Critical Reflection: Posthuman, All Too Human?
In her presentation, “Posthuman, All Too Human? A Cultural Political Cartography”, as part of the Inhuman Symposium, Rosi Braidotti presents post-humanism as a “navigational tool” from philosophy which can be used to inform discussion around problems in other fields or disciplines (Fridericianum, 2015, 1:50). She describes post-humanism as an ontology or “mood” resulting from a “disenchantment with some of the premises of the great Western philosophical tradition” of humanism (3:02).
Braidotti describes a “convergence issue” of post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism (2:06). Post-anthropocentrism describes a shift from a human-centred view of life, the primacy of the human species, and extends the focus to all life with no distinction. She describes this in the context of advanced capitalism (34:04) in a techno-scientific culture (15:28), and in reference to the creation of life forms (39:20) and the attribution of human rights (43:38).
As she proceeds to critique Western humanism, it becomes evident that, rather than disagreeing with humanist principles, Braidotti’s frustrations surround how humanism plays out in Western society with respect to “freedom, democracy, and social justice”. She labels herself as “anti-humanist”, while also describing the state of being a “closeted humanist” (3:25), still believing in the humanist values that are not borne out in society’s application of humanism. As such, “anti-humanist” does not necessarily oppose the core principles of humanism, but rather its historical interpretation.
A particular argument that stands out as deserving a deeper focus is one from post-colonial, race, feminist, and queer theories (26:48), that not everyone is included in the Western humanist definition of “humanity” – which is limited to those who are “masculine, white, urbanized, speaking a standard language, heterosexually inscribed in a reproductive unit, and a full, taxpaying citizen of a recognized polity” (29:48). While this argument is particularly effective in motivating the adoption a post-humanist lens, Braidotti’s discussion of this and other issues is limited because she does not fully address how post-humanism should be used as a “navigational tool” to solve these problems.
When Braidotti discusses the attribution of human rights to non-humans (43:38), many questions are left unanswered. If the definition of “human” could successfully be extended to non-humans in the future, the differences between humans and non-humans would need to be addressed – humans possess intelligence and agency that animals do not possess and sentience that machines and other entities do not possess – and the conflicts that exist between the interests of humans and the rights of non-humans would need to be resolved.
An example of this can be seen in the Whanganui River which was granted “personhood” by New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua Act (2017), which recognised the river as an “indivisible and living whole” having “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person”. Here “personhood” provides a legal framework for defining the rights of the river and encourages a shift from the human-centred way of thinking, but on its own does not solve the problem (Lurgio, 2019).
Critical Response Questions
The following Critical Response Questions were posted in the MAIS 601 (Angela Specht, January 2022) course discussion forum. Thank you to Kelsea, Claire, Lisa, Kaine, and Amanda for their thoughtful responses. This Critical Reflection Essay was revised in light of the discussions that took place.
1. What is an example of a problem or question from another discipline which could benefit from the use of post-humanism as a “navigational tool”? How can a post-humanist lens be applied to this problem?
2. Considering the convergence between post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism, how do you see the definition of “human” evolving in the future? Is it plausible that “human rights” and “personhood” could be extended to non-humans – to animals or machines?
References
Fridericianum. (2015, August 10). 02 Inhuman Symposium – Rosi Braidotti.
Lurgio, J. (2019, November 29). Saving the Whanganui: Can personhood rescue a river? The Guardian.
Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, Pub. L. No. 2017 No 7 (2017).
Notes
This post is the Critical Reflection Essay and Questions assignment I submitted in Week 14 of MAIS 601 Making Sense of Theory in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca University (Dr. Angela Specht, January 2022).
Featured Image: Person Reaching Out to a Robot by Tara Winstead from Pexels.com