Body, Self, Device: Nonhuman Objects and Human Identity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BODY, SELF, DEVICE: NONHUMAN OBJECTS AND HUMAN IDENTITY By Daniel Ray Morrison Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology December, 2012 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Laura M. Carpenter Professor Mark J. Bliton Professor Steven J. Tepper Professor David J. Hess Professor Michael D. Bess Copyright © Daniel Ray Morrison All Rights Reserved ii To my best friend and life partner, Jan. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the space where new scholars praise the people and communities that contributed to their work. I follow that tradition here. The dissertation below is the result of hundreds of conversations and contributions throughout the past several years. I benefited greatly from these conversations and unfailing support, the faults herein are my responsibility alone. The list of supporters is long. First, to the men and women who shared their time with me, inviting me into their homes to tell their stories of impairment, diagnosis, and treatment, I am deeply grateful. Your experiences are the foundation of this dissertation, and your stories of pain, loss, hope and treatment provided more than enough to sustain my efforts here. Second, my dissertation advisor, Laura M. Carpenter has proven a steady mentor and long suffering reader of drafts. Doubtless I wore her patience thin, asking for more time to complete draft after draft of the chapters in this manuscript. Her guidance, clear editorial style and perseverance over many years are evidence in her faith in me as a sociologist and colleague. Dr. Mark Bliton deserves special thanks for his thoughtful and generous guidance. Early conversations with him encouraged my interest in deep brain stimulation as a treatment. His own work in biomedical ethics is the very model of compassionate, humanistic, and engaged scholarship. Dr. Tepper and Dr. Bess joined on to the committee enthusiastically, and have contributed essential intellectual guidance throughout. Dr. Bess' scholarship on the future of humanity remains inspiring. Although he joined a bit later, Dr. David Hess came along at iv precisely the right time. This committee is filled with uniquely gifted scholars, and I am fortunate to work with them. Let's continue the conversation. Other sociologists have also contributed to my thinking and research. At Vanderbilt, Monica J. Casper served as the first advisor to this project with grace and patience. Monica and George Becker brought me through the sociology of science and knowledge, while Tony Brown taught me the value of devoting my time to statistics. Ronnie Steinberg's sharp wit helped me focus on what is truly important. Richard Pitt helped me think through the social psychological issues raised by my work. Former committee member Terence McDonnell's energy and commitment to the writing craft provided a model for scholarship that I hope one day to attain. Linda Willingham, Deanna Cassanova and Pam Tichenor, members of the sociology department's crack administrative team, kept me on the right side of the bureaucracy and encouraged me with their kind words and abundant chocolate. I am grateful for the mentoring I received through the Science, Knowledge and Technology section of the American Sociological Association. My first mentor, Kelly Joyce, helped me think through the conceptual and analytic challenges of my project. Susan Bell wrote letters of recommendation and continually challenged me to do my most creative and meaningful work in the field and on the page. I was fortunate to participate in two dissertation writing and accountability groups. Within sociology, Erin McDonnell, Sarah Jane Glynn and Erin Rehel read draft after draft with endless generosity and kind, but critical, feedback. Angela Cowser, Tamara Lewis, Christophe Ringer, Jin Choi and Asante Todd helped me through the challenges of writing, the job search, and counseled me on the art of living well. These two groups, as well as the v many cups of coffee poured at Ugly Mugs, and the more recently opened Barista Parlor, pushed me across the finish line. Mary Caler, a recent PhD herself, listened and provided direction during the most intense days of writing and revision. This work was made possible through the generous financial support of the University, the College of Arts & Science, Graduate School, and Department of Sociology. I thank the Robert Penn Warren Center for the Humanities for their sponsorship of our graduate seminar, “Body and Soul.” I gratefully acknowledge the Social Science Dissertation Fellowship, and the Vanderbilt Center for Teaching for their support in providing the time and resources to finish this dissertation. My graduate student colleagues, including Erin Bergner, Art Reed, Katherine Everhart and Jonathan Coley provided intellectual, moral, and emotional support. Lyndi Hewitt’s wisdom and experience places the academic life in proper perspective. Some people transcend the usual categories of colleague, friend and mentor. Heather Talley is that person for me. Heather's fierce commitment to the finest critical and justice- oriented scholarship inspires me to do the best sociology possible. Her own dissertation is masterful, showing that compassion and analytic rigor can coexist. I am proud to be her friend. I have saved the highest praise for last. In 2006, Jan and I left Columbia, Missouri for Charlottesville, Virginia so that I could enter graduate school in a second field. She placed her faith and hope in us as we struggled to build a life together under difficult conditions. Throughout these many years, Jan has weathered the ups and downs of my graduate school career with patience and grace. Although the graduate school process has tested our resolve vi more than once, Jan has endured. Her strength sustains me. That is why I am so proud to dedicate this dissertation to her. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................viii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................ix Chapter INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Negotiating Medications and Social Life .....................................................17 I. MAKING THE CASE: HOW DOCTORS CREATE “DO-ABLE” PROBLEMS AND RETAIN AUTHORITY IN CASE CONFERENCES ......................................43 II. REVISIONS: PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND ORIENTATIONS TOWARD ACTION .....................................................................................................................85 III. NATURAL MOVEMENT BY UNNATURAL MEANS: TRANSPARENCY AND INVISIBILITY IN NARRATIVES OF DBS RECIPIENTS .....................................112 IV. TECHNOSCIENTIFIC TREATMENT IDENTITY: CONFIRGURING NORMAL BODIES AFTER DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION ...................................................138 V. CARDIAC AND BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES ......................................167 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................193 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................199 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Select Demographic and Diagnostic Characteristics of Interview Subjects ...................33 2. Typology of Treatment Effects by Implant Transparency and Symptom (In)Visibility ...93 ix INTRODUCTION Prediction is a notoriously difficult and uncertain practice. Social scientists will not be surprised to hear a joke about how they use statistics to “predict” what has already happened. Among social scientists, demographers may be most accurate in their predictions. For example, a rapid growth in family size may portend success for a nation’s economy as population increases and more goods and services are required. When it comes to predictions concerning the future of technology, a few inventors, authors, and futurists peddle their insights on the lecture circuit, at the South by Southwest conference, and at institutions like Singularity University. The singularity is “a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed” (Kurzweil 2005:7). The singularity is the era in which technology enhances our intelligence, making it “trillions of times more powerful than it is today” (singularity.com). Kurzweil’s website for his book The Singularity is Near suggests that the singularity amounts to , “the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity” (singularity.com). In fact, the futurist who has done all these things is Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil, the inventor, entrepreneur, and author is not afraid to make predictions. His most famous prediction is that by 2045, computers will have become so fast that they will be capable of something similar to human intelligence (Grossman 2011). These computers, with their immense parallel processing capabilities, will develop a kind of artificial intellect that would pass any version of the Turing test1. Once this tipping point is reached, Kurzweil and others 1 More information on the Turing