Right, so I have just read the Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Haraway. it is described as brilliant by some and the precursor to identity politics Neo-progressivism.The core ideas are that the text criticises classical feminist theories by denouncing their faithfulness to that male-female distinction, and criticising all the faults of humanism: race, disability etc. Instead, we should go beyond (post) humanism to a less 'categorical' distinction in society.

Now, I don't understand how this text can be considered academic in the slightest. It is in the title, a MANIFESTO! It is an ideological discourse, no justifications are made whatsoever and it just comes in with sweeping remarks and emotional upheaval. To me, it represents everything that is wrong with Philosophy today and the reason I personally do not want to pursue academic philosophy anymore.The main critique for me is moreover the effect it has had. A justification I can see for its ideological discourse is that it makes you think, it makes you want to explore this subject further by giving you an emotional response. Okay, fine. It also seeks to improve society by challenging concepts of gender, race and many 'woke' theories today follow in its footsteps, and judging by Donna Haraway's more modern writings and lectures, was supposed to allow that.

My main critique here is: We have destroyed the male-female barrier and replaced it by 81 barriers and distinctions. Is that really what it was all about? I simply don't understand. If the point of this text was to break down the barriers, why has it contented itself by creating 81+ barriers instead of 2?! In regards to race, this text has certainly not brought about the destruction of 'race' but instead has resulted in the fortification of race as a distinction of humans. Race is now an identity, more so that it ever was.

What happened, then?