donderdag 1 mei 2014

INTRODUCTION TO THE POSTHUMAN. Threatening or challenging?

My 2014, May-contribution to this blog is slightly different from other texts. I now write about a Cultural philosophical issue which is of an increasing attraction to scholars: The Posthuman.
This seems a far-away-from-our-bed-notion, but it is not! Nowadays people share a world using mainly a classical approach of Man. In the future this will change and Man will not longer be 'the measure of all things.' Do you feel threatened or challenged by this developement? Read my summary.



SUMMARY

2014 SPRING LECTURES  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ROOSEVELT

Lecture 1 : 2014, April 16th
Prof. Dr. Rosi Braidotti (Utrecht University)
“What is human about the Humanities today?”
Auditor and summary: Leen Moelker (BA)
                                               ================
1 Introduction
2013 Prof. Braidotti published a new book The Posthuman[1], and in this lecture she told us the main points of her theory and practice in Humanities as summarized in this book.
2013, May 17th Braidotti was honoured with a post of honour (Doctor) at Lingköping University (Sweden). Source: UU;
1998 Prof. Braidotti founded the Centre for Humanities, Cultures & Identities of Utrecht University and is still director of CHCI. Source: UU;
2004 University College Roosevelt was founded by Utrecht University at Middelburg and is an international English language university;
Every Spring UCR invites top researchers from Utrecht University to present the state-of-the-art in Humanities to the local inhabitants.

2  This lecture in short
In a short introduction of the playing field, Prof. Braidotti presented her question “What is human about the Humanities today?”  Currently there are frictions and possibilities with outlining the entity of human area. Human life is threatened by technology but is also challenged by the technical, social and cultural developments in the world around. A hybrid world is the result of an ongoing approach of humans and non-humans.  This paradox must be solved or at least understood. But how?  Prof. Braidotti pointed that her lecture would show some details of a possible answer. 

3  The human creature
Already in the Ancient Greek world  Man has been object of observation and understanding. Protagoras (490-420 BC) stipulated “Man is the measure of all things.” After the Mediaeval period in Europe – in which emphasized a renewed relationship between Man and God – Humanism and Renaissance entered the Western culture. They embraced an new orientation in philology and literature classics aiming human individuality,  instead of being preoccupied with dependence on God. Braidotti showed us by example the most famous ‘Homo Universalis’ or ‘Vitruvian Man’ designed by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).    
This ideal of bodily perfection – as part of the Renaissance – would be embodied in a male, white and rationalist figure. Humanism meant the rebirth of antiquity and the revival of the classics. Like the Greek,  Renaissance now focussed on the human as an individual and secular subject. The Enlightenment reinvigorated  human life in a process of continuing progress and rationality. Homo Universalis was definitely the source for a Western model of universalization and homogenization understand as an anthropocentric model.
Braidotti emphasized,  the perfection of the human body became normative to all other species. Universality and civilisation were keynotes in this model and difference spells inferiority. 
 
 1 Leonardo da Vinci, Vitruvian Man or Homo Universalis

Prof. Braidotti showed us also images of a Vitruvian Woman and a Vitruvian Negro based on Da Vinci’s model, and questioned why this could not be an ideal.  During centuries this dualism – ideal against inferiority – was maintained in the European culture and abroad.
In the twentieth century an anti-humanism movement began criticizing the humanism normative ideals. Particularly scholars like Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida opposed the assumption of this humanistic dualism. The white male human being could not be a norm to all others, men and animal included. This resulted in a lot of gender studies, animal studies, human rights studies and many other studies to determine the actual position of different groups within the world and Western culture. A famous example can be found in the work of Edward Said (1935-1995) about colonialism and the assumptions of  superiority in Western cultures above the African way of life.
As Prof. Braidotti explained, this declining of  the classical Western culture rejected simultaneously the ideal of man. Is anthropocentrism out of currency, old fashioned?

4 Post- Anthropocentrism
Until recently Man has always been the centre of the world. Man is the measurement of all things, human is the crown upon Creation and the final goal in the evolution of nature.
Now the Western culture is declining, a post-anthropocentrism was launched. By this phenomenon human species will mix in a revolutionary concept with non-human species, without hierarchy from the one above the other.  
Post-anthropocentrism is also called post-humanism. It is important to realise that in post-humanism dualism is no longer the issue. When there’s no difference between species, a monistic approach of the world will be essential.
Prof. Braidotti pointed to consumerism and capitalism as a power behind the disappearance of individuality. A human Self will extend and will be part of a great number of new liaisons among different species – men, animals, things –  identified as a new subjectivity, not as a subject. And consumption is the common interest; consumption unifies the mass. Particularly the huge number of machines, which are made in favour of the well-being of humans and animals is a great post-human progress . However, the ongoing bio-research  and developments in technology generate a new Anthropocene, and not always a positive one. Within this Anthropocene, in any case, the subjectivity needs a new definition.
I understand Prof. Braidotti revitalised the Deleuzian theory of different-thinking.[2] In this theory Deleuze conceives a rhizome being a metaphor for a new world to come which would be growing beyond the boundaries of the anthropocentric structured societies. Indeed, a post-human world. And in that world the notions of ‘zoe’ and ‘bios-zoe’ are introduced by Prof. Braidotti. Zoe will be a new concept of living together equally, both humans and non-humans. I understand the meaning of ’zoe’ is ‘life’  and can be conceived as a force common to all species.
Scientists are aware of the enormous power of Zoe and they fear a negative cosmopolitism. Technology is equalizing everything and the cybernetics can create all kind of (inhuman) technology. Militarisation  of the societies is a matter of fact. For instance, watching the increasing influence of drones, new possibilities in destroying people and material can change war positions suddenly and unexpectedly. And what to do with the applying of robotics and artificial intelligence?
So what can Humanities do with those uncontrollable proliferation of cultural, commercial, bio-genetic and technical alliances?
 The answer is Humanities have to stand up and to steer processes as best as possible. In the meantime there have been executed a tremendous lot of different studies to investigate common fields of interests. For example, this proliferation of the study area is clear in animal studies, economic and production studies, terrorism studies, death studies, success studies, environmental studies, gender studies etc.

5 Challenge
Prof. Braidotti pointed to different initiatives to challenge the increasing complexity of new alliances . For example Sweden launched an environmental project. Deutsche Bank in Germany promoted anthropological studies. Google and others are busy with handling a digital future by means of algorithms . The Netherlands don’t have much in their pipelines, except University Utrecht where scientists focus on “ONE-HEALTH”- research according to the bios-zoe theory. In many ways the non-human aspects in the world are starting-points in scientific research.
I understand this is not enough. Humanities have to seize the proliferation of sciences – and their results – by improving interdisciplinarity. Natural, life, social, technical and human sciences are together challenged to bring solutions for things like the extinction of sources, the  threats of the environment and climate, social justice to people in new post-human relationships etc.
The main question is: “What is human in Humanities today?” and the answer is at least that human aspects in the global culture tend to decline. The increasing domination of algorithms-driven technical applications in our world society, has to challenge the Humanities.
I understand Prof. Braidotti has the ideal, classical Humanities will play their important new roles continually in the post-human era. It will be essential, she mentioned,  to reformulate subjectivity – what is the non-human look like? – to be settled in a zoe-centred coexistence.
Consequently, the subject of Humanities will no longer be Man but all sort of post-human species.
 6  Reception of the book The Posthuman
This book has the rare quality of keeping a deeply critical standpoint while offering productive ways to sustain and nurture alternatives to consider the future in both critical and affirmative terms. [3]    


Middelburg, 2014, April 26th



[1] Rosi Braidotti, The Posthuman,  ISBN 9780745641584 (London 2013).
[2] I understand Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) described  the world as a rhizome, i.e. a network without beginning or ending, hierarchy or centre. Deleuze denied a linear history; on the contrary, this kind of network has a nomadic character. Prof. Braidotti said species will mix to an overwhelming new Anthropocene.
[3] Francesca Ferrando, Review of The Posthuman in : ‘Plurilogue, politics and philosophy reviews’(2014 January).  

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten