Ihde’s approach to human-technology relations highlights that techno-fashion, from a phenomenological perspective, is no more technological than clothing. Whether it concerns plain technology, techno-fashion, or clothing; they all mediate human expe- riences of the world in one way or another. Yet the experience of wearing an ordinary sweater or jeans is obviously different from wearing a robotic, self-moving dress or even a regular sweater with integrated sensors. The crux of this difference lies in the extent to which the object – be it a garment, a technology, or a combination of both – transforms our embodied experience. It is in this domain that Ihde’s postphenom- enology becomes particularly valuable, because of its preoccupation with the human experience of technologies, and the structure of that experience specifically (ibid.: 23, original emphasis; cf. Verbeek 2001: 123).
The first step in Ihde’s analysis of the different structures of human-technolo- gy relations is to identify two, closely linked and intertwined, modes of perception:
microperception and macroperception (1990: 29). The first defines what is “usually taken as sensory perception (what is immediate and focused bodily in actual see- ing, hearing, etc.),” whereas the latter refers to “a cultural, or hermeneutic, perception” (ibid.). Applied to Wipprecht’s ‘Spider Dress 2.0’, this implies that wearers and their en- vironment perceive this garment in two, interconnected ways. The specific movements of the robotic limbs can be perceived visually; the microperceptual experience of the dress involves ‘seeing’ their movement. Yet, that visual stimulus does not become meaningful unless it is placed within a cultural framework. On the macroperceptual level, the movement of the limbs will first have to be recognized and understood as a form of defense or attack in order for the dress to effectively warn off those enter- ing the personal space of the wearer uninvited. As the wearing experiences of model Heleker point out, however, the intended relationship between the microperceptual and macroperceptual experience of the ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ does not exactly match with the actual responses of most spectators (Interview WH 2017). Heleker notes how many people were in awe of the dress and constantly wanted to take pictures, while oth- ers thought it was mainly funny or bizarre (ibid.). “The average person seemed blown away by the concept of the dress,” she remarks, “while the techy people seemed more interested in the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the dress” (ibid.). The responses to the dress thus differed from spectator to spectator, but overall it tended to attract people towards the wearer rather than send them off (Heleker 2015b).
In addition to differing from individual to individual, macroperceptual experiences of the ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ turn out to also differ from culture to culture. When showcasing the dress in the Netherlands, Wipprecht noticed, the audience is much more curious and daring in approaching the dress which often causes the spider limbs to totally “freak out” (Wipprecht 2017). Within this specific cultural context, people did not seem to feel intimidated or threatened by the dress at all. In the United States or Asian countries, on the contrary, spectators were generally much more restrained in their interaction with the dress, almost to the point where Wipprecht had to “push these polite people into coming closer to the dress” (ibid.). The showcasing and testing the ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ in various cultures and settings, thus reveals that the microperceptual experience of techno-fashion differs depending on the specific cultural, social and historical context within which that experience becomes meaningful.
Verbeek, who uses Ihde’s work as a point of departure for his own philosophy of tech- nological artifacts, explains Ihde’s distinction between micro- and macroperception as the difference between the “bodily dimension of sensory perception” as theorized
by Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, and the “contextual dimension of experience” (Verbeek 2005a: 122). Both Ihde and Verbeek emphasize that although these two dimensions of perception can be distinguished, they are always intertwined and interdependent (Ihde 1990: 29; Verbeek 2005a: 123). There is no microperception without macroperception and vice versa, because “a bodily perception can no more exist without being interpret- ed than an interpretation can exist without something to be interpreted” (ibid.). This intertwinement and interdependency of micro- and macroperception also come to the fore in the experience of techno-fashion.
Wipprecht’s ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ is designed to respond to proximity by showing twelve different states of behavior varying from “territorial attack mode” to “friendly fire mode” (Wipprecht 2015), which presupposes that both wearer and spectators will manage to interpret their visual perception of the spider arms (microperception) as either defensive and aggressive, or friendly and inviting (macroperception). As Verbeek explains, Ihde’s bipartite analysis of technological mediation not only provides insight to different types of perception but also shows “how transformations of micro perception affect mac- roperceptual ways of seeing” (2005: 131). This insight allows for a better understand- ing of how techno-fashion can invite and alter specific embodied experiences. It helps to see that the function of techno-fashion such as Wipprecht’s robotic dress, is predi- cated upon the intertwinement of microperception and macroperception. The dress is pre-programmed to adapt its movement to stimuli in the wearer’s body and the environ- ment, allowing it to alternate between showing movements (microperception) that rep- resent territorial defense versus those that invite playful interaction (macroperception). Moreover, acknowledging the interrelation between micro- and macroperception con- tributes to a better understanding of how the wearer’s embodied experience of an en- vironment might change because of techno-fashion. “[B]eing in front of everyone and representing the spider dress’ powerful energy,” model Whitney Heleker experienced, she “kept a strong posture almost the entire time” (Interview WH 2017). Wearing ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ made her assume a strong posture and embody the strong appearance of the dress. Interpreting the dress’ behavior and look as powerful and protective, the Heleker’s overall experience of interpersonal interactions and the environment was also transformed. “I definitely felt more confidence with the dress,” Heleker describes, “simply because it is a fashion statement of power” (ibid.). Wearing this particular ex- ample of techno-fashion thus made her feel more confident and comfortable than she would have been without it: “[p]eople’s natural interest in the dress is almost like an ego boost lol” (ibid.). In fact, most examples of techno-fashion are based on this idea that
a change in microperception (a different posture, a warmer spine, a visual perception of the air quality, et cetera) will positively affect the wearer’s macroperception as well (feeling less stressed, more comfortable, empowered, healthier, safer, et cetera). Attention to how microperceptions affect macroperceptions helps explain why the ef- fects of the ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ may even transcend the embodied experiences of wear- ers and those approaching them. Wipprecht regularly receives “fan mail” for the dress from victims of sexual abuse or violence that have never actually seen or worn the dress in real life. Apparently, even just the concept and visual representations of this dress (online photo and video footage) already speak to these victims in such powerful ways, that it gives them a feeling of recognition and empowerment (Interview AW 2016). Ihde’s emphasis on the distinction and interrelation between micro- and macroperception shows that technological mediation transforms human experience and that this transfor- mational character is “one root of their non-neutrality” (Ihde 1990: 49, original emphasis). By focusing on relations between human beings and technological artifacts, postphe- nomenology provides us with the tools to study the various ways in which techno-fashion helps to shape relations between humans and the world. In addition, the postphenomenol- ogists’ attention to human-technology relations elucidates why techno-fashion can never be merely functional or instrumental because it inevitably mediates human experiences and practices, be it in spectacular or in subtle ways (Verbeek 2015: 190). Techno-fashion, it follows, is non-neutral in that it mediates the wearer’s bodily-sensory and cultural-her- meneutic experience of the world, no matter how subtle that transformation might be. This insight is of vital importance for the development, study, and implementation of tech- no-fashion. Acknowledging that each type of bodily-sensory output (e.g., sound, light, smell, movement, visual display or touch) presupposes a specific cultural-hermeneutic experience of that output, allows for a better understanding of how techno-fashion af- fects the ways in which wearers experience their bodies and environment.
Depending on the context, the movements shown by the ‘Spider Dress 2.0’ may cause the wearer to feel safe, confident and attractive or, on the contrary, scared and suspi- cious. Moreover, people encountering the wearer may consider the moving spider limbs threatening and scary or, on the contrary, attractive and fascinating. The same applies to any kind of touching, seeing, hearing or feelings elicited by other techno-fashion: in order to understand the structure of the embodied experiences evoked by techno-fash- ion, the reflexive relation between bodily sensations and their cultural-hermeneutic context has to be taken into account.