{"id":5299,"date":"2017-09-19T11:46:33","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T16:46:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nathanielstern.com\/blog\/?p=5299"},"modified":"2018-04-21T16:40:25","modified_gmt":"2018-04-21T21:40:25","slug":"brefiew-unthought-the-power-of-the-cognitive-nonconscious-by-n-katherine-hayles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nathanielstern.com\/blog\/2017\/09\/19\/brefiew-unthought-the-power-of-the-cognitive-nonconscious-by-n-katherine-hayles\/","title":{"rendered":"Brefiew: Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious\u00c2\u00a0by N Katherine Hayles"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Welcome to another briefiew (brief review)!<\/p>\n

N. Katherine Hayles’\u00c2\u00a0How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics<\/em><\/a> was hugely influential on my dissertation and thinking, and I still cite her regularly in my classes and texts. Here her ironically titled book re-members (that is, embodies again) how humans (and data) both “lost their materiality” in our minds, and then she shows us that this is dead wrong, and that there are major stakes in that misperception. Her 2017\u00c2\u00a0Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious<\/a><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0differentiates between a thinking that describes \u00e2\u20ac\u0153thoughts and capabilities associated with higher consciousness such as rationality, the ability to formulate and manipulate abstract concepts, linguistic competencies, and so on,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cognition\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (2), which is the nonconscious capacity for processing information, the latter gained through biological sensation or perception, or technological sensors, mechanical feedback, or data received from external sources, among other things. Cognition, in other words, is a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153much broader faculty\u00e2\u20ac\u009d extant on some level \u00e2\u20ac\u0153in all biological life-forms and many technical systems\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (14).<\/p>\n

Hayles wants to have the humanities engage with and better understand \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the specificities of human-technical cognitive assemblages and their power to transform life on the planet\u00e2\u20ac\u009d through a more coherent \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ethical inquiry\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (3-4). She wants us to look more closely at what and how those systems act, cognize, and think, what we do with and as them, and why. Hers is an important premise and fascinating study of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153supporting environments\u00e2\u20ac\u009d humans are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153embedded and immersed in,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which \u00e2\u20ac\u0153function as distributed cognitive systems\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (2).<\/p>\n

I found myself alternatively nodding and shaking my head while reading. I agree that we must pay more attention to the things that think and cognize, and the ethical questions at play; though I also believe the distinctions more blurred and subtle (and sometimes non-existent) than laid out by those Hayles cites (book forthcoming<\/a> – though mine is entirely about art!). Still, this\u00c2\u00a0is precisely because it is such an interesting topic, with too much to debate. And Hayles’ bringing these ideas into the humanities is unmistakably important, and her modes of storytelling around them are as funny and smart as ever. If you haven’t yet read\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics<\/em><\/a>, I would start there – not because you need it to understand Unthought<\/em>, but because the first is her strongest manuscript, by far. \u00c2\u00a0If you enjoyed that, or have more interest in the later\/recent book, I do recommend it. It’s not as easy of a read, but it is more than worthwhile, and may yet prove to be the game-changer the first was.<\/p>\n