how would a posthuman be?

what is posthumanism?

chestnut tree by beth moonchestnut tree by beth moon

the starting point i would propose is that there is no posthumanism — although there are those who claim otherwise* but really, it doesn’t matter — there are only some humans, collaboratively and collectively imagining what a posthuman being’ could be, would be, would do. that is where we are at.

humanism is a kind of default for the secular, it is almost as if it is interchangeable with it. it is ok not to believe in god but you ought to believe in something else, and why not the human — human potential, human growth, the essential goodness’ of the human, the inherent superiority of the human.

…i think therefore i am (…better, and infinitely more important, than non-humans)…”


how do we do this collaborative collective imagining?
one of the ways is through conversations.

how can we deconstruct the way we have conversations? how do we create a context, a space for conversations to unfold, so that they enable this collaborative collective imagining. how can we talk with each other in such a way that the conversations are less hierarchical, so that they allow silences, so that if someone wants to say something they can say it and take the time they need to say it and think it, and so that we can listen — and so someone has the possibility not to speak if they have nothing to say?


*for a quite digestible introduction to one of the leading posthumanist theorist’s work you could do worse than read dave shaw’s summary of rosi braidotti’s the posthuman part one and part two.


why would a posthumanist eat?