Confero | Vol. 4 | no. 2 | 2016 | pp. 97-109 | doi: 10.3384/confero.2001-4562.

161212

The (care) robot in science fiction:

A monster or a tool for the future?

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

ccording to Mikkonen, Mäyrä and Siivonen, our

A
lives are so pervaded with technology that it
becomes important to ask questions considering
human relations to technology and the boundaries
between us and the various technological
appliances that we interact with on a daily basis:

For example, as pacemakers and contact lenses technology has

become such an intimate thing that it can be said to be a
foundational aspect of our humanity. It is hard, or even
impossible, to understand the meaning of our human existence if
the role of machines in our humanness is not taken into account.
Pointedly, we can ask: “Are we humans machines – or at least
turning into ones?” Or in reverse: “Can machines become humans,
thinking and feeling beings?”

What is essential is not how realistic or believable the assumptions

considering humanization of machines or the mechanization of
humans inherent to these questions are. What is essential is that
these questions are asked altogether.1

There is one fictional genre, that of science fiction, that is

particularly suitable for asking these kinds of questions. Indeed,
science fiction, as the name of the genre already suggests, is
preoccupied with the imaginations of scientific explorations.
These explorations are often realized through stories of

1
Mikkonen et al., 1997, 9, transl. by the author, emphasis added.
97
Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

technology, such as different kinds of robotic creatures.

Moreover, the very core of science fiction is the imagining of
possible worlds and futures that are not mimetically bound to the
world that we live in yet often comment on contemporary
cultural phenomena2. Robots and technology are, indeed, usually
used in the genre to discuss topical fears and anxieties – but also
hopes – considering technological developments.

Today science fiction’s technological imaginations and the

technological developments that we face in our lived realities
seem to resemble each other more than ever before, making it
important to study these connections between science fiction and
science facts. Indeed, many of the current technological
developments have been presented to us by science fiction
narratives well before they turned into the reality of today,
making the genre an important platform for speculating on new
technologies and their possible effects on humanity3.

Quite recently, one of science fiction’s imaginations, that of the

care robot, is quickly turning into a lived reality. When
introducing these kinds of robots in our daily lives we need to
consider how they have already been imagined in science fiction,
as these imaginations can be used to make visible the problems as
well as promises inherent in close relationships between humans
and machines.

The genealogy of robots

Before presenting some examples of science fiction’s care robots
and the pressing cultural questions they pose, we need to
consider the history of fictional robots. The term robot was
developed and popularized by Czech author Karel Čapek in his
play “R.U.R.” (Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti, engl. Rossum’s
Universal Robots) in 1921. The term is derived from the Czech

2
See e.g. Attebery, 2002, 4–5; Jackson, 1995, 95; Larbalestier, 2002, 8–
9.
3
On science fiction narratives turning to science facts, see Kirby 2010;
Penley, 1997; Telotte, 2014, 186–187.
98

 The (care) robot in science fiction

word robota referring to the work performed by slaves. In

Čapek’s play, robots are humanoids or androids (i.e. they appear
human) that eventually turn against their human masters.
Although the term robot usually refers to technology as a tool
designed for the use of humans, science fiction stories often
represent robots that develop beyond mere tools and rebel
against their creators. As such, they represent a typical theme of
the genre – technological developments gone too far, making
these robots monstrous and threatening figures.4

There is, however, an even longer tradition of imagining

scientifically or technologically constructed creatures that can be
traced back to at least the 18th Century, when the constructing of
automatons created in the human form were a fashionable past-
time in Europe. In the Jewish tradition, we can also find stories
of the Golem, a humanoid constructed from clay, that date back
to the early modern period. In 1818, Mary Shelley famously
imagined the Frankenstein’s monster – a human-like creature
constructed by a mad scientist – which has become one of the
staples of Western popular culture, and is probably one of the
most known stories of science and technology gone too far.5
Shelley’s novel is, in fact, often considered the first science fiction
novel, where gothic themes merged with questions of science6.

Since Frankenstein, different kinds of robots, androids

and cyborgs (i.e. hybrids of technology and flesh) have taken the
popular culture by storm as monstrous creatures. In 1927, the
humanoid robot Hel/Maria (played by Brigitte Helm) tantalized
human men with her erotic performances in Fritz
Lang’s Metropolis, making it clear that when a robot gains a

4
On the term “robot” and Čapek’s play, see Mikkonen et al., 1997, 11;
also Graham, 2002, e.g. 102; Paasonen, 2005, 248n43. For more on
robots/technology as a threat, see Dinello, 2005; Graham, 2002, 5–6;
Kirman et al., 2013. On robots/machines as monstrous, see Paasonen,
2005, 26–29, 38.
5
On this genealogy, see e.g. Mikkonen et al., 1997, 11; Graham, 2002,
62–108.
6
Attebery, 2002, 12.
99

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

human form, it cannot escape the questions of gender and

sexuality. This theme had, however, already emerged in, for
instance, L’Eve Future (Tomorrow’s Eve) by Auguste Villiers de
l'Isle-Adam (1886). The novel presents us with a narrative of the
replacement of a human woman by a more perfect machine
copy.7

This idea of replacing the human, and the woman in particular,

has since been seen in films like the
aforementioned Metropolis and Stepford Wives (dir. Ira Levin
1975), and has remained one of the most often articulated fears
in science fiction. Moreover, the developments of robots are
connected to the fears of replacing human beings also in the very
literal sense that they replace human workers in factories – and
now, more recently, in care – both in science fiction and in our
everyday reality8.

Human-like robots as both threatening and hopeful

monsters
Later, in the 1970s, cyborgs such as the Bionic Man and the
Bionic Woman – and even their companion, the Bionic Dog –
represented more hopeful imaginations of technology. These
cyborgs were technologically improved with bionic limbs which
saved their lives. In the 1970s prosthetic limbs were being
explored upon in medicine, and these bionic creatures showcased
the popular culture where this sort of human betterment might
eventually lead.9 Indeed, since the 1970s, synthetic organs (that
are aptly called bionic) have been attached to living human
beings10.

7
On monstrosity as well as cyborgs/robots and gender, including L’Eve
Future, see Paasonen, 2005, 27–28, 35–54. On Metropolis, see also
Graham, 2002, 177–181.
8
On news about robots replacing workers, see e.g. Spence, 2016;
Wakefield, 2016.
9
Geraghty, 2009, 63; Koistinen, 2015a, 36; 2015b; Paasonen, 2005,
21–34; Telotte 2008, 17; 2014, 32.
10
See e.g. “The Bionic Eye”.
100

 The (care) robot in science fiction

The most memorable human-like robots in the 1980s must be

those seen in Terminator (James Cameron 1984)
and RoboCop (Paul Verhoeven 1987) that offer us hyper-
masculine male machines in contrast to the sexualized females
of L’Eve Future, Metropolis and Stepford Wives 11 . Also, who
could forget the humanoid Replicants of Blade Runner (Ridley
Scott 1981), which represented the machines as thinking and
feeling creatures, as almost human beings? These two aspects, the
capability of independent rational thought and emotion have, in
fact, been popular ways to differentiate humans from machines
in science fiction – but also to question this differentiation12.

Since the 2000s, popular culture’s cyborgs, machines and other

technological monsters have been created as more and more
complex creatures and, also, more and more like us humans.
Machines in, for example, Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009) are
intelligent and emotional beings that can pass for human13 and
therefore also offer more varied representations of gendered
embodiments than many of the narratives considering humanoid
machines/cyborgs before them. In these narratives, the monster
can also be a hopeful one, a creature that is guiding us towards a
better tomorrow. Even though monsters are commonly
understood as something to be feared, they can also be sources of
great promise and hope and help us to think about what we
otherwise cannot think about (as a colleague of mine, Line
Henriksen, put it at the “Monsters in Art” event organized by
the Monster Network at Stavanger library in April 28, 2016).14

11
On masculine male machines and erotic female machines, see
Balsamo, 2000, 150–156; Kakoudaki, 2000, 166; Paasonen, 2005, 50.
12
Balsamo, 2000, 149; Booker, 2004, 39–40, 95–96; Koistinen, 2011,
2015a, 37, 2015b; Paasonen, 2005, 27, 32–38.
13
On machines and passing for human, see Koistinen, 2011; 2015a; and
Hellstrand, 2015.
14
For more on hopeful monsters, see Haraway, 1992; more specifically
in science fiction, see Graham, 2002, 11–16. Like “monster”, the
concept of “cyborg” has also been used as a hopeful figuration for
rethinking, for instance, different cultural dichotomies, see Haraway,
1991; also Graham, 2002, 200–234.
101

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

This history of science fiction shows us that we as humans have

always been fascinated by creating the machine in our own
image. Perhaps this is a sort of God-complex, or perhaps we are
just so perplexed about our own humanity, that we feel the need
to re-create our image through technology in order to understand
our humanness.15 Be it as it may, science fiction’s stories make
visible the problems that are inherent in making the machine in
our own image. That is, the question of representation: In whose
image should we create these machines that, as they become
humanoids, also embody markers of, for example, gender,
ethnicity, age, ability/disability and class. In this sense, creating
humanoid machines is a deeply normative process, where we are
reproducing what we consider a “proper” human being.16 In this
sense, these imaginations also allow us to ask deeply ethical and
political questions about what kinds of bodies that are allowed to
pass as “legitimate” human bodies.

This creates an interesting connection between science fiction and

the care robots of today. Judging from the news there seems to be
two strands in the development of care robots: creating robots
that appear like humans or are, in some way, relatable as human-
like figures (i.e. have a recognizable head, limbs and torso, even
though they clearly could not pass for human), and the creation
of robots that are designed to appear more like machines17.

Science fiction and the questions of care

15
For example, Elaine L. Graham, 2002, provides a comprehensive
study on how machines and monsters have been created as
representations or visions of what it means to be human. On the
representations or imaginations of humanlike machines, see also
Hellstrand, 2015; and Koistinen, 2011; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c.
16
For more on humanoid machines and questions of normativity and/or
gender, see Graham, 2002; Hellstrand, 2015; Kakoudaki, 2000;
Koistinen, 2011; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; Paasonen, 2005, 26–51.
17
In the Finnish press, care/service robots have been written about, for
instance, by Juhola, 2016; and Pihlman, 2016.
102

 The (care) robot in science fiction

Finally, I wish to present you with a few examples of science

fiction’s care robots and the sort of cultural allusions that they
evoke. In the genre, robots and other machines have quite often
been imagined as doctors, medical assistants, cleaners, nurses and
all-around helpers. A well-known example of this all-around-
helper is the popular Robbie the Robot in the 1956
film Forbidden Planet (dir. Fred M. Wilcox). Just like the many
other types of robots in science fiction, these care robots can also
be sources of joy or anxiety. Very recently, at least two audio-
visual science fiction productions have discussed care robots in a
manner that resonates with contemporary discussions of care; the
Swedish television series Äkta Människor (2012–2014) and the
film Robot & Frank (Jake Schreier, 2012). Both of these
productions also raise questions related to the ethical aspects of
care today, such as, who decides what kinds of care an elderly
person needs, and who defines what is considered “the right kind
of” care.

Both Äkta Människor and Robot & Frank frame their discussion
of care mainly around an elderly man and his robot
aid/companion – or companions in the case of Äkta Människor.
What is different between the series and the film is that in the
series these care robots (that are, interestingly enough,
called Hubots) are human-like in their appearance, whereas the
robot in Robot & Frank is (even though relatable in the sense of
having a torso, limbs and a head, and speaking in a human-like
voice) is significantly more like a machine.

In Äkta Människor, the human appearance also brings forth

questions of gender and the gendered labour of care. The old
man, Lennart (played by Sten Elfström) is initially happy with his
male companion robot Odi (Alexander Stocks). However, as Odi
malfunctions, Lennart is faced with the harsh reality of having to
purchase a new companion. His family chooses a new, more
efficient model, a female robot called Vera (Anki Larsson). Vera
is a stereotypical representation of feminine care; an old, plump
woman with an apron and a strict expression. Lennart and Vera,
nevertheless, do not get along, which explicitly articulates the

103

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

question if the person receiving care has the right to choose what
sort of care they want.18

Similarly to Lennart and Vera, Frank is initially unhappy with

the care robot that his son purchases for him. In both Äkta
Människor and Robot & Frank we nevertheless also see a
bonding between a human and a machine. Although Lennart
never really gets used to Vera, he considers his other robot, Odi,
as a friend. In the film, Frank also grows fond of his robot. In
both productions, the men finally also lose their companion
robots, making visible the powerlessness of these old men in
terms of deciding for their own care.

These sorts of discussions are highly relatable to the Finnish

context today. Recently the Finnish national broadcasting
company YLE presented news stories concerning how certain
Finnish cities are considering replacing the personal assistants of
people with severe disabilities with a different sort of care – a
“family carer”. Unlike the personal assistant, these family carers
are not allowed to leave the apartment where they work,
significantly limiting the mobility of their clients with, who
cannot go outside without their assistants.19 What, then, would
happen, if these family carers were replaced by machines? Would
it bring more or less freedom to people in need of constant care?

Both Äkta Människor and Robot & Frank ultimately leave it

open, whether the care robot is a dreadful or hopeful monster, or
merely a tool for humans to use in our increasingly technological
future. With fictional narratives we are nevertheless able to
speculate on the problems and possibilities of these emerging
technologies. These speculations can surely offer useful
information also to the persons designing actual (care) robots
today. To return to the quote by Mikkonen, Mäyrä and Siivonen:
“What is essential is not how realistic or believable the
assumptions considering humanization of machines or the
mechanization of humans inherent to these questions are. What

18
See also Koistinen, 2015c.
19
Seppänen, 2016.
104

 The (care) robot in science fiction

is essential is that these questions are asked altogether.” And this

is something science fiction can certainly do.

Acknowledgements
This article is a slightly revised version of a blog post published
at the “Robots and the Future of the Welfare State” (ROSE)
project website (May 16, 2016):
http://www.uta.fi/yky/rose/blogit/scifi.html

I would like to thank my colleagues at the Monster Network

(https://promisesofmonsters.wordpress.com/), Ingvil Hellstrand,
Line Henriksen, Donna McCormack and Sara Orning, for
fruitful discussions considering monsters and the monstrous –
especially Ingvil and Sara on their insights on Äkta Människor. I
am also grateful for my colleague Iiris Lehto for helping me with
the terminology of care. Moreover, I would like to thank the
“Robots and the Future of the Welfare State” project
(http://www.uta.fi/yky/en/rose/index.html) at the University of
Tampere, especially Professor Pertti Koistinen, for inviting me to
their project meeting to discuss robots and for asking me to write
the blog post that this article is based on.

References
Attebery, Brian. Decoding Gender in Science Fiction. New York:
Routledge, 2002.
Balsamo, Anne. “Reading Cyborgs, Writing Feminism.” The
Gendered Cyborg: A Reader. Eds. Gill Kirkup, Linda
Janes, Kath Woodward and Fiona Hovenden. London:
Routledge, 2000. 148–58.
Booker, M. Keith. Science Fiction Television. Westport: Praeger,
2004.
Dinello, Daniel. Technophobia! Science Fiction Visions of
Posthuman Technology. University of Texas Press, 2005.s
Geraghty, Lincoln. American Science Fiction Film and Television.
Oxford: Berg, 2009.

105

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The

Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Haraway, Donna J. “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative
Politics for Inappropriate/d Others.” Cultural Studies.
Ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A.
Treichler. New York: Routledge, 1992. 295–337.
Hellstrand, Ingvil. Passing as Human: Posthuman Worldings at
Stake in Contemporary Science Fiction. Stavanger:
University of Stavanger, 2015 (PhD thesis UiS, no. 244).
Jackson, Earl Jr. Strategies of Deviance: Studies in Gay Male
Representation. Bloomington: Bloomington Unveristy
Press, 1995.
Juhola, Teemu. ”Tämä kaunotar on robotti – Jia Jia liikkuu,
puhuu ja ilmeilee. Tutkijoiden mukaan Kiinassa tehty Jia
Jia -robotti voisi toimia palveluammatissa.” [This beauty is
a robot – Jia Jia moves, talkes and makes faces.
Researchers say that the Jia Jia robot made in China could
work in a service occupation.] YLE 25 April
2016. http://yle.fi/uutiset/tama_kaunotar_on_robotti__jia_j
ia_liikkuu_puhuu_ja_ilmeilee/8835943 [retrieved 5 May
2016].
Kakoudaki, Despina: “Pinup and cyborg: Exaggerated gender
and artificial intelligence.” Future Females, the Next
Generation: New Voices and Velocities in Feminist Science
Fiction Critisism. Ed. Marleen S. Barr. Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. 165–196.
Kirby, David: “The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the
Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-world
Technological Development.” Social Studies of Science
40.1 (2010): 41–70.
Kirman, Ben, Conor Linehan, Shaun Lawson, and Dan O’Hara:
“CHI and the Future Robot Enslavement of Humankind;
A Retrospective.” Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts,
2013. Available at:
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/7569/1/robots_authors_version.
pdf [retrieved 28 November 2016].
Koistinen, Aino-Kaisa, a: The Human Question in Science
Fiction Television: (Re)Imagining Humanity in Battlestar
106

 The (care) robot in science fiction

Galactica, Bionic Woman and V. Jyväskylä Studies in

Humanities 248. University of Jyväskylä, 2015. Available
at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-6147-3
(permanent link).
Koistinen, Aino-Kaisa, b: “‘The machine is nothing without the
woman’. Gender, humanity and the cyborg body in the
original and reimagined Bionic Woman.” Science Fiction
Film and Television 8.1 (2015): 53–74.
Koistinen, Aino-Kaisa, c. “Real Humans (Äkta Människor).
DVD review.” Science Fiction Film and Television 8.3
(2015): 414–418.
Koistinen, Aino-Kaisa. “Passing for Human in Science Fiction:
Comparing the TV Series Battlestar Galactica and V.”
NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research,
19.4 (2011): 249–263.
Larbalestier, Justine. The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction.
Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press,
2002.
Mikkonen, Kai, Ilkka Mäyrä, and Timo Siivonen, eds.
Koneihminen – kirjoituksia kulttuurista ja fiktiosta koneen
aikakaudella. [The machine-human – writings on culture
and fiction in the era of the machine.] Jyväskylä: Atena
Kustannus Oy, 1997.
Paasonen, Susanna. Figures of Fantasy: Internet, Women, and
Cyberdiscourse. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.
Penley, Constance. Nasa/Trek: Popular Science and Sex in
America. London: Verso, 1997.
Pihlman, Olga. “Uudenlaiset robotit tekevät yhteistyötä ihmisten
kanssa.” [New kinds of robots work together with
humans.] YLE 21 April
2016. http://yle.fi/uutiset/uudenlaiset_robotit_tekevat_yhte
istyota_ihmisten_kanssa/8828416?ref=leiki-uu [retrieved 5
May 2016].
Seppänen, Timo. “Vaikeavammainen Mikael Jordan taistelee
saadakseen pitää avustajansa – Ankara kiista Vantaan
kaupungin kanssa.” [Severely disabled Mikael Jordan is
fighting to keep his aid – Difficult fight with the city of
Vantaa.] YLE, 1 May
2016. http://yle.fi/uutiset/vaikeavammainen_mikael_jordan
107

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen

_taistelee_saadakseen_pitaa_avustajansa__ankara_kiista_v
antaan_kaupungin_kanssa/8848482 [retrieved 5 May
2016].
Spence, Peter. “Robots will replace a quarter of business services
workers by 2035, says Deloitte.” The Telegraph, 12 July
2016.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/robots-
will-replace-a-quarter-of-business-services-workers-by-20/
[retrieved 9 November 2016].
Telotte, J.P. “Introduction. The Trajectory of Science Fiction
Television.” The Essential Science Fiction Television
Reader. Ed. J.P. Telotte. Lexington: University of
Kentucky Press, 2008. 1–34.
Telotte, J. P. Science Fiction TV. New York & London:
Routledge, 2014.
“The Bionic Eye.” Bionicvision Australia.
http://bionicvision.org.au/eye [retrieved 28 September
2014].
Wakefield, Jane. “Foxconn replaces ‘60,000 factory workers
with robots’”. BBC, 25 May 2016.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 [retrieved
9 November 2016].

108

 The (care) robot in science fiction

Aino-Kaisa Koistinen is a Senior Researcher in Literature

(temporary position) at the University of Jyväskylä,
Finland. In 2015, she defended her PhD thesis on science
fiction television at the University of Jyvaskyla
(Contemporary Culture Studies). She is the Vice Chair
of FINFAR – Finnish Society for Science Fiction and
Fantasy Research and one of the Editors-in-chief of Fafnir
– Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy Research. She is
also one of the organizers of the international Monster
Network and an affiliate member of the Posthumanities
Hub (Linköping University, Sweden).
E-mail: [email protected]

The terms and conditions of use are related to Creative

Commons Attribution Licence (CC-BY)

109