Comments on: Biopower, Dignity, Synthetic Anthropos http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/ a project of the National Humanities Center Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:42:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: Biopoder e Anthropos sintético vía Rabinow (Biopoder 1) « Laboratorio Invisibel http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:06:25 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-114 […] Biopower, Dignity, Synthetic Anthropos […]

]]>
By: Paul Rabinow http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:53:28 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-113 There is a real dilemma that we have encountered time and time again. Molecular biology is totally impenetrable to those who do not understand what a “ribosome binding site” might be but no one complains about that. But expecting readers to have some background knowledge in the human sciences is always policed, often by people who write jargon filled articles themselves. In a short piece what is one to do? We have been told many times by the molecular biologists that they don’t understand (and basically don’t care). Others want simple answers to complicated questions. There must be a space in which we are not only allowed but expected to use analytic terms with some precision. This entails being able to take for granted some literacy. Otherwise….

In Sloterdijk’s controversial lecture on “Rules of the Human Park” all the attention went to an imagined controversy about cloning and the like. The more interesting part of the lecture was about the future of the humanities. Without an exchange of letters among friends (past, present, future) there are no humanities. Letters of course is not taken literally. As the pressure to blog becomes the pressure to tweet becomes the pressures to emote is enabled by more and more devices and opinion makers, the space for more sustained thought and discussion is not eliminated but marginalized. Combine this with the expected virulent American anti-intellectualism and we all know what you get. In fact we don’t all know as historical memory is short and thin.

]]>
By: Paul Rabinow http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:34:08 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-109 Friends,
Thanks for the comment.
We have two other web sites of interest: anthropos-lab.net, diogenes-lab.net, the former has multiple articles and talks on it, the latter is still in progress but is worth a look. The web designer is Adrian van Allen.

The habitual trope of my so-called lack of the empirical is amusing. Please consult either my last few books (often accused of being too empirical and technical e.g. “A Machine to make a future”) or any of the websites for scores of contributions based in inquiry and current problems.
Gaymon Bennett and I have a book online at Rice University Press on Ars Synthetica.
In any case, happy you are reading or at least scavenging as Jim Clifford used to say.

]]>
By: Tom Boellstorff http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-112 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:52:10 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-112 I can sympathize with the second commentator’s frustration at what could understandably be seen as an element of posturing in Paul’s post, but I think Paul is actually raising some very interesting points. Two in particular strike me as worthy of further reflection.

The first concerns temporality. I’m reminded of Robyn Wiegman’s work on a feminism “in the meantime” – Paul’s comments very much resist closure in term of a temporal endpoint. That’s one way I can read the emphasis on “composition,” and it is one way he makes use of the notion of the virtual.

The second point I find fascinating is that I think what Paul is pushing toward here is the question of a methodology for theorization, not data-gathering (the typical object towards which the concept of methodology is oriented).

I look forward to learning more about this interesting work!

]]>
By: How I Make $300 a Day Online http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:51:52 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-111 Hey, great post, very well written. You should blog more about this.

]]>
By: anon http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-108 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:46:20 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-108 While the author purports to open up a dialogue with the general public, through Ars Synthetica as well as this post, the writing here strikes me less as an invitation to conversation and more as an attempt to limit access to the conversation by employing an impenetrable fortress of technical language at the boundaries.

Bio-ethics concern issues for everyone (anyone) to engage with, and the further we develop the capacity to intervene in the human body — altering our own lives and the lives of others — or create new, “designed” living things, the more complicated these issues will seem.

Developing a capacity through clear thinking and unadorned language to engage a broader spectrum of the public truly will be a public service.

]]>
By: Gary Comstock http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2009/06/biopower-dignity-synthetic-anthropos/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:12:27 +0000 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/humannature/?p=267#comment-110 [This reply by George Marcus is posted by the editor on his behalf.]

I am totally sympathetic with Paul’s methodological or metamethodological innovations. He is working from inside a sometimes very formal remaking of modes of inquiry that he has forged over the last decade through his researches in science studies. In his current work within the space provided for ethics/social effects discussion by ‘big’ science projects in synthetic biology, Paul is trying to define the terms for a more critical and open kind of social inquiry against the perceived or expected limits of this function within these projects. Leaving the terms of classic ethnography behind, but continuing on fully in its spirit, Paul has forged an analytic apparatus to encourage critical thinking within domains where the terms of discourse about the social are constrained. His derivations from Foucualt, Dewey, and others can read like code in the effort to define his own analytics. An access to how his efforts at concept work engages with the more recognizable anthropological tradition of critical ethnography can be had in conversations between Paul, myself, James Faubion, and Tobias Rees, published as Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary, Duke University Press.

– George Marcus, University of California, Irvine

]]>