Summary of Rosi Braidotti’s The Posthuman (Part 4)
Chapter 4
Posthuman Humanities: Life beyond Theory
The project for the final chapter is a discussion of the impact of posthuman theory on the Humanities. Braidotti begins by pointing out that traditionally the Humanities have functioned under the assumption that the “human” subject is the Vitruvian ideal: “It is the image of Man as a rational animal endowed with language” (143). Braidotti points out that this positioning of Man at the centre is unfairly anthropocentric, and as such, serves to fuel Europe’s self-centred pursuit of its own interests, potentially to the detriment of those it deems to be “others” (ranging from women and non-europeans to non-human animals and the earth itself). Braidotti points to the relatively recent development of critical disciplines that have identified and worked to dismantle this dynamic, including feminism, post-colonialism, and cultural studies. She points out that the increasingly disparate schools of criticism pose challenges for the organization of universities, such that what is needed is “methodological innovations, such as a critical genealogical approach that by-passes the mere rhetoric of the crisis” (144). The new challenge, for critical discourse, is not only the deconstruction of the subject, but, crucially, a reassembling of the planet that accounts for the forging of non-unitary identities and multiple allegiances that will allow us to move toward positive change. The Humanities, then, are faced with the challenge of incorporating this new worldview, in which “The Human” hangs unsupported by the increasingly distant anthropocentric canon. Braidotti is hopeful: “[f]ar from being a terminal crisis, however, this challenge opens up new global, eco-sophical dimensions” (145). The recent expansion of fields like Animal Studies and ecocriticism speak to the power of scholarship to push through into the new post-anthropocentric humanities, and help craft an ethical and critical framework fitting our posthuman age.
Braidotti then traces the genealogy of the crisis of the Humanities, starting with the “culture war” of the 1950s, during which the post-structuralists were attacked by the science community: Scientists “have encouraged the by-now familiar reaction of dismissal of the Humanities through the intellectually lazy charge of moral and cognitive relativism” (151). Braidotti notes that, in spite of these attacks, it is important to acknowledge the contributions made by the post-structuralists toward a reinvigoration of the humanities. Foucault’s declaration of the decline of Man is not a “manifesto for relativism”, but rather, a necessary reexamination of the increasingly problematic understanding of anthropos. With this in mind, Braidotti points out that the science community’s reaction to the post-structuralists is “to mistake the messenger for the message” (151). As the previous chapters have made clear, the insularity of the methodological approaches for both Western humanities and sciences does need to be examined and the institutionalized practices of Euro- and anthropocentrism need to be accounted for. As we move into the 21st century, the Humanities have a responsibility to spring forth from their defensive stance and work towards a rigorous and comprehensive posthuman apparatus for both science and humanities research, and in doing so, shift focus toward “planetary intellectual challenges” (153).
Braidotti then suggests ways in which the Science and Humanities communities can work together, by locating areas of overlap. She compiles a short overview of recent interdisciplinary work (projects like Stephen Gould and Rosamond Purcell’s dialogue between science and art through a “sophisticated interplay of images and scientific information” (154), or Sarah Franklin’s “path-breaking work on Dolly the sheep” (155)) and suggests that such an “embarrassment of riches” is indicative not of a crisis of the Humanities, but rather, an expression of the renewed vitality of the field. She notes that a unifying feature of these interdisciplinary projects is that they are epistemologically grounded, such that the methodologies and apparatuses can be clearly defined. In this way, we can see the influence of the science community as well as the poststructuralist problematization of a default frame of reference. What has emerged is a vast degree of variation between epistemologies, such that the human sciences have become increasingly disparate and dis-unified. Crucially, this dis-unity points to “overabundance, not lack” (156). Braidotti points to “matter-realist” thinkers like Karan Barad who, in Braidotti’s view, perfectly symbolize the rich theoretical insight that the humanities have to offer the science community. Barad’s Agential Realism is an epistemological framework that builds on recent scientific developments in the field of quantum mechanics, providing a practical interpretation of the impact of science on ethics. That is to say, the role of the Humanities, for Barad, is to push scientific insight toward their logical practical conclusion. If matter is essentially one infinite substance (which science claims it is), then agential realism follows as a rational epistemology for understanding agency.
With these transdisciplinary models in mind, Braidotti outlines the “golden rules” of her posthuman theory: “cartography accuracy, with the corollary of ethical accountability; trans-disciplinarity; the importance of combining critique with creative configurations; the principle of non-linearity; the powers of memory and the imagination and the strategy of defamiliarization” (163). These guidelines, Braidotti asserts, are designed primarily to encourage a relationship of mutual respect between the humanities and the life sciences. Several of these terms have already been explored at length in previous chapters, but Braidotti provides further explanation of some key aspects: By “cartography”, she means a “theoretically based and politically informed reading of the present” (164). Cartography accuracy refers to a scholarly awareness of one’s place within a system of power. By explicitly acknowledging one’s situatedness within a given power system, one can effectively qualify any knowledge practices and productively avoid assuming one’s own position as a default.
She provides a similar clarification of her usage of “non-linearity”, suggesting that “it would be self-defeating for the Humanities to stick to the traditional rule of visualization by automatically adapting linear thinking” (164). Because many of the challenges of the posthuman era are complex and poly-centred, our theoretical framework should be similarly poly-centred. That is to say, we should approach these problems on their own terms. This logic of non-linearity should also be applied to scholarship, as linear modes come to be replaced by a more rhizomatic styles of thought, the ‘truth’ of a text comes to be located in the lines of interaction that connect it to paratextual “outsides”, as opposed to “the authority of a proper noun, a signature, a tradition, a canon, or the prestige of an academic discipline” (165). This notion has important implications for the practice of criticism, as citations can be understood not as “flat repetitions”, but rather iterations of the “affective charges of texts as events” (166). That is to say, the practice of citation is not only the restating of an idea, but rather, the invocation of a separate cartography. It is, as Braidotti evocatively describes, “a relay point between different moments in space and time” (166).
With this complex networking of time in mind, she turns to a discussion of the role of memory in her posthuman theory. According to Braidotti, memory is “the active reinvention of a self that is joyfully discontinuous, as opposed to being mournfully consistent” (167). That is to say, memory is the fluid context that positions the perspective of the subject in space and time. Because memory is not inherently tethered to any objective reality, it can (re)construct the individual perspective through discursive practices. The subjective perspective is not the result of a linear stack of memories, but rather, a position constructed through an inherently imperfect narrative of recollected experiences plus their affective metadata. In this way, the possibility for change is opened, as individuals are no longer tethered to any kind of hard-coded or irrefutable point of reference, but rather, can interpret memories differently given a new set of discursive tools.
Braidotti then turns to examine the effect of this theoretical framework on how we understand the Humanities. She points out that, in the posthuman era, it is crucial that the Humanities not be constrained to discussions of “The Human” or “Man”, arguing that “the Humanities need to embrace the multiple opportunities offered by the posthuman condition” (172). As much of this book has demonstrated, critical theory is uniquely well-equipped for this task, with a vast archive of methodologies and theory to develop compelling and novel approaches for dealing with the increasingly complex and dynamic issues of the post-anthropocentric era. For this reason, Braidotti advocates an institutional push on behalf of the Humanities to participate more actively in real world problems, stating: “[t]he epistemic and the ethical walk hand in hand into the complicated landscapes of the third millennium” (178). Braidotti points out that since the 1960s and the rise of consumer capitalism, universities have increasingly become corporate institutions, in which the “hard sciences” work to create better products for consumers and the “soft sciences” “dispersed their foundational value to become a sort of luxury intellectual consumer good” (178). What is needed is a new kind of university (or rather, “Multi-versity”) that fits the dynamic posthuman predicament: concepts like open source, open governance, and open data will become central tenets of the new university, as the increasingly interconnected global community is accommodated with access and participation. Knowledge should be understood not as a commodity but as a process that you, as a member of a global community, have a right and responsibility to participate in.
