She begins the article by talking about an ironic political myth and the blasphemy that goes along with this. She says it’s ironic because she speaks about the cyborgs throughout the article and she uses it as a metaphor but she speaks about it in almost a negative light. Cyborg is a hybrid between organism and machine. This is what she is promoting throughout the entire article rather than the idea of women in the classical feminist sense she’s promoting a cyborg the image of a cyborg is a metaphor and this is the basis of her whole argument. She mentioned about three boundaries.
The first is between animal and human. She says that at the end of the 20th century, the animal activism movement is growing and instead of denial of human power is an acceptance of unity between the two groups.
The second is organism and machine. She says that machines are becoming more lifelike and she wrote this in 1985 so I can’t imagine what she was saying about machines nowadays, talking to you. Computers, phones, tablets-every machine is getting more lifelike.
The third is physical and nonphysical. She uses the example of light technology. So many machines and technologies are based on light and she talks about televisions and how it blurs the physical and the non-physical because the light is both physical and non-physical because you can see it and it’s a physical substance but you can’t touch it. She believes the acknowledgment of boundaries and that brings us to fractured identities she speaks about fractured identities for a great length of time in a cyborg manifesto and she says that nobody has one identity we all have multiple identities. Nobody can just be white or black you’re also Irish and German. You’re also an athlete or a filmmaker etc.
