When the Artificial Is Natural: Reconsidering What Bionics and Sensoria Do

Abstract

When the artificial is natural: reconsidering what bionics and sensoria do. Videos of cochlear implant (CI) activation are common on online platforms such as YouTube, presenting activation as a “magical” moment when people receive “the gift of hearing.” We argue that these videos present a distorted understanding of what bionic devices, specifically CIs, do. Our research focuses on the scientific understandings of what the implants do within a user's sensorium and, consequently, what people do with CIs. The case of CIs calls us to analyze and subvert notions of sensory deficits and the bionic devices that are thought to repair them. In doing so, we delve into the forms of embodiment and processes associated with “hearing,” in its multiple forms. We examine the categories of artificial and natural, and how they relate to researchers' and clinicians' conceptualizations of the sensoria of people with CIs. This approach turns attention back to the people living with CIs themselves and is positioned antithetically to the “inspiration porn” of viral CI activation videos, compelling us to consider how people who use CIs create and inhabit new 'natures' with the devices. Quand l'artificiel est naturel: repenser la relation entre appareils “bioniques” et sensorium. Les vidéos d'activation d'implants cochléaires (ICs) sont devenus du contenu courant, voire viral, sur des plateformes en ligne comme YouTube. L'activation y est très souvent présentée comme un moment « magique », qui permet à la personne de recevoir l'audition comme un « don ». Mais dans quelle mesure cette représentation correspond‐elle vraiment aux expériences présentées dans, et au‐delà de ces vidéos ? Cet article explore ce que font les ICs, en tant qu'appareils « bioniques » une fois intégrés dans le sensorium d'une personne et, conséquemment, quelle part prennent les personnes utilisant des ICs à ce processus. À travers ces questionnements, nous proposons d'analyser et subvertir les notions de déficit sensoriel et l'idée selon laquelle des appareils bioniques seraient capables de les réparer. En se tournant vers les formes d'incorporation (embodiment) et les processus associés à l’ « audition » dans ses formes multiples, nous examinons comment les notions d'artificiel et de naturel induisent une conceptualisation spécifique et réductrice du sensorium. Cette approche vise à valoriser l'expérience des personnes vivant avec des ICs et se positionne ainsi en opposition à l’ « inspiration porn » sous‐jacente aux vidéos virales d'activation d'ICs. Notre objectif est de considérer comment la diversité des expériences des personnes vivant avec des ICs renseigne les 'natures' multiples de l'audition, et plus spécifiquement celles produites au sein d'assemblages qui comprennent des appareils technologiques.

Cochlear Implants: Young Adults’ Embodied Experiences of Deafness and Hearing through Implanted Technology

“…These feelings suggesting a moving through, as though the brain was being stimulated by a physical touch or vibrotactile experience, are different to Juno, who felt no vibration or sensation in his head. David, discussed later, who decided to have surgery in his early forties spoke in a similar way about feeling sounds moving through his brain, confirming the diversity of sensory experiences for people living with cochlear implants as discussed by Lloyd and Bonventre (2020).…”

“…Our ethnography also presents an experiential account of a specific case of the human technology interface. Rather than the cochlear implant being seen as artificial or perhaps disrupting relations between bodies or between people and their own bodies (Lloyd and Bonventre, 2020; Maslen, 2021), here implants become body parts, and intimately connected participants to their families and the world. Their everyday practices of living with a cochlear implant provide a window into varied sensory and social experiences including moments of silence ‘when we are alone and together at the same time’ (Pagis, 2010: 324).…”

“…Research on the hybrid brain–machine interface explores the ways a body might function through a machine, computer and brain interface (Nicolelis, 2001). Bodily implants provoke new ways to consider digital proximity and embodied sensorial experiences in order to challenge the concepts of natural and artificial and to consider how cochlear implant experiences offer a window into ‘nature’ becoming something with the ‘artificial’ (Lloyd and Bonventre, 2020: 312 emphasis in original).…”

Technological socialities: The impact of information and communication technologies on belonging among deaf and hard‐of‐hearing people

“…Ethnographic studies have argued that hearing produced with the help of CI cannot be equated with hearing of a non‐DHH person, as the device shapes the quality of sound (Friedner & Helmreich, 2012; Lloyd & Bonventre, 2020). Moreover, more than a measurable sensitivity to sound, hearing is a phenomenon which changes from one person to another, through time, and according to specific experiences of individuals with auditory devices (Lloyd & Tremblay, 2021).…”

From Hoping to Expecting: Cochlear Implantation and Habilitation in India

“…With an implant, deaf children do hear, and they hear normally in that the CI [cochlear implant] stimulates the auditory nerve." However, cochlear implanted hearing is not typical or normal hearing, and attempts to establish equivalence or similitude between deaf hearers and hearing hearers proves problematic (Lloyd and Bonventre 2020).…”