IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2015 - 78

his tool which becomes an extension of his hand, the
intensive use of a prosthesis will ensure that gestures
become automatic, favoring physical integration.
Beyond these neuro-physiological phenomena, it is
impossible not to consider the conditions required for
the incorporation of the technical object in the light of
work from social integration theories. As M. MerleauPonty stated "they are therefore not reflexes, automatic
reactions and even less 'images' or mental representations which are incorporated, but 'typical' behaviours,
that is to say, ways of doing, seeing, thinking, of the
people we regularly frequent" [37]. The manner in which
society perceives, considers, and judges the prostheticuser is thus also indirectly responsible for the level of
personal appropriation of this technical object which,
like amputation, remains a stigma.
Integration of the prosthesis by the amputee is therefore directly conditioned by the integration of the prosthetic-user in society, another demonstration of the
"holistic" nature of this phenomenon.

Temporality and Instantaneity
Another society-driven myth, apart from the cyborg
(although it is related), is that of instantaneity. Sociocultural productions promote, in addition to the image of a
hybrid body, the (utopic) idea of instant integration. This is
the idea that the "augmented" man, newly amputated and
equipped with robotic limbs, can straightaway make full
use of the capacities (motor and sensory) of these devices.
The direct consequence of this myth is the negation of the
effort and difficulty of learning body techniques and of the
time scale required. We forget the number of years it took
us to master our bodies for basic tasks (balance, walking,
grasping, etc.) and then to acquire (sensory)-motor expertise (sport, piano, arts, etc.). With regard to prosthetics, this
utopia of instantaneity has a negative effect both on users
as well, as the designers of technical devices.
The amputee is thus usually surprised at the difficulty
of learning to control his prosthesis (forgetting that he
took several years to master the now lost limb), and this
lag between myth and reality can be discouraging in some
cases, pushing him to request a more simple device (cablebased mechanical prosthesis, or even simply aesthetic).
This negation of the temporality of the learning process also sometimes leads the prosthetic designer to
conceive technical objects that require body techniques
that are so new and/or complex that the learning time
is longer than the lifespan of the device itself (temporal
incompatibility between learning and obsolescence).

Ethical Questions
A large number of studies have been carried out by different groups regarding the ethics of technology, in particular, when the aim is interaction with the body. Several

ethical think tanks have produced norms and legislation
regarding these questions. For example, the European
Ethics Group on science and new technologies lists several main - but quite generic - points in its report on the
"Ethical aspects of NICT (New Information and Communication Technology) implants in the human body." Some
of these points are respect for human dignity, inviolability
of the human body and physical and psychological integrity, protection of private life, non-discrimination and
equality, and the precautionary principle.
These legislative points are not to be ignored. However they should not be considered alone, disconnected
from technical reality and anthropo-socio-cultural phenomena. The impact of techniques on human beings
is more complex than the legal questions and biomedical aspects, which are generally at the forefront of this
type of work. There are currently only a few objective
entities and research groups working on questions
broader than legal aspects. Much work comes from
highly active trends which favor rather far-fetched manmachine hybridization. These post-humanist or transhumanist trends (H+ magazine, Singularity University) are
prone, to different degrees, to an unlimited use of technology and man-machine hybridization in order to push
mankind beyond its biological condition. These groups,
which exploit the ambient cyborg myth and benefit from
the support of many personalities within research and
industries in the fields of NICT, have a large capacity for
communication (particularly to the public), occupying,
among others, the domain of thoughts on the relationships between body, technique, and technology, which
normative ethics struggle to occupy and popularize.

More than Technological Progress Required
Technological progress will not by itself solve the issue
of appropriation and integration of robotic objects,
especially when they interact with the human body. The
overview presented here of major socio-anthropological
and cultural phenomena that influence the close interaction between human beings and technical objects,
uses the example of prosthetics.
Most of socio-anthropological and cultural considerations also can be applied to other robotic devices
dedicated to pHRi (surgical robots, exoskeletons, wheelchairs, cobots, etc.). We strongly believe that an awareness of this multitude of phenomena, symbolism, and
points of view could help technology researchers produce more adaptive and better technological devices.
Moreover, at a time in which there is an increase in
studies relating to the ethics of research on robotics, our
study pushes us towards another "ethical" question: that
of the technical deontology of the conceivers of these
objects. Indeed, only the adoption of a global or "holistic" point of view, which neither neglects nor denies any

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

june 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2015