Paste your essay in here…ID: 6273478
GEOG 5PO1 -Theoretical Approaches to the Critical Examination of Geographical Issues
Topic: Critical paper on More than human geographies
Date: 15/11/2017
Instructor: Professor Catherine Nash
Introduction
The study of human-environment interactions in geography has gone through a bewildering series of theoretical, philosophical and methodological revolutions in the past years, ranging from the regional geography, regional science, quantitative-spatial science, radical-Marxist geography, structuralism, feminist geography to postmodern geography. As advocated by the humanistic geography where greater attention is given to humans and their consciousness in the analysis of geographical events, other scholars belonging to the more than human geographies questioned the rationality and the tenets of humanistic geography partly because of the supremacy and hegemony status accorded humans in the analysis of the geographic phenomenon. The advent of posthumanism to geography, though at the inception characterized by uncertainty, is worthy of consideration because it has opened and widened the discourse on nature and culture, and human and non- human binary, especially at the time that current developments in the field of science and technology portray that humans and non-humans are intertwined. Therefore, the grand and central role accorded to humans under humanistic perspective is far-fetched, culminating in more than human geographies or simple put posthumanism. The advent of posthumanism has rendered the duality of nature and culture, humans and non-humans (produced in the first place by knowledge production and later espoused, advocated and reinforced by humanism perspective) inaccurate in the 21st century.
Lorimer (2009) identifies four modalities through which posthumanism has been discussed. These modalities include the hyperbolic, apocalyptic, deconstructive, and vitalist posthumanisms but the spotlight will be on deconstructive and vitalist posthumanism in this paper. For this paper, I will begin with a brief explanation and overview of posthumanism/posthumanistic geography and how posthumanism has rendered the nature and culture, and human and non-human dualism is immaterial under posthumanistic perspective in the 21st century. A general background of deconstructive posthumanism and vitalist posthumanism will be outlined. The paper will conclude by assessing the similarities and the differences between these two modalities of posthumanism.
An overview of posthumanism/posthumanistic geography
Taking a glance look at the wording of posthumanism portray a sense of an aftermath of humanism. The wording of posthumanism, notwithstanding, Lorimer (2009) states that posthumanism as a term is characterized by ambiguities and the fate of uncertainties that befall postmodernism is the same fate that bedeviled posthumanism. Lorimer defines posthumanism as “populist diagnosis of a new era, a new mode of critical inquiry that defines itself in relation to humanism, and a working through of the latter’s critical tradition’ (p.344). This definition by Lorimer is insufficient because it does not entail so much than merely defining posthumanism in a relative relationship to humanism. A more useful and practical explanation on posthumanism is the idea that it’s out of place to suggest that humans’ position is privileged and unique among other beings, including non-humans. Challenging this centrality of humans’ position has been the focus of the posthumanist agenda in human geography; inspired and advocated by scholars including Bruno Latour and Donna Haraway (Latour, 2004 cited in Anderson, 2013). As succinctly echoed by Anderson, the critical goal of posthumanism is to challenge the deep-seated discourse of humanism that “separate and elevates the humans from the natural world” (Anderson, 2009, p.4). Castree and Nash cited in Anderson (2013) note that the term posthumanism has been used in two different ways: for historical analysis and for a theoretical framing in geography.
Having explained what posthumanism connotes, it is important to state that emergence of posthumanism into geography is characterized by skepticism and Lorimer identifies three main factors contributing to that uncertainty among geographers and social scientists. Whilst some have welcomed the new perspectives provided by posthumanism on the inseparability of humans and non-humans, others are worried about doing away with humanistic geography considering the explanations it provides. Lastly, other are much concerned about if humans have ever been human at all and why that theorizing in the first place (Lorimer, 2009). The next section illustrates why the dualism of nature-culture and human and non-human is rendered irrelevant under posthumanism.
How posthumanism perspective has rendered the nature and culture, and human and non-human divide immaterial in the 21st century
Nature and culture and humans and non-human dualism are first and foremost produced by the modern knowledge production and particularly echoed by the humanistic perspective where greater focus and attention is given to the humans over other beings. This intentional and unintentional act of duality created, I argue, has become immaterial with the appearance of the posthumanistic perspective.
First and foremost, with the current development in the field of biotechnology, the increased dependence on machines for various purposes, the multiplication of hybrid substances for diverse purposes, coupled with many more happenings in the contemporary times suggest that our life is interwoven with all manner of non-humans and it will be impossible to uniquely separate humans from non-humans (Anderson, 2013). The two entities are inseparable and based on this premise of inseparability between the humans and non-humans, nature and culture, it suffices to say that, though some of the arguments raised by the humanistic perspective are valid, the overarching supremacy accorded to humans and its consciousness over other non-humans are far-fetched and immaterial. As aptly put by Jones, “and somewhat understandably, humans tend to think of themselves and their societies as rather different to nature, and rather special” (2009, p.7) in the face of complement roles performed by both.
Secondly, the human and non-human and nature-culture dualism has become immaterial because as Latour states the dualism should not serve as a starting point for any kind of discussion or debate. He rather proposes that we should be concerned with “tackling the world of actualities – networks or assemblages which contain unique, complex and changing populations of people, organisms, things, substances and processes” (cited in Jones, 2009, p.15). Tackling the world of actualities as advocated for by Latour presupposes that instead of focusing on bodies as unique and in solitary state, our focus should be on how bodies are related, networked, and interrelated. With that, the divide created is diminished or eradicated.
Furthermore, the application of hybridity renders this old age dualism mute. One significant example is the Haraway’s cyborg, which is partly machine, woman, and animal (Jones, 2009). Taking up the cyborg example forwards, Jones argues that humans belong to that label of cyborg because we one way or the other use gadgets to assist us in our hearing, sights, and all manner of medical implants (2009). What of humans using an artificial vision system to regain sight after going blind? What of humans having an artificial robotic arm after an accident? These are real-life situations where humans and non-humans are made one entity. Therefore it will be preposterous to think that this human and non-human divide is relevant in the contemporary time. So, with the examples illustrated above, it will be out of place to assume that humans are separable from non-humans because the two are networked, connected and should be analyzed as whole in any discourse in the 21st century.
Having explained why the dualism in human and non-human and nature-culture is irrelevant, the subsequent section of this paper looks at two out of the four modalities of posthumanism; what each denotes, the similarities and the differences between the two.
Deconstructive posthumanism and Vitalist posthumanism
Deconstructive and Vitalist posthumanisms are two of the four modalities of posthumanism identified by Lorimer in his article titled ‘Posthumanism/Posthumanistic Geographies’. One might be wondering why I am concerned with these two to the abandonment of the other two (hyperbolic, apocalyptic) in this paper? That might be an interesting question to ask and the simple reason for focusing on these two is basically to assess how posthumanism has been discussed and debated in the social sciences and geography. As concisely echoed by Lorimer (2009), deconstructive and vitalist posthumanisms are the ways in which posthumanism has been “debated and developed in social theory and social science” (p. 245).
Deconstructive posthumanism is an amalgamation of poststructuralist, feminist, postcolonial, and scholars from the queer traditions with diverse philosophical underpinnings who come together to critique and review the "single figure of human and non-human at the heart of humanism and humanistic epistemology" (p.346). The preoccupation of the deconstructive posthumanism is to bring to the fore the inherent violence that is embedded in such an identity postulation of humans and non-human dualism. Notable scholars that inspired and influenced this strand of posthumanism include Foucault, Agamben, Derrida, and other scholars (Lorimer, 2009). The main argument of deconstructive posthumanism is that all subject positions are connected and in one way or the other influenced by the social matrix that one finds him or herself in. And believing that social matrix is a social construction, it will then differ from one geographical space to another. This will make it difficult to categorize all humans under one universal subjectivity as espoused by the humanistic perspective. This is echoed by Lorimer (2009) when he states that humanism advocated for the existence of a sense of universal human subjectivity and consciousness and it is that postulation that the deconstructive posthumanism has rejected.
Vitalist posthumanism on the other encompasses various philosophical orientations and philosophers, including the feminist theorist, non-representational theories, and more than human geographers who take inspirations from the deconstructive posthumanism but rather analyze humans’ well-being in a different ontology which Lorimer refers to as nonessentialist, vitalist ontology (Lorimer, 2009). Notable scholars who inspired this strand of posthumanism include Isabelle Stengers, Gilles Deleuze, Bruno Latour, and among other equally important scholars. The main argument of this strand of posthumanism especially from the work of Bruno Latour and his contemporaries is that, humans have never been modern and challenged the dualism perpetuated by the modernist dualisms accordingly and advocated that in the place of this dualism, a critical consideration should be given to the vital agencies of non-human technologies (Lorimer, 2009).
Similarities between Deconstructive posthumanism and Vitalist posthumanism
Both strands are composed of a series of philosophical underpinnings. One of the interesting commonality shared by the deconstructive and vitalist posthumanism is borne out of the fact that these two strands of posthumanism are composed of a series of scholars with different philosophical orientations. None relies on purely one philosophical perspective, but different perspectives and these also have an influence on how they see human and non-human dualism and nature and culture discourse in posthumanism. Whilst deconstructive posthumanism has philosophical underpinnings from feminist, postcolonial, and scholars from the queer traditions, their counterpart in the vitalist posthumanism also have their advocates coming from the philosophical tradition of the feminist theorist, non-representational theories, and more than human geographers.
Both strands have challenged the centrality roles placed on human and human consciousness over other beings. Both are not in conformity with the grand privilege accorded humans under the humanistic geography hence the emergence of this theorization. They are averse to the centrality position accorded humans and their consciousness over other beings. This aversion or challenge to the centrality of humans in geographical analysis as emphasized by humanistic geography is conspicuous when Latour states that “challenging the idea that humans occupy a separate and privileged place among other beings has been the central goal of a now familiar posthumanist agenda in geography” (cited in Anderson 2004, p.4).
The third similarities shared by the deconstructive and vitalist posthumanism is that both strands shared a similar epistemological perspective. They both shared a seemingly analogous epistemology and that is an epistemology that is grounded in situated knowledge and not the kind of epistemology advanced by the humanistic geography which is constructed on the solitary human subject (Lorimer, 2009). By situated knowledge, it denotes a knowledge that is explicit to a situation, hence not having universal applicability.
Differences between Deconstructive posthumanism and Vitalist posthumanism
Despite the commonalities between the deconstructive and vitalist humanisms discussed in the previous section, there are some differences that can be deciphered between these two strands. First and foremost, both strands differ from an ontological standpoint. Whilst vitalist posthumanism has a comprehensible ontology, the deconstructive posthumanism does not have one but rather are anti-ontological in their approach (Lorimer, 2009).
Secondly, the more than human geographies have contributed immensely to the discipline of geography by diversifying the methodology and methods employed by human geographers (Lorimer, 2009). This notwithstanding, the deconstructive posthumanism and vitalist posthumanism rely on different methods of analysis. Whilst the former relies on textual analysis with a focus on texts from historical and contemporary texts without leaving out films and broadcasts, the latter being inspired by the non-representational theorists are concerned with having a deeper understanding of lived experiences of the objects under research hence the adoption of ethnographic methods (Lorimer, 2009).
Conclusion
I began this paper by pointing to the philosophical, theoretical, and methodological metamorphism that has occurred in geography with an emphasis on posthumanism/posthumanistic geographies in the introduction. I proceeded with a general overview of posthumanism and how its emergence in geography is pigeon-holed by uncertainties. Using the happenings in the technological front, focusing on the world of actualities as advocated by Latour in the work of Jones (2009), and the application of hybridity to real-life problems, I argue that the human and non-human, and nature and culture dualism perpetuated by the knowledge production is rendered irrelevant by posthumanism in the 21st century. The paper also discussed the deconstructive and vitalist posthumanisms with focus on their commonalities and differences. The choice of these strands out of the four modalities identified by Lorimer (2009) is because, the deconstructive and vitalist posthumanisms account for the ways in which posthumanism is discussed, debated and elucidated in the social sciences of which the discipline of geography is part and parcel of.
References
Anderson, K. (2014). ‘Mind over matter? On decentring the human in human geography’. Cultural
Geographies 21(1): 3-18.
Jones, O. (2009). ‘Nature-Culture’. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 309-323
Lormier, J. (2009). ‘Posthumanism/Posthumanistic Geographies’. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 345-246.