当前位置: X-MOL 学术New Literary History › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
"Where Are You Taking Us?": A Response
New Literary History ( IF 0.8 ) Pub Date : 2021-02-11 , DOI: 10.1353/nlh.2020.0051
David T. Mitchell

Abstract:

The evolutionary drift of the concept of “the human” among transhumanists covers over the fact that white, masculine, capacitated, bourgeois identity continues to pass as universal at the expense of racialized subjects, sexual outliers, disabled people, and lower-class cast-offs from the age of colonialism. Black feminist materialists and disability posthumanists (neomaterialists) argue that the central transhumanist conceit of “the universe becoming conscious of itself” ironically avoids the problem of naturalizing biological essences rather than recognizing their beginnings in human autopoeisis (myths of origins that ground local and national identities). Unlike transhumanism, neomaterialism gives credence to the agency of bodies not as desirable/undesirable, but rather as agentive creative forces bringing about alternative ethical maps of becoming. The post-Darwinian concept of natural selection/dysselection avoids the question of social order and ideology as molding forces on ability, cognitive normativity, and racial stratification. Thus, the more transhumanism misrecognizes biology for discursive production, the less one is able to rewrite the terms of “the human” as a limiting, exclusionary discursive category at the base of racism, sexism, heteronormativity, and, I would add, ableism. This critical work on denaturalizing biocentric approaches intends to accelerate, to every degree possible, the failing project of “the human” as an exclusionary relic of liberal humanism. Transhumanism’s arguments are fully “biocentric,” and thus stand exposed at their eugenicist foundations as attempting to direct dynamic “becoming” for humans and nonhuman animals alike with exterminatory results.



中文翻译:

“您要带我们去哪里?”:回应

摘要:

超人主义者之间“人类”概念的进化漂移涵盖了以下事实:白人,男性化,有能力的资产阶级身份继续普遍存在,以牺牲种族主体,性离群外人,残疾人和低下阶层的人为代价。从殖民主义时代开始。黑人女权主义唯物主义者和残疾后人类主义者(新物质主义者)认为,“超宇宙”的中央超人类主义自负讽刺地避免了生物本质的自然化问题,而不是承认其在人类自立思想中的起源(起源于地方和民族身份的起源神话)。 )。与超人类主义不同,新物质主义赋予了人们不希望的/不希望的身体机构以信任,而是作为创造力的替代力量,带来了替代性的道德规范。后达尔文主义的自然选择/反选择的概念避免了社会秩序和意识形态问题,因为它是对能力,认知规范和种族分层的塑造力量。因此,超人类主义对误解性生产的生物学误解越多,就越难以种族主义,性别歧视,异性主义和(我会补充)能力主义为基础,将“人类”这一术语改写为一种限制性的排他性话语范畴。这项以生物为中心的方法退化的重要工作旨在尽可能地加快失败的“人”计划的失败,该计划是自由人文主义的排他性遗迹。超人类主义的论点完全是“以生物为中心的,

更新日期:2021-03-16
down
wechat
bug