By no means do I consider myself an expert on posthumanism. In fact, I was introduced to the very concept a few months ago. However, I see posthumanism – and especially its critical strand, which is the main focus of Nayar’s book – as a productive possibility. Its productivity seems to lie in the keenness of critical posthumanists to look at the human as yet another social construct. This perspective, in turn, allows engaging with the qualities that are usually viewed as constitutive of humanity (such as rationality, independence, superiority over other life forms, etc.) and inspect them closely. Such an inspection led Nayar to question the uniqueness and self-containment of human as a species and propose a different perspective on our place and role in the world. He views:
the human as co-evolving, sharing ecosystems, life processes, genetic material, with animals and other life forms; and
technology not as a mere prosthesis to human identity but as integral to it. (8)
This very quote resonates through Posthumanism’s seven chapters (including the conclusion). Chapter One posits humanism – along with its exclusionary practices of categorising living beings into groups (e.g. humans, animals, plants) and making up hierarchies – as white man’s invention. An invention whose prime purpose is to sanction the objectification and abuse of those deemed less important or worthy than the ideal, but fictitious, subject of humanism. Chapter Two argues that human is both constantly responding to and reliant on his or her environment. Even such a phenomenon as consciousness that has conventionally been assumed to reside within the brain is currently presented as embodied, or distributed. After all, notes Nayar, consciousness relies on the data collected by different sensory organs. The argument of reliance is illustrated by the example of the mitochondrion – now an important part of any eukaryotic cell, which started off as a free-living bacterium.
Chapter Three is concerned with the ways in which the relatively recent developments in both the body of knowledge and cultural imagination have altered the ways in which we understand human body. The former relates to, for example, the popularisation of organic transplants and establishing the role of DNA in determining the characteristics of every living creature. The latter, can be exemplified by cyborgs who contribute significantly to falsifying the human – machine distinction. This issue is especially interesting because of the vast possibilities of imagining the cyborg. By the very term, the author of Posthumanism means both an android (i.e. a pre-programmed machine resembling the human) and a person who is able to complete their job thanks to comprehensive assistive technologies, such as the main protagonist of The Bone Collector (see Deaver Citation1997). Elsewhere, Nayar draws on the technoscience studies perspective in arguing that humans as a species have been cyborgs from the moment they first used a tool (20–21).
Chapter Four explores the inputs of animal studies and monster studies to the body of posthumanist thought. In short, monster studies are useful in exploring how certain groups of people (e.g. the physically impaired, disfigured, mad, but also ethnically or religiously other) are rendered monstrous to justify the unjust – at best – or atrocious, at worst, treatment they receive. Monster studies also make us wary of symbolic meanings of monstrosity. Animal studies, in turn, question the human’s anthropocentrism and the criteria that have served for deeming animals inferior to humans (87–88).
Chapter Five is a decent account of the argument put forward by scholars in the fields of disability studies and bioethics. Nayar recognises disability as a social phenomenon, which is not surprising as it fits well with social constructionism, that seems to underlie posthumanism. He refers to the classic works of Goffman and Hunt, as well as the more recent pieces by Garland-Thompson, Mitchell and Snyder, Thomas and by other authors who have been writing about disability. Bioethics, in turn, is important because it raises queries around the nature of personhood, especially in relation to the humanity of patients in a persistent vegetative state, as well as clones and other engineered organisms.
By this brief survey in the paragraphs above, I wish to show that the author of the reviewed book approaches his subject from a range of different perspectives. This makes Posthumanism a highly informative and thought-provoking read. The book made me reflect on my youthful exaltation over identifying as a humanist during my secondary school years. Ever since I started to locate my educational endeavours within the framework of disability studies and realised that the glorious human of humanism has been constructed upon exclusion, I have been keen to find a new identity to assume. Posthumanism, explained to me thoroughly by Nayar, seems to be a good candidate for my new identity.
The process of reflecting upon the concepts contained in the monograph was further facilitated by the fact that Nayar traces the elements of posthumanism in a variety of pop/cultural sources, such as films and novels. Probably the most frequently mentioned cultural source in Posthumanism is Octavia Butler’s (Citation2005) Fledgling. Telling the story of Shori, a vampire developing a symbiotic relationship with a human, it appears to be a perfect illustration of posthumanist humans and their relationship with other organisms and entities. However, Nayar also cites other works of fiction such as Michael Bay’s (Citation2007) Transformers, the aforementioned The Bone Collector, and many more.
The usual concluding paragraph of a scholarly book review aims at answering a single, yet crucial question: would I recommend the book? I have taken the liberty to ask myself a slightly different question, along the lines of who would I recommend the book to? If you are disappointed with or tired of the socially constructed hegemony of the human and of people claiming that the status quo is only natural or normal, Posthumanism will provide plenty of arguments to counter those claims. Although Braidotti (Citation2013, 1) rightfully points out that posthumanism is at risk of being deemed another fashionable post-something forged in academia, if further works around the topic be of such quality as Nayar’s book then I am positive about the future of this school of thought.
School of Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
[email protected]
© 2014, Marek Mackiewicz
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.934059
References
- Bay, M. (Director). 2007. Transformers. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures.
- Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Butler, O. E. 2005. Fledgling. New York: Seven Stories Press.
- Deaver, J. 1997. The Bone Collector. London: Hodder & Stoughton.