Abstract

This paper examines anthropomorphism as an ongoing literary process in Deborah Install's A Robot in the Garden, in which a human protagonist gradually develops a more responsible relational identity while an artificial being becomes socially intelligible. Based on multiple close readings of the 2015 Random House Canada edition, the study analyses sequences involving naming, pronoun use, bodily injury, comic resistance, separation, repair, and the transfer of caregiving practices. It distinguishes among three aspects that are often conflated in discussions of artificial companions: Ben's attribution of intention and emotion to Tang; the novel's use of first-person focalisation, dialogue, repetition, humour, and vulnerability to direct the reader's attention; and the ethical practices that follow from those attributions. The argument does not require proof of Tang's consciousness. Rather, Tang's material fragility and distinctive behaviour make him non-replaceable within Ben's emotional world, allowing curiosity to develop into care and care into sustained action. At the same time, the attachment has an unmistakable therapeutic dimension. Tang functions as a surface for projection, a substitute child, and, particularly at the beginning, a more manageable alternative to reciprocal human contact. The novel's principal transformation becomes visible when Ben applies the capacities acquired through robot-directed care to Amy and their unborn child. The article therefore argues that the ethical potential of anthropomorphism remains deliberately ambiguous. Ben's relationship with Tang gives him a stronger sense of accountability and relational agency, yet this development remains entangled with self-repair, consumer obsolescence, dependency, and paternalism. The study contributes to literary discussions of artificial intelligence and companionship by foregrounding narrative form and relational practice rather than making an unequivocal claim about machine personhood.

Keywords

Anthropomorphism, Robot Fiction, Narrative Ethics, Posthumanism, Human–Robot Relationship, AI Companionship,

References

  1. Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N.V., Brock, C. (2021). Understanding Anthropomorphism in Service Provision: A Meta-Analysis of Physical Robots, Chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632-658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
  2. Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The Truths We Reveal about Ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627-652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958
  3. Cave, S., Dihal, K., Dillon, S. (Eds.). (2020). AI Narratives: A History of Imaginative Thinking about intelligent machines. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846666.001.0001
  4. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2051-2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8
  5. Coeckelbergh, M. (2022). Three Responses to Anthropomorphism in Social Robotics: Towards a Critical, Relational, and Hermeneutic Approach. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 2049-2061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00770-0
  6. Damiano, L., Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Co-Evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468
  7. de Graaf, M.M.A. (2016). An Ethical Evaluation of Human-Robot Relationships. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 589-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0368-5
  8. Haraway, D.J. (2008). When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
  9. Hayles, N.K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press.
  10. Install, D. (2015). A Robot in the Garden. Random House Canada.
  11. Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the Novel. Oxford University Press.
  12. Kühne, R., Peter, J. (2022). Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Interactions: A Multidimensional Conceptualization. Communication Theory, 33(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac020
  13. Kühne, R., Peter, J., de Jong, C., Barco, A. (2024). How Does Children's Anthropomorphism of a Social Robot Develop Over Time? A Six-Wave Panel Study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 16, 1665-1679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01155-9
  14. Nayar, P. K. (2014). Posthumanism. Polity.
  15. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
  16. Sundar, S.S. (2020). Rise of Machine Agency: A Framework for Studying the Psychology of Human-AI Interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
  17. Ta, V., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., Civitello, M., Bader, H., DeCero, E., Loggarakis, A. (2020). User Experiences of Social Support from Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts: Thematic Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), e16235. https://doi.org/10.2196/16235
  18. Turkle, S. (2017). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (Reprint ed.). Basic Books. Available at; https://www.mediastudies.asia/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Sherry_Turkle_Alone_Together.pdf
  19. Wolfe, C. (2010). What Is Posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
  20. Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., Bartneck, C. (2015a). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human-Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6