can you explain abhumanism? at least what you think it is?
There is a teeny Wikipedia snippet article that I think is quite nice and a good starting summary, but there are some more important points to expand on. The term “abhuman” comes from Gothic literature, and was originally used to describe things like werewolves and vampires, in which bodies were “vestigially human and in the process of becoming something monstrous.” It is about stepping outside the limits of ‘normal’ human experience (I hate saying it like that but unfortunately I haven’t come up with a better phrase yet, perhaps someone can help me?) and becoming something other than what is considered beautiful, desirable, expected. My absolute favourite description is the becoming of the “not-quite-human subject.” The prefix ‘ab-’ by its nature suggests loss or moving away from something. To me, abhumanism is breaching pattern.
For this reason, I find it more useful than transhumanism, which I still take issue with because of its blatant connection to eugenics. Transhumanism is primarily concerned with the idea of becoming posthuman, which I can get behind, but through developing beyond-‘standard’ abilities for humans including intelligence. It proposes the improvement of human experience as things like ectogenesis, limiting offspring by “licencing” people to be parents wherein those rejected are likely those who are homeless, in poverty, dealing with addictions, or are convicted criminals. This implies there would be some push for forced sterilisation/abortion practices, all the while evading actually having to come out and admit that by saying that the WHO will deal with it when the time comes. I will not ascribe to a eugenicist ideology and honestly, I think transhumanism is a bit of a mess as it aligns itself with the same capitalist ideologies that insist on normalcy and productivity. You can read more in the Wikipedia article, which I think does an ok job of summarising some of the problems.
I have always been much more interested in this idea of stepping outside of the limits of human experience, but in a way that includes expressing the grotesque, the imperfect, the ugly and the monstrous which transhumanism is flagrantly against. Transhumanism posits being completely able-bodied as the ultimate human experience, and abhumanism does not.
It is widely accepted that Gothic literature is essential, in that it tends to re-emerge in periods of cultural stress to negotiate social/epistemological transformations and crises. It has traditionally lent itself to that which is un- or underrepresented in nature, and that can include technological imaginings of the body, absolutely. This is why I think drawing this line through Gothic genealogy is also important. Gothic subculture is long, long-surviving and has only become more diverse. Health goth takes pieces from biotechnology and prosthetics (and, yes, unfortunately it cites transhumanism), while also incorporating fetish culture and aesthetics as it informed 1970s/80s goth. Abhumanism is simple in that it doesn’t represent a body politic with the massive implications of transhumanism.
A problem I run into a lot is that, by “trade,” I am an “Art Historian.” I always end up trying to fit my work into the discipline in some way, and that means a lot of the people I share it with usually have zero idea what I’m talking about. I delivered a presentation a few months ago where I talked about how computer error messages and dialogues can help us understand this concept of the abhuman (among other things), and there was someone who insisted he didn’t understand why I was talking about Gothic literature. In the end, he really just found it too hard to transport something he thought was left in the past to what I was saying, and that is a hard thing when talking to academics. But anyway, I’m working on that. I hope this was helpful!
izzy806
kianamaiart
prguitarman
titsay
janainaart
blakekathryn
tangentwithtanner
