Date: 	Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:04:21 -0500
From: Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Cyberfeminism with a difference


Judith writes n' responds:

> > 1.  Do images of cyber-humans, technologically grafted and 
> > maintained, avoid anti-humanist implications?  Why is the 
> > surreal image of a cyberfeminist or cyborg more illuminating than the 
> > reality of concrete human beings?
> 
> I think Braidotti's reply (and this is something I would affirm, too) 
> would be that when the "human" body loses its self-evident "identity"--
> when, that is, it becomes radically uncertain whether bodies are "naturally" 
> given or technologically constructed, or (as is becoming increasingly 
> likely) a combination of the two--it is no longer possible to maintain 
> enlightenment humanist assumptions that discrete, autonomous bodies house 
> discrete, autonomous subjects. Which is to say, I think, that thinking of 
> bodies as techno-biological collages undermines the foundations of 
> humanism--although, granted, it may take us a while to see this being 
> worked out on the level of popular understandings of what humanism is about.

The problematic construction of identity is created by a polarization of nature and 
technology and humanism.  Once we regard technology as a natural phenomenon 
and humans as natural beings then the problem does not appear in the same light. 
 Humanism is undermined only when conceived of as something outside of nature - 
which seems to me to be a very unhumanistic idea (i'm thinking here of 
horkheimer's and adorno's allegorical reading of odysseus).

> > 4.  Braidotti writes: "I don't mind not having a single shred of 
> > discursive coherence to rest upon."  [...] How 
> > does "not having a single shred" possibly offer any basis for 
> > resistance?!?  No subject, no communication, no coherence, no life.
> 
> I would guess it would be Braidotti's hope (at least in the context of 
> this essay) that resistance is no longer a helpful way of thinking about 
> political action, that it is too trapped in a reactive, victim-oriented 
> thinking that absolutely _is_ "captured in the dialectic of modern 
> thought"--and that what is needed is a way _out of_ the binary, 
> oppositional structure of dialectics.

Without a concept of resistance we lose out on the idea of freedom as well.  This 
kind of approach plays directly into positivism.  Without a dialectical approach 
everything, and i do mean everything, is assimilated in a one-dimensional manner, 
ie. positivistically - in effect negating the idea of enlightenment itself in favour of 
polytheism or pantheism.  The "victim-oriented thinking" is also one-dimensional 
since it denies the ambiguity of human life as we concretely encounter it.

> > 6.  Braidotti writes: "I see postmodernity... as the threshold of new 
> > and important re-locations for cultural practice."  What are the 
> > imperialistic implications of privileging the imperatives post-human 
> > culture (which by definition is also trans-human) over and against the 
> > humanist ideals  of the enlightenment?  How helpful is it - on a 
> > practical level?  What insights into communication, democracy, 
> > anarchism, or whatever are gained?
> 
> This is a tough one. My own response would probably run along these 
> lines: Imperialism needs humanism to sustain itself, in spite of the fact 
> that its "ethics" seems to run counter to many of the moral values that 
> humanism claims to embrace. So a post-humanist thought would undermine 
> the foundations of imperialism (just as post-human, cyborg bodies 
> undermine the foundations of humanism itself). [Although as I write this 
> I hear one of my marxist friends whispering in my ear, saying that 
> imperialists are delighted that the European and American intelligentsia 
> are amusing themselves talking about cyborgs and other such sci-fi 
> nonsense, rather than forming alliances with the workers from their own 
> and "third-world" cultures in order to overthrow the system that exploits 
> them all, if differently.] And it may be impossible at this point to say 
> what insights post-humanism will offer to discussions of "democracy, 
> communication, anarchism, etc." because the emergence of post-humanist 
> thought may very well render those categories unintelligible, at least on 
> the terms of our current humanist understandings of them.

I must admit even the word "post-human" scares me.  What imperialism needs is 
instrumental reason to win the day.  Humans participate in imperial discourses and 
participate in colonialization - however if we elucidate the narrow conception of 
reason itself a work here - again, the problem appears in a different light.  the 
potential of a post-human conceptual apparatus to undermine colonization and 
oppression seems too much like a gamble....  (mimicing the recent advance of 
casino gambling that is now the front-runner of federal get rich quick schemes).  
Many of the transnationals around would love to dispense with the idea of 
democracy - it interferes with business - as does communication and anarchism.   I 
think it is extremely important to see exactly how discourses are appropriated and 
assimilated into capitalist markets - the jump to post-humanism, it seems to me, 
carries with it a naive understanding of the tremendous capacity of the political 
economy to adapt and destroy.  IBM would love to entertain the idea of a 
post-human - cyborg world.  They stand to make the most money.  And to hell with 
the factories and the third world - they want video game addicts, web pages, and 
long distance phone calls.  For all they care those who do not buy do not exist - no 
matter what jargon is currently in vogue. 

peace and tenderness,
ken




     --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---