Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Editor’s Note

2017; Penn State University Press; Volume: 1; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0001

2472-4513

Stefan Lorenz Sorgner,

Posthumanist Ethics and Activism

It is my great honor and pleasure to be writing this editorial introduction to the very first volume of the Journal of Posthuman Studies. At last there is a double-blind peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal in which we can discuss “what it is to be human in an age of rapid technological, scientific, cultural and social evolution,” and the discipline has found its own name, “Posthuman Studies.” The word “posthuman” is particularly apt for this field, as it is being used in two of the most prominent philosophical and cultural contemporary movements: critical posthumanism and transhumanism. In critical posthumanism the “posthuman” stands for a redefinition of the human. The posthuman is not the result of biological evolution, but the result of a cultural process. During the last two hundred years of the unfolding Enlightenment, thinkers have criticized absolutes. Darwinism undermined humanist convictions of human exceptionalism. For posthumanists, humans are not categorically separate from the natural world, but are entirely embedded in processes of becoming, so that the difference between humans and other animals becomes a gradual one.The majority of transhumanists also embrace a naturalist, nondualist understanding of human beings. However, the transhumanist focus is on the normative implications of this revised understanding of human beings, promoting our capacity to continue our animal-to-human evolution on to a posthuman stage, using pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, prosthetics, and eventually mind uploading. For transhumanists, the posthuman, the evolved human, might still consider itself “human,” or it might begin to consider itself as belonging to myriad new species. Even though both posthumanists and transhumanists use the notion of the “posthuman” to discuss implications of emerging technologies, there is little intellectual exchange between members of these traditions.The two movements differ significantly in language, style, and methodology. Transhumanists are linear thinkers, employ technical vocabulary, and have a scientific methodology, while posthumanists embrace a nonlinear way of thinking, use metaphors, and have a hermeneutic methodology.The two movements also have radically different pedigrees. Transhumanism is rooted in Darwin’s evolutionary theory, Mill’s utilitarianism, and Anglo-American analytic applied ethics discourses. Posthumanism, on the other hand, is more closely related to continental philosophy, literary theory, and cultural studies and affirms narrative approaches to ethical issues. Transhumanists have a particular strength in their analysis of specific applied ethical questions, whereas posthumanists have developed a complex philosophical methodology for approaching wider cultural issues.The premise of this journal is that these two traditions can benefit from dialogue, embracing and taking into consideration the strengths of the other, despite their mutual suspicion. Its goal can be thus summarized as follows: “drawing on theory from critical posthumanism and the normative reflections of transhumanism, to encourage constructive but rigorously critical dialogue through discussion papers, forums, and a carefully curated balance of research articles.” Articles in which this task is being achieved are ideal candidates for being published in this journal.As emerging technologies have an impact on all strata of our contemporary world, submissions to this journal from a wide range of disciplines are welcomed. “The journal publishes papers on issues such as the consequences of enhancement, especially bioenhancement, transhumanist, and posthumanist accounts of ‘the human,’ and any and all ways in which they impact culture and society. The journal encourages submissions from a range of disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, literary studies, cultural studies, critical theory, media studies, bioethics, medical ethics, anthropology, religious studies, disability studies, gender studies, queer studies, critical animal studies, environmental studies, and the visual arts.”A central premise shared by both traditions is the following: “As the boundaries between human and ‘the other,’ technological, biological and environmental, are eroded and perceptions of normalcy are challenged, they have generated a range of ethical, philosophical, cultural, and artistic questions that this journal seeks to address.” Both traditions embrace a new anthropology, rejecting the traditional humanist account of a human being as consisting of an immaterial soul and a material body. But while the transhumanists use this new anthropology as a warrant for a grand vision of posthuman progress, the posthumanists suspect the transhumanists, and their goal of mind uploading, of being a crypto-religious affirmation of spirit–body dualism and human exceptionalism. Are transhumanists simply hyper-humanists? Transhumanists insist, in response, that mind uploading is a scientific project, not a supernatural one; the goal is copying the brain’s wetware, not capturing the soul. As some posthumanists affirm a neo-Spinozist ontology, it can even be argued that for them it should not be problematic to attribute mental capacities to a computer.Nonetheless, posthumanists may be pointing to inherent contradictions within secular humanism and Enlightenment thought in general. Advocating reason may eventually undercut reason. This is the terrain of topics to be explored in this journal. In the coming decades, we will face radical new challenges: Big Data, human genetic engineering, bioprivacy, geoengineering, nonhuman personhood, metasexuality, postgenderism, and group marriage. This journal offers the possibility of bringing together artists, thinkers, and intellectuals from a great variety of traditions and disciplines to dialogue on all these topics.During my own academic education, I was confronted with both ways of thinking. When I studied philosophy in the United Kingdom, I primarily dealt with analytic philosophy. I completed my doctoral thesis in Germany, where I was examined by Wolfgang Welsch and Gianni Vattimo, who belong to the continental tradition. I have benefited enormously from both philosophical approaches. Concerning general philosophical issues, the continental tradition has developed a complex web of reflections that is particularly useful. Yet, with respect to applied ethics, there is a lot to be said in favor of the precision and complexity of the analytic debates. I have benefitted enormously from exchanges with Julian Savulescu, and I also appreciate his openness to different approaches. With great pleasure, I remember the exchanges between him and posthumanist scholars during the third Beyond Humanism Conference (BHC), which could be classified as models for posthuman studies. Actually, the intellectual groundwork of this journal was being prepared during the annual BHC series, which I started in 2009 at the University of Belgrade, as the BHC series has the same goal as this journal: to promote intellectual exchange between members of the great variety of contemporary Beyond Humanism movements.As a consequence of the success of the conference series, I also founded a book series entitled Beyond Humanism: Trans- and Posthumanism, in which the initial book was published in 2011. In 2014, the book series released a collection entitled Post- and Transhumanism: An Introduction, which I co-edited with Robert Ranisch, and which has become a standard introduction to the field of posthuman studies.Due to all the fascinating reflections in the field of posthuman studies with which I was confronted, I carried around the idea of establishing a journal for quite some time. However, this project did not come to fruition until Sangkyu Shin from the Ewha Institute for the Humanities at Ewha Womans University in Seoul (now the host institute of the journal) informed me that his institute was also interested in such a journal. Finally, there was the appropriate setup for such a demanding project. Sangkyu Shin and I got to know each other at the third BHC in 2011, which took place at Dublin City University, and we have successfully cooperated from that time onwards. After Sangkyu contacted me, I developed the concept of “posthuman studies” and wrote to ask James Hughes whether he was willing to cooperate with Sangkyu Shin and me on this exciting project. I met James Hughes during a bioethics conference organized by John Harris at the University of Manchester in 2010, and there was an intense shared passion with posthuman issues from the first time we met. In 2011, he invited me to become a Fellow at the Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and we have regularly cooperated productively since then.Sangkyu Shin, James Hughes, and I think outside the box and share a belief that posthuman thinking has a contribution to make to shaping emerging technologies, and to many other issues. After we had agreed to start a journal together, I developed a concept, approached publishing houses, and realized that there was enormous interest from quite a few publishers in cooperating in this project. It was a surprise that there was so much interest from publishing houses, as I was aware of the challenges related to establishing a new journal nowadays. After two years of negotiation and many anonymous reviews, we decided to sign a contract with Penn State University Press, about which we all are very happy. Our concept for the journal corresponds well with Penn State University Press’s, so well that it was an easy decision in the end for us with whom we wish to realize this project.The first two volumes of the journal will include invited papers only. However, it is already possible to submit articles for consideration for later issues. To give readers an understanding of what the editors-in-chief and some of the editorial board members stand for, we decided that an article each per editor-in-chief plus some articles from editorial board members will be included in the initial two issues. I am happy to say that issue 1 consists of invited feature articles by Rosi Braidotti, Julian Savulescu, G. Owen Schaefer, Stelarc, Kevin Warwick, Wolfgang Welsch, and myself, as well as a book review by Steve Fuller.The journal starts off with an article by Braidotti, in which she argues for a posthuman critical theory in which she rethinks subjectivity by drawing upon a Spinozian ontology. A more transhumanist approach is presented by Schaefer and Savulescu, who develop procedural guidelines for moral judgments, which they expect to become paradigmatic for transhumans. Aspects of the impact of posthuman reflections on the arts are revealed by Stelarc, who presents and reflects upon a recent performance of his, which might even more appropriately being referred to as a “body installation.” An inclusive approach to posthuman studies has to be up to date concerning the most recent experimental developments in this field. Hence, Warwick describes different types of posthuman experimentation and reveals aspects of their theoretical relevance. Yet an awareness of practical examples must be supplemented by fundamental philosophical reflections, which are presented by Welsch, who reveals the importance of an evolutionary anthropology for posthuman reflections. My own contribution, on the other hand, stresses the importance of reflecting upon genetic privacy, the Internet panopticon, and property rights to information derived from a gene analysis, as here the two technologies with the greatest potential concerning human development merge. Finally, Steve Fuller has contributed a book review of Robin Hanson’s The Age of Em that highlights central challenges related to posthuman economics.To reveal that the topics of the journal will reach beyond the ones being covered by the editors and editorial board members, we decided to include some more specialized perspectives in volume 2. In particular, more posthumanist and transhumanist work needs to be done on economics, in particular on the growing acknowledgment in economics and policy circles that automation will erode employment quickly in coming decades. However, it can also be expected that the research questions in the field of posthuman studies will change over time, as well as the methodologies by means of which these issues will be dealt with. It is important always to be aware of the latest developments in the fields of engineering, AI research, and biotechnologies, so that the topics with the greatest and most profound impact on us as living beings, on our political system, and with respect to wider social and cultural issue get spotted and dealt with in a multiperspectival manner.All academic inquiries that analyze what it is to be human in an age of rapid technological, scientific, cultural, and social evolution fall into the scope of posthuman studies. The posthuman is not only a focus, but also an opening, since there are so many divergent meanings attached to the term, even within transhumanism and critical posthumanism (see Ranisch and Sorgner 2014). The “posthuman” in critical posthumanism is a statement of a postanthropocentric philosophy, a deconstruction of the human–machine boundary, and a nondualist reconceptualization of human beings and animals. For transhumanists, the posthuman is an evolution past the human, but when do we become posthuman? Is it when we have new genes, or when we upload to the Cloud? Both schools have more work to do. “The posthuman” also comes up in other discourses that deal with the impact of emerging technologies, with still other meanings. Compare, for instance, Katherine Hayles’s critical posthumanism (Hayles 1999) and Ray Kurzweil’s version of transhumanism (2006)1. Both of their approaches move beyond an anthropological bias that has been the basis of our humanist culture at least since Plato and the birth of ancient drama (namely an anthropocentrism that is founded on a categorically dualist ontology), which occurred with the institutionalization of the theatre. This process started with the construction of the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens during the sixth century BCE. It is this bias on which the humanities have been founded and that represents the reason for there being widespread hesitation concerning emerging technologies within the humanities. ”Posthuman studies,” in this light, are another bridge across Snow’s “two cultures,” bringing together technology and the humanities. A new discipline may come about thereby, which could be referred to as the “metahumanities” (see Sorgner 2016b, 174–90).The word “humanities” comes from the Latin word humanitas. The use of the word humanitas in the Stoic context and in the writings of Cicero has been particularly influential. Here it can be identified with the Greek word paideia (παιδει′α), which can be translated as education. This identification comes out clearly in Cicero’s “De Oratore” (1, 71). In addition, the Latin author Aulus Gellius from the second century CE explicitly identifies paideia and humanitas in his text “Noctes Acticae” (XIII, 17). In this tradition, the concept humanitas encloses both ontological as well as ethical elements.The same can be said of the word dignitas, which was first used by Cicero in his book “De officiis” in such a way that it attributes a nongradualizable quality to all human beings, or rational beings, which are the same according to Cicero, and which implies the demand that all bearers of the quality need to be considered in a special way. Cicero’s notion of dignitas was received and further developed by Kant. His understanding is still of central relevance in German foundational law. The concept is an ontological one, as it implies a certain anthropology. It is also an ethical one, as it demands that the entities that possess dignity ought to be treated in a specific manner. Dignitas, in this sense, was derived from the word humanitas.The notion of humanitas has similar implications. First, it implies a categorically dualist anthropology, which affirms a categorically special status for human beings. This comes out clearly in Cicero’s affirmation of an immortal soul. The Greek notion of paideia has comparable implications, which can be seen in Plato’s analogy of the divided line. Second, both humanitas and paideia have an ethical dimension, which traditionally has been connected with perfectionist ideals. The Stoic sage, who possesses all virtues, and Plato’s philosopher king are two such examples.The humanities not only have been derived from the Latin concept humanitas, but also still have analogous ontological and ethical implications. However, some of these implications are under attack in an age of transforming sciences and emerging technologies, as these developments are related to new insights that move away from a categorically dualist ontology and expand the options for educating youth. The scientific and philosophical works of Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud have been extremely relevant for this development. More recently epigenetics, embodied mind theories, meta-, post-, and transhumanism, and evolutionary psychology, aesthetics, and economics have promoted this move away from the traditional humanities. Incorporating these new theories into the humanities leads to what I call the metahumanities. I am using the prefix meta, as meta means both beyond and in between. Metahumanities lie beyond the humanities, but not in such a way that old insights are being abandoned, but in such a way that former cornerstones are being integrated in an appropriate way. Hence, metahumanities also lie in between the humanities and new approaches such as posthuman studies. Consequently, the metahumanities can be understood as an inclusive approach. They consider a traditional version of the humanities, but at the same time they grant appropriate recognition to a new way of dealing with the world within posthuman studies.The metahumanities embrace evolutionary epistemology, aesthetics, psychology, ethics, and economics; embodied theories of the mind; epigenetics; new types of spirituality and mysticism; nondualist accounts of rights and dignity; revised concepts of the family; immanent concepts of the good life; Big History; the relevance of cultural history with respect to norms, values, and the lie; and nonanthropocentric ontologies and the avoidance of speciesism.As their insights are being widely shared, they ought to be integrated into the traditional humanities curriculum as additional topics, so that the metahumanities can come about. This idea does not imply that the new theories ought to replace the older ones, but merely that an extension of the traditional curriculum should take place, so that pupils get a more inclusive education. To explain the relevance of reflections from posthuman studies, I have already analyzed how this can be done in the case of a specific example in the field of music drama (Sorgner 2016a). With each emerging technology, new philosophical challenges arise, and with it the need to deal with them within posthuman studies.With this editorial, I wish to encourage all of you to submit your latest and best-informed reflections on emerging technologies, so that the most relevant questions can be dealt with and exchanges between members of the various traditions and disciplines can occur. We value both contemporary relevance and academic rigor. Only those who adequately understand both the intellectual issues and the sciences can be truly relevant. The Web is full of self-styled prophets of the future who lack this rigor. Posthuman studies do not have to rely on established methodologies, as long as it is clear that a break away from traditional means of investigation is the result of a detailed awareness of established methods and reasons for claiming that these are deficient and need to be revised. To explain why some comics deserve to be recognized as works of art, to analyze performances of DJs as musical events, or to reveal the relevance of video games for posthuman studies, is a complex task, which deserves well-trained thinkers who not only are aware of their own field of expertise, but also are capable of relational thinking between reflections of different disciplines – a task whose realization is easier said than done. So the best minds of our generation are needed to approach these complex and delicate issues. The African writer Siyanda Mohutsiwa once made the following confession: “I am desperate to be surrounded by those who crave a life of the mind.” I agree. I might like to slightly alter the phrase, so that I can fully embrace and affirm it: “I am desperate to be surrounded by those who crave a life of the embodied mind.” Maybe, in the end, my me-being-engaged-in-all-these-posthuman-studies-discourses is not only related to me being occupied with all central challenges of our time, but also strongly connected to my own attempt to lead a fulfilled life.