The Trouble of Robot Bodies

Why is it that robots give rise to the kinds of fears, aspirations and questions that other technologies do not?

Two key features set robots apart from other interactive technologies and provide insight into this question. The first feature is embodiment—robots possess a three-dimensional body, often designed to resemble a familiar living being, such as a human or an animal. The second feature is the social nature of the interaction: communication with a robot is bi-directional. At present, both sides of this interaction are designed by humans and this is where future behaviours, values and ethics are modelled.

Our bodies play a fundamental role in shaping how we navigate and perceive the world, and in how we communicate. When a robot has a human-like (humanoid) or animal-like (zoomorphic) form, it is often perceived by humans as a ‘social actor’ due to its presence within a familiar social body and its display of social behaviours. Even robots without a lifelike appearance can elicit social engagement simply by having a physical body and moving autonomously within shared spaces. For example, many Roomba owners report naming their device and, in some cases, even dressing it up.

Human history has acknowledged the importance of embodiment for tens of thousands of years before robots, through sculpture. Whether seeking to encapsulate the wonder of fertility or reverence for a deity, to honour a country or political leader, or express the deepest of human struggles, sculptors have represented a spectrum of human experience in an embodied form. These sculptures have commonly been displayed in a place of respect, and when a sculpture is defaced or destroyed, it can be understood as symbolic of a desire to destroy what it represents. In 2003, Sadam Hussein’s statue in Firdos Square, Baghdad, was toppled as a symbol of the end of his political regime. The historical treatment of sculptural forms highlights the significant impact of how embodied forms are perceived and engaged with. Similarly, the presence of a physical body in robots influences the ways they are treated and raises important ethical considerations regarding that treatment.

The historical treatment of sculptural forms highlights the significant impact of how embodied forms are perceived and engaged with. Similarly, the presence of a physical body in robots influences the ways they are treated and raises important ethical considerations regarding that treatment.

You may have come across online videos showing robotics company Boston Dynamics testing the stability and recovery of quadruped (4-legged) and humanoid robots by shoving them, hitting them with hockey sticks, and kicking them to the ground where they frantically struggle to stand back up. News reports have shown humanoid robots in banks, hospitals and restaurants being hit, kicked and destroyed by frustrated patrons. After successfully hitchhiking across several countries, the beloved Canadian robot hitchBOT came to a violent end in Philadelphia, where it was filmed in a ‘prank’ video being decapitated and stomped on, destroying the robot. Australian national institutes for health and criminology have debated the bioethics of AI-enhanced sex robots where every physical feature is customisable. Below the many articles and videos of robots being treated violently, one can always find hundreds of the same kind of comments, written in as many ways: “…I feel sorry for it.” Would you?

The integration of robots into the human social sphere, operating with autonomy and artificial intelligence naturally gives rise to questions of ethics and responsibility.

The integration of robots into the human social sphere, operating with autonomy and Artificial Intelligence (AI) naturally gives rise to questions of ethics and responsibility. Relatively recently, many international legal systems determined that animals deserved to be treated ethically, and to be given certain protections under the law. It was concluded that although it could not be known for certain that animals felt pain or joy, or that they were intelligent, the observed performance of intelligence and emotion was deemed sufficient for animals to be worthy of ethical consideration (albeit, on a spectrum of protection). Considering robots in the same light, will the programmed performance of sentience and intelligence be enough to warrant ethical treatment from humans? Given that the body of many robots emulates that of a living creature, could this also be a reason to treat them with care and respect?

Designing a robot is a multidisciplinary effort, involving expertise from computer scientists, mechatronics engineers, psychologists and sociologists, designers and artists. This work often takes place in research laboratories in universities, or technology development companies. When creating a robot’s body, they consider numerous mechanical and functional aspects. For instance, a robot requires a battery that is both long-lasting and compact enough to fit within its structure. Limbs must be agile yet strong enough to perform necessary tasks. Beyond these technical constraints, social and cultural factors also play a crucial role. If all secretary robots are built with a female body and a high pitch voice, what has been decided about how the role of women will be represented in the future? Research shows that taller robots are generally perceived as more threatening than shorter ones. Movements that are too fast or proximity that feels intrusive can make a robot seem dangerous or unpredictable. However, what are the consequences of designing a robot to resemble a small, cute human with wide, adoring eyes to gaze up at us but no mouth to speak? What does it mean to place such a robot in our homes to serve us, and to strike its body when it fails to meet expectations?

Parents often teach children not to break their toys or stomp on flowers in the garden—not out of concern for the feelings of the plants or the intelligence of the toys, but rather because the way children treat the surrounding world influences their development and capacity for empathy. When robots are designed to look and behave like living creatures, regardless of whether those robots experience pain or comprehend mistreatment, it becomes important to consider how interactions with a robot’s body may shape future human behaviour and emotional responses.

When robots are designed to look and behave like living creatures, regardless of whether those robots experience pain or comprehend mistreatment, it becomes important to consider how interactions with a robot’s body may shape future human behaviour and emotional responses.

When first designing the mobile phone, did its designers imagine that it would be the first thing we touched in the morning and last thing at night? Did they imagine we would carry it all day, follow its directions, respond to its every sound and take it with us to the bathroom? Did they imagine our friends and family trying to speak to us, as we stare into our phone screen rather than into their eyes? The mobile phone’s influence on daily life illustrates the bi-directional relationship between technology and humanity: after it is designed and distributed, technology then remains in transaction with human behaviour, shaping routines through ongoing interaction.

When designing a robot, roboticists are responsible not only for its physical form (its morphology) but also for programming its interactions with humans. This requires envisioning a model of communication—how humans express themselves, and how values and ethics are embedded within those expressions. Should the robot say "please"? Should it refuse a request that involves illegal activity? When greeted, should it shake hands or bow? Should it be given a gender? Should it address a person as a master or as a friend? Robots, by design, become a prototype of ethical experience.

In modelling social interactions for robots, designers are effectively scripting future human-robot relationships—conversations children may overhear, gestures that will prompt human responses, and behaviours that people may unconsciously mirror in everyday life. These designed interactions have the power to promote ethical awareness and intentional conduct, or, conversely, to encourage violent language and behavior. They can cultivate patience and cooperation, or reinforce dominance and subjugation.

Robots are not humans, or animals, or plants, or fungi, robots are a new kind of other. Robots cannot replace people or animals because they are something different entirely.

Robots are not humans, or animals, or plants, or fungi, robots are a new kind of other. Robots cannot replace people or animals because they are something different entirely. Media coverage often frames robots in terms of replacement—taking jobs or becoming our romantic partners. However, the emerging roles of robots are more collaborative than substitutive. The first robots to be mass-produced and introduced into workplaces and homes are not replacing humans but working alongside them. For example, ROBEAR, a nursing care robot, assists by lifting patients from beds into wheelchairs, helping to prevent lower back injuries among nursing staff and allowing caregivers to hold the hand of their patients during transfers. The therapeutic robot PARO can provide comfort to individuals in disaster zones or sterile hospital settings while medical professionals carry out their duties. Rather than fitting neatly into categories such as co-workers, lovers, friends, neighbours, masters, slaves, or pets, robots may come to represent a different kind of relationship—one that has yet to be fully defined or understood.

While humans perceive and understand the world in an electrochemical way, robots sense and understand the world computationally. Their intelligence is artificial, quite unlike ours, and their bodies are still being developed to navigate the human-designed built environment effectively. The nature of their integration into society and their role within it continues to evolve. The way that designers construct these beings will not just be a matter of maximising functionality, but a moral, ethical and political problem, contesting and reworking what is meant by agency, authenticity, and even life. Robots are so compelling because they actively disrupt previously clear boundaries and categories of living and non-living, human and non-human, of object and subject—they reconfigure the world by their being.

Dr Belinda J Dunstan is the Principal Lead for the UNSW Creative Robotics Lab, and a senior lecturer in the School of Built Environment at the University of New South Wales, on Gadigal country. Belinda is the author of the Minor in Social Robotics for the UNSW Bachelor of Design, teaching a critically engaged and materially focused approach to the design of social robots. Recently, she was the lead editor of Cultural Robotics: Diversified Sustainable Practices (Springer, 2026). Her current research interests are social robot morphology, critical futuring, technology ethics and cultural robotics.