“Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison

Table of Contents

“Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison first appeared in 2004 in Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture (Volume 8, Issue 4, pp. 461–475). The article explores the transformative potential of emerging technologies—such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and digital innovations—in redefining garments as extensions of the human body, aligning with the concept of the “cyborg” as articulated by Donna Haraway and others. It posits that garments, traditionally seen as mere clothing, are evolving into dynamic, interactive systems that integrate with the body’s biological and sensory functions, challenging conventional boundaries between technology, fashion, and identity. Key ideas include the notion of “cybernetic garments” that respond to environmental or physiological stimuli, the potential for living garments grown from tissue, and the redefinition of the body itself as a site of fashion through nano- and biotechnological interventions. Its importance in literary and cultural theory lies in its contribution to post-human discourse, particularly in how it extends Marshall McLuhan’s idea of media as extensions of the body and Katherine Hayles’ concept of the post-human, offering a framework to analyze fashion as a critical site of technological and cultural evolution. The article’s speculative approach, grounded in collaborations with the Symbiotica lab, underscores the ethical and practical implications of these advancements for the fashion industry and societal perceptions of identity and embodiment.

Summary of “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison

Introduction to Cybernetic Garments 🌸
The article introduces the concept of garments evolving through new technologies, envisioning clothes that “change color, display changing patterns, react to sound, light, heat, and the closeness of other people” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 461). It explores bio-, nano-, and digital technologies, drawing from work at Symbiotica, and posits that garments are becoming extensions of the body, challenging traditional fashion paradigms.
Redefining Garments as Technology 🌸
Garments are reframed as technologies that extend human capabilities, with the authors noting, “Clothes are, arguably, the most central technology to articulating human attributes” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463). The term “cybernetic garments” is introduced to describe clothing integrated with advanced systems, moving beyond traditional fabric improvements to include communicative and functional roles.

Cyborg Concept and Human Dependency 🌸
Building on Donna Haraway’s cyborg metaphor, the article argues that humans are already cyborgs due to their reliance on technology, stating, “The few of us who are not already ‘borged’ through immunisations, interfaces, or prosthetics are embedded nonetheless in countless machinic/organic cybernetic systems” (Grey, 2001, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 464). This includes everyday items like clothes and keys, which shape identity and social interactions.
Digital Variability in Fashion 🌸
The article highlights the digital aesthetic’s emphasis on variability, noting that new technologies enable garments to change dynamically, such as “fabrics that can change color, or even display changing shapes” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 466). Innovations like International Fashion Machine’s “Electric Plaid” suggest practical applications for responsive, everyday wear.
Biotechnology and Living Garments 🌸48
Biotechnology’s potential to create living garments is explored, with possibilities like growing fur “sentient free” in bioreactors, which could redefine fashion ethics and aesthetics (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469). Advances in tissue culture, such as spraying skin grafts, indicate a future where garments could be biologically integrated with the body.

Nanotechnology and Body Augmentation 🌸
Nanotechnology offers possibilities for subtle body modifications, with the article suggesting that “nano-bots” could enable gradual changes like a face-lift over a month, aligning body shape with fashion trends (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 470). This aligns with Rei Kawakubo’s idea that “body becomes dress becomes body” (Quinn, 2003, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469).
From Flesh to Garment Cyborgs 🌸
The distinction between “flesh cyborgs” (with embedded technology) and “garment cyborgs” (with external devices like cell phones) is clarified, noting that current technology favors the latter due to safety and practicality: “There is no infection risk, no surgery cost or recovery time” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471). This underscores the seamless integration of technology into daily life.
Ethical and Social Implications 🌸
The article warns of the risks of new technologies, citing examples like Botox and silicone implants, and questions societal willingness to adopt dangerous practices for fashion: “Western society has a poor track record of allowing and even endorsing this kind of dangerous practice” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471). It calls for designers to rethink garment design to navigate these challenges.

Conclusion and Future of Fashion 🌸
The article concludes that new technologies will make garments part of the “media/information-scape of modern life,” enriching designer-consumer relationships but requiring new design approaches (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 473). It emphasizes fashion’s role in fulfilling desires for novelty and variability, heralding a new phase of “cyborg dress.”

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison

Term / Concept	Explanation	Example from the Article
Cyborg	A hybrid of organism and machine; used to describe how humans integrate and depend on technology in everyday life.	“The few of us who are not already ‘borged’… are embedded nonetheless in countless machinic/organic cybernetic systems.”
Cybernetic Garments	Clothing that interacts with the environment or body, acting as responsive, communicative, or functional systems.	“Smart clothing makes the rationale for fashion increasingly an issue of practicality and comfort…”
Post-human	A condition where humans are fundamentally altered or extended through digital, genetic, or mechanical technologies.	“Hayles… uses the term ‘post-human’ to describe an individual and societal dependence upon not only technology, but on digital information and telecommunications.”
Extension of Man (McLuhan)	Technology as an extension of human capabilities and senses, including clothing as a communicative interface.	“The garment becomes an information medium that extends the function of the skin…”
Garments as Media	Clothing acts as a medium that conveys meaning, identity, and information, much like traditional media.	“Garments… may explicitly and literally make everyday garments part of the media/information-scape of modern life.”
Biotech Garments	Garments created or enhanced using biotechnology, potentially involving living tissue or genetically engineered materials.	“The radical idea of the living mask made from a person’s own skin…”
Flesh Cyborg	A person whose body is technologically modified from within through implants, gene therapy, or nanotech.	“The human body itself [becomes] a variable, changeable, fashion ‘garment.’”
Variability (Digital Aesthetic)	The digital principle that promotes change, flexibility, and customization, applied to clothing and identity.	“Variability is one of the key attributes of the digital aesthetic…”
Living Garments	Garments grown or made from living tissue that respond dynamically to environment or wearer needs.	“Growing a wearable, living garment from tissue samples is currently not practical… but… these problems [may be] solved in the near future.”
Body as Garment	Reimagining the human body as a modifiable object or fashion medium itself, subject to technological and aesthetic changes.	“The body can be described as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate.”
Information Devices as Garments	Devices like phones, credit cards, and keys are considered garments because of their constant presence, personalization, and communicative function.	“They can be considered as garments, along with clothes and accessories.”
Garment Cyborg	A person whose identity or function is extended by wearable or carried technologies, rather than embedded ones.	“Cell phones, credit cards… are also inside our cyborg bodies, safe, secret, but easily accessible.”
Invisible Technology	Technologies that become so integrated into daily life they are no longer seen as “technology.”	“We do not usually consider ourselves to be dressed in technology… This is indicative of how involved we are with it.”
Nanotechnology in Fashion	Use of nano-scale engineering in garments to alter fabric properties such as waterproofing, reflectivity, or self-cleaning capabilities.	“Clothes that shed water… fibers interfere with the wavelength of light…”
Garment Redefinition	Expanding the definition of garments beyond clothing to include all functional or communicative items closely associated with the body.	“Makeup is unlike other accessories… but shares key communicative functions with garments.”

Contribution of “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison to Literary Theory/Theories

Posthumanism 🌸
- The article significantly contributes to posthumanist theory by exploring the dissolution of boundaries between human and machine through garments, aligning with Katherine Hayles’ concept of the posthuman as an entity dependent on technology: “Hayles (1999) uses the term ‘post-human’ to describe an individual and societal dependence upon not only technology, but on digital information and telecommunications” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 465).It extends the notion of the body as a prosthesis, suggesting that garments, as technological extensions, redefine human identity: “The human body can be described ‘as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate’” (Hayles, 1999, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469).
- By proposing garments as part of the “media/information-scape,” it supports posthumanism’s view of blurred distinctions between biological and technological systems (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 473).
Cyborg Theory 🌸
- Building on Donna Haraway’s cyborg manifesto, the article redefines humans as “garment cyborgs,” emphasizing the integration of technology in everyday life: “In the mid-1980s, Donna Haraway used the term ‘cyborg’ to invoke the science-fiction/cyberpunk image of the robot/flesh creation as a metaphor to illustrate how less obvious technologies had already impacted human lives” (Haraway, 1985, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463).
- It expands cyborg theory by including garments and accessories as cybernetic extensions, arguing, “Clothes are, arguably, the most central technology to articulating human attributes” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463).
- The distinction between “flesh cyborgs” and “garment cyborgs” enriches cyborg theory by highlighting practical, non-invasive technological integrations: “Currently, people are ‘garment cyborgs’” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471).
Media Theory 🌸
- The article engages with Marshall McLuhan’s media theory, particularly his idea of media as extensions of the body, by framing garments as information mediums: “Instead the garment becomes an information medium that extends the function of the skin, actualizing a concept proposed in the 1960s” (McLuhan, 1964, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 462).
- It applies Lev Manovich’s concept of digital variability to fashion, suggesting that garments can embody dynamic media aesthetics: “Variability is one of the key attributes of the digital aesthetic, according to media theorist Lev Manovich” (Manovich, 1999, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 466).
- This contribution reframes fashion as a communicative medium, aligning with McLuhan’s notion that “everything is a medium with meaning” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 466).

Technocultural Studies 🌸
- The article advances technocultural studies by examining how new technologies like biotechnology and nanotechnology reshape cultural practices in fashion: “The most potent [developments] are in fact likely to emerge from combinations of what we now think of as separate techniques” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 467).
- It draws on Neil Postman’s idea of technology’s invisibility to argue that garments, as normalized technologies, shape social interactions: “Clothes are visible but their ‘invisible’ is often obscured” (Postman, 1992, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463).
- By exploring ethical implications, such as the risks of nano- and biotechnologies, it contributes to discussions on technology’s societal impact: “Western society has a poor track record of allowing and even endorsing this kind of dangerous practice” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471).
Feminist Theory 🌸
- The article intersects with feminist theory through its engagement with Haraway’s cyborg as a feminist metaphor, challenging traditional gender norms in fashion and embodiment: “The term ‘cyborg’ is now being used to describe our dependency on technology to articulate our physical being” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463).
- It explores how technologies like cosmetic surgery and gene therapy, often tied to gendered beauty standards, could redefine bodily expression: “The purpose of cosmetic surgery, of course, is to change the physical appearance, and change is the very essence of fashion” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469).
- By citing examples like Orlan’s body art, it connects to feminist discussions on bodily autonomy and technological intervention (Botting & Wilson, 2002, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469).
Fashion Theory 🌸
- The article redefines fashion theory by proposing garments as dynamic, technological systems rather than static objects, stating, “Fashion, then, may be entering a new phase of cyborg dress offering technical garments on technical bodies for new times” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 473).
- It draws on Bradley Quinn’s work to argue that fashion is a site of technological innovation, quoting Rei Kawakubo’s philosophy: “body becomes dress becomes body” (Quinn, 2003, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 469).
- By integrating concepts from Symbiotica’s bio-art practices, it expands fashion theory to include ethical and practical challenges of living garments, such as those grown from tissue (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 468).

Examples of Critiques Through “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison

Novel	Author	Critique Through Farren & Hutchison (2004)
Frankenstein 🌸	Mary Shelley	– Alignment with Cybernetic Garments: Shelley’s Creature can be seen as a proto-cyborg, assembled from organic parts, resonating with the article’s concept of garments as extensions of the body: “Instead the garment becomes an information medium that extends the function of the skin” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 462). The Creature’s stitched-together body parallels the article’s idea of garments as constructed artifacts that redefine bodily boundaries. – Cyborg Identity: The Creature’s lack of a natural origin aligns with the article’s discussion of cyborgs as challenging traditional boundaries: “The ‘post-human’ or ‘cyborg’ condition is a departure point for considering the speed with which once new technological extensions to our biological bodies… have become normalized” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 462). However, the Creature’s tragic isolation critiques the article’s optimistic view of cyborg integration, highlighting societal rejection of unnatural bodies. – Critique: The novel lacks the article’s focus on dynamic, responsive garments, as the Creature’s body is static and non-technological. It also emphasizes horror over the article’s speculative enthusiasm for bio- and nanotechnology.
The Ship Who Sang 🌸	Anne McCaffrey	– Alignment with Cybernetic Garments: The novel’s protagonist, Helva, a human brain integrated into a spaceship, embodies the article’s vision of cybernetic systems: “Cybernetics is the study of control and communication in self-regulating systems” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463). Helva’s ship-body acts as a garment, extending her sensory and communicative functions, akin to “garments considered in this article [that] challenge these early experiments and apply far more radical technologies” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463). – Cyborg Identity: Helva’s hybrid existence supports the article’s idea of humans as cyborgs due to technological dependency: “The few of us who are not already ‘borged’ through… prosthetics are embedded nonetheless in countless machinic/organic cybernetic systems” (Grey, 2001, cited in Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 464). Her agency challenges gender norms, aligning with the article’s feminist undertones. – Critique: The novel predates the article’s focus on biotechnology and nanotechnology, limiting its engagement with living garments. Its romanticized view of cyborg identity contrasts with the article’s caution about risks, such as “the potential for discomfort, disfiguration and death” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471).
Neuromancer 🌸	William Gibson	– Alignment with Cybernetic Garments: Gibson’s cyberspace and neural implants reflect the article’s concept of garments as information mediums: “The garment becomes an information medium that extends the function of the skin” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 462). Characters’ technological enhancements, like Case’s neural jacks, function as cybernetic garments that integrate with the body. – Cyborg Identity: The novel’s characters, augmented by digital tech, embody the article’s notion of “garment cyborgs”: “Far from disqualifying the relationship from being genuinely cyborg, this ‘momentary’ nature of wearable, hand-held devices… is already a vastly more sophisticated arrangement than surgical embedment” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 471). It aligns with the article’s view of digital variability in fashion (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 466). – Critique: Neuromancer focuses on digital rather than bio- or nanotechnological garments, diverging from the article’s emphasis on living tissues. Its dystopian tone questions the article’s speculative optimism about technology’s societal integration.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 🌸	Philip K. Dick	– Alignment with Cybernetic Garments: The androids’ synthetic bodies can be seen as garments that mimic human skin, aligning with the article’s idea of garments extending bodily functions: “While the skin defines the physical difference between a single human and the rest of the world… it is also a visually conspicuous surface” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 464). Androids like Rachael blur human-machine boundaries, akin to the article’s cybernetic garments. – Cyborg Identity: The novel explores the cyborg condition through androids’ near-human identities, supporting the article’s claim that “the term ‘cyborg’ is now being used to describe our dependency on technology to articulate our physical being” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 463). It questions human exceptionalism, resonating with the article’s posthuman framework. – Critique: The novel’s androids lack the article’s focus on responsive, variable garments, as their bodies are fixed constructs. Its ethical concerns about artificial life contrast with the article’s enthusiasm for biotech possibilities, such as “growing a wearable, living garment from tissue samples” (Farren & Hutchison, 2004, p. 468).

Criticism Against “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison

🔹 Over-Reliance on Speculative and Hypothetical Scenarios

Much of the article is grounded in future possibilities rather than current, empirically verified developments.
Speculative examples (e.g. living skin garments, face-swapping bioreactors) lack technological feasibility at present.

🔹 Lack of Empirical Evidence or Case Studies

The article doesn’t offer real-world examples, user testing, or fashion industry data to support its claims.

Absence of interviews or design outcomes from practicing fashion designers or technologists.

🔹 Blurred Lines Between Science Fiction and Design Theory

The piece often blends sci-fi imagery with critical fashion theory, which can confuse rather than clarify its theoretical contributions.
Use of metaphors (e.g. “garment cyborgs” and “flesh cyborgs”) sometimes prioritizes provocation over clarity.

🔹 Limited Engagement with Ethical and Societal Implications

Ethical concerns around biotechnology, surveillance, and body modification are mentioned but not deeply examined.
No discussion of accessibility, equity, or social justice related to wearable technologies.

🔹 Narrow Cultural Scope

The focus is primarily on Western technological contexts, overlooking non-Western perspectives on body, fashion, and technology.

Fails to address how culture, gender, or class may mediate the adoption and interpretation of cybernetic garments.

🔹 Fashion Function vs. Fashion Aesthetics Oversimplified

The argument leans toward functionality (smart, responsive, technological garments) without fully accounting for the continued dominance of aesthetics, symbolism, and identity in fashion.

🔹 Underdeveloped Discussion of Consumer Behavior

The article overlooks how consumers might resist, adapt to, or reject these technologies.

Assumes future users will adopt body-enhancing or biotech garments without questioning comfort, cost, or psychological effects.

Representative Quotations from “Cyborgs, New Technology, and the Body: The Changing Nature of Garments” by Anne Farren and Andrew Hutchison with Explanation

Quotation	Page	Explanation
“Imagine clothes that change color, display changing patterns, react to sound, light, heat, and the closeness of other people.” 🌸	461	This opening statement introduces the article’s speculative vision of garments as dynamic, responsive technologies. It sets the stage for exploring how advancements in bio-, nano-, and digital technologies could transform fashion into an interactive medium, aligning with the article’s focus on redefining garments as extensions of the body and challenging traditional fashion paradigms.
“Instead the garment becomes an information medium that extends the function of the skin, actualizing a concept proposed in the 1960s (McLuhan 1964: 119).” 🌸	462	This quotation connects garments to Marshall McLuhan’s media theory, framing them as extensions of the skin that transmit and receive information. It underscores the article’s argument that garments are not just clothing but cybernetic systems that integrate with the body, supporting the concept of humans as cyborgs in a posthuman context.
“Clothes are, arguably, the most central technology to articulating human attributes.” 🌸	463	This statement redefines clothes as a fundamental technology, more integral to human identity than devices like cell phones. It highlights the article’s contribution to posthuman and cyborg theory by emphasizing garments’ role in shaping social and personal identity, extending the notion of technology beyond mechanical devices.
“The few of us who are not already ‘borged’ through immunisations, interfaces, or prosthetics are embedded nonetheless in countless machinic/organic cybernetic systems.” 🌸	464	Quoting Chris Hables Grey, this passage supports the article’s argument that humans are inherently cyborgs due to their reliance on technology, including garments. It situates everyday items like clothes within the cyborg framework, expanding Donna Haraway’s metaphor to include non-invasive technologies.
“While the common definition of the term garment is ‘an article of clothing,’ the original source is ‘garner,’ meaning ‘to equip’ (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language 2000).” 🌸	464	This quotation redefines garments as tools that equip the body, broadening the term to include accessories, cosmetics, and digital devices like keys and cell phones. It supports the article’s innovative terminology, which challenges conventional fashion theory and aligns with technocultural studies.
“Variability is one of the key attributes of the digital aesthetic, according to media theorist Lev Manovich (Manovich 1999: 36).” 🌸	466	By invoking Manovich, this quotation ties the digital aesthetic’s variability to fashion, suggesting that garments can dynamically change appearance, as with “fabrics that can change color” (p. 466). It connects the article to media theory, illustrating how digital technologies enhance garments’ communicative potential.
“Growing a wearable, living garment from tissue samples is currently not practical, for two reasons. First, the tissue would dry out and/or become infected from lack of a protective covering.” 🌸	468	This quotation highlights the speculative yet grounded discussion of biotechnological garments, such as living tissue grown in bioreactors. It reflects the article’s exploration of biotechnology’s potential and limitations, contributing to ethical debates in fashion and technocultural studies.
“The human body can be described ‘as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate’ (Hayles 1999: 3).” 🌸	469	Citing Katherine Hayles, this quotation frames the body itself as a garment subject to technological manipulation, aligning with posthuman theory. It supports the article’s vision of nano- and biotechnologies enabling dynamic body modifications, blurring the line between body and fashion.
“Currently, people are ‘garment cyborgs.’ This limitation of current technology means that there are not the craft skills to safely and routinely implement direct body augmentations.” 🌸	471	This statement distinguishes between “garment cy

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30