EXPLORING RACE, TECHNOLOGY, AND IDENTITY AS ASPECTS OF
POSTHUMANISM IN MARGARET RHEE’S “IN SEARCH OF MY ROBOT”
GER 494 POSTHUMANISM AND THE ENDS OF MAN
September 20, 2023
I. An Introduction to the Analysis
In her article, In Search of My Robot: Race, Technology, and the Asian American Body,
Margaret Rhee focuses on how Asian Americans have been associated with technologies and
automation. As presented in the article in Traversing Technologies (2016), it outlines how men
have been portrayed in Western society as robotic, efficient and unemotional especially when it
comes to issues of intimacy where they are depicted as “the other”. In terms of the
methodologies that Rhee employs, she is underpinned by feminist science and technology studies
(STS), critical race theory, and posthumanism, as these portrayal impact subjectivity of work,
citizenship, and belongingness. It shows that many of these are not just relics of the past but still
remain active in the present day representation of Asian Americans, especially in the discourse
on AI and automation. These depictions are rather innocent and make the audience believe that
such biases are inherent in technological advancement and not due to historical incidences. In
this way Rhee inserts history of representation of Asians as cheap labor into the present day
narratives of robots and AI reproducing exclusionary discourse. Apparently, the existence of
racial identity together with the construction of technology is not only about representation but
about the ability to control the criteria for hiring, shaping policies and overall attitudes towards
labor. Thus, discourses of human obsolescence due to technology are drawn in reference to the
racialized body, which always constitutes technology discourse as race discourse.
As in the case of posthumanism, Rhee’s argument is based on the distinction between
humans and machines. It questions the enduring dichotomy of technology and biology by
creating a position that plays with identity constantly in an artificial intelligence and robots
environment. In applying this idea to Asian Americans, Rhee proceeds to demonstrate how they
have been stereotyped to be inferior to the real human and more akin to a machine, productive
but devoid of emotions or personalities. This has been reflected in all the aspects of Asian
representation in literature, starting from early colonial migration stories to contemporary
popular science fiction. The issue with these representations is that the characters are portrayed
as automatons – people from whole communities are turned into mere cogs. When people are
reduced to mere robots, it becomes very easy for the society and other people to treat them as
mere objects with no value. This also contributes to the overall discourse on automation since it
strengthens the belief about the so-called natural predispositions toward monotonous mechanical
work. In this context, posthumanism as an intriguing philosophical paradigm, which mostly
opens up futures, Rhee proves that the framework is founded on race and labor.
In this regard, Rhee brings in Karen Barad and Donna Haraway and especially Hui
Kyong Chun, with the later having specifically written on race, gender, and technology. One of
the specific ideas that Barad uses in conjunction with the creation of knowing is diffraction in
which he attempts to demonstrate how the performative of both IDs and technologies affects the
alteration of Asian Americans into robotic images. While Cyborg Manifesto dissects the
binarisms of human and nonhuman, Chun talks about the mechanized work associate with Asian
Americans. This is evidences by the interconnection of these concepts that depict that Rhee links
cultural stories with race and technology. Therefore, Suzuki (2010) opines that they help to lay
the groundwork by proving that the racialization of technology is deliberate. The association of
the non-white bodies with the machines is to have a social function of determining who is human
and who is not. Such theories are usual to be discussed in parallel either as theories of technology
or theories of race as was identified by Rhee who opined that these two theories should be
integrated. Rhee (2016) analysis does not stay within the realm of academia but extends to
pervasive issues of the present world like automation, labor, and racism.
Contemplating race and technology, Rhee invites to reconsider common perceptions
about the relationship between the two categories. She also notes that the concept of automation
using AI has always been linked with such histories of race and power when it may not be very
evident. She can make a viewer ask questions regarding who is considered a person in a world
that is getting more technologically inclined. By breaking down these issues, she ensures that it
is noted that advancement in AI and robotics, is not only about technology but also the social
systems that allow some people to be valued while others eliminated. Such discussions range
from immigration to selection and employment of smart technologies as well as their
implementation within organizations. When women of color docking their labor as robotic,
predators will have a self-justification of exploitation in the name of optimization. Thus, if
society wishes to create moral technology which would encompass people from all walks of life,
such patents have to be recognized and deconstructed. If this knowledge is not developed, then
the same racially influenced perspective will carry on manifesting the future while disguised as
impartiality.
II. Summary of the Article
The article provides an in-depth look at how Asian Americans have been racialized via
technology. She explains how Asian American bodies have been depicted in historical and
cultural discursive framings as robotic, calculating, affectless bodies of labor. This is through
arguing that these portrayals draw from feminist science and technology studies (STS),
posthumanist thought and critical race theory to give what is considered as the notion of race,
citizenship and technological progress. She demonstrates how early stereotyping of coolie
laborers especially in the period of the construction of the rail roads and industries in the
nineteenth century reduced Asians to mere machines that can work tirelessly but cannot feel.
They have translated into present day representations in areas such as artificial intelligence
where Asians are associated with technological development while they are perceived as alien to
the notion of humanity. In detailing how these perceptions work, Rhee effectively demonstrates
how race and technology operate simultaneously to provide particular populations with worth or
lack of worth in the present day. Her argument is different from that of merely being passive
mirror of history that reflects the reality, but being an active force that defines reality in terms of
hiring practices, representation of media, and national policies on labor and immigration.
The essay also considers how posthumanism frame works these racialised technological
logics. Posthumanism calls into question the human or non-human binary and challenges the way
in which technology and identity are intertwined with one another, as well as social organization.
Following this logic, Rhee traces the process of racialization of Asian Americans and their status
of the “humane” slave, who is needed to advance the progress of technology yet is not
considered human. This has been done in the literature, cinema and the popular culture discourse
on artificial intelligence, where Asian American characters are portrayed as either machines or
hardworking subhuman beings. This she argues, based on the fact that colonial history used the
Asian body as the expendable labor while at the same time presenting the fear of the
technological advancement represented by the Asian Other. The idea of the techno-Orientalism
which she discusses throughout the article represents how the Western discourse has constructed
Asian subjectivity as simultaneously necessary and otherworldly, desiring yet affect-less.
According to Rhee’s work, these assumptions ensure that AI and automation in the future are
representative of the existing racist platforms.
The main thesis of Rhee (2016) is that Asian Americans have been othered as robotic
beings in the past and even to this present day in the spheres of labor, media, and culture. She
ties these representations with the historic xenophobic notions towards immigration and
economic threat, where Asian bodies are presented as hardworking yet heartless. It has also
benefited political and economical reasons, in a way that justified the use of Asian people as an
exploited force of labor, whilst portraying the Asia people as a threat. For instance, the manner in
which Asian characters’ depiction in science fiction texts and movies is either as hostile invaders
or submissive servants. This extends to real-life practices where Asian American contributions in
a particular area such as the technological field are recognized but the members of the Asian
American community are not accepted as equals in the society. As Rhee demonstrates, how these
representations are drawn in different time frames and fields, the interaction between race, labor
and technology is evident (Rhee, 2016) Stereotypes are not only reflected in cultural attitudes;
these representations help to strengthen economic practices, defining who is a suitable employee
and who is dispensable when faced with automation.
In this respect, Rhee cultivates a number of theoretical frameworks to advance her
argument. These frameworks include feminist Science and Technology Studies (STS),
posthumanism, critical race theory, and critical race and intersectional feminisms. These
playwrights encompass Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, and Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, scholars
whose studies incorporate identity and technology with social power concerns (Rhee, 2016). In
particular, Barad’s concept of diffraction which explains how identity in relation to technology is
co-constructed is one of the most important methodological tools Rhee uses in his work. Another
source is the Cyborg Manifesto of Haraway who deny the notion of human or non-human divide
and critiques the impact of gender and race in technology. Chun’s work on the digital labor and
racism also substantiate with Rhee’s arguments, specifically, how Asian American is depicted as
mechanized actors rather than social bodies. According to Rhee (2016), she indicates that her
arguments are grounds in a broader intellectual tradition that questions the foundations of
technological progress. It is through her interaction with them that she is able to argue that it is
very hard to separate race and technology, a point that makes it virtually impossible to discuss AI
and automation without considering the historicity of the field.
The strength of the article is that it clearly shows how race matters to modern discussions
of AI, robots, and digital labor. It does not stay at the theoretical level and addresses the matters
of the present society that determines who is a person when robotic technology is increasingly
introduced. She thus shows how Asian Americans have been described as robotic in the
formation of historical and current polities on labor and immigration and technological
discourse. This is because the overall impact of her work implies that unless the racialized
frames are engaged in a struggle, they remain as part of the frames in technology and media
work. She argues that it is necessary to come up with more than a cheerful posthumanism
outlook, which only looks forward to a neat and advanced technopolis. She refuses to discuss AI
and automation as two distinct procedures, but as procedures that should be regarded as a
continuation of historical bias. The question that she sets is, do we, society, dream of a world in
which technology will not be a mere continuation of the colour line?
III. Author’s Purpose and Intended Audience
Author’s Purpose
As stated by Rhee in the article, one ought to reconsider the impact of racial stereotyping
concerning Asian Americans in technology and labor. The author describes Asian Americans’
portrayal regarding them as programmable or machine like which contribute to current
discourses on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The analysis of how these portrayals starts with
historical structures and culture of labor shows the racial prejudices that are inherent in
technoscientific discourses. It acts as a media through which Rhee (2016) educates the readers
about these patterns and questions the racial erasure exhibited in the posthumanist discourse. To
which Rhee, 2016 reiterates that they are not random occurrences but are part of a system that
dehumanizes some groups while furthering technology as an objective entity. It also points out
the problematic aspects of erasing the concept of race in the discourse on labor, AI, and
automation since it leads to perpetuating of stereotype when it comes to discourses between the
academia and industries. These dismantling of these patterns of racism make scholars and those
reading them to reconsider what has been considered as neutral and progressive thing such as
advancements in technology.
In addition to these, Rhee (2016) goes further in discussing posthumanism by challenging
academicians to include race in their discourses. Most discussions of posthumanism address
issues concerning deconstruction of human or machine interface but do not address how people
of color have been living in a posthuman reality. She claims that Asian Americans have been
constructed as needed for development of technology but are not granted a place within the
society. This ignorance brings them a kind of duality in the STEM industries; they are perceived
as technical but not strategic as the western innovators. Rhee (2016) points out that this problem
equally applies to media representation, labor relations, and economics which can be regarded as
a confirmation of the fact that gender stereotypes are present in numerous spheres. By thus
presenting race as an issue that cannot be easily sidestepped, she conducts the posthumanist
scholars to consider a few things in their perspective. She argues that the posthumanism cannot
handle the relations between human beings and machines due to the fact that such discourses are
raced.
The article also contains a plea for academic and professional technology workers to
question their raced image of work. Rhee (2016) was of the view that racial stereotype does not
only lie on cultural perceptions but also reflected on how possible employee get hired or
removed, the expectation set for an employee and the automation incorporation. Employment
discrimination against Asian American and other individuals of color is also a common thing in
the American workplaces where such employees are seen as being hardworking but not having
the capacity to be leaders thereby perpetuating prejudices that date back to the early 20th
century. She complains how these biases seeped their way onto the processes of developing
artificial intelligence hence creating algorithms with exclusionary patterns. In their discussions,
Rhee (2016) points that technology is not neutral and in discussions such as automation must
consider the race. It forces the industry leaders, policymakers, and scholars to consider the
current state of modern knowledge in the field and negate it as inapplicable in its current state.
Target Audience
Rhee (2016) primarily writes for an academic audience, particularly scholars in race
studies, feminist science and technology studies, and posthumanist philosophy. Her engagement
with theorists such as Donna Haraway, Karen Barad, and Wendy Hui Kyong Chun places her
work within a broader intellectual debate about race, technology, and identity. Those studying
labor history, media representation, or artificial intelligence ethics will find her work especially
relevant as it connects theoretical discussions to real-world issues. While deeply theoretical, the
article also bridges the gap between academic research and practical concerns, making it useful
for educators and students looking to understand the intersections of race and technology. By
addressing key gaps in posthumanist scholarship, Rhee (2016) challenges researchers to
incorporate race into their analyses of human-machine relationships. She argues that failing to
consider racial histories in these discussions reinforces the same exclusionary structures that
posthumanism claims to question.
While the article is mainly scholarly, it appeals to (and speaks on behalf of) people
outside academic circles, such as activists, policy-makers, and people working in tech-adjacent
fields. Using media and labor policies, often the tools of oppression, especially against Asian
Americans whose presence evokes visible stereotypes, Rhee makes her work an essential read
for those striving for racial justice in workplace spaces. Activists who are addressing racial bias
in A.I., as well as automation and labor standards, can use her research to make the case for
more equitable policies. It might even help the tech world, for which policymakers cobbling
together the future of the tech world’s regulations should keep her examples at the top of mind;
they show how, time and again, biases of race are reflexively baked into systems that might
appear to be neutral. This article, framed by a particular literature on racism, offers a way to
think about how and why racialized representations endure and can be disrupted through
education, advocacy and institutional change, according to Rhee (2016). Rhee provides detailed
explains of the connections and, therefore, makes her argument accessible to those who can
influence policy and practices in industry.
Media professionals, whether filmmakers, writers or journalists, are at the forefront of
shaping public myths around race and technology rather than anti-vaccine conspiracies, and
often help establish or even reinforce harmful ideas without thinking too much about it. Rhee
(2016), for example, shows how science fictions, in particular, have long depicted Asian
characters as alienated figures with knowledge of progressed science or technology but who are
devoid of human emotion, a stereotype that bleeds into real-world perceptions. Rhee's work
provokes creatives to reimagine how depictions of Asian identities find their way into stories,
particularly those featuring advanced technology or narratives swimming in the artificial
intelligence realm (Rhee, 2016). Evident from the article, rather than clinging to worn-out tropes,
she urges creators to write more nuanced, human characters who reflect the diversity of lived
Asian experiences. She is not merely looking back at old narratives, she is arguing for how
today’s media choices affect tomorrow, making it clear that cultural production is not make-
believe but an active terrain in which representations of race are negotiated and cemented. These
depictions impact Hollywood’s hiring practices, shape how the public interprets real-world tech
development, and even are how political rhetoric describes Asian communities. If the media
keeps relying on the same narrow character archetypes, it flattens an entire population into a
couple of one-dimensional images. On the flip side, when storytelling evolves to give more room
for nuance, that gives way for more meaningful and genuine portrayal, and the old stereotypes
become harder to cling.
Historical, Cultural, and Academic Context
Automation, synthetic intelligence, and labor have been a topic of growing concern so
Rhee (2016) wrote this article in a time where the conversation around this subject matter is
becoming more and more pertinent. A widespread debate had broken out among economists
about the human workers that would be endangered by AI, but little was said about how those
anxieties were racialized. Asian American workers have been regarded for decades as both
necessary and menacing, she points out, a mindset that has not developed in isolation but rather
draws from historical anxieties, such as fears behind 19th-century Chinese laborers. These
anxieties resurfaced in modern discussions of automation, where fears of “job-stealing”
machines echo stereotypes of Asian workers past as hyperproductive yet socially alien. In
drawing these connections, Rhee (2016) points out how economic considerations are often
framed with a racially insensitive outlook, making it evident that historical context is necessary
to understand conversations surrounding AI. She pushes back on the notion that automation is a
completely new phenomenon, showing how the fears surrounding it are deeply grounded in
longstanding racial narratives. Broadening these patterns as they currently stand, however,
threatens to reinforce existing inequalities rather than challenge them. That these anxieties
remain so persistent indicates that technology is frequently deployed as a kind of cover for
deeper racial and economic frictions. If no meaningful checks are put in place, Rhee (2016)
suggests, conversations around AI and automation will remain superficial and biased.
The historical patterns she finds go beyond fears of the economy, looking into more
profound questions of cultural inclusion and exclusion. Asian immigrants were essential as
laborers but were also portrayed as outsiders during the industrial age, bleak menaces to the
national identity. That contradiction persists today, particularly in the realm of STEM, where
Asian Americans may be prized for their know-how, but face a glass ceiling to leadership
positions. Rhee (2016) claims that though they are different on the surface, these portrayals are
the same underneath, which affect how Asian identities are framed in relationship to artificial
intelligence and robotics. She links these portrayals with long-standing anxieties over foreign
competition and the enactment of technological power, suggesting that alarm over automation is
not simply economic, but about who wields power in a changing job landscape. These anxieties
do not exist in a vacuum, they influence hiring decisions, workplace hierarchies and even a
policy dialog around immigration and education. The longstanding association between Asian
workers and working with automation indicates that fears over labor displacement are rooted in
racial narratives, not financial ones. By 2016, Rhee wrote about how that connection further
entrenched existing power dynamics, determining who wins authority in high-tech industries
and who can only aspire to become a technical issue with few paths to meaningful upward
mobility. This energy manifests itself in the ways some groups are channeled into certain careers
while others are framed as industry leads. Even after Asian professionals break into the
executive ranks, they face stereotypes portraying them as competent but missing the vision or
charisma needed for top positions. These biases are rarely overt, but they inform corporate
culture in ways that make it harder to get ahead and keep the cycle of exclusion going under the
banner of meritocracy.
Academically, Rhee (2016) dialogues with posthumanist discourse, which she criticizes
for neglecting race and labor. Much of what those who study the philosophies surrounding
human-machine relationships do is disengaged from the knowledge that the relationship itself
has always been raced. Her scholarship fills this gap by demonstrating how the line separating
human and machine has never been neutral in the first place, as certain racialized groups have
been historically compelled to occupy positions that straddle this line. She calls out posthumanist
scholars for their omissions, arguing that the field purporting to analyze human-machine
interactions cannot address the racial structures that have long defined those relationships. That
is, to remain relevant, posthumanism must be turned to considerations of race and labor. This
must reckon with and in turn subversively use the biases that have historically shaped these
discussions, and by extension shape our understandings of technology today. Evidently, this shift
would be an intervention in the humanities in which scholars are required to rethink their
understanding of human agency, technological progress, and labor hierarchies. Ignoring race,
Rhee (2016) argues, keeps us in the purview of the technocratic and the retreads of existing
inequalities, free from a genuine critique of technology itself. Her work literally asks the field to
venture beyond the abstract conversations, and instead consider the real-world effects, outside of
text, of racialized narratives about automation.
IV. How the Article Relates to Posthumanism
Defining Posthumanism
Posthumanism is a wide-ranging intellectual framework which resists the claim that the
human being enjoys an exceptional, privileged status in relation to machines, other animals and
the nonhuman world. It argues against the idea that intelligence, identity and agency belong
uniquely to humans, positioning these as emergent properties arising from interactions between
biological and synthetical systems. According to Rhee (2016), this view is more relevant than
ever, as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital networks increasingly tend to organize
daily life in ways that blur the distinction between human and machine. Rather than treating
technology as some external tool, posthumanism considers the ways that people and machines
are in a dynamic and co-evolving process, impacting one another in both subtle and profound
ways. It also locates how historical definitions of humanity have often been predicated on
exclusion, deeming certain racialized, gendered or disabled bodies “less than” to keep hard lines
between hierarchies. Also, these omissions are not merely academic issues; they have real-world
implications, determining who has access to technology, who can claim innovation and whose
experiences are disregarded as irrelevant. Focusing less on humans in this strictly defined
anthropocentric sense, posthumanist thought urges us to better analyze what it means to exist in a
world where intelligence and autonomy belong to more than human entities. This shift is not just
theoretical, writes Rhee (2016); it creates ethical, political, and social implications for how we
understand everything from labor rights in an AI-driven economy to the legal status of non-
human entities.
Posthumanism is derived from artificial intelligence and transhumanism and ecological
philosophy and other theories that question the description of “human.” A basic debate in AI
research is whether machines are intelligent in themselves or simply extensions of human
thought processes. Transhumanism, which began to coalesce during the 1980s, through techno-
optimists who regarded technology as a pathway to human betterment, and often walks hand in
hand with posthumanism, seeks to enhance human life via bodily augmentation. Where
transhumanists may celebrate rapid technological development, posthumanist scholars adopt a
more critical perspective toward aspects of this unchecked forward motion, including the moral
and social implications of unrestrained growth. Certain strands of it center around ecology and
the way human thriving is entangled with animals, ecosystems, and even inanimate forces. This
calls into question a long-standing idea that humans are separate from or above other forms of
life and instead stresses an interdependent world. The movement is not one ideology, it is a suite
of ideas that attempt to counter human-centered thinking in various forms. Commonly associated
with speculations about a future in technology, its ancestry nevertheless remains attuned to
historical discourses of labor, race, and power (Rhee, 2016). These links point to the fact that it
is not only about futurism, but is also about re-examining the past and hierarchies that have still
shaped the way humans engage with technology, nature and each other.
Posthumanism problematizes humanist notions that have defined the postmodern culture
and technology (Rhee, 2016). The Enlightenment humanism cultivated such human values as
knowledge, freedom, and self-sufficiency, which only highlighted the existing social oppression.
However, these divisions have always been a construct according to posthumanist critics because
according to race, gender or class, some people have been considered subhuman through slavery,
colonialism, or industrial exploitation. Thus, posthumanism is not just a future concept of
human-technological interaction, it is a denunciation of how previous definitions of “the human”
have provided the basis for oppression. Thefore, posthumanist thought creates the potential for
an idea of other forms of societal, work, and identity organization. Rhee (2016) relates to these
ideas in the paper through demonstrating how Asian Americans have been stereotyped as
mechanical, hardworking and emotionless like machines.
Posthumanist Themes in the Article
Rhee’s (2016) article has a relationship with posthumanist views as the author discusses
the development of Asian American identities throughout history and as influenced by
technology. One of the major ideas explored by Katz is that the division of the human and the
machine has always been racial. For Asian Americans, especially those employed in the tech
sphere, have been depicted as robots – quite efficient, accurate, yet passionless. This is not just
an old-fashioned cliché; it is a reality that is reflected in relations at any place of work, where
employees are simply used in relation to how effectively they can be utilized. The manner in
which the concept of automation is discussed today, as a threat and at the same time something
people rely on – is not unlike how race was constructed in relation to labor. Whereas in the
traditional thinking technological advancement is observed and expected to be value-free, her
argument simplifies that industries and AI are not value-free. The fact that these patterns keep
repeating means that the debate is not about automation tools, but it is actually about who is
counted as human in the society. This raises a question which is in view of understanding these
certain racial groups as mere extensions of technology, how does this affect their socially and
economically mobile existence? The notion that efficiency is the same as mediocrity translates to
mean that many workers who possess talents have to be stuck in technical positions with no
opportunity of getting promotions to managerial positions. Through Rhee’s work, one is
compelled to rethink the idealisation of innovation as the creation of new machines alone while
forgetting the transformation of people into machines.
The article also raises the issue about the role that artificial intelligence and automation
play in construction of racial identities. Rhee (2016) emphasizes that framing of AI as either a
liberating technology or a threat that will steal our jobs erases how race has long been organized
through systems of automation. Specifically, Asian Americans in STEM are channeled to be
technical competent, proficient, and productive but are often ignored for leadership or creative
positions. This is not an exception; it is in fact a continuation of the tradition where some are
considered fit for monotonous labor and others are considered worthy of imagining. Panic of
machines displacing human employees is not a phenomenon which started today; it is merely
another iteration of Luddite fall, industrialization, race, and economic power. In fact, automation
has been used for a half a century as a tool to perpetuate a notion that some people are
expendable, hence, talented individuals from marginalized groups should not be given the power
to create. The accumulated evidence encourages the readers to question whether AI is an
antagonistic force that threatens humans or whether the latter is just entrenching a process that
was set in motion by industrialization with the use of race to categorize labor. How society
analyzes automation reflects its attitudes and reveals the fact that people are afraid not so much
of machines but of the loss of control over labor. As such, Rhee’s focus on the people pays a
deserving response to the deterministic and binary discourses of AI as either savior or menace.
In addition, Rhee (2016) raises a valid concern on how the posthumanist concepts
provide little emphasis on human subjectivity. There are those who believe that the extension of
the strict demarcations of the human is progressive, but she adds that this action does not exactly
mean an augmentation of the status of women. When Asian American employees are assigned
with similar qualities of objects and machinery, their humanity is diminished, and they become
objects of utilization in production processes. This links up with a larger question within
posthumanity debates, who benefits when the concept of the “human” is becoming more
flexible? Historically, such changes are as have always tended to benefit the dominant groups in
the society as they perpetuate the marginalization of other groups that are already considered
inferior. Through these notions, she effectively counters the fallacy that attaches to technology
the notion of advancement. It poses a question of who is out of this kind of progression and why
such patterns emerge and continue to recur. If technology is moving beyond the human then
whose human is being effaced in the process? Posthumanism might seem like a very freeing
concept when stated on paper, but if it is only used to maintain the social hierarchy, then it is no
better than the rest in using certain groups as historically disposable. Rhee shows that if these
power dynamics are ignored, the notion of posthumanism might simply reconstitute the
prejudices that it seeks to overcome.
Critiquing or Supporting Posthumanism
Rhee’s (2016) article offers a posthumanist critique by arguing that posthumanist theories
are nevertheless race blind. Although posthumanism questions humanism and human-centered
worldview, it does not question how racialized labor has been dehumanized throughout history.
Societal representation of Asian American workers involved the language used for
characterization of machines, cold, efficient, and devoid of emotion, while few posthumanist
works discuss it. Referring to these gaps, Rhee (2016) argues for a more critical approach to it,
which does not cover up existing wrongs with possibilities of the future. As a result, for
posthumanist theory to reshape humanity’s relationship with technology, it must also consider
how some people have been erased from humanity. Otherwise, it perpetuates the established
structures of oppression and brings the benefits only to the employers who end up using the
experiences of racialized workers as they are invaluable for the core business processes. What is
shocking about the lack of race in most posthumanist discourse is that it admittedly disregards an
aspect that still remains current and relevant in the so-called postmodern society. Technology’s
tendency to augment social inequality. Rhee, for instance, ensures that readers remember to look
to the future bearing in mind events of the past.
In the same breath, however, the article aligns with some of the tenets of posthumanist
thinking since the human or nonhuman divide is also socio-cultural. Rhee (2016) also supports
the opinion of scholars who have noted that the boundaries between humans and machines have
always been blurred, although she claims that this process has not been equal. They have been
demarcated in a manner that is favorable to some and disadvantageous to others. This work
strengthens the argument that technology is interdependent with social structures because it is
influenced by them (Rhee, 2016). It means that she goes further to apply these discourses in the
real-world labour relations other than keeping it in the domain of theory. This makes
posthumanism real by bringing it down to the real processes identifying that the merging of
humans with machines is not a thing of the future but something that has been in the making for
decades. In so doing the article poses the question to scholars as to whether integration of
humans and machine is an emancipatory force or simply the highest form of exploitation of
labor. Rhee questions who establishes these boundaries and for what specific end, thus, casting
doubt on the idea of posthumanism as progressive.
Rhee (2016) also disrupts posthumanist celebration of artificial intelligence and
automation. While some theorists are looking forward to an improvement of the human form
through AI she notes that such arguments tend to overlook who suffers from this shift. Hiring has
in the past been used as an excuse for exploitation of human labor especially for workers of color
who are seen as mere cogs in a wheel. She uses it as a cautionary viewpoint for posthumanism,
as it is not always a liberatory process for people who are already oppressed. Hence this critique
refutes the idea that post-humanism will mean an improved situation for the non-human world.
Therefore, posthumanist theories may actually be out of touch with reality if they fail to consider
how automation has been employed to uphold a racial caste system. The discursive construction
of AI as the next natural evolutionary step for society masks how this often entails reinforcing
social injustices rather than challenging them. While arguing to bring the perspectives of those
who actually are at the receiving end of technology, Rhee presents an argument for
posthumanism that does not tokenizes these marginalized other.
Even though Rhee (2016) states that posthumanism should not be dismissed entirely, he
calls for the mainstream integration of historical and racial factors into the scholars’ theories. She
does not dispute with the theory about the close link between humans and technology that exist
but she states that this link should be appreciated with context. She states that posthumanist
critics should stop thinking highly theoretically and consider concrete issues such as work, race,
and power. It is for this reason that it is safe to say that she extends posthumanist discourse in a
more plural and historically sensitive way. According to Rhee (2016), for posthumanism to
continue evolving as a concept, it needs to address how race has influenced the construction of
the human, the relationship between labor and technology. Otherwise, it turns into an academic
exercise that fails to consider the very individuals whose lives are impacted by these changes.
The more intersectional the approach applied, the stronger the posthumanist discourse and more
relevant to the reality of people’s fight. Therefore, the technological future is tied to the past
experiences of those who have been dehumanized.
V. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
Rhee (2016) has presented a very logical argument and has offered substantial evidence
in a fight against racism in the discourses of technology, automation, and work. The main
strength of this article is that there are no sudden jumps between the past, and current day
problems related to the employment of artificial intelligence and automation in industries. From
her discussion of the representation of Asian American workers as robotic, emotionless
automatons who can be easily replaced, she gives historical perspective to the current discourses
on how AI will eliminate human work. It helps to adopt such historical approach because it
rejects the belief that only economic concerns are linked with the concerns of automation,
pointing to racism as well. This is because she incorporates critical race theory, feminist science,
and technology, and posthumanism theories which provide the tools to address them. This she
backs up more strongly by using the examples from literature, historical aspects of labor and
depiction of race in media to state that race has become a part of culture and industry. According
to Rhee (2016), this can be explained by the fact that the article is complemented by both
theoretical concepts and the description of practical findings which will be useful for scholars
from various fields. As shown in this many-levelled approach, this technology is not a process
that has been able to eradicate racism but in fact, a process that perpetuates racism in the several
nations.
Similarly, another strong point of the given article is the author’s ability to argue against
the idea of technology being non-political or a-political. It goes without saying that Rhee
dismantles the notion of post-racial of discussion on automation and AI and specifically refers to
them as a reinvented form of labor dread coupled with the foreign reaction. She further notes that
for Asians, they were seen as the model minority workers who are essential to American society
on one side of the coin and more recently as a threat due to issues concerning globalization and
automation through the help of Artificial Intelligence on the other side. Race, therefore,
disappears from such debates, only to be replaced by technology that is clearly contextual and
social rather than being a force afloat on its own a force emanating from a void that is bereft of
history. Also, she does not only deconstruct the existing narratives but also offers the manner in
which it can be done to include the race in posthumanist discourse that is inclusive and
progressive rather than regressive. Her writing style is comprehensible yet scholarly, and
therefore most beneficial for scholars and lay public alike. Due to how Rhee (2016) anchors her
evidence-based argument on extant social truth yet links it to current discourse on race, labor and
technology, her work is the epitome of why the three aspects have to be discussed as one.
Weaknesses
To some extent, there are some weaknesses of the article, and these are the following
ones: One of the biggest drawbacks is what it gives very little attention to the role and function
of race other than through the Asian-American lens. Although Rhee’s (2016) argument on how
Asian Americans have been historically associated with mechanization and technology is quite
persuasive, the author fails to explain if the same pattern applies to other disadvantaged groups.
For instance, Black and Latinx workers have also been placed in the racially subordinate labor
conditions, and a comparison could have offered more proof on how automation discourses
perpetuate racial oppression beyond Asian Americans. Yet, her discussion of techno-Orientalism
seems to be more useful if it is to be framed within the discussion of racially segmented job
market than a particular ethnic group. To strengthen her argument in this way may make it even
stronger in regard to emphasizing the fact that Asian Americans are not the only ones being
discriminated based on their working status, but it is actually a norm in our society. Otherwise,
the audience could get the feeling of the articles being too specific, although the main idea is
well supported.
Still, it is also valid to argue that the article has certain weaknesses, for instance, it claims
posthumanist thought disregards race by criticizing it but one cannot see any detailed argument
against the counterarguments. In one way or another, Rhee (2016) successfully points out the
disassociation of this field from the racial history of labor and technology that needs to be noted,
but she does not question whether some of the posthumanist scholars might already be engaging
in such discussions. This would have been useful in sharpening her criticism because engaging
with the arguments posthumanism makes would have demonstrated what is missing from it.
Besides, even though she gives a historical perspective, the article fails to provide information on
how these stereotypes of Asian Americans work in those regions or sectors of the economy at the
present time. This is similar to labor and AI but holds true in the health care and education
systems where Asian American experts are explicitly characterized by competence but lack
interpersonal skills. It would extend her argument further to these areas thereby consolidating her
argument on the assertion that such stereotype is rife in various industries. Rhee (2016) could
have presented her argument that the issue of racialized perception of labor is not a thing of the
past but a present problem by including other examples other than automation and AI.
Supporting Examples
In her article, Rhee (2016) rightly points out historical and cultural aspects to elucidate
the ways in which labor has been raced through technology. One of the most convincing
examples she gives is the representation of Chinese rail workers in America of 19th century
where they are portrayed as machines whose muscles never tire, working as drones for hours and
hours without grumbling. The same stereotype, a she notes, translates into the current debates
about Asian Americans in STEM where they described as technically proficient but emotionally
aloof. She also links these historical narratives to present day concerns on AI and automation
because, here also, the same concern of machines displacing human workers is seen as a real
possibility. This linkage is especially useful in a way that illustrates that the fear of technology
has always been raced, notwithstanding the shift in the technologies in question. Another
convincing case is typical of science-fiction movies in which Asian characters are represented as
being connected with the machines, which solidifies an idea that they are closer to technology
than to Western imagery of human beings. To this end, Rhee (2016) is right in arguing that such
stereotyping is not random, but it is part of a systematic pattern in the public domain that forms
the framework of perception and policymaking. Such examples serve as more concrete and clear-
slated examples, whereby she is able to demonstrate exactly how different forms of racialized
labor narratives endured during different time periods as well as in different industries. Her
choice of linking labor history, media portrayal, and the current policy debate enhances the
article’s relevance since it is evident that technology and race are intertwined when it comes to
labor and automation.
VI. Conclusion
Rhee (2016) provided some deep examples of how race in anthology of labor and
technology had constructed Asian Americans as “robotized”, calculative, and “cold-blooded’’ in
ways that repeatedly reinscribe structurally racisms about automation and AI. Her work did
fulfill the objectives of the research and connected the hour wage exploitation to modern
technophobia and established that the fear of wage and employment due to progression in
technology is a race issue rather than an economic one. This is a very useful and persuasive
article and while the author has included some statistics regarding the other subordinate
population categories to buttress her points, it appears the discussion could be more vigorous.
Future studies may examine how such racism influences perceptions of other people of color in a
different aspect namely employment of technology or how such stereotype changes in a
particular field. Therefore, scholars can expand Rhee’s philosophy of race, labor, and automation
with future developments in an attempt to fill the gaps by attempting to bring posthumanist and
technological talks into a historical narrative with more chemists. By doing so, it also troubles
discourses on technopolitics since it asks what kind of techno-utopianism must be erased in order
for such visions to be desirable as well as positing questions as to who gets to define what counts
as progress and advancement.
References
Rhee, M. (2016). In search of my robot: Race, technology, and the Asian American
body. Scholar & Feminist Online, 13(3), 14.
