After Auto, after Bio: Posthumanism and Life Writing
After Auto, after Bio: Posthumanism and Life Writing
复制标题
在汽车之后，在生物之后：后人文主义与传记写作
DOI：
10.1080/08989575.2017.1288038
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Huff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Huff
批判的后人类主义，与流行的后人类主义（见西蒙）不同，几乎困扰着自传体实践和批评的每一个原则--自主的自我，作者和读者之间的契约，人类的前景化--倾向于关注关系，材料和环境，建议对生活叙事进行彻底的重新概念化和重建，更不用说生活写作了。在一个批判的后人类主义的结构中，生活和叙事需要重新考虑。自传记和自传诞生以来，赞美人类的生命一直是其核心，但后人类主义动摇了人类的中心地位，转而考虑物质、非人类和存在互动的环境。同样，在后人类主义者的想象中，写作作为一种由人类控制的技术将被去中心化和不稳定化，以获得更广泛的叙事关系概念。这个概念会贬低视觉--人类最认同和最常使用的感觉--和定性认知，同样偏爱触觉、味觉、嗅觉、听觉和定量思维，所有认识世界的方式对非人类动物和机械关系同样重要或更重要。对于生命叙事的作家和理论家来说，挑战在于认识到超人类不是后人类，因为批判的后人类主义并没有设想一个人类超越环境自由漂浮的世界，从地球上脱离出来;相反，批判的后人类主义牢牢地定位于物质，无论物质性涉及人与动物的互动，人机互动，或者两者兼而有之，因为我们的世界越来越互动和相互依存。这种互动性和相互依赖性预示着一种新的叙事和一个新的术语来批评这种新的叙事，同时磨练一个后人类主义的透镜来考虑流行的后人类主义生活叙事的代表性缺陷。最后一个最好的例子是动物志，其中人类作者用腹语表达动物的声音，据说是为了讲述他的故事。在关于英雄伴侣动物的回忆录畅销书热潮中，这种常见的做法涉及到长期困扰生活写作理论家的伦理问题，即谁有权讲故事。生活书写
Critical posthumanism, as distinguished from popular posthumanism (see Simon), troubles virtually every tenet of autobiographical practice and criticism—the autonomous self, the pact between author and reader, the foregrounding of the human—in favor of focusing on the relational, the material, and the umwelt to suggest a radical reconceptionalizing and reconstruction of life narrative, much less life writing. Life and narrative beg reconsideration in a critical posthumanist configuration. Lauding human life has been central to biography and autobiography since their inception, but posthumanism destabilizes human centrality in favor of considering matter, the non-human, and the surround in which beings interact. Likewise, in a posthumanist imaginary, writing would be decentered and destabilized as a technology controlled by humans to gain mastery in favor of a more expansive concept of narrative relating. That concept would deprivilege sight—the sense with which humans most identify and the one they most use—and qualitative cognition by equally favoring touch, taste, smell, and hearing as well as quantitative thinking, all ways of knowing the world that are just as or more important for non-human animal and mechanical relationality. For writers and theorists of life narrative, the challenges involve realizing that transhuman is not posthuman, for critical posthumanism does not envision a world where humans transcend their environment to float free, unmoored from earth; rather, critical posthumanism is firmly located in the material, whether that materiality involves human-animal interaction, human-machine interaction, or most likely both, given our increasingly interactive and interdependent world. That interactivity and interdependency presage a new kind of narrative and a new terminology to critique that new narrative while simultaneously honing a posthumanist lens to consider the representational shortcomings of popular posthumanist life narrative. A prime example of the last is the animalography, in which the human author ventriloquizes the animal’s voice allegedly to tell his story. This common practice in the memoir boom of stories about heroic companion animals achieving bestseller status concerns ethical questions that have long troubled life-writing theorists, namely who has the right to tell a story. Life-writing