From: Brian Manning Delaney (b-delaney@uchicago.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 07 1999 - 01:46:05 MDT
I recently had another "What's the Hell's up with this 'post-humanism'
business?!" discussion with some friends of mine who are academics in the
humanities. Many of them are technophobes, or simply unimaginative when it comes
to the possibilities of human transformation. But their objections to the term
"post-humanism" I share. I'm curious what others on this list think about the
following.
(It's still not clear to me if the "post-" governs "human," with the "-ism"
tacked on to make the substantive, or whether it governs "humanism." What I'm
saying here applies to both, but more strongly if "post-humanism" is the
latter.)
The operative notion of humanism in post-humanism seems to me possibly
historically blind; and the notion of the human itself seems to me impoverished
and biologically essentialist.
This is a very long story, but, as I see it, in brief: humanism, even in its
early forms (Erasmus, etc.), already includes the idea of self-transformation,
indeed, of self-transcendence. To be post-human, then, would be to be complete,
in the way a god is complete. To use the classical terms in which this would
often be discussed: it would be to have achieved perfection, to be a finished
product, to be past the need for self-transformation. This is an unattainable
goal.
We can leave aside the beliefs associated with traditional humanism, and
consider what the human itself is. Even many centuries ago, people transformed
themselves physically. Someone living millennia ago with false teeth is still
human. Someone in the 14th century with a peg leg is still human.
Would people who call themselves post-humanists disagree with this? I assume
not. So then is it that a post-human would have to be someone with a particular
_degree_ of physical transformation? What degree is necessary? How does a
quantitative difference get turned into an _essential_, or _categorical_
difference? In a hundred years I may be a file cabinet-sized hunk of metal with
an IQ of 50,000, but to argue that such a difference with what I am now means
that I won't be human is, I contend, to engage in almost a kind of fetishism, a
fetishism of the non-carbon.
I raise this terminological objection not simply in the interest of accuracy,
but also because of a need to "de-fringize" life-extension and related efforts.
If those who champion the goal of radical physical self-transformation are seen
as wide-eyed, historically ignorant technophiles (as, alas, many of us are
indeed seen -- certainly among academics in the humanities), it will make it
more difficult to soften what is still a very strong resistance to radical
self-transformative ideas. "Screw 'em!", one might be tempted to say. But that
might not be, in the end, productive. And, more importantly, on this one
terminological point, I think the traditional humanists are correct.
I've raised these issues with a couple of people who (I believe) would call
themselves "post-humanists." Max More made the sensible point that one of the
reasons for the need for a new term was simply to "stress things that most
humanists do not show much interest in." I agree. So the question is: what new
term is the best one, if "post-humanism" (along with "trans-humanism," though
for slightly different reasons) won't work?
The ones I suggested were: "telo-humanism" and "ultra-humanism." Some others
that have occurred to me in more recent discussions are: "preter-humanism,"
"super-humanism," and "neo-humanism." "Super-humanism" sounds a bit too
Nietzschean, which, for the de-fringizing effort, wouldn't be helpful.
"Telo-humanism" and "preter-humanism" sound too ugly. "Ultra-humanism" has the
nicest ring to it, but it's only the contemporary usage of "ultra-" that would
make this term work. The most common older meaning, "beyond," would recreate the
post-humanism problem (though it's often "beyond" in the sense of "beyond the
norm," which would be on target). "Neo-humanism" doesn't feel strong enough, but
it captures the connection to humanism, yet stresses that it's responding to the
needs of a new era (as "neo-Kantianism" was true to Kantianism, but responded to
the insights of social theory).
Anyway, just a few late night thoughts -- any contentiousness is apparent only.
Best wishes,
Brian.
-- Brian Manning Delaney SANCTUS JANUARIUS. For the new year. -- I still live, I still think: I still have to live, for I still have to think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. -Nietzsche.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:41 MST