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).
