This critical cyber-autoethnography delves into the processes of adopting a wearable device, specifically a smartwatch. As I contemplate various moments during which my foreign body (by virtue of being an immigrant) relies on another foreign body (smartwatch) to feel at “home” in spaces ranging from hostile to uncomfortable, I articulate how the status of the wearable shifts from that of an accessory to an intimate interface. The narratives presented here center intersectionality by exploring the racialized and gendered dimensions of my immigrant experience in the United States by focusing on how my brown, female body processes/filters everyday microaggressions through my smartwatch. By joining my body with a digital device, that is, becoming a cyborg, I explain how my experiences of marginalization are qualitatively modified. Articulating the shifting privileges I enjoy in the form of economic stability and linguistic competency prevents fetishizing the digital and avoids technological determinism. In conclusion, this autoethnography uses the concept of the cyborg to map the connections between embodied experience; symbolic, sensory potential of digital devices; and intersectional identities.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.
2.
BaymN. (2015). Making new media make sense. InBaymN. (Ed.), Personal connections in the digital age (pp.22–49). Polity Press.
3.
BoylornR. M.OrbeM. P.. (Eds.). (2014). Critical autoethnography: Intersecting cultural identities in everyday life. Left Coast Press.
4.
BrownJ. A. (2016). The new “Southern Strategy:” immigration, race, and “welfare dependency” in contemporary US Republican political discourse. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 8(2), 22–41.
CalafellB. M. (2012). Monstrous femininity: Constructions of women of color in the academy. The Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(2), 111–130.
7.
ChouliarakiL. (2017). Symbolic bordering: The self-representation of migrants and refugees in digital news. Popular Communication, 15(2), 78–94.doi:10.1080/15405702.2017.1281415
8.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.doi:10.2307/1229039
DorfM. C. (2011). Same-sex marriage, second-class citizenship, and law’s social meanings. Virginia Law Review, 1267–1346.
11.
DuGayP.HallS.JanesL. H. M.NegusK. (1996). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. Sage.
12.
EllisC. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Altamira Press.
13.
FeaginJ. R. (2009). The white racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-framing. Routledge.
14.
GajjalaR. (2004). Cyberselves: Feminist ethnographies of South Asian women. Altamira Press.
15.
GajjalaR. (2010). 3D Indian (digital) diasporas. InAlonsoA.OiarzabalP. J. (Eds.), Diasporas in the new media age: Identity, politics, and community (pp.209–224). University of Nevada Press.
16.
GajjalaR.RybasN.AltmanM. (2008). Racing and queering the interface: Producing global/local cyberselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(7), 1110–1133.
17.
GiddensA. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity.
18.
GoluboffS. L. (2016). Text to sex: The impact of cell phones on hooking up and sexuality on campus. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(1), 102–120.doi:10.1177/2050157915603759
19.
Gordano PeileC.Ros HíjarA. (2016). Immigrants and mobile phone uses: Spanish-speaking young adults recently arrived in London. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 405–423.doi:10.1177/2050157916655375
20.
GreenfieldP. M. (1994). Video games as cultural artifacts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 3–12.doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90003-5
21.
Gutiérrez y MuhsG.NiemannY. F.GonzálezC. G.HarrisA. P. (2012). Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia. Utah State University Press.
22.
HarawayD. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. InHarawayD. (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature (pp.149–182). Routledge.
LivingstoneS. (1992). The meaning of domestic technologies: a personal construct analysis of familial gender relations. InHirschE.SilverstoneR. (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp.63–73). Routledge.
LuptonD. (2012). M-health and health promotion: The digital cyborg and surveillance society. Social Theory & Health, 10(3), 229–244.doi:10.1057/sth.2012.6
27.
LuptonD. (2016). The quantified self. Polity Press.
28.
MacKenzieD.WajcmanJ. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open University Press.
29.
MagnetS.RodgersT. (2012). Stripping for the state: Whole body imaging technologies and the surveillance of othered bodies. Feminist Media Studies, 12(1), 101–118.
30.
MillerT. (1998). Technologies of truth: Cultural citizenship and the popular media. University of Minnesota Press.
31.
MohantyC. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30(1), 61–88.doi:10.1057/fr.1988.42
32.
MorleyD. (2006). Media, modernity and technology: The geography of the new. Routledge.
33.
MowlabocusS. (2016). Gaydar culture: Gay men, technology and embodiment in the digital age. Routledge.
34.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: Race, gender and power in the digital age. New York University Press.
PinkS.ForsV.BergM. (2017). Sensory, digital, and visual methodologies. InSilkM. L.AndrewsD. L.ThorpeD. H. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of physical cultural studies. Routledge.
38.
RiordanE. (2001). Commodified agents and empowered girls: Consuming and producing feminism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 25(3), 279–297.doi:10.1177/0196859901025003006
39.
RosaldoR. (1994). Cultural citizenship in San Jose, California. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 17(2), 57–64.doi:10.1525/pol.1994.17.2.57
40.
SternD. M. (2012). It takes a classless, heteronormative utopian village: Gilmore Girls and the problem of postfeminism. The Communication Review, 15(3), 167–186.doi:10.1080/10714421.2012.702005
41.
UotinenJ. (2010). Digital television and the machine that goes “PING!”: Autoethnography as a method for cultural studies of technology. Journal for Cultural Research, 14(2), 161–175.doi:10.1080/14797580903481306
WashingtonH. A. (2006). The Black stork: The eugenic control of African American reproduction. InWashingtonH. A. (Ed.), Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present (pp.189–215). Doubleday Books.
46.
WelterB. (1966). The cult of true womanhood: 1820-1860. American Quarterly, 18(2), 151–174.doi:10.2307/2711179
47.
WhitakerB. (Correspondent (2017, March 19)). You’re Fired. [Television series episode] In S. Hornblower & I. Rosen. (Producers) 60 Minutes. CBS News.
ZhangJ. (2007). A cultural look at information and communication technologies in Eastern education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 301–314.doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9040-y
