{"title":"Edge{s} of the “Anthropocene”","authors":"Nandita Biswas Mellamphy","doi":"10.54195/technophany.13800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines three distinct onto-political modes: the human-centric onto-politics of ‘centring the human’, post-human onto-politics of ‘de-centring the human’, and a third mode that rejects and argues against these options in favour of jettisoning the human/non-human dyad altogether. Instead of placing humans ‘in or on the loop’ with other species, a third model would place humans ‘out of the loop’ of command. I argue that contrary to claims, the post-human declaration of ‘de-centring the human’ cannot be considered ‘post-anthropocentric’ (implying the abolition of anthropocentrism), though it can be considered ‘anti-anthropocentric’. Only the onto-politics of abolition would truly be post-anthropocentric, because only it would eliminate the human/non-human conceptual dualism upon which the onto-politics of centring and de-centring is based.","PeriodicalId":428251,"journal":{"name":"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54195/technophany.13800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines three distinct onto-political modes: the human-centric onto-politics of ‘centring the human’, post-human onto-politics of ‘de-centring the human’, and a third mode that rejects and argues against these options in favour of jettisoning the human/non-human dyad altogether. Instead of placing humans ‘in or on the loop’ with other species, a third model would place humans ‘out of the loop’ of command. I argue that contrary to claims, the post-human declaration of ‘de-centring the human’ cannot be considered ‘post-anthropocentric’ (implying the abolition of anthropocentrism), though it can be considered ‘anti-anthropocentric’. Only the onto-politics of abolition would truly be post-anthropocentric, because only it would eliminate the human/non-human conceptual dualism upon which the onto-politics of centring and de-centring is based.