29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus

http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 1/14

rhizomes.07fall2003
What'sWrongWithPosthumanism?
StefanHerbrechterandIvanCallus
[a]Theoryhasalwaysbeenawareofitsother(s).Itcouldscarcelyhavebeenotherwise.Theory'sownsustainedandvariegatedconcernwiththe
natureandstructureofalterity,[1]theunignorablerealitiesoftheinstitutionalandinterdisciplinary"resistancetotheory,"[2]anddissensionwithin
theory'sconceptualitiesandconstituencieshaveallcontributedtoothernessbeingconstitutiveoftheory.[3]Onemightevenwanttohazardthekind
ofprovocationwhichwouldsay,inthetraditionofstatementslike"deconstructionisjustice,"[4]"theoryisotherness."TospeakofTheory'sOthers,as
thiscollectionofRhizomesinvitesustodo,isthereforepotentiallytospeakofeverythingwithinandwithouttheory:toincludeeverythingandexclude
nothingaccordingtoalogicofsuchcapaciouscomprehensivenessthatdifferencesbetweentheproperandtheotherbecomealmostobscured.Hence
forthesakeofrigor,iffornothingelse,anarrowingfocusmustbeselectedhere.Andideallyitwouldbeonethatcouldallegorizethegeneralrelation
betweentheoryandotherness.
[b]AccordinglyweshouldliketotakeasourcuethefactthatthetitleTheory'sOthersmightencourageperceivingtheoryintermsofsome
characterizableunivocitythatmightbeindividuatinglyothertosomethingelse.Inverypracticalterms,oneimplicationofthatwouldbethattheory
standsinanapprehensiblydistinctiverelationtodiversedisciplinaryandnotionalpracticeswithintheuniversity.Suchaconceptionrisksoverlooking
theextenttowhichtheoryhasbeenshapedbyaremarkabletendencytowardsmiscellaneity.Derridaacknowledgesthiswhenspeakingoftheoryas
"anoriginalarticulationofliterarycriticism,philosophy,linguistics,psychoanalysis,andsoforth."[5]Thesuggestionisthattheorydependsmoreonan
aggregationratherthanaharmonizationofconstituentdiscourses.
[c]Thattheoryisalwaysalreadyanencounterofalterities,withminimaldesireforanycoalescenceofdisciplineformingandintegralizingperspectives
andprotocols,isconfirmedbyJonathanCullerintheopeningtohisaccessiblebutnonethelessshrewdintroductiontotheory.Cullerspeaksoftheory
asa"miscellaneousgenre,"madeupof"anunboundedgroupofwritingsabouteverythingunderthesun,"andextending(inalistfarmore
miscellaneousthanDerrida's)to"worksofanthropology,arthistory,filmstudies,genderstudies,linguistics,philosophy,politicaltheory,
psychoanalysis,sciencestudies,socialandintellectualhistory,andsociology."Hegoesontosuggestthattheoryinternalizesalteritythroughthefact
thatit"hascometodesignateworksthatsucceedinchallengingandreorientingfieldsotherthanthosetowhichtheyapparentlybelong."
Consequently"theworksinquestionbecome'theory'becausetheirvisionsorargumentshavebeensuggestiveorproductiveforpeoplewhoarenot
studyingthesedisciplines."[6]Onthatbasistheorycannothelpitselfbeingalwaysalreadyotherandthatbecauseofaquasifoundationalrelation
betweentheory'smiscellaneityanditsvery(e)strange(ing)affiliatednesscumothernesstodiversedisciplinaryintegralities.
[d]OneresultofwhatCullerdrawsattentiontoissurelythatotherdisciplineswillnotbeabletorecognize(inallthesensesofthisterm)theory.To
themtheoryrendersotherthatwhichshouldbefamiliar.Ofcourse,thisnonrecognitionofwhatmighthavebeenpropercanleadtoallsortsof
interdisciplinarytensions.Itisthereforesignificantthat,ontherareoccasionswhenthedifferent"denominations"oftheoryhavetendedtoputupa
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 2/14
unitedfront,thishastendedtohappenwhentheorywasbeingattackedfromthe"outside."AgoodexampleisthenotoriousSokalaffair.Thatpolemic
wasimportantbecauseitcametoovershadowtheory'snatureasmiscellany.Whatwastargetedwastheory'stendencytodistortwhatitborrows.[7]
Sokal'sattack,itwillberecalled,wasintendedtodemonstratethatmuchwithintheory,especiallywhenseekingengagementwithscientificconcepts,
ischaracterizedby"meaninglessorabsurdstatements,namedroppingandthedisplayoffalseerudition,"aswellas"sloppythinking,""bad
philosophy,"and"glibrelativism."[8]AnumberoffiguresinthetheoreticalcanonJacquesLacan,JuliaKristeva,LuceIrigaray,andJeanBaudrillard,
forinstanceweresingledoutforsomeveryspecificrubbishing.[9]Whateverone'sopiniononthejustifiabilityofthoseattacksandthejuryonthat
isstilloutitidentifiedtheoryasliabletoacertaingaucherieinthoseinterdisciplinarysituationswheretheconceptualitiesaggregatedtotheory's
repertoireoriginatenotfromthehumanities,butfromwithout.Onemight,ofcourse,wanttocontestthewholeissueofwhetherconceptualities
shouldproperly"belong"anywhere,especiallyinviewofthefactthattheory'sinvestmentinthepossibilitiesof"livingonborderlines"wouldboth
critiqueandbecritiquedbyattemptstoprotectdisciplinaryessentialities.[10]Buttheimportoftheattackisclear.Ithastodowiththepossibilitythat
theremightbesomediscourses,oraspectsofsomediscourses,whichtheory'smiscellanyjustcannotarrogatetoitself.That,ofcourse,raisessome
veryseriousquestionsnotonlyontheviabilityofinterdisciplinaritygenerally,butalsoonwhethertheoryshouldcontinuetoconfigureitself,tothinkof
itself,asamiscellany.Thosequestions,however,cangoagainsttheory'sgrain.AconferenceheldinJune2003onthesubjectoftheory'sfutures
"WhitherTheory?"reassertedtheprinciplethat"theword'theory'canonlybeunderstoodintheplural."[11]Thispointstoablindspotoftheory,
locatedattheory'sreluctancetothinkits"whithering"/witheringintermsofpossiblelimitstoitspluralityandmiscellaneity.Forthatreason,the
questiondrivingouressayisbothurgentanddramatic.Whatwouldhappeniftheoryweretoencounteradiscoursetowhichitfindsitcannotquite
extendaffiliation,andwhichitthereforeaggregatestoitsmiscellanyuneasily,ifatall?
[e]Weshouldliketoexplorethatissueonthebasisofidentifyingposthumanismasadiscoursethatappearstobelessamenabletotheory's
inclusivenessthanmost.Wearecurioustoseewhetherposthumanismwillemergeas"yetanother"modeoftheory'sbeing,therebyconfirmingthe
flexibilityandcapaciousnessoftheory'smiscellany,orwhetheritwillemergeasunnegotiably"other"totheory,therebyassertinga"proper"resistant
tothelatter'sappropriation.Throughthisreadingoftheory'sandposthumanism'sreciprocalreadabilitytoeachother,weshouldbeabletoarrivealso
atsomeconclusionsonthebroaderrelationsbetweentheoryanditsdisciplinaryothers.
2.TheoryandPosthumanism:IsOneOpentotheOther?
[f]Posthumanism,asthenameofadiscourse,suggestsanepistemewhichcomes"after"humanism("posthumanism")orevenafterthehuman
itself("posthumanism").Implicitinboththesearticulationsisasenseofthesupplantingoperationswroughtbytime,andoftheobsolescencein
questionaffectingnotsimplyhumanismasdisplacedepistemebutalso,moreradically,thenotionandnatureofthehumanasfactandidea.Neitherof
theseisaparticularlynovelnotion.Theendofhumanismhasbeenamplyannouncedandevenchronicledinthepast,whiletheendofthehumanisa
familiartoposincountlessapocalypticnarrativesfromRevelationsthroughH.G.Wells'sTheTimeMachinetoTheMatrix.Posthumanism,therefore,
mightbethestudyofformulationsofvariousterminalitiesandapocalypticscenarios,especiallywhentheseareapproachedaccordingtocertaindistinct
associationsinvolving"theposthumancondition."ThisisseenbyJudithHalberstamandIraLivingston,inaninauguraltext,as"denotingaworldin
whichhumansaremixturesofmachineandorganism,wherenaturehasbeenmodified(enculturated)bytechnologies,whichinturnhavebecome
assimilatedinto"nature"asafunctioningcomponentoforganicbodies."[12]Intruth,however,"thereisnoconsensusonwhattheposthuman
portends,"notleastbecausehowtheposthumanisconstructedandimaginedvariessowidely."[13]
[g]Nevertheless,somerecurrentdefinitionalstrategiesinregardtotheposthumanpersist.Thereis,mostpowerfully,thefocusonthehuman
machinesymbiosisalreadywitnessedabove.ThereisHayles'sveryinfluentialquadripartitecharacterization,inherbookHowWeBecamePosthuman,
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 3/14
oftheequivalenceoftheposthumantoallofthefollowing:scepticismaboutlifebeinginevitablydependenton"embodimentinabiologicalsubstrate"
areadinesstoseeconsciousnessasan"epiphenomenon"anda"minorsideshow"indetermining"humanidentity"awillingnesstoregardthebodyas
an"originalprosthesis"whoseprinciplecanbeextendedfaithinthepromiseof"seamless"articulationswith"intelligentmachines."[14]Thereis,as
avariation,thefocusonthe"cybernatural"andthe"postnatural,"pointingtowards"thepossibilityofformsofvitalitywhichdonotfindtheirsupport
intheorganicprocessesofmatter...butratherinthearenaoftheartificial,"suchthat"thecybernaturaldesignatesanypracticewhichusesthe
spaceofthevirtualscreenasaspaceof'secondnature'throughaconflationofinformationwithvitality."[15]Onecouldtrawlforfurther
characterizationsoftheposthuman,buttheimportshouldbefairlyclearbynow.Posthumanismisthediscoursewhicharticulatesourhopes,fears,
thoughts,andreflectionsatapostmillenariantimehauntedbytheprospectsoftechnology'sapparentlyessentialandcausallinkwiththefinitenessof
thehumanasabiological,cognitive,informational,andautonomousintegrality.
[h]Withallofthesenotionstoitsname,posthumanismcannotfailtobeprovocative.Itstandstoirkallofthefollowing:defendersofhumanism
thosewhointhefaceofcurrentandimpendingtechnologiesdedicatedtothereengineeringofthehumanwishtoremainsecureintheintegralityof
humanityandindeedofthehumanitiesthosewhoarescepticalofapocalypticismgenerallythosewhoprefertoreadthepostnotaccordingtoa
logicofsuccessivenessthatmakesittemptingtostudy"howwebecameposthuman,"butaccordingto"aprocedurein'ana':aprocedureofanalysis,
anamnesis,anagogyandanamorphosiswhichelaboratesan'initialforgetting'."[16]Itisalsopotentiallyirksometoallthoseloyaltoaconceptof
culturethatwouldbeletteredratherthandigital,forposthumanismembraceseverythingthatmightbeborninthespaceofaculturalmomentthat
GeorgeSteinerrecognizedsometimeagoashavingbecomeincreasinglynumerateratherthanliterate.[17]
[i]Onthebasisofallofthis,therefore,posthumanismisboundtoprovoketheoryaswell.Elsewherewehaveconsideredthenatureofthat
provocationinsomedetail.[18]Hereweshouldliketofocusattentionontheextenttowhichposthumanismandtheorymightbe"other"toeach
other,whytheymightbegettingtheotherwrong,andtheimplicationsofthisreciprocalmisreadingfortheissueof"theory'sothers"generally.Todo
that,however,weshallhavetobeextremelyclearmindedonwhatitisexactlythatis"other"tosomethingelse.Forifitistrue,assuggestedinthe
firstsectionofouressay,thattheoryspeakswithmorethanonevoiceandnotnecessarilyharmoniously,andifitisalsotruethatposthumanismis
itself,asdeclaredabove,"constructedandimagined"variously,thenthe"otherness"oftheoryandposthumanismtoeachotherissurelygoingtobe
characterizedbyacontinuumofmodalitiesthatrunsfromopacity(whereneitherwillbeabletoreadtheotherinanyform)toopportunity(whereit
becomespossibleforatleastoneinstantiationoftheonetoreadatleastoneexpressionoftheother).Weshouldliketoconsidertheextremesofthis
continuum:thesituationswheretheoryandposthumanismcannothelpbeingothertoeachother,andthosewhereopportunitiesopenupforthe
overcomingofthisirreconcilability.
[j]Alotwillsurelybegainedifweweretocontrastthoseextremesonthebasisofanencounterbetweenoneconstituentof"theory"andone
constituentof"posthumanism."Thisgoesagainstthetendencytospeakofspecifictheoreticaldiscoursesinthepluralhence,forinstance,the
currencyof"feminisms"orpostmodernisms"[19]andtherebyrunscountertotheinsistencethatadiscoursecanbeplurallyothertoitselfand
resistunivocity.Buttospeakof"theoryintheplural"and"posthumanisms"wouldbeunhelpfulhere,aswhatneedstobecommunicatedisamore
precisesenseofhowandwhytheapparentlackofaffinitybetweenspecificmodesofeitherdiscoursekeysbroaderdifferencesandalterities.Which
"modes"oftheoryandposthumanism,therefore,mightusefullybecontrasted?Asfarastheoryisconcerned,wehavechosentospeakof
deconstruction.Perhapsthispotentiallycontentiousprivilegingofdeconstructionasapreeminentmodeof"high"theory,inamannerthatseemingly
downplaystheory'sotherconstituencies,shouldbeexplained.Indeed:whydeconstructionandnot,forinstance,everythingthathasemanatedfrom
theworkofMichelFoucault,whoseattentiontowhathereferredtoas"technologiesoftheself"andtothequestion"Whatarewetoday?"appearsto
promptreflectionsnotirrelevanttoanunderstandingoftheposthuman?[20]Why,also,notGillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,whosereferencesto
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 4/14
"thebodywithoutorgans"mightbeconsideredunignorableincontextsaddressingtheposthuman?[21]Afterall,Deleuzehimselfasiftofurther
reinforceconvictionabouthisunignorabilityincontextslikethepresent,andnotcoincidentallyinatextwherehewascommentingontheworkof
Foucaulttendedtospeakwithstartlingappositenessabouttheposthumanevenwhenhewasnotinvokingit"assuch":
Theforceswithinmanenterintoarelationwithforcesfromtheoutside,thoseofsiliconwhichsupersedescarbon,orgenetic
componentswhichsupersedetheorganism,oragrammaticalitieswhichsupersedethesignifier.Ineachcasewemuststudythe
operationsofthesuperfold,ofwhichthe"doublehelix"isthebestknownexample.Whatisthesuperman?Itistheformalcompound
oftheforceswithinmanandthesenewforces....AsFoucaultwouldsay,thesupermanismuchlessthanthedisappearanceofliving
men,andmuchmorethanachangeofconcept:itistheadventofanewformthatisneitherGodnormanandwhich,itishoped,will
notproveworsethanitstwopreviousforms.[22]
[k]Thereisnodoubtthatthisistantalizing,thatitdemonstratesthescopeforabroadlysourcedreviewoftherelationsbetweentheoryand
posthumanism,andthatithintsthatthoserelationsmightinfactbemorecharacterizablebyreciprocityratherthanalterity.Ifallthatisnotbeing
addressedinitsrichandtemptingfullnesshere,andifwhatisbroachedinsteadproceedsthroughdeconstruction,itispartlybecauseofthepressingif
mundaneneedforaconcentratedsuccinctness.Inapaperofthislength,wherefocusmustprevailovercomprehensiveness,areviewoftheaffinities
orotherwisebetweentheoryandposthumanismproceedsmosteffectivelythroughstaginganencounterbetweenarepresentativeoftheoneanda
formulationoftheother.Andasithappens,deconstructionappearstobethediscoursewhichismostoftentakentobemostmetonymically
representativeoftheoryasindicated,forinstance,bythefactthatHermanRapaport'sTheTheoryMessviewstheory'sfortunesaccordingtotheebb
andflowofdeconstruction's.[23]Inaddition,inamannerthatimmediatelyraisestheissueofantagonisticrelationswith"others,"deconstructionhas
arecordofembroilmentinsomeoftheory'smostmomentousconflicts,bothwhenthesehavebeeninternecinebutalsowhenthey'veengagedwith
discoursesunassimilatedbytheory.Onerecalls,forinstance,JacquesDerrida'sresponsestotheworkofHansGeorgGadamer,JohnSearle,AlanSokal,
andJacquesLacanhimself.[24]Crucially,thefirstofthoseresponseswillprovide,inwhatfollowsbelow,aparticularlyinstructiveanalogywiththe
(non)responseoftheorytotheposthuman,andisafurtherreasonwhywearegrantingdeconstructionsuchattentionhere.Thereis,additionally,the
factthatthemostfocusedtheoreticalconsiderationof"resistancetotheory,"PauldeMan'sessaybythatname,isperceivableasdeconstructionistin
itsoutlookandstrategies.
[l]Fromposthumanism,meanwhile,wehavechosentospeakoftranshumanism.Thetranshumanisaparticularlyuncompromisingexpressionofthe
posthumanandonethatsetsupanintriguingcontrastwithdeconstructionasanexpressionoftheory.Toappreciatethis,andtoproperlyengagewith
transhumanism,onemustnecessarilygoonline,forinstancetohttp://nanotechnow.com/extropian.htm.Thisalreadyspellsoutoneimportant
differenceinregardtodeconstruction.Thelatter,weshouldrecall,isfascinatedby"theliteralityofliterarity,"andbythefactthatliteratureisthe
discoursemostengagedbythemysteriesoftheletter.[25]Althoughtherehavebeenattemptstoconceivedeconstructionawayfromaprintbound
determinismonemightrecallherethatGeoffreyBenningtonwouldhavelikedto"systematizeJ.D.'sthoughttothepointofturningitintoan
interactiveprogram"theimpressionpersiststhatdeconstructionremainsafundamentallyprintbound,bookishdiscourse.[26]Themediumofthe
transhuman,meanwhile,iscertainlynotboundtotheorderofthebook.Letusoverlook,foramoment,thesupremelysalientfactthattheproper
mediumofthetranshumanisthehumanitselfasthatwhichmustbewrittenupon,workedupon,initsstatusasanincompletestateor
intermediatestagetosomethingmore"finished"inits"seamlessarticulation"withtechnologyasprosthesis.Whatremainsthenistoacknowledge
thatahighproportionofcrucialdocumentsintheareaisavailableaselectroniccopy.Astranshumanismisthereforealreadyadiscoursemoredigital
thanprintbound,readersofthisessayareinvitedtofollowupthehyperlinkratherthanthefootnotetrail.Particularlyrelevantwillbesiteslikethe
oneabove,indicatingthattranshumanismrefersto"philosophiesoflifethatseekthecontinuationandaccelerationoftheevolutionofintelligentlife
beyonditscurrentlyhumanformandhumanlimitationsbymeansofscienceandtechnology,guidedbylifepromotingprinciplesandvalues."And
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 5/14
whiletheysurf,readersmightalsowishtotrythefollowinglinks:
http://www.transhumanism.com/
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Posthumanity/
http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm
http://www.kurzweilai.net/
[m]Assumingthatourreadershavereturnedfromtheirsurfing,theywillhaveexperiencedthedisjunctionofreturningfromsuchelectronic"texts"to
thiscontext,wheretextualityremainsaprimaryconcern.Forthatisamajordifferencebetweendeconstructionanddiversemodesoftheposthuman.
Theformerisinterestedinthenatureoftextualityandlanguage.Thelatterisinterestedinlanguageonlyinsofarasthiscouldenhancedlymediate
whatitwantstoexpressas,forinstance,throughthe"Lextricon"(http://www.extropy.org/ideas/lextropicon.html),whichdefinessomeofthe
neologismsthatseektoachievelinguisticadequationtothe"extropianvision."Thishastodowiththeconceptof"extropy"("theextentofasystem's
intelligence,information,order,vitality,andcapacityforimprovement"),andwithacceptancethatposthumanismreferstothepossibilityfor
"unprecedentedphysical,intellectual,andpsychologicalcapacity,(and)selfprogramming,selfconstituting,potentiallyimmortal,unlimitedindividuals."
[n]Opposedtoallthatisdeconstruction'sscornforoutlookssoldonuncriticalfuturology,[27]aswellasitsdefiningconcernwithlanguage.Paulde
Manhadcharacterizedtheresistancetotheoryas"resistancetotheuseoflanguageaboutlanguage."[28]Posthumanism,initsmostextreme
formulations,givesastartlingdemonstrationofthatresistance:"PostHumansnevergetboggeddowninargumentsaboutlanguage.Thescholarsand
humanistswillalwaystrytorestrictdebatetothebattlegroundoflanguagebecausetheyknownoonecanwin."[29]Verysignificantandinmarked
contrasttothatiswhatoccursinanotheressayfromthedeconstructionist"canon."Derrida's"TheEndofMan,"thoughitdoescontainthetantalizing
phrase"onemayimagineaconsciousnesswithoutman,"approachedthesubjectpromisedbythetitlenotaccordingtoanyremotelyposthumanist
visionbutintermsoftherelationbetweenhumanismandmetaphysics,andinthespacesopenedbytheintersectionsofHegel's,Husserl's,and
Heidegger'sthought.[30]Thisapparentincommensurabilitybetweendeconstructionandtranshumanismmakesonewonderaboutthepossibilityof
anunderlyinglackofaffinitybetweentheoryandposthumanism,andwhetheritmightinturnallegorizeamutualimpenetrabilitybetweentheoryand
itsothers.Toaccepttheviabilityofthatallegoryonthebasisoftheevidenceprovidedsofarmightseemhasty,butaswearguebelowitissignificant
thattherelationbetweendeconstructionandtranshumanismdoesseemliabletobeonewheretheywouldtendtobeholdeachotherwithsuspicion,
evenprejudice.
[o]Thesignificanceofthatcanstarttoemergemoreclearlyifthenatureofprejudicewithininterdisciplinaryandindeedintradisciplinarycontextsis
considered.Nowprejudicehappenstobeamodalityoftherelationtotheotherwhichhasbeenstudiedtosomepurposeinthecontextofthe
notoriouslyabortiveencounterbetweendeconstructionandanotheroftheory's"denominations,"hermeneutics.PhilippeForgetexplainsthat
(i)nthecourseoforganizingameetinginApril1981betweenGadamerandDerridathesefigureheadsoftwoconflictingcurrentsin
WesternphilosophicalthinkingIdidnotintendtoforceanencounterbetweenthem.Atmost,Iwashopingthatthisevent(ifindeed
therewasone,andnothingislesscertain)wouldmakeacontributiontowardsformingtheconditionsunderwhichthesetwocurrents
ofthoughtwouldconfronteachotherheadonratherthanmutuallyavoidingeachotherinotherwords,thattheywouldagreeto
subsumedenial(dni)withinthechallenge(dfi).Asitturnedout,theencounterwouldupholddenial,atthechallenge'sexpense.[31]
Mightitnotbeinstructivetoinquirewhysuchanencounterbetween"whatareoftentakentobeclashing,evenmutuallyexclusivestandpoints"[32]
withintheoryprovedabortiveandupheldthedniratherthanthedfiespeciallysinceitmightthrowlightontherelationsbetweendeconstruction
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 6/14
andthetranshumanandthenceonthosebetweentheoryandtheposthuman,withthelatterdiscoursebeingpossiblywithinandpossiblywithout
theory?Inthislight,itistellingthatForgetremarksthatDerrida'sresponsetoGadamerwasmarkedby"aloofness"andeven"apathy."[33]That
(non)reactionfoiledanumberofeagerexpectations.Gadamer'sviewthat"thesuccessofdialoguedependsonthecontinuingwillingnessofits
participants...to'givein'tolanguage,tobecarriedalongbytheconversationforthepurposeoflettingmeaningemergeinan'event'ofmutual
understanding"hadbeenexpectedtobebroughtinParisintomorearticulatedrelationwiththeDerrideanalertnessto"howothernesslurkswithin
meaning,"to"theirreducibleequivocationandundecidabilityofmeaning"whichleadstothespokenwordbeingalways"analreadydisruptedsign,
infiltratedbyabsence."[34]WhatemergedinParisinsteadwasthecontrastbetweenatheoreticaloutlookbelievingthatothernessisnegotiable
throughlanguageandanothertheoreticaloutlookbelievingthatthedifferenceanddeferralinlanguagewillonlyentrenchotherness.
[p]Thatnothingmuchhappenedinthisdramaofalterity,wherewhatwasatstakewaspreciselytheothernesstoeachotheroftwooftheory's
constituencies,mayultimatelyhavehadsomethingtodowiththefactthatDerridafoundacentralpostulateofhermeneuticssomewhat
underwhelming:
Duringthelectureandensuingdiscussionyesterdayevening,Ibegantoaskmyselfifanythingwastakingplacehereotherthan
improbabledebates,counterquestioning,andinquiriesintounfindableobjectsofthoughttorecallsomeoftheformulationsweheard.
Iamstillaskingmyselfthisquestion.
WearegatheredtogetherherearoundProfessorGadamer.Itistohim,then,thatIwishtoaddressthesewords,payinghimthe
homageofafewquestions.
Thefirstquestionconcernswhathesaidtouslasteveningabout'goodwill,'aboutanappealtogoodwill,andtotheabsolute
commitmenttothedesireforconsensusinunderstanding.Howcouldanyonenotbetemptedtoacknowledgehowextremelyevident
thisaxiomis?[35](emphasisadded)
Thephraseextremelyevidentisdamning.Itspositiveassociations,whichhavetodowithwhatisconsensuallyacknowledgedtobeveryrecognizably
relevantandopportune,areundercutbythephrase'snegativeconnotations,whichsuggestthatwhatisgenerallyobviousrisksgrowinguncompelling
andinsipid.Andofcourseitispossibletobe"aloof"and"apathetic"abouttheextremelyevidentoutofadesiretoconcealnotbotheringhavingan
opinionaboutwhatistediouslyobviousinwhattheotherissaying.NowwhatitwasthatDerridaseemstohavefoundextremelyevidentinGadamer
concernedaconstitutiveprejudiceofhermeneutics.Forgetexplainsthelatterthus:
(Gadamer's)isauniversalityenclosedinitself,sinceitexistsonlyundertheconditionofuniversalizingitsownconstitutiveprejudices.
Aninterpretivepracticeofthistypecannotbeactivethatisalsotosay,transformingbecauseitreplenishesitselfonlyfromitself,or
moreexactlyfromthisfoundingprejudicewhichisnotsimplyidentifiablewiththethoughtthatitleadsorlures,since,accordingtothe
allpowerfullogicofadaequatiounderwhichonecansubsumeGadamer'sthought,thatthoughtitselfmustassimilatethefounding
prejudice(tothepointofnolongerseeingitasaprejudice),whichinreturnwouldmaintainitself(asthefoundingprejudice)ata
distancewhichthoughtcannotcross.Onecouldonlysaythatitembodiesit(ellel'aincorpor).[36]
ThisexplanationofForget'sisofcoursesomethingofadeconstructionofGadamerianhermeneutics.ItistemptingtosupposethatDerrida,asthe
foundationalfigureindeconstruction,wouldalreadyhaveintuitedthethrustofwhatForgetrevealsabouthermeneuticsand,alltooawareofhisown
prejudice(asprejudgement)aboutanothersystem'sconstitutiveprejudice,feltdiscretionaryaloofnesstobethebetterpartofvalorousengagement.
[q]Thereaderwillhaverealizedwhyindulgenceinthattemptationisrelevanthere.Forisitnotthinkablethattherelationbetweentranshumanism
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 7/14
anddeconstruction,weretheytolookupononeanother,wouldproceedonthebasisofasimilarinstantrecognitionthat,asfaraseitherwas
concerned,theotherwasbeing"extremelyevidently"uncompelling?Wouldnottheresultbethattheywouldlookpasteachother,andalooflyavoid
encounter?Onthosegrounds,thephraseTheory'sOtherscouldrefernotonlytothosediscourseswhichopposeorstandoutsidetheory,butalsothose
whichtheory(oritsdiscourses)readsdisinclinedly,perfunctorily,oralwaysalreadywithaprejudicialperspectiveontheiralterityaswhen
deconstructionoptsnottomeethermeneutics,orwhendeconstructionandtranshumanismremainuncompellingtoeachother.Itmaywellbethat
onthisbasisdeconstruction'sandtranshumanism'sallegedirreconcilabilitytoeachother'sprejudicesandpredilectionsprefigurestheory'sbroader
apathyabouttheposthumangenerally.Asanexample:theory'sinvestmentinthe"linguisticturn"wouldseemtopredisposeittobiasagainstmuch
thatisassociatedwith"cyberneticsyntax"[37]andwiththe"'cyberneticturn'inbiomedicineandthebiosciencesmoregenerally."[38]
Correspondingly,posthumanism'sinvestmentinatemporallogicofstraightforwardsuccessiveness,allowingforprogressionandteleology,willmean
thatithaslittlepatienceforwhatwillappeartoitastheory'soverrefinedproblematizationof"themeaningofpost"anditsinterestin"languagesof
theunsayable."[39]
[r]Perhaps,however,itwouldbehastytobelievethatthesetwodiscourseswillbeunabletoriseabovetheirprejudicesagainsteachother.Forwhileit
isfairtosupposethatprejudice,inthesensedefinedbyForgetasa"preliminaryverdictbeforethefinaljudgment,"[40]mightpreventonediscourse
fromgivingtimetoanother,itisinfactbynomeansclearthattheoryandposthumanismhavenotencounteredeachotheralreadyandprofitably.
Althoughthisisnotabibliographicalessay,itisworthreferringheretoanumberofengagementswiththeposthumanthatappeartohaveextended
theory'sconstituencyinthatdirection.ForinstanceHayles,whilegivingtimetoMoravecianspeculationonthepossibilityofdownloadinghuman
consciousnessontoacomputerandtoscenariosinvolvingArtificialLife,isattentivealsotoprefigurationsoftheposthumaninliteratureandculture.
[41]ThatistakenfurtherbyElaineGrahaminastudywhich,togetherwiththeworkofJosephTabbi,isarguablythemostextensivereviewof
representationsoftheposthumanincontemporarypopularculturebutalsoinliterature'sgenealogies.[42]AlsousefulisNeilBadmington's
Posthumanism,whichprovidesananthologyoftheoreticaltextswhichcanwithhindsightbeconstruedasprefiguringposthumanistconcerns.[43]
Thereisalsoawealthofotherstudiesdelvingfurtherintorelatedissues,includingthelandmarkTheCyberculturesReader,ChrisHablesGray'songoing
workoncyborgs,culture,andthepopularimagination,andfrequentconsiderationsoftheposthumaninsundryarticlesappearinginjournalslike
ScienceFictionStudies.[44]Andofcourseitisimpossibletoforgetthatfeminism,asoneoftheory'smostprominentconstituencies,wasthereatthe
inceptionofposthumanawarenessandindeedplayedaformativeroleinitsdevelopmentthroughDonnaHaraway'sfoundationaltextsinthefield,
mostnotably"TheCyborgManifesto."[45]NorcanacontextlikeRhizomesoverlook,aswasanticipatedabove,theamenabilityoftheposthumanto
whatwasglimpsedbyGillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattariintheirworkon"thebodywithoutorgans."Sointhefaceofallthat,whyshouldonethinkthat
posthumanismandtheoryaremutuallyexclusive?
[s]Inresponseitmightbeobservedthatwhatdoestendtobeprivilegedinanumberofthestudiesmentionedisanorientationoftheorythat
distancesitselffrompoststructuralistconcernwiththe"literality"oftextsandsignificationtoonewherethemodeoftheorybecomesmoreidentifiable
withanextensionofculturalstudies.ThismightalsobehappeningasthelogicalculminationofwhatAntonyEasthopereferredtoovertenyearsago
astheprocessofliterarystudiesgivingitselfovertoculturalstudies.Inmuchthesameway,theoryisarguablymoreandmoreabout"culture"rather
thanliteratureorpsychoanalysisorphilosophyormetaphysics,andtothatextentperhapscompromisesonaspecificitythatmightalmostbewhatis
mostpropertoit:thatis,todeployagainafarreachingphrasefromdeMan,theconcernwiththeuseoflanguageaboutlanguage.Inthisevermore
numerateage,culturalstudiesisitselfnowclosertowhathasbeencalled,inatermsynonymouswithposthumanism,"newculturaltheory":afield
engagedwithallthathappensinthewakeof"machinicmodulations."[46]Andhowcouldthatnothappen,itmightbesaid,whenposthumanismisso
obviouslyrelevantandopportuneandtheobjectsofitsstudysoubiquitousinthemidstofthecontemporaryinterestineverythingrangingfromthe
mappingofthehumangenometothepervasivenessofcyborgsinpopularculture?Itappearsthatitwouldbeunconscionabletobeuninterestedin
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 8/14
theposthuman.Theory,inreadingtheposthuman,isonlyadequatingitselftothisculturalandepistemologicalmomentalltooawareofthe
precariousnessofthehumanistheritageandofthediverseapocalypticsthatthinktheendofthehuman.Andif,intheprocess,theplaceofthe
literary,thephilosophical,andindeedthetheoreticalisreconsidered,thatisonlyinreflectionoftherethinkingoftheirrelativeurgencyinaculture
wherethepressureofdigitalitymightwellcueadeorrehierarchizationofdiscourses.
[t]Thereisanigglingworry,therefore,thatposthumanismisintheprocessnotsomuchofbeingappraisedbytheoryasgoingalongwithit.Theory's
strengthhasalwaysbeenitsclaimsontheradical,on"thinkingotherwise,"onproblematizingthatwhichappearscommonsensical.[47]Itwouldbea
pitywereitnotalsotothinktheposthumanaccordingtothatethicbutalsointermsofpoststructuralism,whichhastendedtobethediscoursein
theorymostinclinedto"undoingly"readingotherdiscourses.Onefanciesthatposthumanismmightnotbeworseoffinthelongtermifitwereitselfto
getthepoststructuralist"treatment."Beforeweexplainwhythatisimportant,however,letusacknowledgethatitwouldbeimprecisetobelievethat
therehasbeennopoststructuralistengagementwithposthumanism.Ofcoursethisisnotgoingtosanctionanyglibassertionstotheeffectthat
posthumanismhasalwaysalreadybeenpoststructuralist,butthetwodiscoursesmightnotbeasmutuallyexclusiveastheymightprejudiciallyappear.
Thiswouldbeclearerifweweretoconsultwhatisperhapsamorepoststructuralistreadingoftheposthumanthanmost,R.L.Rutsky'sHighTechn.
Rutsky'sapproachindicateshowitispossibleforawarningsoundedbyDerridain"TheEndsofMan"tobeheeded.InthatessayDerridahadsaidthe
following:
AnyquestioningofhumanismthatdoesnotfirstcatchupwiththearcheologicalradicalnessofthequestionssketchedbyHeidegger(in
"LetteronHumanism"),anddoesnotmakeuseoftheinformationheprovidesconcerningthegenesisoftheconceptandthevalueof
man(thereeditionoftheGreekpaideiainRomanculture,theChristianizingoftheLatinhumanitas,therebirthofHellenisminthe
fourteenthandeighteenthcenturies,etc.),anymetahumanistpositionthatdoesnotplaceitselfwithintheopeningofthesequestions
remainshistoricallyregional,periodicandperipheral,judiciallysecondaryanddependent,whateverinterestandnecessityitmightretain
assuch.[48]
Cantherebeanydoubtthatthesewordsspellouttherisksfortheory'sengagementwiththeposthuman,andindeedfortheposthumanitselfand
thatdespitenotspeakingabouttheposthumanassuch?Rutsky,forhispart,doesnothimselfinvoketheselines,buttheresponsetoHeidegger's
reflectionsontechnologyexertsaformativeinfluenceinhisstudy.Hisbookeschewsthetemptationtomerelyextendtheory'sfieldsofoperationto
theposthumanandinsteadundertakesaquestioningoftheposthuman.[49]Forisitnottruethatposthumanism,likelogocentrism,or
phonocentrism,orpsychoanalysis,orreligion,ordemocracy,orlawallofwhichhavebeeninsightfullydeconstructedisitselfinneedofbeing
criticallyread?OtherwiseDerrida'swarningthattheorymightbetooreactiveinitsengagementwithanything"metahumanist"wouldringtruealsoof
posthumanism.Anditisinfactcleartousthatwhentheoryandposthumanismmeet,astheyhavedoneinsomeofthestudiescited,itisbyand
largetheformerthatundertakesmoreselftransformation.Asimple,evencrasstestwillprovethat:whilesometheoristsstrivetograpplewith
cyborgsandArtificialLife,isthereanyindicationthatthosewowedbytranshumanismareopentotermslikediffranceorevenrhizomes?Wouldthey
beattuned,forinstance,toDavidWills'philosophicalinvestigationofthenatureandexperienceoftheprosthetic?Justasimportantly,ifnotmore,
wouldtheybereadytoregardtheoryasaparablefortheposthuman,inthemannerofBrianMassumi'sinvestigationofthevirtualthroughDeleuzian
andFoucauldianperspectives?[50]Ifnot,coulditbebecauseposthumanism'stonality,topicality,andtheubiquityofitsobjectsappeartohave
paralysedamoregeneralattunementtotheory'scapacitytoquestiontheposthuman?Mightnottheeffectsofsuchanengagementpervadeand
enhance,intime,popularapprehensionoftheposthuman?
[u]Itisbecauseofthisthatwecall,attheendofthissection,fora"criticalposthumanism,"formoreworkofthekindattemptedbycommentators
likeRutsky,Wills,andMassumi,andformoreattentiontotheoreticallyinformedstudiesofthevirtuallikethoseprovided(tocitefurtherexampleshere
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 9/14
ofwhat,happily,isinfactnotadenudedfield)byMarkC.Taylor,RosiBraidotti,and,indeed,JeanBaudrillard.[51]Theabsenceofacritical
posthumanismwouldmeanthatreactionstoposthumanismwouldremain,toechoDerrida's"TheEndsofMan,""historicallyregional,periodicand
peripheral,judiciallysecondaryanddependent,whateverinterestandnecessityitmightretainassuch."Theorywouldthereforedowelltocontrivea
"metaposthumanism,"withthemetaunderstoodnotinthesenseofanyofthetotalizingimpulsestheorycritiqueselsewhere(asinitsreadingsof
"Westernmetaphysics"),butaccordingtoasignallingoftheory'sdispositiontostepbackfromthegeneralbreathlessexcitementoverthedigital,the
cybernetic,andthetechnologicallyprosthetictocastasober,evaluativeeyeoverposthumanistorthodoxy.Theoryhasdonethatwithotherdiscourses
inthepast,and"forhumans'sake"itshoulddoitagainwithposthumanism.
4.WhatIsWrongwithPosthumanism(IfNotTheory)?WhatIsWrongwithTheory(IfNotPosthumanism)?
[v]Aftertheaboveappeal,itisbesttoreturninthisconcludingsectiontothequestionoftheoryasmiscellany.Isposthumanismgoingtobeanother
modeoftheoryoroneof"theory'sothers"?Wefeelthatwhathasbeenreviewedamplysuggeststhattheoryhasalreadyaggregatedposthumanism
toitsmiscellanytoaverysignificantextent.Wearenotreassuredthattheaccommodationhasbeenascriticallytransformativeasitmighthavebeen,
butthatisnottosaythatthetwodiscourseshaveremainedopaquetoeachother.Yettheopacityisnotuniformlyovercome,notleastbecause
theorydoesnotactconcertedly.Itssundryconstituentssetupcontrastingencounterswithposthumanism,whichisitselfheterogeneous,andthis
againsignalstheimportanceofdistinguishingbetweenthevariouskindsofencounterengagedinbytheverymiscellaneousmodesoftheoryand
posthumanism.[52]Withthatprovisoinplace,itispossibletoreassertthatposthumanismisdefactoadiscoursewithintheory,andthatthiswill
become"officialized"onceintroductionsandcompanionstotheoryrecognizethat.[53]
[w]Inconclusionitisimportanttoacknowledgealsothatareviewofposthumanism'sandtheory'sapprehensibilitytoeachothernecessarilyconnects
notonlywiththequestionof"theory'sothers,"butalsowiththatofinterdisciplinarity.Indeed,onoccasionswherethe(non)encounterbetweenone
theoreticaldiscourseandanothergrowsabortive,ashappenedwiththatbetweendeconstructionandhermeneuticsbutarguablynotwiththat
currentlyproceedinginarangeofcontextsbetweentheorygenerallyandposthumanism,therecannotfailtobeimplicationsnotonlyfortheory,but
forthepracticeofinterdisciplinaryexchangegenerally.PerhapsBernasconi'spositiveglossonthe(non)encounterinParisbetweenDerridaand
Gadamer,whichcomestostandinrepresentationofallinstances(notsimplythosewithintheory)ofnotreadingtheother,istoopanglossian:"Isit
thetaskofthinkerstotrytocometoanagreementacrosstheirlanguages?Couldtheydosowithoutoptingfortheflatnessofunitaryunderstanding?
Orisitenoughifatraremomentstheyintersectwithoneanotherandinsuchawaythatthecontoursoftheirthinkingarehighlighted?Isitnot
enoughforthatthoughttohavereceivednewdefinitionsandfurtherdispersalbythenewcontextsinwhichitappears?"[54]Itis,infact,notclear
thatthisisenough,butatleastasfarastheoryandposthumanismareconcernedtherecanbenodoubtthattherehavebeensomeintriguing
redefinitionsanddispersalsofwhatmightpreviouslyhavebeenthoughttoberespectivelypropertoeach.
[x]Forthatreasonitisopportunetoexplainthatourtitle,"What'sWrongwithPosthumanism?"oughttobeunderstoodnotonlyinthesenseof
"whatisitaboutposthumanismthatmightneedtobe'corrected,'"butaccordingtothemorequeruloustonalityof"what'ssowrongabout
posthumanismit'sactuallynotabadthingatall...."Fortheory,indeed,anattentiontotheposthumanisnobadthingitcantherebyextendits
repertoiresandconstituencytosomethingthatissoevidentlytopicaland"in,"butwithoutabdicatingthetaskofprobingposthumanism'sweaknesses.
ForonthisGadamer,whenprobingthenatureofencounterbetweendiscourses,wassurelyright.Suchanencountershouldproceedaccordingto
"whatPlatocalled(eumeniselenchoi),"thatis,accordingtoanethicthatholdsthat"onedoesnotgoaboutidentifyingtheweaknesses
ofwhatanotherpersonhastosayinordertoprovethatoneisalwaysright,butoneseeksinsteadasfaraspossibletostrengthentheother's
viewpointsothatwhattheotherhastosaybecomesilluminating."[55]
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 10/14
[y]Onthebackofthisweshouldliketogivesomebriefspace,attheend,tosomeremarksonhowtheoryitselfmightbeenhancedbyitsengagement
withtheposthuman.Andweshouldliketodosobyaskingwhetherposthumanismmightbesynonymouswithwhathasbeentermed"posttheory,"
orthetime"aftertheory,"or"thefutureoftheory."[56]Isposthumanism,inotherwords,whattheorydoeswhenitstartstohaveintimationsofits
mortality?TheeditorsofthevolumePostTheoryareilluminatingaboutthefactthattheoryhasbeenpathologicallyinterestedinitsowndeath,so
thatitmightbethoughtthattherewouldbenothingnewabouttheory'sjitterinessbeforetheposthuman.[57]Butthereis,discernibly,aqualitative
differencebetweenthestandarddoubtsovertheory'slongevity,andcurrentreflectionsonwheretheoryisgoing.Whatisastoundingisthatrelatively
littlespaceisinfactbeinggiventotheimplicationsfortheoryofeverythingdefinableunder"posthumanism."ValentineCunningham,forinstance,
speakscomprehensivelyoftheoptionsfortheoryatatimewhenweread"aftertheory"(thoughashemakesitclear,canoneevernotreadafter
theory?)butthereislittlespacegiventothechallengesofthedigitallyandcyberneticallyextratextual.Significantly,suchengagementstendto
occurnotinprint,butelectronicallysee,forinstance:
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/
http://tekhnema.free.fr/
http://eserver.org/cultronix/
Cunningham,meanwhile,citesfrom"alistof115deplorableTheoryitems"theU.S.NationalAssocationofScholarshasdrawnuptohelpidentify
whetheradepartmentisgiventowhatmightbecalled"theorese"remarkably,thereislittlethatmightbeclassifiableunderposthumanism(see
www.nas.org).[58]Theblindnessinquestion,ifblindnessitbe,isthereforenotsolelyhis,buttheory'sgenerally.Correspondingly,oneturnsto
Rabat'sTheFutureofTheory,andspecificallytothechapter"Theory,Science,Technology,"withadmirationforitssensitiverereadingofa
constitutive"scientificity"oftheoryagain,however,thespecificchallengeoftheposthumanisignored.[59]Wehavenotpickedonthesetwobooks,
forwhichweinfacthavegreatrespect,willfully.Ratheritisbecauseforalltheirprofoundinsightinothermatters,bothstudiesseemunwittingly
symptomaticofageneralneglectoftheportentsoftheposthumanfortheory'sfuturedevelopmentandpractice.Norarewe,thereby,contradicting
ourselvesjustincasethereaderfeelsunabletosquarethatstatementwithourpriorindicationthat,onthestrengthofanumberofstudies,
posthumanismisalreadyadiscourseoftheory.True:thereexistworkswhichseektoorienttheory'spassingintheposthumanistmoment,butthose
worksrepresentapaltryproportionofwhattheoryismiscellaneouslydoingnow.Thesuggestionisthattheory'sconcernwiththeposthumanremains
marginal.Itseems,therefore,thatintheendposthumanismandtheoryeachhaveagoodturntodotheother,andthatthisinvolvessomecounter
modeling.Foritisatleastthinkablethatifwhat'swrongwithposthumanismhastodowiththefactthatitmightnotbetheoreticalenough,what's
wrongwiththeorymightwellbethatitisnotposthumanistenough,thatitistoocomplacentaboutwhatitthinksitcancomfortablygoondoing,asif
posthumanismhadnotcometotransforminglystay.Thisadmonitionoftheoryisnottheconclusionwewouldhavepredicted,especiallyasitgoes
againstthedriftofouressay,whichhadtendedtobesternertowardspoasthumanismthantheory.Butitistheonetowhich,intheend,we
inevitablyfeelcompelled.

Notes
[1]See,forinstance,JacquesDerridaandPierreJeanLabarrire,Alterits(Paris:Osiris,1986),andShoshanaFelman,ed.,Literatureand
Psychoanalysis:TheQuestionofReadingOtherwise,YaleFrenchStudies5556(1977).
[2]SeePauldeMan,"TheResistancetoTheory,"inTheResistancetoTheory(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1986),320.
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 11/14
[3]Forexamplesofdissensionwithintheoryatdifferenttimes,seeHermanRapaport,TheTheoryMess:DeconstructioninEclipse(NewYork:Columbia
UniversityPress,2001).
[4]JacquesDerrida,"TheForceofLaw:The'MysticalFoundationofAuthority',"trans.MaryQuaintance,CardozoLawReview11(1990):945.
[5]JacquesDerrida,"TheFutureoftheProfessionortheUniversityWithoutCondition(Thankstothe'Humanities,'WhatCouldTakePlace
Tomorrow),"inJacquesDerridaandtheHumanities:ACriticalReader,ed.TomCohen(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),29.
[6]JonathanCuller,LiteraryTheory:AVeryShortIntroduction(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),4.
[7]AlanSokalandJeanBricmont,IntellectualImpostures:PostmodernPhilosphers'AbuseofScience(1998London:Profile,1999).
[8]AlanSokal,'WhattheSocialTextAffairDoesandDoesNotProve',inAftertheScienceWars,ed.KeithM.AshmanandPhilipS.Baringer(NewYork
andLondon:Routledge,2001),17.
[9]SeeSokalandBricmont,whereseparatechaptersaredevotedtoeachofthesetheorists.
[10]SeeJacquesDerrida,"LivingOn:Borderlines,"trans.JamesHulbert,inDeconstructionandCriticism,ed.HaroldBloomandothers(London:
RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1979),75176.
[11]Seewww.cf.ac.uk/encap/sections/cct/conference/english/home.html.forinformationonthe"WhitherTheory?"conference,Centrede
recherchesenanglistique(ParisX),1921May2003.Anumberofthepaperspresentedattheconferenceareavailableonline,atthesameaddress.
[12]SeeElaineL.Graham,RepresentationsofthePost/human:Monsters,Aliens,andOthersinPopularCulture(Manchester:ManchesterUniversity
Press,2002),10,andJudithHalberstamandIraLivingston,"Introduction:PosthumanBodies,"inPosthumanBodies,ed.JudithHalberstamandIra
Livingston(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2000),119.
[13]N.KatherineHayles,HowWeBecamePosthuman:VirtualBodiesinCybernetics,Literature,andInformatics(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,
1999),251.
[14]Hayles,23.
[15]CatherineWaldby,TheVisibleHumanProject:InformaticBodiesandPosthumanMedicine(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2000),121seealso
SeanCubitt,"SupernaturalFutures:ThesesonDigitalAesthetics,"inFutureNatural:Nature,Science,Culture,ed.G.Armstrongandothers(London
andNewYork:Routledge,1996).
[16]JeanFranoisLyotard,"NoteontheMeaningof'Post',"inThePostmodernExplainedtoChildren:Correspondence19821985,ed.JulianPefanis
andMorganThomas(1986London:Turnaround,1992),93.
[17]GeorgeSteiner,RealPresences:IsThereAnythinginWhatWeSay?(London:FaberandFaber,1989),114.
[18]Seeour"TheIrresistibilityofthePosthuman:QuestioningNewCulturalTheory,"inDisciplineandPractice:The(Ir)resistibilityofTheory,ed.
StefanHerbrechterandIvanCallus(Cranbury,NJ:BucknellUniversityPress,forthcomingin2004).
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 12/14
[19]SeeRobynR.WarholandDianePriceHerndl,Feminisms:AnAnthologyofLiteraryTheoryandCriticism,rev.edn(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1997)
andCharlesAltieri,PostmodernismsNow:EssaysonContemporaneityintheArts(UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1998).
[20]SeeMichelFoucault,"TechnologiesoftheSelf"and"ThePoliticalTechnologyofIndividuals,"inTechnologiesoftheSelf:ASeminarwithMichel
Foucault,ed.LutherH.Martin,HuckGutman,andPatrickH.Hutton(London:Tavistock,1988),1649and14562.
[21]SeeGillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,AThousandPlateaus,trans.BrianMassumi(London:Continuum,1992),149ff.
[22]GillesDeleuze,Foucault,trans.SenHand(London:Athlone,1988),13132.
[23]SeethisopeningstatementbyRapaportofhisrationale:"TheTheoryMessisanaccountofthegeneralreceptionofJacquesDerrida'sworkin
AngloAmericanacademies,sincethestoryofthisreceptionprovidesinsightinthefieldofcriticaltheorywithintheseacademiesoverroughlythepast
thirtyyears"(p.xi).
[24]SeeJacquesDerrida,LimitedInc.,trans.SamuelWeber(Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1988)thecontributionstoDialogueand
Deconstruction:TheGadamerDerridaEncounter,ed.DianeP.MichelfelderandRichardE.Palmer(StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1989)
hereafterDD"SokaletBricmontnesontpassrieux,"LeMonde,20November1997,17"Lefacteurdelavrit,"inThePostCard:FromSocratesto
FreudandBeyond,trans.AlanBass(1980Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987),41196.
[25]MauriceBlanchot/JacquesDerrida,TheInstantofMyDeath/Demeure:FictionandTestimony,trans.ElizabethRottenberg(Stanford:Stanford
UniversityPress,2000),23.
[26]SeeGeoffreyBenningtonandJacquesDerrida,JacquesDerrida,trans.GeoffreyBennington(1991Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1993),1.
[27]See,forinstance,JacquesDerrida,"SomeStatementsandTruismsAboutNeologisms,Newisms,Postisms,ParasitismsandOtherSmall
Seismisms,"inTheStatesof'Theory:'History,ArtandCriticalDiscourse,ed.DavidCarroll(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1990).
[28]DeMan,p.12.
[29]RobertPepperell,ThePostHumanCondition,2
nd
edn(Exeter:Intellect,1997),183.
[30]JacquesDerrida,"TheEndsofMan,"inMarginsofPhilosophy,ed.AlanBass(NewYorkandLondon:HarvesterWheatsheaf,1982),118.
[31]PhilippeForget,"Arguments,"inDD,129.
[32]Diane(P.)MichelfelderandRichard(E.)Palmer,"Introduction,"inDD,1.
[33]FredDallmayr,"HermeneuticsandDeconstruction:GadamerandDerridainDialogue,"inDD,77and86.
[34]MichelfelderandPalmer,12.
[35]JacquesDerrida,"ThreeQuestionstoHansGeorgGadamer,"trans.Diane(P.)MichelfelderandRichardE.Palmer,inDD,52.
[36]Forget,143.
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 13/14
[37]Hayles,113.
[38]Waldby,19.
[39]SeeSanfordBudickandWolfgangIser,LanguagesoftheUnsayable:ThePlayofNegativityinLiteratureandLiteraryTheory(Stanford:Stanford
UniversityPress,1987).
[40]Forget,137.
[41]SeeHayles,chapters1and7,andGraham,passim.
[42]SeeGraham,andJosephTabbi,CognitiveFictions(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2002).
[43]NeilBadmington,ed.,Posthumanism(Basingstoke:Palgrave,2000).
[44]DavidBellandBarbaraM.Kennedy,eds,TheCyberculturesReader(NewYork:Routledge,2000)ChrisHablesGray,ed.,TheCyborgHandbook
(NewYork:Routledge,1995).
[45]"ACyborgManifesto:Science,Technology,andSocialistFeminismintheLateTwentiethCentury,"inSimians,CyborgsandWomen:The
ReinventionofNature(NewYork:Routledge,1991),149181.
[46]SeeAntonyEasthope,LiteraryintoCulturalStudies(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1991),andAngelaki4:2(1999):"MachinicModulations:
NewCulturalTheoryandTechnopolitics".
[47]AlloftheseissuesareaddressedinvariouscontributionstoMartinMcQuillanandothers,eds,PostTheory:NewDirectionsinCriticism
(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1999).
[48]Derrida,"TheEndsofMan,"128.
[49]SeeR.L.Rutsky,HighTechn:ArtandTechnologyfromtheMachineAesthetictothePosthuman(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,
1999),particularlytheintroduction.
[50]SeeDavidWills,Prosthesis(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1995),andBrianMassumi,ParablesfortheVirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation
(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002).
[51]SeeMarkC.Taylor,TheMomentofComplexity:EmergingNetworkCulture(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2001)RosiBraidotti,
Metamorphoses:TowardsaMaterialistTheoryofBecoming(Cambridge:Polity,2002)JeanBaudrillard,TheVitalIllusion,ed.JuliaWitwer(NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress,2000).
[52]SeeRapaport,pp.147ff.and2ff,forfurtherreflectionsontheory'slackofunivocityandtheimplicationsoftheDerrideanfauxbond,or"non
show,"whendifferentdiscoursesengageeachother.
[53]ProofthatthisisalreadyhappeningisprovidedinthelastchapterofMartinHalliwellandAndyMousley'sCriticalHumanisms:Humanist/Anti
HumanistDialogues(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2003),called"TechnologicalHumanism(Foucault,Baudrillard,Haraway),"andinthe
29/4/2014 Rhizomes 7: Stefan Herbrechter and Ivan Callus
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/callus.htm 14/14
Conclusion,subtitled"Inhuman,Posthuman,Transhuman,Human."
[54]Bernasconi,in"SeeingDouble:DestruktionandDeconstruction,"inDD,250.
[55]HansGeorgGadamer,"ReplytoJacquesDerrida,"trans.Diane(P.)MichelfelderandRichardE.Palmer,inDD,55.
[56]SeeValentineCunningham,ReadingAfterTheory(Oxford:Blackwell,2002)JeanMichelRabat,TheFutureofTheory(Oxford:Blackwell,2002)
TerryEagleton,AfterTheory(London:AllenLane,2003).
[57]McQuillan,ixff.
[58]Cunningham,14.
[59]SeeJeanMichelRabat,TheFutureofTheory(Oxford:Blackwell,2002),chapter3.