While there is a plethora of views pertaining to various forms of sexual relationships between humans, it is generally held that as long as such interactions occur between consenting adults they are “healthy.” Of course, one could speak of traditional-religious conceptions of heterosexual, monogamous and procreative sexual partnerships as being the only virtuous expression of love; however an increasing number of individuals reject this assertion, instead subscribing to the importance of pleasure above the production and regeneration of labourers. The materialisation of Realdolls challenges both conventional and progressive notions of sex, sexuality and love. Realdolls are carefully constructed sex toys, specifically designed to look like women.¹ While there are a variety of masturbatory aides in existence (many designed to emulate female characteristics and texture) the patented Realdoll is exceptional as its incredibly life-like appearance and feeling is an attempt to blur the lines of man and machine. The doll, according to its US Patent, is:

A figure toy amusement device comprising: an articulated skeleton … possessing: attachment means for a wig, a jaw movable with respect to said simulated skull, and a mouth lined with a smooth membrane and having a fluid receptacle located there behind; … [a] torso possessing a bosom possessing human verisimilitude in shape and feel and a vulva located between said two legs lined with a smooth membrane and having a fluid receptacle located there behind; … a full sized fully articulate doll with selectively displayed alternate faces and visual, postural, and palpable verisimilitude with a female human figure (United States Patent Office:2003).

The dolls (and their owners) provide opportunities to discuss the changing interactions between men and machines, organic and inanimate constructions of capitalism. While sexual aides have existed for years, the nature of the RealDoll provides, arguably for the first time, the opportunity for men to entirely eschew relationships with organic women while maintaining a satisfactory sex life. These dolls do not think, feel or speak (although advances in robotic-technologies will almost certainly change this in the near future), however, they fulfill sexual roles and provide an illusory form of companionship. It is indubitable that these feminised creations provide some owners with societal interactions traditionally considered as uniquely human. Men give their dolls names, clothe them and make them up, they go on excursions with their owners and are sent to the doctor. The “women” have MySpace pages, blogs and entire communities devoted to the dolls’ sexual and social lives. They, like many human-machine hybrids, exist in a purgatory of flesh and plastic, emotion and stoicism, the real and unreal.

While Marx’s concept of alienation is hardly a recent postulation, it provides an epistemological lens with which to examine this social phenomenon and evolving conceptions of both intimacy and love. This essay will argue that increasingly emotional relationships between men and Realdolls are indicative of both Marxist conceptions of alienation in (post)-capitalist societies and resultant social trends in which traditional typologies of humans and machines are increasingly ambiguous and insignificant. First, it must be proven that men are entering into sexual and emotional relationships with their anthropomorphised Realdolls. This will necessitate the use of “non-academic” sources of information, as there has been almost nothing written directly on the subject of this sex doll. Thus, it is necessary to rely on another representation of the increasing institutionalisation of machines in the life of men: the (proper-nounal) Internet. This will be followed by an examination of the works of Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, Bruno Latour and Donna Haraway which will serve not only as proof of the general alienation of the worker but also the social-scientific constructions of man and machine.

The previously mentioned US Patent of a Realdoll communicates the ostensibly detached and scientific nature of this innovative device. However, a brief examination of the experiences of men who own female reproductions will illustrate that these relations have (for some) developed from those of pure sexual satisfaction to the fulfillment of a larger need for social interaction. This simultaneously eschews the inevitable complications of true human contact while maintaining the semblance of (usually) monogamous partnerships over which the man has ultimate control. There is “Dave-Cat” for example, a 32 year old man from Detroit whose Realdoll is named “Sidore.” She is a Japanese-British goth who is “beautiful, loyal [and] a great listener”- everything Dave is looking for in a woman (Laslocky, 1). Sidore has her own MySpace page which explains she is “in a relationship” with Dave, has completed some college and has 70 friends online (MySpace:2007). Everhard, a 49 year old man from Britain, owns several Realdolls. They have their own personalities (although each face does not have its own body, they are easily exchanged) and he frequently takes “family photos” when they go out (Laslocky, 3). Everhard dresses and makes-up his dolls; he awakens them by changing their faces to ones with open eyes and perfumes them, noting that one of his dolls, Virginia “just lies there - she’s very static” (Holt 2007). Another doll owner, Gordon (38 years old and from Virginia) ordered a second replica of a woman in order to keep his first doll from becoming lonely and hopes that when he dies they will be buried with him so that “we can all turn to dust together” (Holt 2007). Admittedly, it is unlikely that these cases are indicative of the types of relationships which all Realdoll owners have with their sex toys. It is a fair assumption, however, that these extremes can be used to construct an idea of what Realdoll ownership entails. One online community of doll possessors is a “labyrinthine cyber haven for sex-doll enthusiasts with nearly 12 000 members and thousands of photographs and message strands” (Laslocky, 2). The dolls are frequently kept warm with electric blankets to approximate human sensations and it would seem there are definite attempts to anthropomorphise them. When the dolls require repair, they are sent to a Realdoll Doctor who does everything from tightening limbs to replacing vaginas. He notes that these repairs are customary and that “sex is a violent act, but the dolls can handle it, they’re made for abuse” (Holt 2007). The base-model of the doll costs US$ 6500 (with personalisation adding to that figure) and men see purchasing one as an investment (Laslocky, 1). This female ownership goes beyond the fulfillment of sexual needs (which could be accomplished with a cheaper sexual aide or through prostitution) and instead indicates a desire to satisfy a deeper need for companionship.

The origins of the alienated worker are to be found in the social acceptance of currency as a medium of exchange. As man produces goods for indirect, arbitrary exchange values rather than for himself or for direct trade with others’ creations, he inevitably enters into social relations independent of human interaction (Marx 1973:196-7). The replacement of creativity in production in favour of efficient mass fabrications creates a dichotomy of manufacture. That which is constructed necessarily results in a bifurcation of functions - those of natural and exchange values. These two spheres of value seldom exist in harmony, and as man cannot determine the true worth of his production he is separated from its usefulness. “In other words, its exchange value has a material existence, apart from the product” (McLellan:59). Money provides a social medium for the trade of products, and is fashioned as a non-human arbiter of value. This crucial shift in thought provides the preconditions for advanced capitalism to flourish. Although the creation of a moneyed economy is intended to facilitate trade between various producers, its unintended consequence is to act as a potent force in the lives of buyer, seller and producer. The ironic result of the creation of increasing amounts of wealth has the effect of decreasing the value of the labourer. “The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates,” and is in turn continually fashioned as a product himself (Marx 1969: 107).

Another result of man’s detachment from his production, according to Marx, is the fetishism of commodities. As items are formed from natural resources they become commodities, representing not only the intrinsic worth of their materials, but also the labour which was needed for their creation. In this manner the commodity is fetishised, revered as a detached social interaction. These products “become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses” (Marx 1990:164). Commodities transcend the boundaries of the material and social - they are products of both nature and man and the original obscuration of true value. Men are compelled to interact with each other through the products of their labour and in turn are removed from that which they create. They do not need to identify with the end-user of this marriage of nature and society, as the medium of money provides a method for other networks to conduct this transaction. Of course, in this era of Internet purchasing and credit, one need not leave home to buy and sell commodities, a peculiar manifestation of this distancing of producer and consumer. Labour ceases to be individual and instead is a social necessity. Social relationships concerning humans disappear in favour of “material relations between persons and social relations between things” (Marx 1990:166). Through this process, the worker is increasingly distanced from his production and enters into social relations with things, rather than beings.

The appropriation of nature in order to create goods shapes the distinctive character of the modern “worker.” He is originally an employee of nature insomuch as his environment provides both physical subsistence and the products which must be manipulated into new and sellable goods. This constructs the ethos of capitalist man - a fundamental reliance on nature to provide not only the means of life, but manipulative resources which establish his social location. However, as man increasingly appropriates nature for his own material ends, the direct impact of nature on his subsistence is relegated in favour of the value of worker-produced goods. The distinction between nature and object disappear as their roles are unified. In this way, the worker becomes a slave of his object (Marx 1969:109). He is constructed as a (dehumanised) worker, rather than an organic creation of the earth. His primary existence is that of a worker, rather than physical subject and as the role of worker increases, “the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself” (Marx 1969:108). Labour itself becomes an object, as does the worker. Through this process of objectification of nature by worker, and worker by product, the concept of alienation emerges.

Man is isolated from his production through the enactment of currency as an exchange mechanism and the fetishism of the commodity which supplants social interaction with consumptive communication. The capitalist construction of labour is also indicative of a falsity which has so permeated existence as to be considered immutable. Men do not work out of need, but as a means to an end. Namely, those needs which cannot be satisfied without the acquisition of capital are provided for through work. Labour is thus personified, this occupation is “an alien…[and]… not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of the self” (Marx 1969:111). This also results in his estrangement from other men - and perhaps women, as will be discussed later. His activities of production are undertaken with the goal of obtaining a wage so he may indirectly purchase goods from other men. He is not only alienated from his production and himself (the natural essence of his being) but also from society. Peers are only regarded as other creators of commodities with whom he must compete for access to resources, wages and private property. When he is forced to contemplate his reality, his unhappiness and himself, “he confronts the other man… the other man’s labor and object of labor” (Marx 1969:114). While it would be imprudent to deduce complete social disintegration from this analysis, the alienation of man from his production, environment, self and others necessarily has important consequences in the aggregate. While man is initially objectified in his transition to worker, capitalist progression exacerbates this dehumanisation leading to the “state of being alienated, dispossessed, sold…” (Marx 1973:831).

Alienation of man is specific to the conditions of (late) capitalism. This is in contrast to the Hegelian view of alienation, which views the appearance of wage labour as subsequent to man’s initial state of dispossession (which is caused by all labour) (Marx, 1969:177). Alienation, for Hegel, is inevitable. Marx, in contrast, believes alienation is the direct result of societal organisation based on commodity production which is structured by market economies (Mandel-Novack:16). Waged labour for Marx is a cause rather than an effect of alienation. It is not all labour which is alienating (as Hegel believes) but only employment in a capitalist economy which provides the environment for man to become distanced from the reality of his production. This is an important distinction as the Hegelian explanation for alienation is “eternal[ly] anthropological,” while the Marxist view is a “transitory historical notion” (Mandel-Novack:17). Thus, it is possible for man to become reengaged with society, assuming new approaches to wage labour and commodity circulation are instituted.

It has been established that through the realities of a society predicated on capitalism, man becomes alienated from his production, himself and his peers. However, Marx does not explain how this estrangement from nature manifests itself in men’s relations with women. Friedrich Engels considers the role of women as reproducers of labour (in contrast to men, who reproduce capital) and notes that this biological reality is cause for the original division of labour (Engels, 166). However, with the relative emancipation of women from this biological determinism through feminism, the productive role of women is increasingly aligned with that of men. The relationships from which men are estranged are not only those with other men, but also women. Although feminism seeks to decommodify women, the realities of Marxist alienation are applicable to women’s new role as producer. The fetishism of commodities, hybrids of nature and society, is thus extended to women. Traditional ideas of women as things to be owned are combined with notions of women as alienated constructions of capitalist realities. Females are designated products through their sex and class.

Alienation results in both men and women being hybrids of their natural environments and creations of capitalism. The worker is an object who enters into relationships with other objects. This reification of the individual transforms the types of social connections he makes into interactions between things. In modern economies, “personal relationships occur purely as a result of relationships of production and exchange” and all humans are abstracted from each other (McLellan:73). All communication of man thus takes place between things - whether these are traditional conceptions of machines, or produced individuals. Man manipulates nature in order to create his social location, which is indicative of his ability to control the world around him. Through the possession of things (including people) his class situation is created, as is his sense of worth. Curiously, this is demonstrated in the way men display a sense of bravado in online communities devoted to Realdoll ownership. These dolls are referred to by female, rather than neutral pronouns, as if human. They are definitely “owned” and discussed as though they are real women who have been conquered by their possessors (Laslocky, 3). Men “cannot dominate their own social relationships until they have created them,” which is precisely what appears to be occurring between men and the manufactured women (Realdolls) they have paid for (McLellan:70). If it is possible to escape feelings of alienation through the reappropriation of abstracted people and goods, the Realdoll certainly represents a method of possessing a hybrid of human and machine which can be ultimately dominated. The appropriation of nature as exemplified in both alienated labour and scientific advancement creates the perfect opportunity for technologically advanced dolls to assume the role of woman and satisfy man’s need for control over his environment.

Herbert Marcuse also identifies the role of Marxist alienation in social formation, although his epistemology also considers the importance of psychoanalysis when drawing conclusions regarding man’s repressed existence. Civilisation is ultimately repressive as it must necessarily constrain both the biological and societal nature of man. Sigmund Freud notes that the history of man is also the history of repression (Marcuse:11). This is the beginning of civilisation, the abandonment of satisfying instinctual needs in favour of social cohesion. In order for society to function with the greatest levels of freedom for all, individual desires are repressed and in some cases, considered perversions. The repression inherent to modern civilisation, however, is a modern phenomenon which relies on the institutionalisation of moneyed economies and the division of labour. In contrast, primitive societies are free from worker alienation because of “the rudimentary (personal or sexual) character of the division of labor, and the absence of an institutionalized hierarchical specialization of functions” (Marcuse:152). It is this specialisation in the division of labour which provides the conditions for alienation to flourish. As already discussed, the nature of labour is changed under capitalism as men are not working for themselves, but for an amorphous system in which they are aware of their impotence. Men must submit to the dictates of this all encompassing, ultimately permeating social structure if they wish to exist within it. This alienation is exacerbated as men “do not live their own lives but perform pre-established functions” which dehumanise and (ironically) isolate them (Marcuse:45). Work is not for the fulfillment of personal needs, but instead provides the requirements for the greater good. Moreover, societies (such as ours) that are governed by the “performance principle” train men to forgo pleasure even during supposed recreation so that “alienation and regimentation spread into the free time” (Marcuse:47). The restrictions which are allegedly confined to employment permeate man’s existence so pervasively that his alienation is inescapable. The relations that are entered into with things, rather than humans, come to dominate his entire life, further ossifying alienation. This changes social relations into those “between persons as exchangeable objects” whose only roles are to increase methods of efficiency, management and production (Marcuse:102).

Alienation is institutionalised in the consciousness of man through the structures of society, which falsely convince him that his social role is solely that of worker-producer. Knowledge is manipulated through the education system, media, capitalism, etc. to keep men from an awareness of their true surroundings. This concealment of reality is necessary to uphold prevailing social norms and prevent insurrection. The “manipulated restriction of his consciousness” prohibits an individual awareness of the true nature of repression (Marcuse:103). Although the evolution of capitalism is predicated on making life more comfortable and increasing leisure time, this is clearly not the case. Instead of enjoying a relationship with mechanisms which mitigate labour, man is in constant conflict with a capitalist system which has taken over the distribution of such means. Marcuse discusses the “machine” which has appropriated these mechanisms of convenience; politically, corporately, culturally and educationally, structures have “weld[ed] blessing and curse into one rational whole” (Marcuse:xvii). Man becomes dependent on these structures as alienation is further entrenched into his being, and he does little to challenge this reality. The modification of once natural instincts is institutionalised through laws, values and relations so that man conforms to what is most productive for society rather than himself. This “management of instinctual needs” is vital for the continued dominance of the system of capitalism - merchandising is “made into objects of the libido,” so that buying and selling take the place of true human fulfillment (Marcuse:xii). The “civilising” processes of capitalist expansion not only alienate the worker, but force all pleasure to be either hidden from or organised by society. The only mode of escapism in this highly regulated reality is through capricious excursion into primordial desires.

The libidinal repression embodied in capitalism does not disrupt the social order so long as man desires what he is “supposed to.” These restrictions are universalised and rationalised so that they permeate both man’s conscience and his unconscious and become the collective “desire, morality and fulfillment” of man (Marcuse:46). His societal and sexual performances are assimilated so that man feels relatively satisfied and society is adequately reproduced. The only activities which are “protected from cultural alterations” and remain committed to the principle of pleasure are those of fantasy (Marcuse:14). It is obvious, however, that fantastical erotic aspirations - epitomised in, for example, the use of anthropomorphised sex dolls which are incapable of refuting any type of advance or leaving abusive situations - are generally considered immoral. Perhaps more importantly, the realm of the “perverse” has often been judged as any sexual fulfillment which is devoid of procreative intention. Perversions, therefore, “express rebellion against the subjugation of sexuality” to procreation and oppose those institutions which shape this morality (Marcuse:49). Marcuse also notes that the termination of the production of wasteful and destructive goods, signalling the end of capitalism and instigation of non-commodified pleasure will be driven by technology and liberated Life Instincts (xviii-xix). It is possible, then, that the continued employment of Realdolls (and eventually, it is assumed, robotic sexual partners) may fatally injure capitalism.

While this essay is largely unconcerned with the role of psychoanalysis in drawing its conclusions, the work of Freud so permeates Marcuse’s explanation of man’s inherent repression developing from capitalism that it must be briefly examined. Freud develops his theory of the “repressive mental apparatus” on two levels: The ontogenetic; repressed individual from infancy to his conscious social existence and the phylogenetic; repressed civilisation from the primal horde to the civilised state (Marcuse:20). While there is a recognition of the importance (for some) in examining primary instincts, the subconscious, etc., this is rejected in favour of discussing the social-material conditions which collectively embody the realities of an alienated workforce. There are, however, a few fascinating lines of psychoanalytic inquiry which may help demonstrate other reasons for the purchase of Realdolls by men. Realdolls cannot reproduce, which has been a marketable point for both buyers and those who support the integration of the dolls into society. Perversions which prevent procreation, therefore, are seen as an attempt to prevent the “reappearance of the father” (Marcuse:49). Alienation from oneself and society may be extended to include the realm of both offspring and the patriarch. Haraway, it will be shown, lauds the existence of mechanical representations of humans as providing the population control needed for the survival of humanity. Moreover, the aggregative effects of widespread individual repression generate a society which is largely “perverse.” In modern society, civilisation is a direct reflection of individual pathologies and by extension, the cure for personal disorders must be found in treating the general disorder, embodied in capitalist organisation. “Psychological problems therefore turn into political problems” (Marcuse:xxvii). Traditional distinctions between psychology, politics, economics and sociology become obsolete in favour of a holistic examination of man’s current condition.

Through the processes of alienation, the human dynamic becomes static. Existence is “mere stuff, matter, material” as all facets of society are highly structured and regimented (Marcuse:103). This de facto collectivised authoritarianism serves as a permanent and panoptical control mechanism. The unnaturally constructed morality needed for the maintenance of social cohesion unquestionably alters previously praised virtues. The isolating processes inherent in capitalism, this system of “animate and inanimate things” are effectively governed through administration, bureaucracy and economies (Marcuse:102). This regimentation of all components of life, legitimised through the guise of necessary modernisation and rationalisation, may eventually lead to the demise of capital. Marcuse argues that this process of oppression results in a drive for technical progress which may result in the antagonism of the previously upheld social division of labour and alienation (xxii). Civilisation will be altered through the social acceptance of new forms of technology. If the trend of an anthropomorphism of surrogate sexual-emotional partners continues, this will certainly be the case. If “the living links between the individual and his culture are loosened,” these links may be reinstated through non-living social conduits (Marcuse:104). Certainly, the Internet has provided not only (perhaps illusory) social acceptance, but also serves as a forum for men who own female replications to legitimise and enforce ostensibly perverse actions. It is commonly thought that the salvation of man from the chains of capitalist oppression will occur through technological progress. If it has become an arduous pursuit to form relationships and this is a result of alienation, then the general automisation of labour in a post-capitalism may rectify (or alter) preconceived notions of sexuality for the better. As notions of both civilisation and perversion are changed and Freudian explanations of repression become less valid, the future of society may well be predicated on social evolution which encourages the increase of interactions between humans and non-humans.

Bruno Latour stresses the importance of considering the roles of nonhumans in examining society. Through the metaphor of a nonhuman door closer which has definite social implications, Latour examines the character of the countless objects which substitute for humans. This metaphor is applicable when considering Realdolls and the human roles they fulfill. For Realdoll buyers, it has been impossible to find a sufficiently attractive woman who is willing to completely submit to the whims of her partner, always be young and never leave. Given the unlikelihood that these men will find such a women, they are left with two options. Either to discipline women in such a way that they will fulfill these functions (an obvious impossibility) or to “substitute for the unreliable people another delegated human character” who will perform this role (Latour:300, emphasis in original). The use of Realdolls as surrogate women, of course, hardly provides the same experience of living with a real woman, which for some is the appeal of using such a construction. “The unskilled nonhuman groom… presupposes a skilled human user,” in this case, a woman who embodies the desired characteristics unattainable for these men (Latour:301). Just as for Latour the ideal door closer might be a polite, low-paid porter, the success in finding one becomes such an impossibility that it is easier to substitute the humanised role with one of a slightly less efficient, but certainly more reliable, mechanised groom.

Humans and nonhumans, however, may act very differently from their expected roles. Latour notes that both groups are “undisciplined” and that their character expectations may differ from the reality of their enactment (Latour:305,307). Realdolls, despite personification by their owners, are not human. They may not provide the expected emotional support which their possessors desire or may fail in their sexual function. There are, for example, some erotic constructions which the Realdoll factory refuses to make - children, animals, celebrity replicas and (interestingly) those with armpit hair (Laslocky, 4). Moreover, the simple appeal for people to act sensibly is insufficient to keep nonhumans from being broken. The door closer and Realdoll may “go on strike” as they are both creations of humanity who appeal to responsive human characters. The Realdoll Doctor mentioned earlier is where these women are sent when they go on strike. Their work stoppage is frequently the result of sexual abuse. While some of the reasons Realdolls are sent away are for routine maintenance (joint tightening, vaginal replacement), there are many cases of maltreatment which can only be described as cruel: Realdolls have been mutilated and left in dumpsters, dismembered or snapped in half (Laslocky, 4).

Latour is particularly concerned with the discrimination by sociologists and society toward nonhumans. There is no question that these nonhumans which have been given responsibilities previously assumed by individuals are anthropomorphised. He notes that “anthropos” and “morphos” mean either “what has human shape or what gives shape to humans” (Latour:303). This argument is furthered in the following explanation:

…the groom [bride?] is indeed anthropomorphic, and in three senses: first, it has been made by men, it is a construction; second it substitutes for the actions of people, and is a delegate that permanently occupies the position of a human; and third, it shapes human action by prescribing back what sort of people should pass through the door (Latour:303).

Despite the obvious human-esque characteristics of door closers, Realdolls and other technological devices which serve as replacements for people, sociology has been reluctant to incorporate these evidently important nonhumans in its study. This discrimination is not confined to humans, however; nonhumans may leave aside “segments of the human population” as well (Latour:302). The door closer may be too heavy for children or the elderly, or prevent those carrying packages from entering - it is ageist and classist. Realdolls may also be discriminatory. They are extremely expensive (accessible only to a certain class in society) and bigoted toward the physically challenged because Realdolls may be too heavy for those in wheelchairs to lift up. This is particularly noteworthy, as one of the justifications for the continued manufacture of Realdolls is the sexual relations they provide for the physically challenged. Finally, the vast majority of Realdolls are white, blonde and thin, with the heaviest model being 113 pounds (Realdoll.com).

In order to combat the estrangement sociologists feel “when they fall upon the bizarre associations of humans with nonhumans,” Latour seeks to develop new techniques and vocabularies to address these complex imbroglios (298). Three terms which he wishes to introduce into sociological discourses are description, transcription and prescription which may be executed by both humans and nonhumans (Latour:306). These refer to, respectively, the semiotic endowment of competencies and roles, the movement of these scripts to more durable repertoires and how these responsibilities are ossified (similar to “role expectation” in sociology). As noted, these terms are manifested reciprocally, between the owner and his machine. With Realdolls, these designations are displayed through man’s expectation as to what a woman “should be,” the transfer of these beliefs to latex constructions and the performativity of the Realdolls once they are sold. The formation of these “scripts” of behaviour simultaneously influences both human and nonhuman behaviour. Given each actor’s “competence and pre-inscription” toward the other, the scripts of nonhumans are understood (sociologism) as is the behaviour prescribed to humans by machines (technologism) (Latour:307-8). These terms coalesce into a final philosophy of the role of nonhumans depending on how they are ordered along a linear chreod (”necessary path”) of pre-inscribed competencies (Latour:308). That is, in order for these nonhumans to be accepted as inherent parts of humanity, specific societal, political and economic phenomena have to occur. These events shape the realities of humans and nonhumans, complicating the effects each have on the other. “If the concepts, habits and preferred fields of sociologists have to be modified a bit to accommodate these new masses, it is a small price to pay” (Latour:310).

Nonhumans fulfill tasks that humans are unable, unwilling or incapable of. Realdolls assume a role that (presumably) most women would be disgusted with. Latour notes that humans use machines so often that their place is unquestionably accepted by society. The relations between humans create society, while those between nonhumans establish techniques (Latour:308). As organic women (and other workers) are displaced, their surrogates are upgraded and re-skilled. This can be seen through the evolution of the male ‘sex-toy’ from, for example, pornography to poorly-made vaginal constructions to Realdolls and, eventually, to sex robots. If, indeed “what defines our social relations is, for the most part, prescribed back to us by nonhumans,” then the rise of the Realdoll is symptomatic not only of alienation, but a shift away from human interaction and a rejection of procreative sex (Latour:310). All mechanical human delegates have a social role and with Realdolls this is especially obvious. Regardless of whether Realdolls are part of society, they are definitely influencing and reshaping humanity. Latour finishes his piece by noting that “studying social relations without the nonhumans is impossible” (Latour:310). Moreover, it has been shown that studying nonhumans without considering social relations is equally preposterous.

Donna Haraway’s epistemology combines feminism, Marxism and post-modernism to analyse the role of cyborgs as political metaphor and future representation. The cyborg she constructs is “a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction” which not only exists, but may provide new opportunities for feminist theories to coalesce (Haraway:149). Although this essay has primarily dealt with men who are constructed through processes of domination, the role of women has been largely ignored. It is argued that while modern man is the result of nature and capitalist realities (class oppression), women are the product or nature and patriarchy (sexual oppression). Men are woman are “theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs” and moreover “this cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics” (Haraway:150).

Schisms in feminist theory have oppressed other women/cyborgs by viewing them as the other in the attempt to build a theory which can identify universal conditions of patriarchal domination and gender construction. Through taxonomy and discourse, feminist epistemologies are produced which “police deviation from official woman’s experience,” diluting female solidarity (Haraway:156). This essentialism has resulted in female normative characterisations perpetuated by both sexes which obstinately classify women. When both people and employment, for example, are labelled as “feminised” they are “made extremely vulnerable; able to be disassembled, reassembled, exploited as reserve labour force…” (Haraway:166). Men and women are increasingly hybridised with machines, and constructions such as the Realdoll are “feminised” both as representatives of women and as exploited labour, perhaps indicating projections of the changing nature of both sexes. Haraway argues that feminists such as Catherine MacKinnon shape women as non-beings through contentions that “[man’s] desire, not the self’s labour, is the origin of ‘woman’” (159). Such totalisations convince feminists that the category of “woman” does not truly exist, except as a realisation of man’s desire. Although Harway disputes this, it is argued that MacKinnon’s epistemology is crucial in understanding the origin of modern feminised cyborgs/women (perhaps providing a starting point for addressing the note on page one). Because paid labour, the traditional ontology of men, provides for the accumulation of knowledge of domination, it allows for man’s awareness of his subjugation and alienation under capitalist conditions and in turn man objectifies woman to gain the illusion of control (Haraway:158). Alienation and objectification combine with the organic states of, respectively, men and women to create human-machine hybrids which interact with each other biologically and mechanically. “To be constituted as another’s desire is not the same thing as to be alienated in the violent separation of the labourer from his product” (Haraway:159).

Cyborgs provide possibilities that allow the dynamics of men, women and machines to become more fluid and change notions of production and reproduction, sexuality and society. Sex and sex roles no longer constitute organic qualities which legitimise “ideologies of sexual reproduction” a fact which (ironically) is considered irrational by both “corporate executives reading Playboy [Realdoll owners?] and anti-porn radical feminists” (Haraway:162). Another argument put forth by proponents of Realdoll ownership is that, given overpopulation, men should be free to enjoy the benefits of a sexual relationship without the worry of unwanted pregnancy. Others maintain that preventing men who idolise such idealised creations of femininity from procreating will ultimately benefit civilisation (Laslocky, 5). Given the geometrical reproduction of dispossessed, alienated and objectified individuals, the possibilities of “simulacra; that is, of copies without originals” is a highly attractive solution to avoid perpetuating the mistakes of humankind (Haraway:165). This is not an argument for eugenics, but rather a statement of the need for inquiry as to how humanity will progress, given the increasing relationships between humans and nonhumans. It is possible that increases in cybernetic technologies will mean that people will no longer need to adapt to find a mate. If androids can effectively replace “living” humans, men and women may be able to exist happily without worry about the regeneration of the state. Admittedly, this science fiction is abstract. However, “cyborg replication is uncoupled from organic reproduction” and we are all cybrogs who are increasingly interacting and interfusing with other nonhumans, “requiring regeneration, not rebirth” (Haraway:150, 181). Sex and reproduction are dominant themes in texts of science fiction, exploring the future of humanity. They “structure our imaginations of personal and social possibility” and allow for a potential escape from alienation and objectification (Haraway:169). It is not difficult to imagine a world where sex and procreation are not necessarily connected, as cyborg gender is increasingly a “local possibility taking a global vengeance,” both literally and as a way to eliminate the categorisation of women (and men) which threaten to further separate and dominate those which do not fit strict taxonomies of femininity and masculinity.

If the future of (non)human regeneration is through cybernetic procreation, it will be fascinating to see how this materialises, especially given the reflection of capitalist patriarchy in current cyborg replication. Although Realdolls and their (technologically superior) offspring have been and will continue to be created by men, “illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins,” so it is not yet clear how their ontogeny will proceed (Haraway:151). While the metaphorical cyborg seeks to eradicate the essentialism inherent in feminist divisions, automatons also struggle against “the one code that translates all meaning perfectly, the central dogma of phallogocentrism,” so that taxonomies based on sex and gender are effectively removed (Haraway:176). Cyborgs reject human myths which assume that with the removal of gender divisions, alienated labour or other inorganic constructions, ultimate happiness will be achieved. They are resolutely committed to “partiality, irony, intimacy and perversity” without the constraints of Western ideology (Haraway:151). Their prime motivation (as was with early humans) is that of survival. This is accomplished through the appropriation of texts and social tools which “marked them as the other” (Haraway:175). As relations between humans become more global, complex and insecure, it is expected that notions regarding family structure and gender roles will continue to evolve. The employment of a post-modernist epistemology by cyborgs rejects the importance of history and traditional reproduction directly confronting previously given notions regarding the nature of man. As with all cyborgs, Realdolls are unconcerned with their origins, mortality or morality. These monsters define “the limits of community in Western imaginations,” challenging humanity to re-evaluate their importance in the cosmos (Haraway:180).

Realdolls confuse boundaries, which Haraway argues should be both supported and responsibly analysed (150). Through this disorder of the natural and abnormal, virtuous and perverse, organic and constructed, we may relearn how to be human and discover our true ethos. The logos of Western male dominated capitalism can be reshaped to be more inclusive and universally relevant. While the occurrence of Realdolls may be seen as the imposition of a totalising and restraining model, ultimately furthering the oppression of women, it may (in time) provide the opportunity to rethink the nature of humans. Moreover, it may provide a space for people to accept “permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints” (Haraway:154). The polis and oikos will be redefined through technologism and new social relations (Haraway:151). Politics will be structurally altered to include the reality of cyborgs and mechanised-human constructions. Thus, the cyborg will not only escape the realm of Foucaudian bio-politics, but construct new systems of social management (Haraway:163). Realdolls and their progeny will continue to transcend boundaries of feminist constructions, moving from exploited woman to revered goddess and, eventually, actualised cybernetic politician. Although the Realdoll’s existence is fraught with controversy, Haraway notes that “[she] would rather be a cyborg than a goddess” (181). Realdolls may one day share that sentiment.

An examination of some Realdoll owners has shown that the needs fulfilled by these anthropomorphised constructions of femininity transgress the sexual. Individuals such as Dave-Cat and Everhard prove that some men who own these dolls are seeking not only erotic satisfaction, but a need to reconstruct the social-emotional in their lives. These pseudo-human relations can be explained through the employment of a Marxist epistemology. The enactment of currency as a medium of exchange, combined with the resulting “commodity fetishism” change man’s relations with his labour, himself and his peers. He becomes socially detached and alienated as he perceives his place in the world is becoming uncertain. This situation is uniquely capitalistic, rather than inherent in man (as Hegel asserts) and leads to the changing nature of what it means to be human. Marcuse also subscribes to the notion of alienation in capitalist societies, although his epistemology is focussed on analysing the ontogenesis (growth of repressed individual) and phylogenesis (growth of repressive civilisation) originally espoused by Freud. Alienation results from an oppressive civilisation which advocates social control over perversions, despite the inherently natural drive for pleasure which “healthy” man requires. Through the automation of labour, unpleasant or otherwise unwanted tasks will be removed from society, perhaps altering offending structures and changing the nature of humanity.

Latour’s metaphor of the door closer as symbolising the changing character of relations between humans and nonhumans is easily extended to the reality of the Realdoll. As discrimination by humans and nonhumans occurs, there is a need for greater understanding of these relationships by sociologists. Not only through examining these interactions, but by changing the semiotics and discourse which define social conditions in a world being rapidly and decidedly altered by technology. Changing labour conditions, new notions of sexuality, gender and reproduction and social detachment are epitomised in the manufacture of Realdolls, whose “delegated human character” creates a new social role. It is necessary to examine the effects that humans and nonhuman constructions have on each other in order to properly determine the future of both sets of actors. Finally, Haraway’s extended metaphor of the cyborg shows that women have become victims of their own identifications and studies of women must seek an integrated approach to create a holistic feminism which is all inclusive. She notes that we are all cyborgs, but that men and women’s structured components arise from different sources of oppression. Through the development of cyborgs and cybernetic identities with post-modern epistemologies, possibilities for accommodating changing ideas about procreation, gender and pleasure are introduced into the field of academic inquiry and provide an opportunity to rethink human nature. Thus, cyborgs may become actualised and ultimately change society.

This essay was predicated on the belief that Realdolls are symptomatic of alienation and changing relations between humans and nonhumans. This has been proven through a variety of viewpoints and epistemologies. However, it has not addressed the future of Realdolls (and other cyborgs) and their resultant effect on the alienation of man. The works of Marx, Marcuse, Latour and Haraway show that, assuming cyborgs continue to develop and eventually become androids, they may (ironically) provide a conduit through which men and women can escape their repressed realities. It is certain that the Realdoll, and similar life-like sex constructions are beginning to assume their place in society. Moreover, there is already work being done on feminised constructions who more closely approximate women through robotics, voice-box installation and other sensual modifications such as smell, taste, etc. The Realdoll Corporation (only one of many companies producing such models) grossed over US$ 2 million last year with the factory employing 15 people full time (Laslocky, 1). There will soon be a feature film released titled “Lars and the Real Girl” which is based on the experience of a lonely man who finds (non-sexual) solace in a relationship with a Realdoll (IMDB). Through alienation, man has become alien; as women has become an object through objectification. However, it is hoped that as cyborgs progress through the aid of their progenitor, technology, they will continue to influence their interactions with humans and develop agencies and complex social systems of their own.

Works Cited

Engels, F., 1972. (Ed. Leacock, E.B.) The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: International Publishers. 1972.

Johnson, J. (Latour, B.), 1988. Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer. Social Problems, 35(3), p. 298-310.

Haraway, D., 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

Holt, N. (Dir.), 2007. Guys and Dolls. [Online Video]. United Kingdom: North One Television. Retrieved 5 Dec. 2007, < video.google.ca/vide…;.

Laslocky, M. 2005. Just Like A Woman. (Salon Online Magazine.) [Online]. Retrieved 5 Dec. 2007, < dir.salon.com/story/…;. p. 1-5.

Mandel, E. & Novak, G., 1973. The Marxist Theory of Alienation. (2^nd ed.) New York: Pathfinder Press.

Marcuse, H., 1966. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press.

Internet Movie Database (IMDB). 2007. Lars and the Real Girl. Retrieved 5 Dec. 2007. <http://imdb.com/title/tt0805564/>.

Marx, K., 1969. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. (Trans. Martin Milligan.) New York: International Publishers.

Marx, K., 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. (Trans. Martin Nicolaus.) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.

Marx, K. 1990. Capital: Volume One. (Trans. Ben Fowkes.) London: Penguin Books Ltd.

McLellan, D., 1972. Marx’s Grundrisse. 2^nd ed. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.

McMullan, M., “Full Size Fully Articulated Doll with Selectively Displayed Alterative Faces,” U.S. Patent 7 186 212, 15 Oct, 2003. Retrived 5 Dec, 2007 <http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week10/OG/html/1316-1/US07186212-20070306.html>.

Realdoll^TM. 2000. Abyss Creations, LLC. Retrieved 5 Dec, 2007. <http://realdoll.com>.

Notes:

1. Although there is one model of Realdoll which has been constructed in the image of a man, this paper will solely focus on feminised Realdolls as the majority manufactured are gendered female and purchased by men. This provides the opportunity to examine the subject through various epistemologies and avoid the (inevitable) complications involved in exploring homo- and heterosexual relations with constructed “men.” Moreover, this essay will generally refer to “man” and “men” (rather than “human”) as not only are the buyers of Realdolls predominately male, but the Marxist framework employed speaks exclusively of the alienation of man from his labour. While women are certainly alienated from their labour as well, it is argued that this social estrangement is manifested in other ways and worthy of separate study. [↩]

Email this Post
Citation Styles
Print this Post
Save as PDF
Share & Bookmark