Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Why robot embodiment matters: questions of disability, race and intersectionality in the design of social robots
  1. Mark Paterson
  1. Sociology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Mark Paterson; paterson{at}pitt.edu

Abstract

A growing minority of those with disabilities are people of color (POC), with, for example, autism diagnosis rates now higher for children of color than for white children in the USA. This trend underscores the need for assistive technologies, especially socially assistive robots, to be designed with intersectional users in mind. Outside of Japan, most robots are designed with white synthetic skin and able-bodied features, failing to reflect the diverse users they are meant to assist. This paper explores the concept of the "engineering imaginary," the historical and cultural influences that shape these designs, and which tend to limit robot embodiment to white, able-bodied forms. Drawing on work from scholars like Lucy Suchman, Jennifer Rhee, Neda Atanasoski and Kalindi Vora, the paper critiques this engineering bias. A key historical moment in the production of the engineered imaginary of artificial humans is provided by Ovid’s myth of Pygmalion and its influence on representations across literature, film, and then robotics. Furthermore, the physicality of the robot, and its role in the production of nonverbal communication (NVC) for more inclusive interaction with humans is explored, seeing these as steps toward what some roboticists are calling Artificial Empathy (AE). Through case studies like Bestic, Bina48, and HuggieBot 3.0, the paper explores what I call the poverty of the engineering imaginary, how current robotics design fails to properly address issues of race, gender, and disability. Ultimately, the paper argues for more inclusive robot designs that accommodate diverse bodies and social dynamics, questioning the pervasive norm of white, able-bodied robotic embodiment.

  • digital technology
  • gender studies
  • cultural history
  • literary studies
  • disability

Data availability statement

No data are available.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. Some minor typos that were introduced during production have been amended.

  • Contributors MP author wrote 100% of the article, and is the guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.