İnsan-sonrasından insan-dışına nesneler ve insanlar

Öz

Görece yeni ancak çok güçlü bir düşünsel alt yapıyla donatılmış gibi görünen posthümanizmin sonrasının konuşulmaya başlandığı günümüz akademik dünyasında üretim-tüketim döngüsü içine hapsolmuş ve kendi içindeki çelişkileri halletmeden büyük sorunları çözme niyetiyle yola çıkmış yönelimler bolluğu yaşıyoruz. Bunun en temel sebeplerinden biri, beşerî bilimlerin temel bilimlerin henüz olgunlaşmamış bulgularını itibari kıymetlerine göre değerlendirip her bilimsel denemeden veya spekülasyondan yeni eleştirel yönelimler veya ‘dönüşler’ çıkarma şevkinde yatmaktadır. Öyle ki, söz konusu yönelim temel prensiplerinden ayrılıp postmodernizmin metin-indirgemeci, özne-göreceli yöntemlerinin bir bakıma kısır döngüsü içine hapsolmaya mahkûm oldu. Malumdur ki, ‘anlatı,’ ‘metin’, ‘tür’, ‘sınır’, ‘yazın’, ‘beden-yazını’ gibi postmodernist terminoloji posthümanist yönelimler üzerine üretilmiş çalışmalarda gayet bol miktarda karşımıza çıkıyor. Bu yazıda, oldukça farklı yönelimlerde faaliyet gösteren posthümanizmin üzerlerine inşa edildiği temel argümanlardan Antroposen ve beden söylemlerinin eleştirisi yapılıp bunların, doğa-kültür ikiliğini reddetmeyip aksine nasıl destekleyen bir yönde ilerlediği gösterilecektir. Sonrasında, spekülatif realist felsefeden ilhamla posthümanizmin yerine insan-dışı kavramını çatı kavram olarak destekleyip bunun etik estetik duruşu açıklanacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnsan-dışı
• posthümanizm
• antroposen
• beden
• nesne
• spekülatif

Objects and human: From posthumanism to nonhumanism

Abstract

In today's academic world, where the aftermath of posthumanism as a relatively new field with strong intellectual infrastructure is being discussed, we experience an abundance of orientations trapped in the production-consumption cycle and set out with the intention of solving big problems without resolving their internal contradictions. One of the main reasons for this lies in the eagerness of the humanities field to evaluate the immature findings of the life sciences according to their face value and to extract new critical orientations or 'turns' from every scientific experiment or speculation. So much so that, the posthuman literature has departed from its basic principles and has become trapped in the vicious circle of postmodernism's text-reductionist, subject-relativist methods. As is well known, post-modernist terminology such as 'narrative,' 'text,' 'genre,' 'border,' 'literature,' 'body-writing,' and so on abound in works on posthumanist orientations. This paper will critique the discourses of the Anthropocene and the body on which posthumanism, which operates in quite different directions, is built, and show how they do not reject the nature-culture dichotomy but rather support it. Then, inspired by speculative realist philosophy, it will support the concept of nonhuman as an umbrella concept instead of posthumanism and explain its ethical stance.

Keywords

• Nonhuman
• posthumanism
• anthropocene
• body
• object
• speculative

References

1. Ağın, B. (2017). End of an era: A posthumanist critique of Anthropocentrism. Journal of Faculty of Letters, 34(1), 13-25.
2. Badmington, N. (2003). Theorizing Posthumanism. Cultural Critique, 53(1), 10-27. https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2003.0017
3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway : Quantum Physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter : A political ecology of things. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391623
5. Bennett, J. (2012). Systems and things: A response to Graham Harman and Timothy Morton. New literary history, 43(2), 225-233.
6. Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or what it’s like to be a thing. University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttsdq9
7. Bryant, L. R. (2014). Onto-Cartography: An ontology of machines and media. Edinburgh University Press.
8. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The Climate of history: Four Theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197-222. https://doi.org/10.1086/596640

9. Chakrabarty, D. (2016). Whose Anthropocene? A response. RCC Perspectives, 2(2), 101-114.
10. Crutzen, P. J., ve Stoermer, E. F. (2000). Have we entered the "Anthropocene"? Global Change Newsletter.
11. Ferrando, F. (2015). The body. İçinde R. Ranisch ve S. L. Sorgner (Eds.), Post- and transhumanism: An introduction (ss. 213-226). Peter Lang.
12. Ferrando, F. (2019). Philosophical Posthumanism. Bloomsbury Academic.
13. Finney, Stanley C. and Lucy E. Edwards. (2016). "The “Anthropocene” Epoch: Scientific Decision or Political Statement." GSA Today, 26(3), 2016, pp. 4-10.
14. GPT-3. (2020). A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3
15. Grusin, R. A. (2015). Introduction. İçinde R. A. Grusin (Ed.), The Nonhuman Turn (pp. vii-xxix). University of Minnesota Press.
16. Harman, G. (2011a). Realism without Materialism. SubStance, 40(2), 52-72. doi:10.1353/sub.2011.0011.
17. Harman, G. (201b1). Autonomous objects. New formations, 71(71), 125-30.
18. Harman, G. (2012). The well-wrought broken hammer: Object-oriented literary criticism. New Literary History, 43(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2012.0016
19. Harman, G. (2015). Object-oriented ontology. İçinde The Palgrave handbook of posthumanism in film and television, (ss. 401-409). Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Harman, G. (2016a). Materialism is not the solution. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 24(47).
21. Harman, G. (2016b). Immaterialism: Objects and social theory. Polity Press.
22. Harman, G. (2018). Speculative realism : an introduction. Polity Press.
23. Harman, G. (2020a). Nesne yönelimli ontoloji: Her şeyin yeni bir teorisi. Tellekt.
24. Harman, G. (2020b). Skirmishes: With friends, enemies, and neutrals (e-book ed.). Punctum Books. https://doi.org/10.21983/P3.0293.1.00
25. Hayles, N. K. (2005). My mother was a computer: Digital subjects and literary texts. University of Chicago Press.
26. Hayles, N. K. (2008). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and and informatics. University of Chicago Press.
27. Hui, Y. (2017). On Cosmotechnics: For a renewed relation between rechnology and rature in the anthropocene. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 21(2/3).
28. Koertge, N. (Ed.). (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford University Press.
29. Lyotard, J. F. (2000). Can thought go on without a body? İçinde N. Badmington (Ed.), Posthumanism. Macmillan.
30. MacCormack, P. (2020). The ahuman manifesto: Activism for the end of the Anthropocene. Bloomsbury Academic.
31. Morton, T. (2011). Here comes everything: The promise of Object-Oriented Ontology. Qui Parle, 19(2), 163-190. https://doi.org/10.5250/quiparle.19.2.0163
32. Morton, T. (2012). An object-oriented defense of poetry. New Literary History, 43(2), 205-224. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2012.0018
33. Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press.
34. Morton, T. (2014). How I learned to stop worrying and love the term Anthropocene. Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry, 1(2), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1017/pli.2014.15
35. Morton, T. (2015, 26 June). How to defeat invisible Gods. https://archive.org/details/HowToDefeatInvisibleGods1110159.09AM
36. Moslund, S. P. (2021). Postcolonialism, the Anthropocene, and new nonhuman theory: A postanthropocentric reading of Robinson Crusoe. ariel: A Review of International English Literature, 52(2), 1-38.
37. Mounk, Y. (2018). What an audacious hoax reveals about academia. The Atlantic.
38. Norris, C. (2013). Speculative realism: Interim report with just a few caveats. İçinde M. Austin, P. J. Ennis, F. Gironi, T. Gokey, ve R. Jackson (Eds.), Speculations IV. Punctum Books.
39. Parikka, J. (2015). The Anthrobscene. University of Minnesota Press.
40. Piñol, A. S. (2018). Soğuk deri. Jaguar Kitap.
41. Secord, J. (1997). Introduction. İçinde Carles Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Penguin Books Limited.
42. Sokal, A., ve Bricmont, J. (1999). Imposturas intelectuales.
43. van der Tuin, I. (2014). Diffraction as a methodology for feminist Onto-epistemology: On encountering Chantal Chawaf and posthuman interpellation. Parallax, 20(3), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927631
44. Weinberg, S. (1996). Sokal's Hoax. New York Review of Books, 13, 11-15.
45. Welsch, W. (2017). Postmodernism, posthumanism, evolutionary anthropology. Journal of Posthuman Studies, 1(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0075
46. Westcott, J. (2015). Written in stone : In the race for geology’s highest accolade – a ‘golden spike’ – do advocates of the Anthropocene sell their ideas short? Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/is-rushing-to-declare-the-anthropocene-also-human-error
47. Zahavi, D. (2016). The end of what? Phenomenology vs. speculative realism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24(3), 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2016.1175101
48. Zalasiewicz, J. A., Williams, M., Waters, C. N., Barnosky, A. D., Palmesino, J., Rönnskog, A.-S., Edgeworth, M., Neal, C., Cearreta, A., Ellis, E. C., Grinevald, J., Haff, P., Ivar do Sul, J. A., Jeandel, C., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, J. R., Odada, E., Oreskes, N., Price, S., Revkin, A. C., Steffen, W., Summerhayes, C., Vidas, D., Wing, S. L., ve Wolfe, A. P. (2017). Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A geological perspective. The Anthropocene Review, 4, 22 - 29.
49. Ziolkowski, L. A. (2016). The geologic challenge of the Anthropocene. RCC Perspectives, 2(2), 35-40.