ArticlePDF Available

Robotopias: mapping Utopian perspectives on new industrial technology

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Purpose This paper maps utopian theories of technological change. The focus is on debates surrounding emerging industrial technologies which contribute to making the relationship between humans and machines more symbiotic and entangled, such as robotics, automation and artificial intelligence. The aim is to provide a map to navigate complex debates on the potential for technology to be used for emancipatory purposes and to plot the grounds for tactical engagements. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes a two-way axis to map theories into to a six-category typology. Axis one contains the parameters humanist–assemblage. Humanists draw on the idea of a human essence of creative labour-power, and treat machines as alienated and exploitative form of this essence. Assemblage theorists draw on posthumanism and poststructuralism, maintaining that humans always exist within assemblages which also contain non-human forces. Axis two contains the parameters utopian/optimist; tactical/processual; and dystopian/pessimist, depending on the construed potential for using new technologies for empowering ends. Findings The growing social role of robots portends unknown, and maybe radical, changes, but there is no single human perspective from which this shift is conceived. Approaches cluster in six distinct sets, each with different paradigmatic assumptions. Practical implications Mapping the categories is useful pedagogically, and makes other political interventions possible, for example interventions between groups and social movements whose practice-based ontologies differ vastly. Originality/value Bringing different approaches into contact and mapping differences in ways which make them more comparable, can help to identify the points of disagreement and the empirical or axiomatic grounds for these. It might facilitate the future identification of criteria to choose among the approaches.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Robotopias: mapping utopian
perspectives on new
industrial technology
Rhiannon Firth
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK, and
Andrew Robinson
Independent Scholar, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper maps utopian theories of technological change. The focus is on debates surrounding
emerging industrial technologies which contribute to making the relationship between humans and machines
more symbiotic and entangled, such as robotics, automation and artificial intelligence. The aim is to provide a
map to navigate complex debates on the potential for technology to be used for emancipatory purposes and to
plot the grounds for tactical engagements.
Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes a two-way axis to map theories into to a six-category
typology. Axis one contains the parameters humanistassemblage. Humanists draw on the idea of a human
essence of creative labour-power, and treat machines as alienated and exploitative form of this essence.
Assemblage theorists draw on posthumanism and poststructuralism, maintaining that humans always exist
within assemblages which also contain non-human forces. Axis two contains the parameters utopian/optimist;
tactical/processual; and dystopian/pessimist, depending on the construed potential for using new technologies
for empowering ends.
Findings The growing social role of robots portends unknown, and maybe radical, changes, but there is no
single human perspective from which this shift is conceived. Approaches cluster in six distinct sets, each with
different paradigmatic assumptions.
Practical implications Mapping the categories is useful pedagogically, and makes other political
interventions possible, for example interventions between groups and social movements whose practice-based
ontologies differ vastly.
Originality/value Bringing different approaches into contact and mapping differences in ways which make
them more comparable, can help to identify the points of disagreement and the empirical or axiomatic grounds
for these. It might facilitate the future identification of criteria to choose among the approaches.
Keywords Robots, Cybernetics, Posthumanism, Humanism, Utopia
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Capitalism is punctuated by crises, most recently the 2008 financial crisis. Modernisation
discourses and practices portending historical recomposition of Capital in labour saving/
enhancing technologies, and environmental techno-capitalism abound in scientific and policy
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
© Rhiannon Firth and Andrew Robinson. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial
purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence
may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode.
Rhiannon Firth presented a version of this paper at the 20th International meeting of the Utopian
Studies Society of Europe at Monash University, Prato, on 2nd July 2019 and is grateful to attendees for
their questions and feedback.
Funding: Rhiannon Firth would like to acknowledge the support of the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [grant number EP/R021031/1]. Co-author Andrew Robinson is
independent.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0144-333X.htm
Received 3 January 2020
Revised 18 March 2020
Accepted 18 March 2020
International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy
Emerald Publishing Limited
0144-333X
DOI 10.1108/IJSSP-01-2020-0004
literatures and mainstream culture, under terminology of the fourth industrial revolution
(Schwab, 2017). The technical emphasis in this newparadigm appears to be on automation
technologies, for example robots encompassing cognitive functions (e.g. natural language
processing), artificial intelligence and machine learning and algorithms mimicking
management functions (Wang et al., 2017) and even social and emotional labour (Breazeal,
2002;Kerruish, 2016). However, some aspects emphasize communication and digital
connectivity between humans, technology, and nature through big data, wearable devices,
smart cities,and smart factories,and the Internet of things, and human augmentation
through nano- and bio-technology (Zanella et al., 2014). There is apparent conflict between
desires to replicate/replace human labour through technology, and desires rendering the
relationship between humans, machines and nature more symbiotic through hybrid
connections (Romero et al., 2016).
Academic social theories address shifts in the sociotechnical. They mobilise empirical
(based on observation/analysis of reality) and axiomatic (based on normative assumptions
about the nature of reality) claims. We contend that divides in these literatures are often cast
as hegemonic ontologies or two-way splits, binarizing difference into opposition. For
example, Marxists have accused critical posthumanists, who seek to empirically understand
entangled human-technology relationships, of normative complicity in reproducing their
specific forms under capitalism (Rikowski, 2003, pp. 121123), whilst posthumanists have
bundled Marxists together with (Neo) Liberals proclaiming their mutual complicity in the
modernist project of patriarchal essentialism and human exceptionalism, despite
incompatible views of what constitutes the human (Braidotti, 2013, p. 19). This
divisiveness reflects polarisation in mainstream culture and radical social movements and
oversimplifies discussions of accelerating capitalist sociotechnical change and ecological
destruction (Dale, 2019).
This article crafts a six-cluster typology of perspectives on shifting human-technology
relationships along two axes. Along the first axis, we complexify the debate by attention to
utopianism, understood as encompassing investments and articulations of affect and desire
in the present and/or future intentionality (Garforth, 2009). Optimists invest new technologies
with utopian, miraculous or revolutionary potential, with dangers or costs seen as
manageable. Pessimists invest them with fears of a dystopian future, portraying a trend
towards greater control, alienation, ecocide, and other unwanted outcomes. Between these are
strategic or tactical authors, who emphasise socioeconomic systems or assemblages within
which technologies are deployed, rendering them wonderful or harmful. The second axis
divides humanist and assemblage theories, distinguished by the ontological primacy
attached to humans, or else the assemblages or relations within which actors are situated. We
take humanistto encompass a variety of positions, from belief in an essential human nature
or special human creative power, to teleological ideas of a human calling. Assemblage
theories are associated with post-humanists, transhumanists and others who critique human
essence and view technology as a trait of the human outfit(Ferrando, 2013, p. 28). Humans
are embedded in wider assemblages containing nonhuman components (e.g. machines), and
ideas of Man,”“the humanor the individualare results of contingent assemblages.
Assemblage theorists may still judge assemblages in normative and imaginary terms, in
relation to the affects or social effects they produce.
The clusters do not express unified political positions, nor will we critique them from a
singular position, aside from noting our anti-authoritarianism. All clusters can produce
authoritarian theories, but some are more prone to. Nor do we associate the clusters with
particular historical periods, though they tend to be temporally clustered. Political and
historical mappings are important (see Ferrando, 2013,2014) but beyond our scope. Our
purpose is closer to Deleuzesproblem-field(Deleuze, 1994). Each cluster is an abstract
machine, with concepts as components, arranging percepts and sense in particular ways,
IJSSP
making some things visible and thinkable, and obscuring others. When a problem field
establishes axioms, it tends to ignore or anathematise positions which deny the axiom
(Deleuze, 1994, pp. 108112, p. 268), but many of these are in principle empirical-type claims
and are treated empirically in other clusters.Particular problems arise from a cluster which
are not solved within its concepts, which lead to lines of interest, or what the theory is trying
to do.
It is possible (even desirable) to have attachments to more than one problem-field.
Mapping the categories is thus useful pedagogically, and makes other political interventions
possible, for example the insurgent trainingthat Nold associates with ontological
interventions(Nold, 2020) between groups whose practice-based ontologies differ vastly.
Policy-oriented research is dominated by humanist-optimists, whereas Science and
Technology Studies (STS) is dominated by assemblage-optimists and assemblage-
tacticians. Humanist-strategists are strong in social sciences, while humanist-pessimist
and assemblage-tactical approaches are common in technology-related activism. These
different approaches often ignore or speak past one another, leading to a lack of
interperspectival learning. Bringing different approaches into contact and mapping their
differences can identify disagreements and (empirical or axiomatic) grounds for these (see
Figure 1).
Humanist-optimist
Humanist-optimists invest emerging technologies with hopes for desired utopian futures.
Most are enthusiastic about existing economic institutions, conflating these with
technological progress. Writings are replete with metaphysical talk of miraculous
changes (Weise et al., 2018), humans obtaining god-like powers, or the solution of issues
like immortality (Kelly, 1994). Historically, they often emerge during accelerated
technological innovation, believing currently fashionable sciences (e.g. cybernetics) index
foundational levels of life and matter, as in Dennetts (2004) view that humans, animals and
robots are basically similar. Since living creatures are machine-like, there are few ethical or
practical barriers to AI, artificial life, biological manipulation, or HumanRobot Interaction
(HRI). Neither mechanising humans nor anthropomorphising machines is necessarily
fallacious.
Figure 1.
Visual map of the
perspectives
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
There is a long tradition of imagining machines as sources of unlimited wealth and/or
ways around the messy relationship between capital and labour (Wendling, 2009, pp. 6869;
Dyer-Witheford, 1999, p. 3), ranging from Babbage in the nineteenth century, through Bell,
Brzezinski, Drucker, and Wiener in the postwar era, to the Californian Ideology(Barbrook
and Cameron, 1995) in the 19801990s. Opposition to technological change is dismissed as
resistance to progress. Fundamental economic shifts make knowledge, innovation and
information main sources of wealth (Dyer-Witheford, 1999, pp. 2326). Humanist-optimists
downplay risks of unemployment and machinic enslavement, suggesting work will become
more creative, cognitive and autonomous (Reich, 2000;Buterin, 2013;Licklider, 1990;Beer,
1959). Many humanist-optimists use an actor-tool model whereby technologies are basically
neutral: negative consequences stem from human misuse. This is compatible with concerns
about technical developments with great possibilities for good and evil(Wiener, 1948, p. 28).
There is often substantial faith in unknown futures or invocations for leaders to step up to
realise their utopian aspects.
Within humanist-optimism, there is a division between the speculative utopias of
transhumanism and more mundane, problem-solving research of policy relevanthumanist-
optimists. Much (para-) academic research falls into the latter subset (for critical discussion
see Plows and Reinsborough, 2011;Gupta et al., 2019). Robots, AIs and HRI provide human
benefits including efficiency, reduced drudgery, and even inclusivity and sustainability.
Dangers are largely technical, subject to techno- or edu-fixes within a neoliberal framework.
So hostile AI is an issue of avoiding programming errors and human malice (Sotala and
Yampolskiy, 2015), and for Kurzweil (2005, p. 420), capitalist markets provide optimal
conditions for friendly AI.
At the more utopian end, transhumanists and extropians promote the belief that we can,
and should...overcome our biological limits by means of reason, science and technology,
augmenting humans using new technologies (Ouroboros, 1999, p. 4). Transhumanists also
favour reason, progress, and values centered on [human] well being, however, they see
humanity as a transitory stagetowards a transhuman or posthuman condition(More,
1994, p. 1). One branch focuses on the Singularity: a point at which AI surpasses human
intelligence. While this is recognised as posing existential dangers to humans, it is a means by
which humanity transcends itself, or fulfils humanitys destiny on an evolutionary ladder.
Posthumanists generally characterise transhumanism as liberal humanist, hubristic, and
dualistic, and classist and technocentric(Ferrando, 2013, p. 28; c.f. Graham, 2004).
Kelly is an exemplary humanist-optimist,placing faith ina hivemind or technium: a holistic
aggregate of humans, computers and nature (1995, p. 174; cf. Kelly, 2010). Complex systems
(including markets and AIs) are alive, intelligent, and smarter than humans (Kelly, 2010,
pp. 233, 264, 289). Kelly adopts a cybernetic definition of life, as a computational function
(Kelly, 2010, p. 96) which can be engineered. Kelly also treats life as metaphysically important,
immortal and omnipotent (e.g. Kelly, 2010, pp. 54, 203, 220, 392394). Machinic life is the next
stage in evolution (Kelly, 2010, p. 227). Complex systems will solve problems like climate
change (Kelly, 2010, pp. 140, 371374). Humans should harnesscomplex systems and
evolution through cybernetic control to carry us where we cant go by ourselves(Kelly, 2010,
p. 233). Complex systems preclude top-down control (e.g. state planning) (Kelly, 2010,p.42),
but not soft cybernetic control, e.g. manipulating inputs and selecting outputs (Kelly, 2010,
pp. 105106, pp. 281282). Individuals proliferate, are judged by their performance, and
selected-out through the destruction of the unfit(Kelly, 2010, pp. 313314). Although Kelly
urges deference to complex systems, he remains humanist, assuming invariants of human
nature, notably economic rationality (Kelly, 2010, p. 367) and culture (Kelly, 2010,p.306).
Human life has meaning as a vector inthe self-expansion of life. We later explore posthumanist
critiques that humanists are prone to essentialism and exceptionalism, excluding non-ideal
IJSSP
persons (e.g. women). The combination of humanism, teleological optimism and deference to
cybernetic control imbues this cluster with authoritarian tendencies.
Humanist-strategic
Humanist-strategists maintain that robots and machines can harm or benefit humans,
depending on the socioeconomic assemblages they are embedded in. Most are Marxists or
other leftists, and socioeconomic rather than technological determinists. Many embrace
assemblage theories like situatedness and human-machine interchange. However, human
labour retains a special place as the source of creativity, progress or value. There is no fixed
human nature, but humanity has an autopoietic power of labour/creation (Wendling, 2009,
p. 140). Humanist-strategists seek to use (alienated, but not ontologically autonomous)
machines for human-directed goals. They are congealed human labour or knowledge,
employed as fixed capitalowned by capitalists, only seeming like an autonomous force
(Marx, 1973[1857-8], p. 692; Marx 1990[1867], p. 508; Wendling, 2009, p. 67).
Negative effects of automation within capitalism include unemployment, subordination of
workers to machines, and a range of psychological and physical harms (e.g. Marx 1990[1867],
pp. 544545). Positive potential effects include reduced drudgery, increased social wealth,
and satisfaction of human needs. The potential of machines will be redeemed in communism
(Marx, 1973[18578], p. 706). Marxists generally oppose humanist-pessimist Luddismas
well as optimistsdesocialised technophilia (e.g. Rikowski, 2003, pp. 159160; Wark, 2004,
p. s246). Although humanist-strategists agree that technology is socially mediated and
ambivalent in its effects, they disagree which current technologies are reappropriable for
strategic or postcapitalist use. Some technologies (e.g. the blockchain, filesharing) are
evaluated positively. Technology ownership is also a recurring issue.
Humanist-strategists are relatively optimist or pessimist. Optimistic advocates of
accelerationism and Fully Automated Luxury Communism see the possibility of total
automation and postcapitalism. Accelerating technological tendencies will destroy
capitalism and produce socialism through full automation and a universal basic income
(UBI) (Srnicek and Williams, 2015;Mason, 2015). This perspective embraces most emerging
technologies, including cyborg augmentations, artificial life, biotechnology, automation, and
econometric modelling (Srnicek and Williams, 2015, pp. 82, 144; Reed, 2014, p. 529).
Post-autonomists see more extensive changes in capitalism than other Marxists, e.g.
information society as a new type of exploitation of specifically cognitive labour (Dyer-
Witherford, 1999, p. 94). New technologies under capitalism are generally harmful, but
contain progressive potential, as sources of abundance in a future liberated society, and as
means of recomposition and social struggle. For Berardi, semiocapitalismreduces
individuals to fragments plugged into automatic systems (2016, pp. 214218). Terranova
(2004, pp. 100, 112115, 118) sees cybernetic systems as systems of soft control (rather than
dispersed networks), altering initial conditions and Darwinian selection among outcomes,
bringing distributed systems under control. People are fragmented into emotionally reactive
units, then managed through aggregate statistical probability (Terranova, 2004, pp. 20, 123).
Terranova encourages resistance within and against this field, including refusals and
strategic uses (Terranova, 2004, p. 128).
Like other post-autonomists, Griziotti believes in a reciprocal, assemblage-like human-
machine exchange (Griziotti, 2019, pp. 13, 144), but sees socioeconomic forces as primary
(Griziotti, 2019, p. 15). New technologies aim to elide the machine-life boundary until
indistinguishable (Griziotti, 2019, pp. 107, 148). It is possible to self-organise the digital
common, but in practice it is dominated by corporations (Griziotti, 2019, p. 180) and controlled
by cybernetic automatisms containing the increased creative power of labour (Griziotti, 2019,
p. 147). If capitalism continues, Griziottis outlook is dystopian. Humans could lose control to a
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
digital Leviathanof algorithms (Griziotti, 2019, pp. 44, 135), die out (Griziotti, 2019, p. 163),
or be trapped in a rampant technological neuro-totalitarianism(Griziotti, 2019, p. 174). The
current situation involves widespread performance anxiety, precarity, exploitation of free
labour, bullying, surveillance, disposability, extreme competition, and mental distress and
collapse (Griziotti, 2019, pp. 501, 104). However, these technologies also allow oppositional
and postcapitalist uses. Peer production, gaming and virtual worlds, hacker communities, 3D
printing, and cryptocurrency are positive forces (Griziotti, 2019, pp. 801, 131, 148, 190). The
only way to continue the human story is the construction of the common(Griziotti, 2019,
p. 207).
Open Marxists are often more pessimistic, seeing technology as a means through which
capital encloses people and enforces their reduction to abstract value. Kleiner (2016, pp. 63
68) theorises a strategic battle between systemic forces of enclosure (which impose work) and
practices of escape, which today focuses on intermediation in virtual networks. Some (e.g.
Pitts and Dinerstein, 2017) favour DIY initiatives to create a concrete instead of abstract
utopia. Cooperativists generally seek a lower-technology socialism focused on direct worker
control and production management; some see platforms and the gig economy as an
opportunity to expand cooperativism. It has the potential to be wildly democratizing(Sipp,
2016, p. 60; c.f. Rushkoff, 2016, p. 33) despite current exploitative tendencies.
Humanist-pessimist
Humanist-pessimists see emerging technologies as threats to vital human values. Most are
radical ecologists, with some romantic conservatives, anarchists, and craft socialists also in
this cluster. There is a longstanding critique found in Heidegger (1977[1954]),Marcuse (1962
[1941]) and Adorno (2002[1977]) that because science and technology are purely instrumental,
they are corrosive of qualitative, subjective, immanent or expressive meaning. In a
technologically alienated world, people become disconnected from others and nature,
dependent on technology and social hierarchies, and lose autonomy. Technology is addictive,
making users dependent. Psychological welfare and life-goals are threatened, along with
ecosystems which matter inherently and as bases for human survival. Humanist-pessimists
generally advocate degrowth, human-scale communities, and engagement in meaningful life-
activity and self-actualisation (Kallis, 2017;Chamberlin, 2009).
Technology as such, or its malevolent subclass, is considered part of a general system or
megamachine(Mumford, 1986, p. 321). Technologies are not simply tools. They embed
strong technological determinism. Either technology and tools are radically differentiated
(e.g. Zerzan, 1997;Gorrion, 2012), or technology is bisected. At some point, technology
develops inhuman agency and harms humansautonomy, or else expresses humanitys self-
alienation.
Zerzan (1997, p. 1) views technology as essentially bad, and as underpinning hierarchies
like gender and division of labour. Computers are the latest stage inmaking people dependent
on the machine for everything(Zerzan, 2012, p. 92), while AI and robotics will render
humans unnecessary (Zerzan, 2012, p. 101). Virtual reality takes representation to new
levels of self-enclosure and self-domestication(Zerzan, 2008, p. 3). For Perlman (1983,p.46)
civilisation is a force of death, reducing human beings to things. For Winner, benefits of
technology come at the cost of vulnerabilities to high-cost disruptions, and likely unbearable
resultant policing demands (Winner, 1986, p. 319). Kingsnorth (2015) distinguishes between
addictive technologies which require the entire industrial economy to function, and simple
tools which do not.
Other humanist-pessimists, like Illich (1973),Mumford (1986[1966]) and Ellul (1965[1954]),
distinguish between benevolent and harmful technologies. Illich divides tools into convivial
(aiding individual autonomy, social conviviality and ecology) and industrial (manipulative or
IJSSP
dependency-forming) (Illich, 1973, pp. 1214). Illich believes humans have an inalienable
nature(Illich, 1973, p. 97) which is flexible only within bounds(Illich, 1973, p. 46). Industrial
society subordinates humans to technological logics, and may threaten human life (Illich,
1973, p. 47). Convivial tools allow user autonomy, can be used or avoided at will, for different
purposes by different users. Most low-technology tools are convivial (Illich, 1973, p. 22). Most
high-tech tools (e.g. cars and hospitals) are industrial. However, some higher-tech tools, such
as telephones and bicycles, pass Illichs test (Illich, 1973, pp. 22, 64, 79).
Referencing robotics, Illich depicts even simple machines as energy slaves(Illich, 1973,
p. 14) dangerously substituting or supplementing human energy inputs, introducing unequal
power (Illich, 1973, p. 26; Illich, 1974). Machines stem from an earlier desire for a laboratory-
made homunculus [that] could do our labor instead of slaves(Illich, 1973, p. 20). This fails to
overcome the master-slave relation (Illich, 1973, p. 20). Humans must then be educated to
work alongside homunculi, and thus, subordinated to tools (Illich, 1973, p. 30). Illichs
followers provide criteria and typologies for convivial technology (Kostakis et al., 2016;
Prieur, 2011;Gordon, 2009), generally focused on avoiding ecological harms, encouraging
user autonomy and egalitarian and participatory societies, and providing meaningfulwork.
Voinea (2018, p. 76) provides criteria of flexibility, transparency, simplicity/usability,
sharedness, creativity and sociality. This raises questions about whether advanced,
anthropomorphised technologies (e.g. robotics) can be convivial, with some arguing that
robots are likely to become dependency-forming and substitute for human skills in a wider
attack on autonomy(Anon, 2018, p. 10). Humanist-pessimists rely on many of the same
empirical-type claims as humanist-optimists, for example the idea that the techniumhas
grown beyond human control. However, the affective investments and normative
imperatives are opposed: it is rearranging itself round us now like a prison(Kingsnorth,
2015, p. 39), threatening the abolition of human nature(Illich, 1973, p. 41). Human nature
here is axiomatic: Harvey (2015) argues that humans are becoming robotised through media
exposure, breaking down complex selves and capacities like concentration and empathy.
Assemblage-optimist
While humanist-optimists value technological development as empowering or augmenting
humans, assemblage-optimists value becoming-other and decentring of supposedly
immanent binaries in technological/cybernetic assemblages. Assemblage-optimists tend to
scorn modernity, within which humanism,the human,reasonand the subjectare
necessarily enmeshed. Oppressions and violence are rooted in presubjective linguistic
binaries which elevate humanity over Derridean Others. A Derridean view of technology as a
subordinate/supplementary term in a co-constituted binary with the humanposits
technology as the underprivileged term, used to disrupt the privileged human.In
posthumanism, [t]he cyborg, the monster, the animal... are... emancipated from the category
of pejorative difference(Braidotti, 2011, p. 68).
Optimistic posthumanists celebrate emergent technologiespotential to subvert dominant
binaries, and thereby undermine social oppression. Posthumanists reject humanismor
Man; they are post-anthropocentric and post-dualist (Ferrando, 2013, p. 27). They
reconceive humans as entangled, situated in, and co-constituted by, assemblages
encompassing nonhuman elements. Posthumanists have common belief in technogenesis
(Ferrando, 2014, p. 28): humans relate to technology as animals to habitat (Braidotti, 2011,
p. 62); and are always-already co-evolved with technology (Graham, 2004, p. 25). Thus
human-technological hybridity should not be used instrumentally or feared as threatening
(e.g. Graham, 2004, p. 27). Posthumanist-optimists often situate themselves as a golden mean
between euphoric transhumanists and technophobes (Braidotti, 2011, p. 55; Graham, 2004,
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
pp. 1617; Ferrando, 2013, p. 28): a Derridean strategy of seeking ambivalence while
recognising interdependence of terms.
New materialism is sometimes treated as a posthumanist subtype and sometimes a
distinct approach. It places greater emphasis on embodiment (rather than textual
constructivism), generally conceiving matter as a process of materialization(Ferrando,
2013, p. 30), or becoming within a monistic-holistic field. New materialism encompasses
authors like Braidotti; Karen Barad (2003), who argue reality is produced through a necessary
splitting of the holistic field by observers; and Jane Bennett (2010), who believes inorganic
entities exhibit vital force and should be ethically valued as agents. Like posthumanists, new
materialists place strong emphasis on human embeddedness in the world (Barad, 2007,
p. 185). Metahumanism effectively rebrands posthumanism, sharing a focus on an
unquantifiable field of relational bodies, technogenesis, critique of humanism and binaries,
and inbetweenness as subversion of modernity/capitalism (del Val and Sorgner, 2011).
Posthumanists value emerging technologies for their disruption of the human. Humans
are effects of assemblages: becoming posthumansor cyborgswhen placed in different
assemblages(e.g. Haraway, 2015[1985]; Kaloski, 1997). Resistance to this is taken as a
reactionary clinging to order and attempt to keep collapsing binaries intact. Hence, for Carroll
(2003) objections to eBooks are reactions to a threat or disruptionto a habituated behavior
of reading which is itself socially conditioned. Becoming posthuman may entail renouncing
human agency, reducing it to a moment of reflection, or simply making it more situated.
When becoming posthumans, we undergo changes perhaps including a more relational
worldview, constant awareness of connectedness, an other-centric ethics of accountability,
loss of fears of new technologies and social changes, and in some cases a passive rather than
active stance towards the world.
Donna Haraway rejects boundaries among humans, animals and machines on an
assemblage-theoretic basis. People are always-already cyborgs, enmeshed in messy
interactions inside nonhuman systems (Haraway 2016[2003], p. 181). While Haraway now
renounces the label posthumanist(2015, p. 161), she still writes of people as cyborgs
(Haraway, 2016). In her earlier work, she defined the human as an effect of binaries splitting
Manfrom nature, resting on otheringof animals, robots, nature, women, etc (Haraway
2016[1985], pp. 2830). Cybernetics leads outside such representational hierarchies. Monsters
and cyborgs are valued for their transgression of binaries. Haraways early work is driven by
an ethicopolitical duty to cyborgise as part of a Manichean battle against modernity. In her
more recent work, modernity”’ is taken to have collapsed in ecological crisis, the main task
now to recreate refuges for biodiversity and make kin(2015, p. 162).
Posthumanist-optimists generally endorse or assume cybernetics or close relatives (e.g.
complexity theory and systems theory). Braidotti insists on the primacy of intelligent and
self-organizing matterover human agency (2019, p. 31). Machines subvert binaries,
producing direct relations (2013, p. 57); cybernetics is post-representational (Braidotti, 2013.,
p. 59). Hayles embraces a vision of complexity as recursive reapplication of simple rules to
simple nodes (1999, p. 285). Humans are to relinquish control to distributed cognition of
automated systems (Hayles, 1999, p. 288). Wolfe seeks a self-referential autopoiesisin which
self-referential closure of individuals enables social determination and thus systemic
complexity (Wolfe, 2010, p. xxi). Some posthumanists emphasise the distinctness of human
embodiment, which is both like and unlike machines (Hayles, 1999, pp. 283284; Wolfe, 2010,
p. xxiii; Ferrando, 2013, p. 32). However, their bodytends to be a relational node in
cybernetic networks, not an inner self or material substance.
Most posthumanists supplement cybernetics with holistic, relational, or Derridean ethics.
For Braidotti, affirmative ethicsmakes the difference (2019, p. 41) between good
cybernetic relationality and badcapitalist accelerationism. For Graham (2004, p. 10),
choices and valuesare central to how (not whether) to use new technologies from a
IJSSP
position always already immersed in the material conditions of our own creations(2004,
p. 27). The shift from modernity to cybernetics has already happened: we must craft an
appropriate ethics, politics, and subjectivity for the new reality (Braidotti, 2011, p. 69, 2019,
pp. 34, 49; Ferrando, 2013, p. 32). To the extent that ethicisation is transformation, there is
always a tactical/strategic element to posthumanism, and posthumanists are typically
ethically committed scholars. However, they rarely allow selection among technologies and
are optimistic about the effects of (properly ethically supplemented) technological change as
such. Some endorse capitalism, claiming it impossible and undesirable to leave (Rossini and
Toggweiler, 2017, p. 6). Others are anti-capitalist, while endorsing related modes of cybernetic
power (Braidotti, 2019, pp. 4041; Haraway, 2016;Ferrando, 2013). Fantasies of technology
overcoming finitude, embodiment or death are generally denounced (Braidotti, 2013, p. 60;
Hayles, 1999,p.5;Wolfe, 2010, p. xv; Graham, 2004, p. 24).
An exception is Land (2011)[1993], who values cybernetic systems because they slip out of
human control. Cybernetics began as a control project, but has spun out of control (Plant and
Land, 2014, p. 305). Todays political landscape therefore pits viral machinic forces against
the phobic resistanceand immunopolitics of reactionary humans (Land, 2014, p. 256). As
viral forces triumph, Humanity recedes like a loathsome dream(Land, 2014, p. 261). People
become hyper-diverse, fragmentary individuals, exceeding human limits and crossing
identity-boundaries in a kind of cyberpunk utopia (Land, 2011[1997], p. 456). Critics object
that even ethicised posthumanist-optimism eliminates human agency (Fuller, 2000, p. 26;
Nold, 2020). Similarly to humanist-optimists, assemblage-optimists (including some
posthumanists) give technology agency in itself, channelling their desires through it.
However, some posthumanists take a more critical and political stance, as outlined below.
Assemblage-tactical
Assemblage-tactical approaches use assemblage models but seek to maintain human agency.
Most term themselves tactical rather than strategic, aligning with de Certeaus (1988[1980])
association of strategy with rigid hierarchies and tactics with micropolitical everyday
resistance. Tactical media is based on de Certeaus theory and involves bricolage and
detournement of technologies outside their usual assemblages. It refers to bottom-up, flexible,
hybrid and provisional approaches (Garcia and Lovink, 2008). Assemblages are assessed in
terms of how far they provide joyous experiences, empower individuals/collectives, equalise
power, produce cooperation, etc. Technology is not neutral, but its impact depends on the
assemblage it is part of. So some technologies can be reclaimed, hacked and repurposed
track-jumping into more emancipatory assemblages. Selection distinguishes them from
assemblage-optimists. They usually prefer an active hackerover a passive consumerrole
and emphasise participation (Richardson, 2003, pp. 347350; Westerkamp, 2003, p. 261).
Poststructuralism underpins assemblage-tactical positions. For Deleuze and Foucault,
there is no need to uphold man in order to resist(Deleuze, 1988, p. 92). Everything is part of
assemblages, but resistance is possible based on desires, lines of flight, or forces of life
entrapped within assemblages. Certain non-humanist machines are preferable
(schizorevolutionary or active power for Deleuze; aesthetic self-constitution and self-care
for Foucault). The question concerns the forces that make up man: with what other forces do
they combine, and what is the compound that emerges?(Deleuze, 1988, p. 73). Cybernetics is
treated as a disempowering economic machine fragmenting and recomposing labour
(Deleuze, 1988, p. 131) or as channelling flows (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, pp. 510512),
sometimes leading to machinic enslavement (see below). DeLanda (1991,p.3)isasarobot
historian, focusing on machinic agency. He conceives the human-robot relation as symbiotic,
with machines using humans for propagation. Preciado both opposes disciplinary control
and manipulation of techno-bodies, and celebrates gender-bending, experimentation, and
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
molecular revolutiongenerated by the current pharmacopornographic biocapitalism
(Preciado, 2013[2008]), pp. 325, 166).
Contestational roboticsapplies tactical media theory to robot design and HRI,
encouraging tinkerers to create simple robots or drones for purposes such as infiltrating
securitised sterile zones inaccessible to human protesters, and spreading pamphlets. They
call for continuous development of tactics to reestablish a means of expression and a space of
temporary autonomy within the... socialin the context of advanced surveillance
capabilities(Critical Art Ensemble and Institute for Applied Autonomy, 2001, p. 115). Hacker
accounts suggest empowering affects within certain technosocial assemblages, relative to
everyday life. The Hacker Manifesto (The Mentor, 1986) depicts everyday life as a hellhole of
status-competition, apathy, authoritarianism and sadism, with computers freeing the hacker.
Hacker culture is often portrayed as a subversive counterculture involving gift economy and
an ethos of sharing, non-instrumentality, and information freedom (Levy, 1984;Stallman,
2015;Reimens, 2002;Dasgupta, 2003, pp. 335356), though some suggest it is recuperated in
neoliberal cyberculture (Turner, 2006). Pirate radio, meshnets, FLOSS, anonymity software,
hacklabs, and hacktivism fit into this model.
STS scholars today are influenced by poststructuralism, and use assemblage approaches
bridging optimist and tactical clusters. Examples include the Anglo-Foucauldian school,
Actor Network Theory (ANT) and Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). ANT explores relations
in a network, foregoing explanation (Law, 2004, p. 157; Latour, 2005). It sees knowledge-
production and practice as world-changing interventions, and rejects strong social
constructivism, technological determinism, and essentialism (Law, 1991,p.8;Nold, 2017,
p. 24). Robots, like humans, are actants. ANTs flat ontology tends towards assemblage-
optimism and cybernetic soft power because of difficulty motivating choices among
assemblages, embrace of manipulative power, and de-emphasising of human agency
(Harman, 2018, pp. 136139). However, ANT is critical of rendering the conditions of
scientific/technological production invisible (blackboxing)(Latour, 1999, p. 314). De-
blackboxing technology is consistent with assemblage-tactical ideas of hacking and power
within networks.
OOO (Harman, 2018) emphasises human humility before objects, particularly
hyperobjectswhich are too big to know or control (Morton, 2013). While Harmans
politics is reformist or quietistic, Bryants discussion of eruptive rogue objects, including new
technologies (Bryant, 2012), is more clearly assemblage-strategic. Anglo-Foucauldians like
Rose et al. both argue for an assemblage ontology (2016, pp. 1, 3, 9) and call for humans to be
at the centreof new technologies, and augmented rather than replaced (Rose et al.,2016, p. 3).
There is also a group of critical/radical posthumanists in the assemblage-tactical cluster,
combining posthumanist, new materialist and ANT ideas with radical politics; embracing
criticisms of mainstream posthumanism while salvaging the name and ontology: endorsing
selection among technologies and assemblages. Nold criticises authors like Latour and
Bennett, arguing that some objects should be excluded from social collectives e.g. nuclear
reactors and surveillance systems (Nold, 2020). He calls for a pragmatic coalition of human
and nonhuman agenciesmaking targeted interventions (Rose et al.,2016). Cudworth and
Hobden endorse posthumanism in the sense of assemblage enmeshment and antihumanism
(Cudworth and Hobden, 2018, p. 5, 8), ethics of responsibility, rejection of purity (Rose et al.,
2016, p. 156), and an affinity for complexity theory (Rose et al.,2016, pp. 1315). However, they
criticise emphasis on entanglement rather than power (Rose et al.,2016, p. 14). They posit
selection as an ethical imperative to equalise and reduce harm. This involves lower-impact
living, vegetarianism, everyday conviviality, anti-capitalism, and bottom-up community
(Rose et al.,2016, pp. 137, 146147, 151152). Anarchists using cybernetics similarly try to
unpack decentralising and self-organising aspects from the focus on control (Swann, 2018;
Beer, 1959;Duda, 2013;Goodman, 2010).
IJSSP
Assemblage-tacticians are more prepared to denounce cybernetic power than assemblage-
optimists. Can robots be used within empowering assemblages? Contestational robotics
suggests they can, as demonstrated by robotic distribution of illegal abortion pills at a recent
Irish protest (Press Association, 2018). Assemblage-tacticians have similar issues to
humanist-pessimists, of which technologies are tactically progressive. By their implied
criteria, a good use disrupts dominant systems, empowers disempowered people, and feels
empowering. One problem in HRI is how to tactically usestrong AI, without being used
back, in the manner Galloway (2004) suggests already happens with ostensibly empowering
protocols.
Assemblage-pessimist
Assemblage-pessimists are a smaller cluster of poststructuralists and anarchists who do not
object to assemblages in principle, but believe present dominant assemblages are broadly
disempowering, alienating, immiserating, and fragmenting. Assemblage-pessimists worry
about elite control of new technologies, heavy military and surveillance use, the emergence of
alien machinic perspectives, and a cluster of social, ecological, p sychological and physical harms.
Assemblage-pessimists focus on machinic enslavement: humans become cogs within
social machines, or subordinate nodes in computer networks). Hence, human beings... are
constituent pieces of a machine that they compose among themselves and with other things
(animals, tools), under the control and direction of a higher unity(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987,
pp. 456457). Flows of desire are presubjective and not distinctly human. Social assemblages
are assessed in terms of whether they subordinate/are subordinate to flows of desiring-
production (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004, p. 8). Higher unitydistinguishes enslaving systems
from free systems. Machinic enslavement makes desubjectivized flows and fragmentsand
then turns those subjects into component parts of machines (slave units in the cybernetic
sense)(Wark, 2017, p. 51). Personal aspects of life are thus rendered irrelevant. Whether you
are happy, whether you stutter, whether you are afraid of death or of old age all this counts
for nothing [...] On the contrary, it inconveniences. It makes too much noisein the sense of
information theory(Guattari, 1996, p. 137).
Galloway (2004,2012) understands the Internet through Deleuzes control society theory,
with interfaces operating similarly to control. Media are metonymical rather than indexical,
with objects reduced to classes, and thereby blackboxed (Galloway, 2012, p. 9). Objects are
manipulated to form a world (Galloway, 2012, p. 23). Baudrillard (1994, p. 81) sees the
cybernetic orderthe code- as seeking absolute control. Reality is fragmented into simple
elementsrearranged into binary oppositions and segmented performances, on the model of
surveys (Galloway, 2012, pp. 8384). Feedback systems are closed and tautological, lacking
affective force, meaning, and reversibility (Galloway, 2012, p. 78), causing human suffering,
and taking to its implosive conclusion the denial of symbolic exchange.
Cybernetics is seen as a conservative system, designed to suppress chaotic flows or
capture data. The Invisible Committee see cybernetics as a conservative strategy to impede
the spontaneously entropic, chaotic movement of the world(Invisible Committee, 2014, p. 3).
Gorrion (2012) sees apparatuses domesticating and containing underlying ontological chaos,
through mechanisms of capture and machinic enslavement. Apparatuses are used
strategically by human controllers, but tend to condition strategisers as well as users,
making humans increasingly robot-like.
Virilio sees cybernetic systems as a stage in the emergence of a vision machinefrom
origins in military control. Machinic gaze is privileged over human gaze, and machines start
to see in our place(Virilio, 1994, p. 64). Machinic vision is continuous with modern reason
(Virilio, 1994., p. 70), inaccessible to humans, exercises total control, and disrupts other
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
important assemblages (1990, pp. 6869). Virilio instead values human-scale, civilian social
relations and ecological systems (Virilio, 1986, pp. 117118, 1990, p. 13, 2000, pp. 1415).
Conclusion
The growing social role of robots and human-technology symbiosis portends unknown,
potentially radical, changes, but there is no single human perspective on this shift.
Approaches largely cluster in six distinct sets, each with different paradigmatic assumptions.
It is important to develop ways to test claims made by different approaches, instead of
remaining within group-specific tautologies, as well as disembedding axioms masquerading
as facts which do much of the work in several clusters. The purpose of this typology has been
to elucidate a diversity of problem fields, explore paradigmatic assumptions and explanatory
strength, and to signal some of the philosophical and political work these perspectives can do.
Humanists are prone to essentialism and human exceptionalism, which can exclude non-ideal
humans, non-human beings and nature. Assemblage theories are prone to relativism. In
combination with utopian optimism or dystopian pessimism, perspectives can suggest
deterministic or nihilistic attitudes to emerging technologies. The strategic and tactical
clusters open up more possibilities for political agency. There is also an element of futurology
in mapping the field because epistemologies prefigure technology creation. It seems likely
that we are approaching a new reality in which old categories fail, as in an experiment
described by Kuhn (1962, pp. 6264; Bruner and Postman, 1949), where viewers watching
rapidly-spinning playing cards depicting black hearts could not discern them, instead
labelling them red hearts or black clubs. Only with familiarity and slowdown were black
hearts visible. Human-robot relations may be the black hearts of our time, with traits from
different models the benevolent tools of humanist-optimists, the dangerous inhuman
systems of humanist-pessimists, the congealed labour of humanist-strategists, and the
extimate others of assemblage theory combined in as yet unknowable ways.
References
Adorno, T. (2002[1947]), Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, Stanford University
Press, Stanford.
Anon. (2018), And All the World Shall Become Google: Googles Digital Attack and its Consequences,
Shitstorm: Anarchist Zeitung, Vol. 2, available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/
anonymous-and-the-world-shall-become-google (accessed 6 September 2019).
Barad, K. (2003), Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to
matter,Signs, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 801-831.
Barad, K. (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and
Meaning, Duke University Press, Durham.
Barbrook, R. and Cameron, A. (1995), The Californian ideology,Science As Culture Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 44-72.
Baudrillard, J. (1994[1981]), Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press, Lansing, MI.
Beer, S. (1959), Cybernetics and Management, English Universities Press, London.
Bennett, J. (2010), Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Berardi, F. (2016), Cognitarians and Semiocapital, Maska, Ljubljana.
Braidotti, R. (2011), Meta(l)morphoses: women, aliens and machines,inNomadic Theory: The
Portable Rosi Braidotti, Columbia University Press, , New York, pp. 55-80.
Braidotti, R. (2013), The Posthuman, Polity, Cambridge.
Braidotti, R. (2019), A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities,Theory, Culture & Society
Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 31-61.
IJSSP
Breazeal, C. (2002), Designing Sociable Robots, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bruner, J.S. and Postman, L. (1949), On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm,Journal of
Personality, Vol. XVIII, pp. 206-223.
Bryant, L. (2012), Five types of objects: gravity and onto-cartography, Larval Subjects, available at:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/five-types-of-objects-gravity-and-onto-
cartography/ (accessed 6 September 2019).
Buterin, V. (2013), Bootstrapping an autonomous decentralized Corporation, Part 2: Interacting with
the world,Bitcoin Magazine, Vol. 21, available at: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/
bootstrapping-an-autonomous-decentralized-corporation-part-2-interacting-with-the-world-1379808279
(accessed 6 September 2010).
Carroll, L. (2003), Reading technology: curling up with a good information appliance, in Sarai
Collective (Eds.), Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies, CSDS/Sarai, Delhi, pp. 205-214.
Chamberlin,S.(2009),The Transition Timeline: For a Local, Resilient Future,ChelseaGreen,Hartford,VE.
Critical Art Ensemble and Institute for Applied Autonomy (2001), Contestational robotics, in Critical
Art Ensemble (Eds.), Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media, Autonomedia, New
York, pp. 115-134.
Cudworth, E. and Hobden, S. (2018), The Emancipatory Project of Posthumanism, Routledge, London.
Dale, G. (2019) Degrowth and the green new deal,Ecologist, 28 October 2019, available at: https://
theecologist.org/2019/oct/28/degrowth-and-green-new-deal (accessed 30 October 2019).
Dasgupta, R. (2003), Beyond the apocalypse: an unfinished meditation on ethics, in Sarai Collective
(Eds.), Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies, CSDS/Sarai, Delhi, pp. 236-242.
de Certeau, M. (1988[1980]), The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
del Val, J. and Sorgner, S.L. (2011), A metahumanist Manifesto, available at: https://metabody.eu/
metahumanism/ (accessed 20 December 2019).
DeLanda, M. (1991), War in the Age of Intelligent Machines, Swerve, New York.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987), A Thousand Plateaus, Continuum, London.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2004), Anti-Oedipus, Continuum, London.
Deleuze, G. (1988), Foucault, Continuum, London.
Deleuze, G. (1994), Difference and Repetition, London, Athlone.
Dennett, D. (2004), Atheism Tapes, part 6, BBC TV documentation of Jonathan Miller, produced by
Richard Denton, recorded 2003, broadcast 2004, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v5fvG-q7VrFPg (accessed 6 August 2019).
Duda, J. (2013), Cybernetics, anarchism and self-organisation,Anarchist Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 52-72.
Dyer-Witheford, N. (1999), Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism,
University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL.
Ellul, J. (1965[1954]), The Technological Society, Knopf, New York.
Ferrando, F. (2013), Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism and new
materialisms: differences and relations,Existsenz Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Ferrando, F. (2014), Is the post-human a post-woman? Cyborgs, robots, artificial intelligence and the
futures of gender: a case study,European Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 43, pp. 1-17.
Fuller, S. (2000), Why science Studies has never been critical of science: some recent lessons on how
to be a helpful nuisance and a harmless radical,Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Galloway, A.R. (2004), Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Galloway, A.R. (2012), The Interface Effect, Polity, Cambridge.
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
Garcia, D. and Lovink, G. (2008), The ABC of tactical media, available at: http://www.
tacticalmediafiles.net/articles/3160 (accessed 6 August 2019).
Garforth, L. (2009), No intentions? Utopian theory after the future,Journal for Cultural Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Goodman, R. (2010), New Reformation: Notes of a Neolithic Conservative, PM Press, Oakland.
Gordon, U. (2009), Anarchism and the politics of technology,Working USA: Journal of Labor and
Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 489-503.
Gorrion, A. (2012), Robots of repression,Mute, 27 March 2012, available at: https://www.metamute.
org/community/your-posts/robots-repression (accessed 16 April 2020).
Graham, E. (2004), Post/Human conditions,Theology & Sexuality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 10-32.
Griziotti, G. (2019), Neurocapitalism, Minor Compositions, New York.
Guattari, F. (1996), The Guattari Reader, Blackwell, Oxford.
Gupta, P., Chauhan, S. and Jaiswal, M.P. (2019), Classification of smart city research: a descriptive
literature review and future research agenda,Information Systems Frontiers Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 661-685.
Haraway, D. (2015), Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationcene, cthulucene: making kin,
Environmental Humanities, Vol. 6, pp. 159-165.
Haraway, D. (2016[1985]), The cyborg manifesto: science, technology and socialist feminism in the late
twentieth century,Manifestly Haraway, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 3-90.
Haraway, D. (2016[2003]), The companion species manifesto: dogs, people and significant otherness,
Manifestly Haraway, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 91-198.
Haraway, D. (2016), Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Cthulucene, Duke University Press,
Durham, NC.
Harman, G. (2018), Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything, Pelican, Harmondsworth.
Harvey, C. (2015), Sex robots and solipsism,Philosophy in the Contemporary World, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 80-93.
Hayles, N.K. (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and
Informatics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Heidegger, M. (1977[1954]), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Writings, Garland, New York.
Illich, I. (1973), Tools for Conviviality, Harper and Row, New York.
Illich, I. (1974), Energy and Equity, Harper and Row, New York.
Invisible Committee (2014), Fuck off, Google,to Our Friends, semiotext(e), Cambridge, MA, pp. 99-130.
Kallis, G. (2017), Degrowth, Agenda, Newcastle.
Kaloski, A. (1997), Bisexuals making out with cyborgs: politics, pleasure, con/fusion,International
Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 47-64.
Kelly, K. (1994), Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic
World, self-published, available at: https://kk.org/mt-files/books-mt/ooc-mf.pdf (accessed 6
October 2019).
Kelly, K. (2010), What Technology Wants, Viking, New York.
Kerruish, E. (2016), Perception, imagination and affect in human-robot relationships, New York,
Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 4-20.
Kingsnorth, P. (2015), Planting trees in the anthropocene: a conspiracy theory,Dark Mountain,
Vol. 8, pp. 30-42.
Kleiner, D. (2016), Counterantidisintermediation, in Scholz, T. and Schneider, N. (Eds.), Ours to Hack
and to Own: The Rise of Platform Cooperativism, A New Vision for the Future of Work and a
Fairer Internet, New York: OR, pp. 63-68.
IJSSP
Kostakis, V., Latoufis, K., Liarokapis, M. and Bauwens, M. (2016), The convergence of digital commons
with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: two illustrative cases,Journal of Cleaner
Production,pp.1-10,availableat:https://www.minasliarokapis.com/CleanerProduction2016_
Kostakis_DigitalCommonsLocalManufacturing.pdf (accessed 6 August 2019).
Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kurzweil, R. (2005), The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Viking, New York.
Land, N. (2011 [1993]), Machinic Desire,Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007, Urbanomic,
Falmouth, pp. 319-344.
Land, N. (2011 [1997]), MeltdownFanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007, Urbanomic,
Falmouth, pp. 441-459.
Land, N. (2014), Circuitries, in Mackay, R. and Avanessian, A. (Eds.), #Accelerate: The
Accelerationist Reader, Urbanomic, Falmouth, pp. 251-274.
Latour, B. (1999), Pandoras Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Law, J. (1991), Introduction, in Law, J. (Eds.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology,
and Domination, Routledge, London, pp. 1-25.
Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Routledge, London.
Levy, S. (1984), Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, Nerraw Manijaime/Doubleday, New York.
Licklider, J.C.R. and Taylor, R.W. (1990), The computer as a communication device,inMemoriam: J.
C. R. Licklider 19151990, CA Systems Research Centre, Palo Alto, available at: https://web.
stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/extra4/sloan/mousesite/Secondary/Licklider.pdf (accessed 6
August 2019).
Marcuse, H. (1962[1941]), “’Some social implications of modern technology, in Arato, A. and Eike, G.
(Eds.), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, The Continuum Publishing Company, New York,
pp. 138-162.
Marx, K. (1973[1857-8]), Grundrisse, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Marx, K. (1990[1867]), Capital, Vol. 1, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Mason, P. (2015), PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future, Allen Lane, Bristol.
Mentor (1986), Hackers Manifesto: the conscience of a hacker,Phrack, Vol. 1 No. 7, available at:
http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html (accessed 6 August 2019).
More, M. (1994), On becoming posthuman, available at: www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm.
Morton, T. (2013), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Mumford, L. (1986[1966]), The first megamachine, in Miller, D.L. (Ed.), Lewis Mumford Reader,
Random House, New York, 1986, pp. 315-323.
Nold, C. (2017), Device studies of participatory sensing: ontological politics and design interventions,
Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London).
Nold, C. (2020), Insurrection training for post-human politics,International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy (in press).
Ouroboros (1999), The transtopian principles, Version 2.2, 18 November at: available at: http://
members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryogenic4life/index2.html_link_appears_dead.
Perlman, F. (1983), Against His-Story, Against Leviathan, Black & Red, Detroit.
Pitts, H. and Dinerstein, A. (2017), Corbynisms conveyor belt of ideas: postcapitalism and the politics
of social reproduction,Capital and Class, Vol. 41, pp. 423-434.
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
Plant, S. and Land, N. (2014), Cyberpositive, in Mackay, R. and Avanessian, A. (Eds.), #Accelerate:
The Accelerationist Reader, Urbanomic, Falmouth, pp. 303-314.
Plows, A. and Reinsborough, M. (2011), Encountering the politics of technology: public engagement
from the bottom up,inZ
ulsdorf, T.B., Coenen, C., Ferrari, A., Fiedeler, U., Milburn, C. and
Wienroth, M. (Eds.), Quantum Engagements, AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 91-107.
Preciado, P.B. (2013[2008]), Testo Junkie: Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era,
SUNY Press, New York.
Press Association (2018), Activists Take Abortion Pillsduring Pro-choice Rally in Belfast, The
Guardian, Vol. 31 May, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/
pro-choice-activists-take-abortion-pills-belfast-protest (accessed 6 August 2019).
Prieur, R. (2011), TechJudge, available at: http://www.ranprieur.com/tech.html (accessed 6
August 2019).
Reed, P. (2014), Seven prescriptions for accelerationism, in Mackay, R. and Avanessian, A. (Eds.),
#Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader, Urbanomic, Falmouth, pp. 521-536.
Reich, R. (2000), The Future of Success: Working and Living in the New Economy, Random House,
New York.
Reimens, P. (2002), Some thoughts on the idea of hacker culture’”, available at: http://cryptome.org/
hacker-idea.htm (accessed 6 August 2019).
Richardson, J. (2003), The language of tactical media, in Sarai Collective (Eds.), Sarai Reader 03:
Shaping Technologies, CSDS/Sarai, Delhi, pp. 346-351.
Rikowski, G. (2003), Alien life: Marx and the future of the human,Historical Materialism, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 121-164.
Romero,D.,Stahre,J.,Wuest,T.,Noran,O.,Bernus,P.,Fast-Berglund,
A.andGorecky,D.(2016)Towards
an operator 4.0 typology: a human-centric perspective on the fourth industrial revolution
technologiesin International conference on computers and industrial engineering (CIE46)
proceedings, 29-31 October 2016, Tianjin/China, ISSN 2164-8670 CD-ROM, ISSN 2164-8689 ON-LINE.
Rose, N., Aicardi, C. and Reinsborough, M. (2016), Foresight report on future computing and
robotics,An Ethics and Society Deliverable of the Human Brain Project to the European
Commission, Kings College London, London.
Rossini, M. and Toggweiler, M. (2017), Editorial: posthuman temporalities,New Formations: A
Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, Autumn (92), pp. 5-15.
Rushkoff, D. (2016), Renaissance now, in Scholz, T. and Schneider, N. (Eds.), Ours to Hack and to
Own: The Rise of Platform Cooperativism, A New Vision for the Future of Work and a Fairer
Internet, New York, OR, pp. 33-37.
Schwab, K. (2017), The Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum, Davos.
Sipp, K. (2016), Portable reputation in the on-demand economy, in Scholz, T. and Schneider, N.
(Eds.), Ours to Hack and to Own: The Rise of Platform Cooperativism, A New Vision for the
Future of Work and a Fairer Internet, New York, Or, pp. 59-62.
Sotala, K. and Yampolskiy, S.J. (2015), Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey,Physica Scripta,
Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Srnicek, N. and Williams, A. (2015), Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World without Work,
Verso, London.
Stallman, R.M. (2015), Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M, GNU Press, Stallman,
Boston, MA.
Swann, T. (2018), Towards an anarchist cybernetics: Stafford Beer, self-organisation and radical
social movements,Ephemera Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 427-456.
Terranova, T. (2004), Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age, Pluto, London.
IJSSP
Turner, F. (2006), From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and
the Rise of Digital Utopianism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Virilio, P. (1986[1977]), Speed and Politics, semiotext(e), New York.
Virilio, P. (1990[1978]), Popular Defense and Ecological Struggles, semiotext(e) , New York.
Virilio, P. (1994[1988]), The Vision Machine, British Film Institute, London.
Virilio, P. (2000[1998]), The Information Bomb, Verso, London.
Voinea, C. (2018), Designing for conviviality,Technology In Society, Vol. 52, pp. 70-78.
Wang, X.V., Kem
eny, Z., V
ancza, J. and Wang, L. (2017), Humanrobot collaborative assembly in
cyber-physical production: classification framework and implementation,CIRP annals, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 5-8.
Wark, M. (2004), A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wark, M. (2017), General Intellects: Twenty-Five Thinkers for the Twenty-First Century, Verso, London.
Weise, M.R., Hanson, A.R., Sentz, R. and Saleh, Y. (2018), Robot ready: humanþskills for the future
of work, Indianapolis, IN: Strada Institute for the Future of Work.
Wendling, A. (2009), Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Westerkamp, H. (2003), Colliding soundscapes, interviewed by L. Bhagat, in Sarai Collective (Eds.),
Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies, CSDS/Sarai, Delhi, pp. 255-262.
Wiener, N. (1948), Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Winner, L. (1986), The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wolfe, C. (2010), What Is Posthumanism?, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L. and Zorzi, M. (2014), Internet of things for smart
cities,IEEE Internet of Things journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22-32.
Zerzan, J. (1997), Against technology, available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-
zerzan-against-technology-a-talk-by-john-zerzan-april-23-1997 (accessed 6 August 2019).
Zerzan, J. (2008), Second-best life: real virtuality, Green Anarchy 25, available at: https://
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-second-best-life-real-virtuality (accessed 6 August 2019).
Zerzan, J. (2012), Future Primitive Revisited, Feral House, Port Townsend, WA.
Corresponding author
Rhiannon Firth can be contacted at: r.firth@essex.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Utopian
perspectives on
robots
... Las economías, como tales, constituyen un eufemismo de las capacidades revolucionarias del capitalismo de transformar, precarizar, suprimir y transformar el trabajo. Su carácter creativo está fundado en la destrucción, y en este caso en particular, en la imitación y la mimesis humana (Firth & Robinson, 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Los procesos de digitalización, automatización y robotización del trabajo han cobrado una significativa relevancia en la discusión pública y política a nivel global. Sus características tienden a generar investigación, problematizaciones y conceptualizaciones respecto a los alcances históricos, culturales y sociales de dicho proceso. Uno de los principales ejes de controversia tiende a ser la relación entre tecnología y trabajo. En este artículo analizamos y revisamos algunas de las principales tesis respecto a la transformación socio-tecnológica y sus impactos en el mundo del trabajo. Realizamos un análisis del comportamiento del campo científico en los estudios del trabajo, a partir del análisis bibliométrico de la base WOS entre 1992 y 2023, con el objetivo de relevar la forma en que las comunidades científicas han investigado estos cambios, así como los focos temáticos que se han desarrollado en la comprensión de su complejidad y densidad
... Las economías, como tales, constituyen un eufemismo de las capacidades revolucionarias del capitalismo de transformar, precarizar, suprimir y transformar el trabajo. Su carácter creativo está fundado en la destrucción, y en este caso en particular, en la imitación y la mimesis humana (Firth & Robinson, 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Los procesos de digitalización, automatización y robotización del trabajo han cobrado una significativa relevancia en la discusión pública y política a nivel global. Sus características tienden a generar investigación, problematizaciones y conceptualizaciones respecto a los alcances históricos, culturales y sociales de dicho proceso. Uno de los principales ejes de controversia tiende a ser la relación entre tecnología y trabajo. En este artículo analizamos y revisamos algunas de las principales tesis respecto a la transformación socio-tecnológica y sus impactos en el mundo del trabajo. Realizamos un análisis del comportamiento del campo científico en los estudios del trabajo, a partir del análisis bibliométrico de la base WOS entre 1992 y 2023, con el objetivo de relevar la forma en que las comunidades científicas han investigado estos cambios, así como los focos temáticos que se han desarrollado en la comprensión de su complejidad y densidad.
... Our understanding of AI development, deployment and implementation is informed by a position that emphasises the political and social nature of technology. We start from the perspective of human agency and focus on the relations that create and control AI development [34], the assumptions and interests that motivate technological development, how these are articulated in policy and, thus, their democratic effects. Hence, we operationalise democracy in terms of input and throughput in order to discuss the democratic implications of policy and policy shifts in more detail. ...
Article
Full-text available
Artificial intelligence (AI) and digitalisation have become an integral part of public governance. While digital technology is expected to enhance neutrality and accuracy in decision-making, it raises concerns about the status of public values and democratic principles. Guided by the theoretical concepts of input, throughput and output democracy, this article analyses how democratic principles have been interpreted and defended in EU policy formulations relating to digital technology over the last decade. The emergence of AI policy has changed the conditions for democratic input and throughput legitimacy, which is an expression of a shift in power and influence between public and private sectors. Democratic input values in AI production are promoted by ethical guidelines directed towards the industry, while democratic throughput, e.g., accountability and transparency, receive less attention in EU AI policy. This indicates future political implications for the ability of citizens to influence technological change and pass judgement on accountable actors.
... The introduction of new concepts and technologies into the curriculum and the removal of old concepts and techniques is sometimes referred to as curriculum innovation [41]. The increasing social role of the coexistence of robots, humans, and technology is a precursor to unknown and possibly fundamental changes, but there is no single human perspective to this change [42]. Shifting product development to concurrent engineering mode requires industrial engineers to be actively involved from the initial concept design stage. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Indonesian coffee industry has become a trend that has a strategic role and potential for the livelihoods of the business people in it, as well as Indonesia's economic growth. One of the trends that stole attention is the concept of smart industry, the concept of a digital-based industry that is highly relevant to technological developments in this era. When companies want to implement a smart industry, companies need a strategy to implement IT (Information Technology) so that the investment spent is right to build the company's targets. This study aims to design a systematic IS/IT strategy to realize the concept of smart industries that are effective. The analysis and design method used is the Ward & Peppard framework which consists of two phases, namely the input and output phases. The input phase consists of internal business analysis, external business, IT internal and external. The output stage includes the design of IT management strategies, business information systems and IT strategies. The results of this study are in the form of a portfolio of IT designs at the Margamulya Coffee Producers Cooperative consisting of business strategy designs and IT management.
... Our understanding of AI development, deployment and implementation is informed by a position that emphasises the political and social nature of technology. We start from the perspective of human agency and focus on the relations that create and control AI development [34], the assumptions and interests that motivate technological development, how these are articulated in policy and, thus, their democratic effects. Hence, we operationalise democracy in terms of input and throughput in order to discuss the democratic implications of policy and policy shifts in more detail. ...
Book
Full-text available
How to quote: Costa, L.S.G.M., Loisel, M.T., et al. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Human Mediation (Editors and co-authors among 12 authors: Leonardo da Silva Guimarães Martins da Costa & Mariana Thieriot Loisel). ATLAS Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-9998733-8-0 (PDF). Full text available at https://doi.org/10.22545/2024b/B2 1. The attached book "Artificial Intelligence and Human Mediation" was published on Feb 23, 2024 by the Academy of Transdisciplinary Learning & Advanced Studies (ATLAS Publishing): <https://www.theatlas.org/index.php/td-teaching-materials/td-books>. The co-editors are Eng. Leonardo da S.G. Martins da Costa and Dr. Mariana Thieriot Loisel. The text consists of Preface, Acknowledgments, Introduction, 12 chapters, Postface, Conclusion, and Appendix. 2. The Preface is signed by the Co-president of The Club of Rome: <ttps://www.clubofrome.org/>. 3. The Introduction by a professor at Sorbonne University, President of CIRET: <https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/>. 4. Chapter 2 is Eng. Leonardo´s article explaining the HPTD-M transdisciplinary theory in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI). 5. Chapter 11 is by Dr. Mariana Thieriot Loisel, Secretary-General of CIRET. 6. Eng. Leonardo and Dr. Mariana are also the co-authors of the Acknowledgments and Conclusion. 7. At the end of the Conclusion, Eng. Leonardo proposes two questions to the Appendix, a masterpiece by Dr. Hubert Landier, an article on "The Wolf of Gubbio", a famous story related to Francis of Assisi, in the context of human mediation. 8. Finally, the book provokes transdisciplinary reflections on the scope of AI as a very efficient rational tool, but not an effective decision maker for management purposes, i.e., AI cannot replace human leadership.
Thesis
Full-text available
The dissertation deals with the impact of automation on the labor market. The dissertation examines the most frequently mentioned risk of automation - mass (technological) unemployment - and concludes that the most likely consequence of automation, which could lead to technological unemployment or otherwise limited job flexibility, is an educational mismatch; a discrepancy between the education with which the employee performs his job and the education required to perform that job. The aim of the dissertation is to study the educational mismatch and to identify the reasons that cause this mismatch. The dissertation examines the educational mismatch in the context of employees of industry and the Slovak Republic. Industry employees were chosen because this group of employees is most at risk due to automation, and it is not sufficiently researched both in the literature on the impact of automation and in the literature on educational mismatch as one of the consequences of automation. The Slovak Republic was chosen as it is one of the countries most at risk of automation. International labor market analyzes estimate that the Slovak Republic has 33% to 44% of automated jobs. Domestic studies dealing with the impact of automation assume that the share of jobs at risk of automation in the Slovak labor market is in the range of 20% to 47%. The research of the dissertation was carried out by a quantitative questionnaire survey on a sample of 370 industrial employees with work experience with one of the selected seventeen jobs that are most endangered by automation. Research has shown that 64.9% of employees at risk of automation at risk are in objective educational mismatch and 50.5% of employees at risk are identified in subjective educational mismatch. An analysis of the reasons influencing an educational mismatch has shown that women and employees who have spent fewer years in their current job have a higher chance of being in an objective educational mismatch. Subjective educational mismatch more often identifies women, young people, people who have experienced unemployment, employees who have spent fewer years in their current job, workers in larger companies, employees who have received less training, employees whose work does not require special qualifications and employees who do not use previous work experience in their current job. Despite the high share of educational mismatch, we believe that employees at risk of disability at risk are not significantly handicapped on the labor market, as they have the skills and experience to perform other jobs.
Article
The article discusses the effects of the digital era, the driver of which is AI. The main goal is to fo­cus on the Black Box Problem, “opacity of AI” and the possibility of Malicious Use of Artificial In­telligence. Three interconnected directions are interfaced. Firstly, in the context of the analysis of the digital age, the potential of metaphors is used, which makes it possible to describe digital trans­formations figuratively. Secondly, due to the growing demand for high technologies, the negative consequences of using AI are considered and a number of paradoxes of scientific and technological progress are formulated. Thirdly, the article examines the widespread practice of trust in intelligent systems, as well as the prospects for technological symbiosis. The analysis is based on the Russian and English-language literature. The author analyzes metaphors that indicate the type of modern existence – “face-to-screen” or “face-to-device” (1); features of the subject of the digital age – “content viewer” (2); the specifics of digital rationality – “knowledge rent”, digital multitasking (3). Attention is drawn to the process of “convergence of subjectivity”. The issue of malicious use of AI is discussed. The author draws conclusions about the need for “algorithmic responsibility” and expanding the field of reflective analysis aimed at studying the consequences of using AI.
Article
The article is based on reports and discussions held during three online events organized by the Russian Research Center for the Internet of Things together with the Department of Philosophy and Sociology of South-West State University during 2021: an open discussion with the famous transhumanist philosopher David Pearce dedicated to the birthday of Jeremiah Bentham on February 15, a round table dedicated to the World Internet of Things Day on April 9, and a session within the first IoT Hot Spots conference on June 16. The main topics for discussion this year were the consideration of the following philosophical and socio-cultural problems and concepts in the light of the development of cyberphysical systems: anthropological differences between the «posthuman» and «metahuman» projects, epistemological aspects of bio- and cybersemiotics in modern hybrid techno-social networks, the cultural dimension of remote proximity in the digital age, the ontology of the quantum complexity of the digital multiverse, the ethical dimensions of the digital economy in the post-covid period, the aesthetics of metamodernism in the smart city, the anthropocene effects of silicon addiction and the race of computing, socio-philosophical problems of management in situations of high uncertainty, political strategies for sustainable development.
Article
Full-text available
In the early 1960s, a number of anarchist writers showed an interest in cybernetics, in which they saw the tools for better articulating radical forms of self-organisation. Discussions on the connections between anarchism and cybernetics did not advance very far, however, and by the 1970s the topic seems to have fallen off the anarchist radar. With an increase in interest in cybernetics over the last few years, this paper picks up where these debates left off and highlights some key points of contact between cybernetics and anarchism that have the potential to advance radical accounts of self-organisation. Based on a theoretical appraisal of the core texts and arguments in the debate around anarchism and cybernetics, the paper shows that the way in which hierarchy is formulated in cybernetic thought has a crucial impact on anarchist theory and practice and aids both academic approaches to social movements and, importantly, anarchist and radical left praxis. In addition, it provides a response to the critique of cybernetics in critical management studies that stands as a barrier to taking cybernetics seriously as a contribution to radical understandings of organisation.
Article
Full-text available
This 3000 word essay surveys the degrowth/GND fields, and locates a zone of convergence.
Article
Full-text available
Smart City (SC) has been a popular area of research and practice during the last decade. An in-depth examination of the existing literature reviews on SCs divulges the scarcity of studies classifying the literature into multiple themes and identifying the popular and less popular themes based on the number of peer reviewed research papers under respective theme. Hence, in this study, a descriptive literature review of 86 peer-reviewed papers on SCs has been conducted to bridge this gap. The findings demonstrate that themes such as SC services design and management, innovation and technology, and citizens’ engagement in design and development of SCs have been extensively studied, whereas, themes such as the social impact, governance and policy, and performance indicators and standards have received moderate attention. However, there are also less popular themes such as the implementation barriers and SC strategy. Further, this study provides a reference source to future researchers. It also delivers valuable information to the policymakers and government bodies, which are actively, involved in the SC projects.
Article
Full-text available
What are the parameters that define a posthuman knowing subject, her scientific credibility and ethical accountability? Taking the posthumanities as an emergent field of enquiry based on the convergence of posthumanism and post-anthropocentrism, I argue that posthuman knowledge claims go beyond the critiques of the universalist image of ‘Man’ and of human exceptionalism. The conceptual foundation I envisage for the critical posthumanities is a neo-Spinozist monistic ontology that assumes radical immanence, i.e. the primacy of intelligent and self-organizing matter. This implies that the posthuman knowing subject has to be understood as a relational embodied and embedded, affective and accountable entity and not only as a transcendental consciousness. Two related notions emerge from this claim: firstly, the mind-body continuum – i.e. the embrainment of the body and embodiment of the mind – and secondly, the nature-culture continuum – i.e. ‘naturecultural’ and ‘humanimal’ transversal bonding. The article explores these key conceptual and methodological perspectives and discusses the implications of the critical posthumanities for practices in the contemporary ‘research’ university.
Article
Full-text available
The authors of this special issue revisit and complicate modernist technologies such as agriculture, clock- time or reproductive sex in an attempt to redesign, rework, reread, rewrite, respond responsively and look at what is going on (and on and on) with eyes wide open. They explore the potential of (non)linear conceptions and phenomena of time and temporality from historical, theoretical/philosophical, social, literary and cultural, material/physical and queer perspectives for a transformative politics, being both programmatic and connecting to pressing aspects of present-day economies and more-than-human ecologies.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to articulate an ontological anarchist approach for an engaged post-human politics and present insurrection training as a pragmatic tool for researchers to directly transform the world. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses how post-humanism has been criticised for dissolving political agency. It shows that this is due to the way post-humanism has been framed as sensitising and including non-humans into liberal politics. Instead, the paper examines anarchist-influenced post-humanism and combines this with the notion of multiple ontologies and ontological interventions. The paper presents the notion of insurrection training as offering the possibility for researchers to become emotionally sensitised to ontological difference. A case study of the “Seeds of Hope East Timor Ploughshares action” (1996) is used to illustrate what insurrection training and ontological interventions look like in practice. Finally, the paper makes suggestions as to how post-human researchers can apply this approach in their everyday lives. Findings The paper suggests that beyond a liberal framing of post-humanism as inclusion, there is also an ontological anarchist post-humanism that can support transformative impacts in the world. This form of post-humanism offers specificity of intervention and reflexive training practices. Insurrection training can offer new possibilities for post-humanist researchers: experience ontological difference, de-trivialise the everyday, connect to social movements, make post-human politics “doable” and offer “direct” change. Originality/value The paper addresses discussions that claim post-humanism is disabling political change. Its contribution is to map an anarchist post-humanism and extend this with concepts of multiple ontologies. It proposes the notion of insurrection training which places attention on the role of the researcher as an active agent that needs to be sensitised to ontological difference to carry out interventions. A case study of direct action illustrates what ontological intervention and insurrection training look like in practice. The case study suggests that insurrection training is an everyday performative practice that integrates and negotiates the personal, material and political. Finally, the paper suggests how researchers can adopt such an approach in their everyday lives.
Book
Three orders of simulacra: 1. counterfeits and false images: from renaissance to industrial revolution, signs become mode of exchange, these signs are obviously flase. 2. Dominated by production and series: mass produced signs as commodities, signs refer not to reality but to other signs (money, posters). 3. Pure simulacra: simulacra mask over the idea that there is no reality, reality is an effect of simulacra (disneyland masks simulacra of LA, Prison masks nonfreedom outside the walls).
Book
This is the first book to make the argument for an emancipatory project from within a posthuman framework. Responding to critics, Cudworth and Hobden argue that while some posthumanisms may be less critical, it is possible to develop a political programme from a posthuman perspective. Cudworth and Hobden develop such issues by addressing the following questions: How have ideas about emancipation been developed, and does the notion of emancipation still hold relevance for the contemporary world order? Is it possible to have a non-Utopian form of emancipation? What are the implications of differing posthuman/new materialist viewpoints for an emancipatory project? In a world typified by complexity, how is it possible to pursue political projects? The chapters consider various interpretations of the term 'emancipation', looking at work that has appeared within the posthumanist framework such as Bruno Latour, William Connolly, and Jane Bennett. The authors develop their own account of posthumanism, demonstrating how it avoids the problems that have been found within this framework, and considering the possibilities for emancipatory projects and public policy. It will be of great interest to postgraduates and scholars of International Relations, Political Theory, Environmental Studies, and Sociology.