For me, the notion of the posthuman first surfaced as a continuation of Haraway’s cyborg figure: a move away from hybridity towards exchange 21 www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imagination.
67
and collaboration. However, as mentioned in section 2.3.2, in the course of this project, the genealogical link with the cyborg was, if not replaced, at least weakened in the face of the multi-faceted theoretical landscape of the posthuman. Today, the posthuman is an umbrella term for confronting established categories of ontology, identity and agency, and questioning the supremacy of the human. On the one hand, the posthuman challenges conventional knowledge (and knowledge production) about the human or ‘human nature’ in light of late modern advances in medical science and technology (Halberstam and Livingston 1995; Haraway 1991; Hayles 1999; Tofoletti 2007). In line with this, this thesis invokes the posthuman as a material and techno-biological expression of how the category of the ‘human’ is a contested and changeable identity or ontology in late modern society. Here, the legacy of the cyborg is still present. On the other hand, the overarching critique of the human entails a confrontation with Humanism as an ideological and scientific position based on Enlightenment traditions, and with a clear-cut division between subject/agency/accountability and object/passivity/incomprehensibility (Barad 2007; Braidotti 2013; Coole and Frost 2010)22. Importantly, the notion of accountability is here
interconnected with political and ethical principles such as legitimacy, authenticity and normalcy for both humans and non-humans (Shildrick 2005; MacCormack 2012). In my work, I deploy this latter view of the posthuman as a contemporary political, ethical and ideological condition
22 To illustrate the ideological implications of such a divide, I did a quick search of the online Oxford dictionary to find synonyms for the word ‘unaccountable’. As it turned out, they are numerous: inexplicable, unexplainable, insoluble, unsolvable, incomprehensible, beyond comprehension, beyond understanding, unfathomable, impenetrable, puzzling, perplexing, baffling, bewildering, mystifying, mysterious, arcane, inscrutable, peculiar, unusual, curious, strange, freak, freakish, unparalleled, queer, odd, bizarre, extraordinary, astonishing, obscure, abstruse, enigmatic. For more synonyms, see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-
thesaurus/unaccountable.
68
caused by contested and therefore potentially unpredictable, parameters for defining the boundaries of the human.
Although it is possible to establish common overarching concerns that bind together the field of the posthuman, it is more difficult to call it a discipline. In a sense it could be called post-disciplinary because it is hard to trace its roots (see Balsamo 1991), but its postdisciplinarity can also be considered as part of the confrontation with conventional disciplines: it is beyond discipline (Lykke 2010a: 14–15). For Lykke, this postdisciplinarity is interconnected with feminist de/construction as a mode of analysing and organising knowledge production. In this respect, my situatedness in the field of the posthuman can be traced back to the feminist critique of knowledge production, what Lykke calls an (anti)epistemological stance (ibid: 134), due to its confrontation with the definitions of knowledge itself. However, my own ‘turn’ to the posthuman also followed as a continuation of my interest in feminist thinking about the interconnections between science and technology, and about body and power.
As the notion of the posthuman developed during the late 1990s, this field became a major influence in (re)articulating these interconnections as exchange rather than merely connections or entanglements. This focus on exchange is also what inspired me to “move from cyborg ontology to the figure of the posthuman”, as I write in “The shape of things to come?” (13). I explain this move as necessary in order to grasp both the material and contextual conditions for a reconceptualisation of the relationality between the human and the non-human. Having said that, the posthuman turn is equally considered to have grown out of theoretical fields such as STS, animal studies, philosophy, ethics, ecology, environmental studies, physics and biology. Here, it is important to note that certain branches of the field of the posthuman distance themselves from feminist cultural studies due to what is considered to be a disproportionate focus on questions of signification, discourse and representation (Barad 2007; Alaimo and Hekman 2008; Hekman 2010).
These investigations into the relevance of discourse and text as analytical angles are ongoing debates within the field of the posthuman. For my work with fiction, this overall critique of the legacy of feminist cultural studies and of SLS has sometimes, admittedly, caused a feeling of out- datedness. The “why science fiction?” question becomes particularly acute when the follow-up question is “why not ‘real’ (as in material and existing) robots?” One comfort, perhaps fuelled by stubbornness, has been my situatedness in Haraway’s work, and my own analytical efforts to bridge the binaries between fact and fiction, the real and the imaginary, as mutually supporting categorisations with which to think. Another is Lykke’s efforts to include the genealogies of feminist thought in what she calls post-constructionism (2010a; 2010b). The notion of post- constructionism is an attempt to move beyond de/construction as being mainly about discourse, and to include its interconnections with bodily materiality. Lykke suggests that post-constructionism refers to “a diverse tendency to transgress postmodern feminist (anti-)epistemological stances” (2010a: 134), one which encompasses both discursive (textual) and material approaches. I would also add social and cultural (contextual) approaches to this post-constructionist mode of analysis. In my articles, I have not identified my position as post-constructionist, but, reflecting upon the subject in this overview document, my concern with the gulf between text and context fits rather well in this conceptual framework.
A third influence who pinpoints the necessity of socio-cultural and ideological context is Rosi Braidotti (2013). In her latest work, she tries to situate the posthuman both as a multiple field and as a condition in late modernity. For her, the posthuman serves as a political and ethical figuration that can help to reinvigorate the declining Humanities rather than dismiss them. Although she, too, critiques the human-centeredness and discursive approaches of Humanist sciences, she calls for an acknowledgement of the posthuman turn as a way of confronting and developing the human-ities, i.e. that of the human. Such a rebooting of
conventional Humanities, Braidotti argues, requires a radical re- engagement with the power relations at stake for the category of the human in a posthuman age, and its interactions with non-human entities, be it animals, machines or the weather. Notably, Braidotti appeals for conceptual creativity (2013: 164–167) in order to avoid categorical practices of signification that maintain hierarchical and binary structures. Importantly, embedded in this approach there is also an incentive to bridge the clear-cut divisions between the Humanities and the Natural Sciences, much like the field of SLS. This discussion about the relationality between text and context in the posthuman turn and in my work continues in section 3.2.
The crucial influence of the posthuman on my work is, as Braidotti’s posthuman condition describes, the necessity for an ontological reorientation: a turn from an anthropocentric worldview towards the ethical and political relations possible in a world of multiplicity, exchange, collaboration yet also one of violence and loss. In my articles, the notion of an ontological reorientation has been inspiring as a productive force for rethinking ontological categorisation. This is also what has led me to a more in-depth analysis of the ethical and political implications of selfhood, authenticity and legitimacy, and the power relations at stake. Admittedly, the field of the posthuman is the most unstable location for my analysis. I do not mean this in the sense that I am unsure about whether this is a useful theoretical field, but because the posthuman turn is a work in progress. This entails a fair amount of new terminology and a constructive but also confusing lack of synchronicity when it comes to analytical approaches, and theoretical engagement. This sense of instability, however, also gives a sense of agency: it is possible to contribute to chart the terrain for the posthuman turn precisely because it is not ‘fixed’. In the following, I clarify my own position within and across my fields of interest.