Cultural Robotics: The Culture of Robotics and Robotics in Culture

CULTURAL ROBOTICS:The Culture of Robotics andRobotics in Culture

Hooman Samani1, , Elham Saadatian2, Natalie Pang3, Doros Polydorou4, OwenNoel Newton Fernando5, Ryohei Nakatsu6 and Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh7

1Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, National TaipeiUniversity, Taiwan.2Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.3Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, College of Humanities, Artsand Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.4School of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.5Centre of Social Media Innovations for Communities, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.6Interactive and Digital Media Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore.7National Institute for Experimental Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of New South Sales, Australia.� [email protected]

Abstract In this paper, we have investigated the conceptof "Cultural Robotics" with regard to the evolution ofsocial into cultural robots in the 21st Century. By definingthe concept of culture, the potential development of aculture between humans and robots is explored. Basedon the cultural values of the robotics developers, and thelearning ability of current robots, cultural attributes in thisregard are in the process of being formed, which woulddefine the new concept of cultural robotics. According tothe importance of the embodiment of robots in the senseof presence, the influence of robots in communicationculture is anticipated. The sustainability of robotics culturebased on diversity for cultural communities for variousacceptance modalities is explored in order to anticipate thecreation of different attributes of culture between robotsand humans in the future.

Keywords Cultural Robotics, Robotic Philosophy,Evolution

1. Introduction

As technology rapidly advances, the role of the robot ischanging from that of a tool to a social entity. Radicaltechnological changes not only have affected the role andnotion of robots, but have also shaped social practices.On the one hand artificial intelligence has the potentialto facilitate the development of robots as emotional andintellectual entities, and in the future transform them intoindependent creatures instead of human agents. On theother hand we as human beings are becoming stronglyattached to our technological devices in ways that couldbe perceived as extensions of ourselves, and are thereforeembodied within us. "We are all already cyborgs" [1]. Forthousands of years tools have been modifications of theself. Currently tools are becoming extensions of the self,although not just a physical extension of the self, but alsoan extension of the mental self.

The emergence of robotics culture, which is facilitated bythe potential of cohabitation between humans and robots,not only raises issues of robot abilities but of human

Hooman Samani, Elham Saadatian, Natalie Pang, Doros Polydorou, Owen Noel Newton Fernando, Ryohei Nakatsu and Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh: Cultural Robotics: The Culture of Robotics and Robotics in Culture

1www.intechopen.com

International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems

ARTICLE

www.intechopen.com Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 400:2013

1 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, National Taipei University, Taiwan2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore3 Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore4 School of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom5 Centre of Social Media Innovations for Communities, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore6 Interactive and Digital Media Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore7 National Institute for Experimental Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of New South Sales, Australia* Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

Received 25 Feb 2013; Accepted 15 Oct 2013

DOI: 10.5772/57260

∂ 2013 Samani et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Hooman Samani1,*, Elham Saadatian2, Natalie Pang3, Doros Polydorou4, Owen Noel Newton Fernando5, Ryohei Nakatsu6 and Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh7

Cultural Robotics: The Culture of Robotics and Robotics in CultureRegular Paper

vulnerabilities [2], as well as the ways that robots effectour lives. These future-oriented, social entities often depict"technological fixes" [3].

In contemporary society, technological agents, includingdisembodied technologies and embodied robots, supportour lives in a variety of dimensions. These agentslive alongside humans as nurses [4], babysitters [5, 6],collaborators [7], playmates [8], leaders [9], and evenintimate partners [10–12]. "Robot Culture" focuses ontechnologies that not only do things for humans, butalso do things to and with humans [3]. Therefore,notions of robot culture not only rely on technology, butare also affected by the interpersonal, cultural, social,historical, ethical and psychological dynamics of thesenew socio-technical systems [13].

In this study we review the historical movement of robotsfrom simple tools to luxury objects and then to members ofhuman society, and eventually part of our culture. We theninvestigate the ways by which different cultures approachrobotics. Finally, we reflect on the recursive impacts ofrobotics on human social practices.

2. Definition of Culture

The notion of culture has been studied in many disciplinesunder different titles [14]. Cultural researchers fromdifferent disciplines tend to concentrate on differentfeatures of culture. The word culture is used to describeactivities and attitudes, points to the heritage or customsof a group, or expressions of similar rules and standards,or can be used to describe similar interests, cultural attiresand food, housing and technologies, and many other,wide-ranging social practices [15, p.3].

Traditionally, culture has been studied within the fieldof Anthropology and Archaeology, with the focuson the external layers of culture such as artefacts,languages and customs [3]. With the increase incross-cultural interactions, the description of culture hasevolved to include human-to-human communication. Ithas been recognized that culture is a multi-layered,multi-dimensional construct. It has been commonlyagreed that culture is distinguishably different fromindividuality states as it is a social concept. It is a group’sshared set of specific basic beliefs, values, practices andartefacts that are formed and retained over a long periodof time [3].

In the field of computing, culture is about supporting theuser with the ability to experience an interaction that isclosely attributed to the fundamental aspects of his or herculture. In a way that allows him or her to engage withan augmented reality using the values and aspects of hisor her personal culture [16]. This definition is based onthe concept called “Kansei Mediated Interaction”, whichis a form of multimedia communication that transmitsnon-verbal, emotional and Kansei information such asunconscious communication. It is a mixture of “KanseiCommunication” (i.e., "content") and “Kansei Media” (i.e.,"form") [17, 18].

In all of the above-mentioned descriptions, culture isdescribed as a by-product of humanity. However, since

many features of human life are shared with other animals,culture can be attributed to animals as well (e.g., animalsare social, invent and use tools, communicate with eachother) [15, p.9]. Similarly robots, due to their embodiment,intelligence, social abilities and other shared behaviourswith humans, could potentially evolve culture; therefore,the evolution of robot culture in approaching futuresis foreseeable. However, it is acknowledged that thereis still a sizeable gap between human abilities and thecurrent state-of-the-art robotics. The emerging disciplineof cultural robotics, in our description, defines cultureas a notion which is not only attributed to humans, butalso encompasses the cultural exchanges between robots,robots and humans, as well as other intellectual andemotional entities.

3. Cultural Robotics

The roots of the concept of breathing life into an object ofone’s own creation dates back to ancient Greek legends.Daudalus used quicksilver to install a voice in his statues,Hephaestus created "automata" to help in his workshops,and Pandora was made from clay at the behest of Zeus.Pygmalion, the great Cypriot sculptor, carved a womanout of ivory and with the help of Aphrodite changed herinto a real woman. Re-animated constructs have beeninteracting with humans and Gods throughout mythologyand inevitably these ideas and concepts have been laterintroduced to classical literature and more recently intopopular, contemporary culture.

The release of Shelley’s Gothic masterpiece Frankensteinin 1818 has acted not only as inspiration to a plethoraof novels that followed, but also introduced theoreticalconcepts that are still debated in the present day,essentially providing a prototypical framework to cyborgtheory. When Victor Frankenstein bestowed animation onlifeless matter [19, 57] his creation began a long process ofself-discovery. By acquiring language through listening toothers and reading Milton’s Paradise Lost and Plutarch hebegan to question his existence: "My person was hideousand my stature gigantic. What did this mean? Who was I?What was I? Where did I come? What was my destination?These questions continually recurred, but I was unable tosolve them." [19, 116].

The creature in Frankenstein was able to comprehend theworld around him and his place in the world. He hadfreedom to act according to his own free will, allowing himto make conscious decisions on his actions. A commontheme that usually arises during theoretical discussionsabout the relationship and the interaction between humansand robots is whether robots are capable of displayingenough qualities of self-awareness that can constitute aconsciousness. David Levy, in his paper "The EthicalTreatment of Artificially Conscious Robots" [20] gives anaccount of various definitions of consciousness, stressinghow most of them are vague. De Qeuincey [21, 210]states "confusion about consciousness is widespread - evenamong professionals who study it", but goes on, describingthe philosophical meaning of consciousness as "the basic,raw capacity for sentience, feeling, experience, subjectivity,self-agency, intention or knowing whatsoever" [21, 210].

Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 400:20132 www.intechopen.com

Levy, quoting Aleksander Igor, goes on to say that alsoamongst other necessities for consciousness is prediction[22] but, as he would rather avoid concentrating onphilosophical questions, Levy defines consciousness usingan analogy with Alan Turing’s famous test for intelligencein a machine [21, 211] which argues that "if a machineexhibits behavior of a type normally regarded as aproduct of human consciousness (whatever consciousnessmight be), then we should accept that machine hasconsciousness" [21, 211].

Stelarc, a renowned artist experimenting with roboticaugmentations, on the other hand argues that the "bodyis biologically inadequate". He considers the body animpersonal, evolutionary and objective structure, andconstantly explores ways to redesign it. Stelarc believesthat by taking a more fundamental physiological andstructural approach, the human psyche might in timedevelop a different outlook on how the world is perceived,thus developing new thoughts and philosophies [D5]."Our philosophies", Stelarc continues, "are fundamentallybounded by our physiology; our peculiar kind of aestheticorientation in the world; our peculiar five sensorymodes of processing the world; and our particularkinds of technology that enhance these perceptions" [23].As humans we are currently following a technologicaltrend that dictates the constant development of newertechnologies to drive our way of living. A few examplesof these technologies include: online social networks,virtual worlds, mobile devices, medical augmentationsand navigational systems. Technological gadgets are nolonger acting as platforms between the interaction of twohumans, but rather between humans and machines -building layer upon layer of technological mediation forour basic five senses.

Following on from this trend it would not be anexaggeration to argue that in a few years the relationshipbetween man and machine will reach even deeper stagesof fusion. The artist Orlan, famous for her frequent bodytransformations, believes that in "future times we’ll changeour bodies as easily as our hair colour" [24, p.13,14].Stelarc argues that "(even if) most of your body is madeof mechanical, silicon or chip parts and you behavein a socially acceptable way, you respond to me in ahuman-like fashion, to me that would make you a kindof human subject" [23]. Going a step further, if just like incyberpunk novels our consciousness is downloaded intoanother body or a virtual avatar, will that mean that aperson loses their humanity? By referring to Descartestheories about duality and the Cartesian split, the bodycan be considered nothing more than a vessel for thesoul. As far as the soul or a consciousness remains intact,with a material personification that allows an acceptableembodiment able to interact in the world, cannot beconsidered less of a human subject.

As more humans are willing to accept roboticaugmentations, we can be drawn to the conclusionthat humans will become more inclined to accept a hybridhuman-robot community. Furthermore, as robots becomeadvanced enough to become autonomous, it is safe toassume that they will build communities of themselves,developing their own unique culture.

In this paper, we investigate the field of cultural roboticsfrom two different perspectives: a society of humanscoexisting with robots, as well as communities formed bynext generation robots.

3.1. Human-Robot Culture

By human-robot culture, we refer to the recursive impactof cultural values of human society in the development ofrobots and the influence of robot cultural values on humanbeings.

Sabanovic [25] proposed the concept of a mutual shapingof robotics and society, which portrays a bidirectionalinteraction between society and technology. This conceptsuggests that social and cultural factors influence thedesign, application and evaluation of technologies, andaffect social values and perceived norms. Differentcultures have their own art, music, traditions, beliefs, androbots. In fact, robots are part of culture and are distinctdue to special cultural values.

For instance, in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths,idolatry is prohibited. Islam bans all icons from mosques,just as the Puritans banned icons from their churches.The Bible says, "God created man in his own image"(Genesis 1:27). This view is in opposition to the sentimentsof Makoto Nishimura, a Japanese robotics pioneer, whostates that "if one considers humans as the children ofnature, artificial humans created by the hand of man arethus nature’s grandchildren" [26]. With this reflectionin mind, it could be posited that the Japanese are moreopen to humanoid robots, compared to other culturalcommunities, since they do not suffer from the guilt ofmaking idols.

As another instance of cultural influence on robot design,we can point to popular media as depicted in films, novelsand other media. As Bartneck [27] has shown, people’sperception of robots relates to what is perpetuated by themedia and entertainment industry. It is assumed thatthere are two types of robots: those who desire to be likehumans and those who are evil and would like to destroythe world. There is little conceptual work in the popularmedia depicting that forthcoming robots might ultimatelyhave their own, specific priorities and, eventually, theirown value sets.

The roots of this perception date back to the ancientstories of different cultures. Whereas the passion of anassured island nation such as Japan for all types of robots,from "hundred foot tall war to infantile therapy robots"is legendary, this is in sharp contrast with the equallywell-known Western anxiety of automatons, initiated withthe very invention of the term "robot", which was coinedin a Czech play performed in 1921 in which robots finallyrise up and kill their human creators. This perceptionled Japanese robotic developers to design robots withthe aim of changing daily life, while American roboticresearchers generally concentrated on robots with militaryapplications [28].

Although the commonsensical view is that Abrahamicculture should be against robots and Japanese culturepassionate about them, due to globalization, cultural


3www.intechopen.com

exchanges and an increase in shared cultural values, thisis no longer the case. In addition, deeper behaviouranalysis may lead to different perspectives. For instance, astudy on attitudes towards robots among Dutch, Chineseand Japanese participants proved that the Japaneseparticipants did not have a specifically positive attitudetowards robots [29]. Another study suggests thatWesterners may not think the same way as Japanese,but would change their perspective when confrontedwith Japanese artefacts. The contemporary behaviourtowards humanoids is subtler than is commonly believed[30]. Another cross-cultural study has showed that a UKsample group was less negative towards humanoid robotscompared to a Japanese sample group, although the UKsample group did not want robots to perform tasks thatwere associated to humans, such as empathy, caring orindependent decision-making [31].

While it is acknowledged that it is not necessarily the casethat the Japanese are more positive towards humanoidrobots when compared to the Western community, it is stilltrue that the cultural values of each community affect theartefacts that they create, and robots are no exception.

3.2. Robot Community Culture

“Robot Community Culture” refers to the creation ofvalues, customs, attitudes, artefacts and other culturaldimensions among the robot community or multi-agentsystems. Robot community culture is emerging as artificialculture in robot societies [32].

The notion of “Robot Culture”, from this perspective,relates to the cultural construct which has emergedthrough purely robotic influence. Robot culturerefers to values that robots themselves may hold andcould eventually move towards the construction ofa distinct robot culture. The prerequisites for robotsto evolve "culture" in the human definition would bean independent, critical and self-reflective mind thatdevelops in a way that leads to consciousness and, ideally,self-awareness of the robot [33]. Such a trend couldlead to the creation of culture created by robots, suchas robot created artefacts, robotic dance performances,robotic food, ethics and many other cultural values, andas such would be beyond the grasp of current humanunderstanding as it would be rooted in a distinctly"robotic" condition.

Values in the context of multi-agent systems are referredto norms as part of their culture [34]. Norm modelling hasbeen the subject of recent research on multi-agent systems[35]. In multi-agent systems, norms are categorized intorule norms, social norms, moral norms, and prudentialnorms that are treated as constraints on behaviour,goals to be achieved, or as obligations [36]. A varietyof mechanisms are proposed for norm spreading andemergence, such as evolutionary models [37], learningfrom repeated local interactions in networked agentsocieties [38], and shared strategies in artificial agentsocieties [39].

Customs and attitudes would possibly evolve amongrobots through embodied imitation since robots are able tolearn socially from one another. It is proven that repetition

of a social and individual learning throughout generationsbrings on a cultural evolutionary process in whichnovelties are merged with previously developed skills,and are successfully transmitted in further generationsof robots [40]. As an example, e-puck robots wereused to demonstrate the emergence of artificial culture incollective robot systems. There are however limitationsto cultural inheritance through imitation due to noise, theincongruousness of robots and sensor accuracy [41].

The self-replicating ability of robots could also be evidenceof the possibility of artificial culture emergence amonga robot society. This could be achieved by evolutionaryrobotic techniques, which point to the automatic creationof autonomous robots. Inspired by the Darwinian theoryof selective reproduction of the fittest, robots are viewed asautonomous artificial entities that create their own skillsin close interaction with the environment and withouthuman intervention [42]. Furthermore, the ability toself-replicate and the way in which self-replication isaffected by genetically encoded traits supports the creationof individuals that are shaped by several connected basicunits able to coordinate and cooperate to show a coherentbehaviour [43]. This coordination and coherency couldsupport the emergence of artificial culture.

In this description we have attempted to define “robotcommunity culture” as human-like artificial culture,programmed by humans, and human-comprehensible.However, robot-robot culture might also be alien andcompletely inscrutable to humans [44], which is beyondthe scope of this study.

4. Embodiment

With the development of mobile and virtual forms ofcommunications, people are mostly encountering thescenarios to perceive and act on environments that areincreasingly distant and distinct from the physical world.The “Sense of Presence” enriching everyday life hasattracted the attention of researchers both in the areas ofremote communication and virtual environments.

The sense of presence is a multi-component and subjectiveconcept [45] that is achieved when a person hasthe impression of actually being present in a remoteenvironment. It is highly influenced by media features.Gibson-state perceptual factors help to generate this state.This includes input from some or all sensory channels, aswell as more mindful intentional, perceptual, and othermental processes that assimilate incoming sensory datawith current concerns and past experiences [46]. Steuerdefines vividness and interactivity as determinants oftele-presence. The first vividness refers to the abilityof a technology to produce a sensorially rich, mediatedenvironment that is described as "realness" by Media artistMichael Nainiark [47], and refers to these same propertiesas realness. The second, interactivity, refers to the degree towhich users of a medium can influence the form or contentof the mediated environment [48].

To date, most researchers have worked on triggeringthe sense of presence and have focused on formsof mediation targeted towards the perceivable sensessuch as haptic stimulation and tangibility [49–53],


smell and taste transition [54][55], visual cues andaugmented environments [56, 57], real-timeness [58],spatial audio[59], sensory replacement to overcomepersonal or technological limitations, enriching theexperience [60],[61], or characterizing the nature ofpresence and interactivity [62]. All of the aboveparameters trigger the sense of presence to some extent.

Although the sense of presence requires a body, it isnot exclusively a mental construct. A body is clearlymissing from the experience of many virtual environments(such as those rendered using HMD) and will result in animpoverished sense of presence [63].

The more embodied, holistic, joyful, mediatedstimulations are available, the more illusion of actualpresence is conveyed. As an evidence of behavioursrelated to the importance of physical matters in theperception of presence, we can mention: creatingsculptures, going to temples, the instinctual tendency ofchildren to play with dolls and toys, the understandabilityof classic physics in comparison to quantum mechanics[64], etc.

Users also perceive many of the features of co-presencewhen they share physical proximity. Proximity isimportant in high fidelity communication because socialentities often not only rely on verbal cues, but alsonon-verbal signals such as body languages, posture, facialexpression, eye contact and other inputs embedded inthe spatial context [65]. The importance of embodiedtele-presence on communication is apparent, yet relativelylittle attention has been paid to the human factors ofjoy and playfulness (affective dimension), and humanphysiological factors such as the role of the body andembodiment, in fostering co-presence.

5. Limitation of Robot Intelligence

American philosopher and professor of philosophy at theUniversity of Berkeley, Hubert Dreyfus, has presented acompelling critique on artificial intelligence, arguing thatcomputers will never be able to replace humans or liveamongst humans as equals [66]. According to Dreyfus,robots will never be able to understand the world, as itis "organized by embodied beings like us, to be copedwith by beings like us". Dreyfus goes on to say that inorder for a robot to not get completely lost in the space,it needs to be able to gain experiences with each actionit performs, similar to a human body. A solution wouldbe for AI researchers to replicate and instil inside therobot a model of the world and a model of the body inorder for the associations to be made, which at the currenttime of writing is proving to be impossible. Without thiscondition, the world is utterly un-graspable by computersin the same sense as their human counterparts.

Another claim against the possibility of robot culture isthe limitation of creativity. Creativity involves the abilityto think critically. Goldenburg in his book "Creativity inProduct Innovation" [67] claims that suspending criticismand thinking that any idea is possible or good mayultimately be destructive to creativity. Humans have theability to criticize themselves, whereas robots cannot. Eventhough machines can write music and poetry [68] it is

Figure 1. Public train is Singapore. Almost every person is busywith a smart device.

Figure 2. Singapore, a scene before starting the dinner in arestaurant

eventually up to humans to decide whether the work isof any worth. Will robots be able to think creatively?As creative thinking is considered to be an essential partof generating culture, it is remains a topic for furtherdiscussion.

Robots have already shown to have a number ofadvantages over humans [69] making them ideal forassuming various positions within society. Even thoughimagining now the possibility of replacing our currentcultural leaders with robots might sound absurd, byobserving the current technological trends, the waytechnology is penetrating into our daily lives and ouropen acceptance to the change it affords, we could arguethat giving robots positions of responsibility is not onlyunavoidable but is rather something desired and that weare trying to achieve.

6. Robots and the Sustainability of Culture

One of the reactions of humans to robots, known as the“Uncanny Valley”, deals with unease and even revulsionat the sight of robots that mimic humans too closely[70]. Another major concern about robots from the publicperspective is the safety of robots for use in society. Forexample, between WWI and WWII, people were worried


5www.intechopen.com

that robots might be built only to revolt, extinguishmankind and go on to rule the world. Horst AlbertGlaser and Sabine Rossbach [71] have followed the historyof robots, androids, cyborgs and clones back to ancientGreece. The acceptance of robots in human societiesis therefore one of the key discourses within culturalrobotics.

The study of technological acceptance has oftenbeen explored using theoretical models such asthe “Diffusion of Innovations Theory” [72] and the“Technological Acceptance Model”. Such studies focusedon understanding factors that predict the likelihood ofaccepting or diffusing new innovations by individuals.However, they do not seek to address cultural influenceson robots, nor do they provide further implications onhow robotics might contribute to sustainable culturalpractices. Both of these aspects, as we argue here, arecrucial in ensuring the sustainability of robots. In otherwords, we suggest that the integration of robotics incultural practices is the key to ensuring the acceptance ofrobots in human societies.

Using Giddens’ (1984) “Structuration Theory”, whichargues subjectivity and objectivity of social realities asequally important, in this section we examine how robotsmay be imagined and theorized to contribute to thesustainability of culture. According to “StructurationTheory”, cultural context is generated and regeneratedthrough the interplay of action and structure. It recognizesthat "man actively shapes the world he lives in at thesame time as it shapes him" [73]. In other words, thecumulative effect of people’s living and working withinsocial frameworks is the production and reproductionof culture. Social structures both support and constrainthe endeavours of individuals, communities and societies.This is also referred to as the duality of structure [73]seeing that institutional properties of social systems arecreated by human actions, and in turn shape futureactions.

Through this formulation of structure, Giddens conceivesof social structures as both constraining, enabling andinvolved in the production of actions. Additionally,structure is also a medium and outcome of actions. Thisis known as the “Duality of Structure”, and integral tothis concept is the function of human agency as "structureis both medium and outcome of the reproduction ofpractices" [74, p.5]. By this formulation of structure,Giddens also posits that structure is not fixed but is fluidand recursive, and tied to the concepts of time and space.

Giddens’ concepts were further developed by Orlikowski[75] in the context of technology use. Informed byStructuration theory, she developed a recursive model (seeFigure 3) of technology to demonstrate how technologyboth shapes and is shaped by the structure of institutions.Technology is viewed as both a product and a medium ofhuman actions and agency, with reflexive monitoring ofactions and conditions imposed on human agents in theform of institutional properties.

As illustrated, human interaction with technology (robotsin our context) is always mediated by institutionalconditions. In the context of cultural societies, institutional

Figure 3. Orlikowski’s “Recursive Model” for a “StructuralTheory of Technology”

conditions are not simply organizational characteristics -they can also be cultural values, practices, interests andrituals. These conditions provide the cultural contextsby which human agents use robots (as illustrated in thearrow marked as c), but additionally, human agents projectcertain adaptations in using robots. In this view, humanagents are not passive users and are active adapters oftechnology (as illustrated in the arrow marked as a).This is also supported by Suchman [76], who argues thatusers interact with technology using their expectations inhuman-to-human communication. When this happens,they shape the properties of robots using their culturaland social values. At the same time, technology isrecursive: as it can present itself as a vehicle and mediumfor human actions (as illustrated in the arrow markedas b). The notion of technology shaping human actionsis especially relevant in the case of robotics, since theycan possess properties that are characteristic of interactiveand intelligent artefacts [76]. In other words, any humaninteraction with robots is essentially a social and culturalone.

Eventually, technology is also projected as having aconsequence on institutional properties (again, in ourcontext such institutional properties refer to the culturalcontexts in which human agents live and work). This isperhaps clearly seen in the cultural ramifications of robotson a typical train scene in Singapore, where people can beobserved to be playing games or chatting with others ontheir mobile phones throughout the entire journey, even ifthey may be travelling with friends and family members.The use of technology changes the very cultural and socialfabric of the society, thereby shaping the properties thathuman agents associate themselves with.

By this understanding of the recursive use of robots,we argue that robots need to be designed and used asinformed by specific cultural contexts, adapted and usedby human agents both as a product and a medium,and eventually manifest as cultural consequences for thesociety in which human agents function. Only whenthese conditions are satisfied can robots contribute tothe sustainability of cultural practices, as well as be"sustained" by human agents, since they would have to beculturally integrated within each society.

7. Discussion and Conclusion

Looking to humankind’s prehistory, it can be arguedthat humanity first started to develop culture when itdecided to cease a nomadic lifestyle in order to settle andaggregate land. This facilitated many things including


the development of communities and thus the sharingof experiences. Produce from these new regions becamethe hallmark of a community. Fish from communitiesclose to water, grains from communities that grew wheat,pottery from communities that settled lands of high claycontent, all these seemingly basic things are the roots ofall culture. The perception of culture in human prehistoryseems simple, but the impact of contemporary culturetoday is complex. Yet from these examples, it can be saidthat the conditions for fostering human culture stem fromtwo things: a fixed location and a shared experience.

Culture, from the Latin word “cultura”, denotes theimprovement of a civilization though cultivation,agriculture and horticulture1. In the 19th Century itcame to mean the betterment of the individual througheducation and later on through the advent of science,was defined as the refinement of the human capacity.Currently, culture is a central concept in Anthropologythat encompasses all human phenomenon.

The term "culture" in American Anthropology had twomeanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classifyand represent experiences with symbols, and to actimaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct waysthat people living in different parts of the world classifiedand represented their experiences, and acted creatively2.Culture can now be defined into two distinct groups, thatof material culture (physical artefacts created by a society)and that of everything else (language, customs, etc.).

An epoch of the 21th Century, robotics has become anapex of culture both materially and otherwise. Theattempt to create embodied artefacts in not just theconstruction of biomechanical mimicry, but ultimately ofartificial intelligence and emotion [77, 78], with advancesin affective computing which have brought our collectedcivilization into a new era where robots increasinglyinherit more complex roles in our society. No longersimply a tool to service some of the more mundane tasksrequired by our civilization’s operational requirements,robots have become social, taking roles in medicine,therapy and even companionship.

Running in parallel to the development of computers andtheir roles from personal to cooperative, to social, and nowcultural [16], robotics development is now reaching anincreased capacity that will provide them with the facultyto be contributors and even creators of culture in the nearfuture. Robots are contemporarily defined to exist in threecategories: industrial, service and social. This manuscriptproposes to extend this definition of robots into the rolesof consumers, collaborators and generators of culture.

In doing so we hope to inspire further thoughts on thefollowing questions: ’What will robotic culture look like?’’Will it mimic the material and immaterial culture ofhumanity or will it take shape in ways that are beyondour current definitions of culture?’ Even if humanresearchers initiate a cultural revolution within the worldof robotics, robots themselves will ultimately define whatrobot culture will be. Yet it must also be recognized that

1 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=culture2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

robotics is an ensemble of both human social practicesand technology, in our manuscript we have argued thatbecause robots are both a medium and structure of humanpractices, it is a social construction in its own right. Inother words, there may be no universal way or definitionof robotics. It will be constructed diversely in differentsocieties, and informed by the structural features of robotsthat have persisted over time.

Other implicit issues and future research arise out ofthis conception, such as the acceptance of robots inindividual societies, which again must be examinedclosely considering the cultural contexts of the societiesin which robots are being designed and implemented.Another closely associated research agenda is the effectof robotics on people, including the extent to which theyimpact everyday practices or contribute to both positiveand negative societal transformations.

8. References

[1] Steve Mann and Hal Niedzviecki. Cyborg: digitaldestiny and human possibility in the age of thewearable computer. Computing Reviews, 46(1):6, 2005.

[2] Sherry Turkle. A nascent robotics culture: Newcomplicities for companionship. Online article.Retrieved January, 6:2007, 2006.

[3] Vas Taras, Julie Rowney, and Piers Steel. Half acentury of measuring culture: Review of approaches,challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal ofInternational Management, 15(4):357–373, 2009.

[4] Andres Sommer. Industrial robots for patientsupport. Ion Beam Therapy, pages 559–577, 2012.

[5] Elham Saadatian, SP Iyer, Chen Lihui,ONN Fernando, N Hideaki, AD Cheok,AP Madurapperuma, G Ponnampalam, and Z Amin.Low cost infant monitoring and communicationsystem. In Humanities, Science and Engineering(CHUSER), 2011 IEEE Colloquium on, pages 503–508.IEEE, 2011.

[6] Egon L van den Broek. Robot nannies: Future orfiction? 2010.

[7] Jeffrey M Bradshaw, Virginia Dignum, CatholijnJonker, and Maarten Sierhuis. Human-agent-robotteamwork. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 27(2):8–13, 2012.

[8] Zhengtao Zhang, De Xu, and Junzhi Yu. Researchand latest development of ping-pong robot player. InIntelligent Control and Automation, 2008. WCICA 2008.7th World Congress on, pages 4881–4886. IEEE, 2008.

[9] Hooman Samani, Jeffrey Koh, Elham Saadatian, andDoros Polydorou. Towards robotics leadership: Ananalysis of leadership characteristics and the rolesrobots will inherit in future human society. IntelligentInformation and Database Systems, pages 158–165, 2012.

[10] Hooman Aghaebrahimi Samani, Rahul Parsani,Lenis Tejada Rodriguez, Elham Saadatian,Kumudu Harshadeva Dissanayake, andAdrian David Cheok. Kissenger: design of a kisstransmission device. In Proceedings of the DesigningInteractive Systems Conference, pages 48–57. ACM,2012.


7www.intechopen.com

[11] Hooman Aghaebrahimi Samani and ElhamSaadatian. A multidisciplinary artificial intelligencemodel of an affective robot. Int J Adv Robotic Sy, 9(6),2012.

[12] Elham Saadatian, Hooman Samani, Anshul Vikram,Rahul Parsani, Lenis Tejada Rodriguez, and RyoheiNakatsu. Personalizable embodied telepresencesystem for remote interpersonal communication. InRO-MAN, 2013 IEEE, pages 226–231. IEEE, 2013.

[13] Selma Sabanovic. Regarding robot cultures. JapanSociety, 2005.

[14] Mark E Koltko-Rivera. The psychology ofworldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1):3,2004.

[15] David Matsumoto and Linda Juang. Culture andpsychology. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2012.

[16] Matthias Rauterberg. From personal to culturalcomputing: how to assess a cultural experience.uDayIV–Information nutzbar machen, pages 13–21,2006.

[17] Ryohei Nakatsu, Matthias Rauterberg, and BenSalem. Forms and theories of communication: frommultimedia to kansei mediation. Multimedia Systems,11(3):304–312, 2006.

[18] Ryohei Nakatsu, Matthias Rauterberg, and PeterVorderer. A new framework for entertainmentcomputing: from passive to active experience.Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2005, pages 1–12, 2005.

[19] Mary Shelley. frankenstein. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.[20] David Levy. The ethical treatment of artificially

conscious robots. International Journal of SocialRobotics, 1(3):209–216, 2009.

[21] Christian de Quincey. Switched-on consciousness:Clarifying what it means. Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, 13(4):7–12, 2006.

[22] José Mira and Francisco Sandoval. From Natural toArtificial Neural Computation: International Workshopon Artificial Neural Networks, Malaga-Torremolinos,Spain, June 7-9, 1995: Proceedings, volume 930.Springer, 1995.

[23] Paolo Atzori and Kirk Woolford. Extended-body:Interview with stelarc. Ctheory. net, 1995.

[24] Carey Lovelace. Orlan: Offensive acts. PerformingArts Journal, pages 13–25, 1995.

[25] Selma Šabanovic. Robots in society, society in robots.International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4):439–450,2010.

[26] Timothy N Hornyak. Loving the machine: The artand science of Japanese robots. Kodansha International,2006.

[27] Christoph Bartneck. From fiction to science–acultural reflection of social robots. In Proceedingsof the CHI2004 Workshop on Shaping Human-RobotInteraction, pages 1–4, 2004.

[28] Frederik L Schodt. Inside the robot kingdom. Kodansha,1988.

[29] Christoph Bartneck, Tatsuya Nomura, TakayukiKanda, Tomohiro Suzuki, and K Kennsuke. Across-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. InHCI International, 2005.

[30] Frédéric Kaplan. Who is afraid of the humanoid?investigating cultural differences in the acceptance

of robots. International journal of humanoid robotics,1(03):465–480, 2004.

[31] Dag Sverre Syrdal, Tatsuya Nomura, Hiroto Hirai,and Kerstin Dautenhahn. Examining the frankensteinsyndrome. In Social Robotics, pages 125–134. Springer,2011.

[32] F.E. Griffths J.L. Bownd R. Durie J. TennantJackson M.D. Erbas D. Wang S. Bhamjee A. GuestA.F.T. Winfield, A.G. Sutcliffe. First steps towardartificial culture in robot societies. In Proceedings ofthe 2nd European Future Technologies Conference andExhibition, pages 130–132. Elsevier, 2011.

[33] Dirk HR Spennemann. Of great apes and robots:Considering the future (s) of cultural heritage.Futures, 39(7):861–877, 2007.

[34] Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu, Maryam Purvis,Martin Purvis, and Stephen Cranefield. Social normemergence in virtual agent societies. In DeclarativeAgent Languages and Technologies VI, pages 18–28.Springer, 2009.

[35] Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu and StephenCranefield. Norm creation, spreading andemergence: A survey of simulation models ofnorms in multi-agent systems. Multiagent and GridSystems, 7(1):21–54, 2011.

[36] Raimo Tuomela. The importance of us: A philosophicalstudy of basic social notions, volume 16. StanfordUniversity Press Stanford, 1995.

[37] FACC Chalub, Francisco C Santos, Jorge M Pacheco,et al. The evolution of norms. Journal of theoreticalbiology, 241(2):233–240, 2006.

[38] Chao Yu, Minjie Zhang, Fenghui Ren, and XudongLuo. Emergence of social norms through collectivelearning in networked agent societies. In Proceedingsof the 2013 international conference on Autonomousagents and multi-agent systems, pages 475–482.International Foundation for Autonomous Agentsand Multiagent Systems, 2013.

[39] Amineh Ghorbani, Huib Aldewereld, VirginiaDignum, and Pablo Noriega. Shared strategiesin artificial agent societies. In Coordination,Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in AgentSystems VIII, pages 71–86. Springer, 2013.

[40] Alberto Acerbi and Stefano Nolfi. Social learning andcultural evolution in embodied and situated agents.In Artificial Life, 2007. ALIFE’07. IEEE Symposium on,pages 333–340. IEEE, 2007.

[41] Alan FT Winfield and Mehmet Dincer Erbas. Onembodied memetic evolution and the emergence ofbehavioural traditions in robots. Memetic Computing,3(4):261–270, 2011.

[42] Stefano Nolfi, Dario Floreano, and Dario Floreano.Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, andtechnology of self-organizing machines, volume 26. MITpress Cambridge, 2000.

[43] Raffaele Bianco and Stefano Nolfi. Towardopen-ended evolutionary robotics: evolvingelementary robotic units able to self-assembleand self-reproduce. Connection Science, 16(4):227–248,2004.

[44] Susan Blackmore. Consciousness in meme machines.Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(4-5):4–5, 2003.


[45] I. Alsina-Jurnet and J. Gutiérrez-Maldonado.Influence of personality and individual abilitieson the sense of presence experienced in anxietytriggering virtual environments. International Journalof Human-Computer Studies, 2010.

[46] J.J. Gibson. The senses considered as perceptualsystems. 1966.

[47] M. Naimark. Realness and interactivity. The art ofhuman-computer interface design, pages 455–459, 1990.

[48] J. Steuer. Defining virtual reality: Dimensionsdetermining telepresence. Journal of communication,42(4):73–93, 1992.

[49] A.D. Cheok. Huggy pajama: A remote interactivetouch and hugging system. Art and Technology ofEntertainment Computing and Communication, ISBN978-1-84996-136-3. Springer-Verlag London Limited,2010, p. 161, 1:161, 2010.

[50] D. Tsetserukou and A. Neviarouskaya. World’sfirst wearable humanoid robot that augments ouremotions. In Proceedings of the 1st Augmented HumanInternational Conference, page 8. ACM, 2010.

[51] R. Viciana-Abad, A.R. Lecuona, and M. Poyade.The influence of passive haptic feedback anddifference interaction metaphors on presence andtask performance. Presence: Teleoperators and VirtualEnvironments, 19(3):197–212, 2010.

[52] M. Slater. Special issue: Collaborative research center(sfb453) on high-fidelity telepresence and teleactionguest editor’s introduction. PRESENCE: Teleoperatorsand Virtual Environments, 19(5), 2010.

[53] S.A.A. Jin. Effects of 3d virtual haptics force feedbackon brand personality perception: The mediating roleof physical presence in advergames. CyberPsychology,Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3):307–311, 2010.

[54] N. Ranasinghe, A.D. Cheok, H. Nii, O.N.N.Fernando, and G. Ponnampalam. Digital taste forremote multisensory interactions. In Proceedings of the24th annual ACM symposium adjunct on User interfacesoftware and technology, pages 79–80. ACM, 2011.

[55] G.S. Levy, P. Angel-Levy, E.J. Levy, S.A. Levy, andJ.A. Levy. Telepresence by human-assisted remotecontrolled devices and robots, May 24 2011. US Patent7,949,616.

[56] S.A.A. Jin. âAIJit feels right. therefore, i feel presentand enjoyâAI: The effects of regulatory fit and themediating roles of social presence and self-presencein avatar-based 3d virtual environments. Presence:Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20(2):105–116,2011.

[57] U. Bernardet, M. Inderbitzin, S. Wierenga,A. Väljamäe, A. Mura, and P. Verschure. Validatingpresence by relying on recollection: Humanexperience and performance in the mixed realitysystem xim. In 11th Annual International Workshop onPresence, Padova, Italy, 2008.

[58] P. Edirisingha, M. Nie, M. Pluciennik, and R. Young.Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-dmulti-user virtual environment. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 40(3):458–479, 2009.

[59] P. Larsson, A. Väljamäe, D. Västfjäll,A. Tajadura-Jiménez, and M. Kleiner.Auditory-induced presence in mixed reality

environments and related technology. The Engineeringof Mixed Reality Systems, pages 143–163, 2010.

[60] S. Nanayakkara, E. Taylor, L. Wyse, and S.H. Ong.An enhanced musical experience for the deaf: Designand evaluation of a music display and a haptic chair.In Proceedings of the 27th international conference onHuman factors in computing systems, pages 337–346.ACM, 2009.

[61] P. Seekings S. Ong L. Wyse, N. Nanayakkara andE. Taylor. Perception of vibrotactile frequencies above1 khz by the hearing impaired. Perception, 0(0):0, 2010.

[62] Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh, Roshan Lalintha Peiris,Kening Zhu, Doros Polydorou, and Ryohei Nakatsu.Uncovering analogness and digitalness in interactivemedia. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM internationalconference on Design of communication, pages 233–242.ACM, 2012.

[63] D. Benyon, M. Smyth, S. O’Neill, R. McCall, andF. Carroll. The place probe: exploring a sense ofplace in real and virtual environments. Presence:Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(6):668–687,2006.

[64] A. Luciani, D. Urma, S. Marlicre, and J. Chevrier.Presence: the sense of believability of inaccessibleworlds. Computers & graphics, 28(4):509–517, 2004.

[65] B.E. Mennecke, J.L. Triplett, L.M. Hassall, and Z.J.Conde. Embodied social presence theory. In hicss,pages 1–10. IEEE Computer Society, 1899.

[66] H.L. Dreyfus, S.E. Dreyfus, and T. Athanasiou. Mindover machine. Free Press, 2000.

[67] J. Goldenberg and D. Mazursky. Creativity in productinnovation. Cambridge Univ Pr, 2002.

[68] A.D. Cheok, A.R. Mustafa, O.N.N. Fernando, A.K.Barthoff, J.P. Wijesena, and N. Tosa. Blogwall:displaying artistic and poetic messages on publicdisplays via sms. In Proceedings of the 9th internationalconference on Human computer interaction with mobiledevices and services, pages 483–486. ACM, 2007.

[69] H.A. Samani and A.D. Cheok. From human-robotrelationship to robot-based leadership. In HumanSystem Interactions (HSI), 2011 4th InternationalConference on, pages 178–181. IEEE, 2011.

[70] Chin-Chang Ho, Karl F MacDorman, and ZA DwiPramono. Human emotion and the uncanny valley: aglm, mds, and isomap analysis of robot video ratings.In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE internationalconference on Human robot interaction, pages 169–176.ACM, 2008.

[71] Bern Bruxelles Frankfurt am Main, Berlin. TheArtificial Human: A Tragical History. New York,Oxford, Wien, 2011.

[72] Everett M Rogers. Diffusion of innovations. Simon andSchuster, 1995.

[73] Anthony Giddens. The constitution of society.cambridge. Polity, 284, 1984.

[74] Anthony Giddens. New rules of sociological method(london: Hutchinson, 1977). Studies in Social andPolitical Theory, London, Hutchinson, 1977.

[75] Wanda J Orlikowski. The duality of technology:Rethinking the concept of technology inorganizations. Organization science, 3(3):398–427,1992.


9www.intechopen.com

[76] Lucy Suchman. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plansand situated actions. Cambridge University Press,2006.

[77] Hooman Aghaebrahimi Samani. Lovotics: Lovingrobots. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2012.

[78] Hooman Aghaebrahimi Samani, Adrian DavidCheok, Mili John Tharakan, Jeffrey Koh, and NewtonFernando. A design process for lovotics. pages118–125, 2011.


Cultural Robotics: The Culture of Robotics and Robotics in Culture

Documents