "ability divide" that is not only reflected by individuals, but sets a division on a global scale [46]. "…”

“…We will consider in more depth two other potential candidates as requirements for voting rights under the expanded version of UDHR and as potential justifications to retaining the requirement of "humanity" for voting rights for enhanced and non-enhanced humans-"reason" (also referred to herein interchangeably with "rationality") and "dignity". Both terms are used in Article 1 of the UDHR 46 and are frequently used in ethical theories relating to differences between humans and others.…”

What do people think about technological enhancements of human beings? An introductory study using the Technological Enhancements Questionnaire in the context of values, the scientistic worldview, and the accepted versions of humanism

“…However, the distinction between therapeutic use and enhancements may be difficult to define ( Erler, 2017 ), and the same technologies can serve both reducing deficits and increasing a given feature above the level typical for the human population (e.g., nootropic drugs which may enhance cognitive skills; see: Chadwick, 2008 ; Fahn, 2020 ; Whetstine, 2015 ).…”