Super summary here Renée,
The DeBaets paper looks great, thanks for sharing that, it’s now on my reading list! Transhumanism, for me, trends to inherit something of the Eurocentric humanism that has privileged a particular model of human being (white, male, rational), and assumed this to be an underlying authentic kind of universalism. From that position, ‘enhancement’ through technological means is rather specific, and limited, and directed towards particular ideas around cognition, and reason.
So, it is great to see you reflecting on some of the ethical issues surfaced in ‘cybercultures’. The normalising of particular human conditions seems to be apparent here doesn’t it? certainly, that would be one productive way of analysing the film clips we have viewed. If you can get hold of Braidotti’s book ‘The Postman’ (http://ift.tt/2kGHEUi), that provides some good critical post humanist perspectives in this area.
Following Helen, I liked your final point her about asking questions about the ‘purpose’ of using technology. This reflect Bayne’s point about the commitments and values we have for teaching, I think, and how we might bring these to bear own our decisions about technology use.
Coming back to the politics of Transhumanism – for which I really need to read that paper! – there is something to be said here for ‘taking a position’ in relation to humanism. This is precisely where critical posthumanism differs from anti-humanism: it’s not necessarily a rejection of all those Eurocentric, essentialist ideas, but rather an opportunity to (re)evaluate them. That, to me, sounds like an ethical way of working with the theory.
Well, lots to make me think here, thank you! Now, must get on to reading your analysis of Ghost in the Shell, sounds interesting!
from Comments for Renée’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jL8tYQ