Vibrant Matter: Posthumanism as an Ethics of Radical Alterity

VIBRANT MATTER POSTHUMANISM AS AN ETHICS OF RADICAL ALTERITY MATÉRIA VIBRANTE O PÓS-HUMANISMO ENQUANTO ÉTICA DE UMA ALTERIDADE RADICAL RICARDO GIL SOEIRO * ica dogilsoei [email protected] The p esen a icle wishes o p esen c i ical pos humanism as an e hics o adical al e i y. I is di ided in o h ee explana o y momen s: i s ly, i p o ides a se o pe unc o y ema ks on he in e disciplina y ield o pos humanism; i will hen p oceed o a gene al o e iew o Rosi B aido i’s The Pos human (2013); inally, a b ie case-s udy analysis o W. Szymbo ska’s poe y will be conduc ed, hus hoping o show how pos humanis heo y can illumina e li e a y ex s and, indeed, how hese can, in u n, p omp a eassessmen o pos humanis heo y. Keywo ds: al e i y; B aido i, Rosi; c i ical pos humanism; Szymbo ska, W. O p esen e ex o ap esen a uma lei u a do pós-humanismo c í ico enquan o é ica de uma al e idade adical. A análise em ap eço encon a-se es u u ada em ês momen os dis in os: em p imei o luga , p ocu a -se-á explici a alguns ópicos deco en es do campo in e disciplina do pós- humanismo; de seguida, ap esen a -se-á uma lei u a sinóp ica da ob a The Pos human (2013), de Rosi B aido i; po im, conduzi -se-á um b e e es udo de caso em o no da poesia de W. Szymbo ska, p ocu ando equaciona de que o ma a eo ia pós-humanis a se e ela passí el de ilumina os objec os li e á ios e de como, po seu u no, es es são capazes de desencadea uma ea aliação da eo ia pós-humanis a. Pala as-cha e: al e idade; B aido i, Rosi; pós-humanismo c í ico; Szymbo ska, W. Da a de eceção: 2020-05-13 Da a de acei ação: 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.21814/2i.2650 * Assis an P o esso a he Depa men o Ge man S udies o he School o A s and Humani ies, and esea ch ellow a he Cen e o Compa a i e S udies, Uni e si y o Lisbon, Po ugal. ORCID: 0000-0003- 0281-6014. 192 RICARDO GIL SOEIRO REVISTA 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 1. In oduc o y ema ks Wha does i mean o be pos -human? Wha does i mean o hink beyond humanism? Is i possible o c a a mode o philosophy, e hics, and in e p e a ion ha ejec s he classic humanis di isions o sel and o he , mind and body, socie y and na u e, human and animal, o ganic and echnological? How is li e a u e able o be used o shed ligh on he mani old p ocesses h ough which pos humanis subjec i i ies a e unde s ood and enac ed? By p o iding a pos -dualis ic and a non-hie a chical s andpoin o e lec upon issues as subjec i i y, o he ness, and e hics, he complex ield o pos humanism ( anging om li e a y and cul u al s udies o animal s udies, om media s udies o decons uc ion) add esses hese e y ques ions in an a emp o come o e ms wi h one o he mos p essing issues o ou imes. Such a mul i-laye ed pos humanis app oach o e s a e- hinking o a - eaching deba es on he decons uc ion o humanism, biopoli ics, echnology, and i ual eali y. As an in e disciplina y ield o s udy and mul i ace ed c i ical discou se, pos humanism is a ai ly ecen body o hough . E en hough pos humanism has s emmed om dis inc lineages, i can be aced back o he an i-humanis ben o pos s uc u alism, which on i s u n emains hei o Heidegge ’s and Nie zsche’s philosophy. Mapping he e ain o hese a - eaching deba es will allow us o: unde s and he philosophical, poli ical and cul u al app oach p o ided by he pos humanis ision, no shying away om mul i ace ed ques ions abou he human in he age o echnological modi ica ion and hyb idized li e o ms; adically mo e beyond he adi ional humanis wo ld iew on he au onomous, sel -willed indi idual agen owa ds an inno a i e iew o he human i sel as an assemblage, co-e ol ing alongside wi h o he o ms o li e, enmeshed wi h he en i onmen and echnology; call o a adical e hinking o species uniqueness by upholding a mul ispecies ci izenship; o ully comp ehend he ways in which pos humanism, by i ue o i s in insic ansdisciplina y scope (me ging seemingly dispa a e, ye complemen a y, scien i ic ields: animal s udies, disabili y s udies, mons e s udies, consciousness s udies, echno-science s udies, c i ical ace s udies), concu s o a e-shaping o he bounda ies o he human. Following on F eud’s oo s eps, Donna Ha away explains poignan ly in he book, When Species Mee , how he h ee g ea wounds o he p ima y na cissism o he human ( he Cope nican e olu ion, he Da winian heo y o e olu ion, and he F eudian exca a ion o he unconscious) ha e se iously des abilized humani y’s geog aphical, his o ical, and psychic sel -cen e edness. To hese Ha away adds a ou h, “in o ma ic o cybo gian” wound, “which in olds o ganic and echnological lesh. As a esul , he human has o hink o he - o himsel as always al eady echnological, as co-cons i u ed and co- e ol ing wi h he wo ld which is made up o anima e and inanima e en i ies. To explain his pe o ma i e p ocess, Ha away akes ecou se o he me apho o dance and a gues ha his p ocess o co-cons i u ion is ne e ully s abilized o accomplished, and ha each in e en ion, each mo emen , gene a es a new s a e o becoming. “All he dance s a e edone h ough he pa e ns hey enac ,” she w i es (2008, p. 25). Equally pi o al o he spi i o c i ical pos humanism is Deleuzean philosophy. Agains he backd op o he p e ious examina ion o he pos humanis app oach ( o mula ed on a pos -an h opocen ic and pos -humanis epis eme and based on decen alized and non-hie a chical modes o being-in- he-wo ld), mos o pos humanis hinking has p og essed by eeding on he concep o “becoming”, championed by VIBRANT MATTER 193 Re is a 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 Deleuze and Gua a i. By eplacing iden i y wi h di e ence and being wi h becoming, Deleuzian on ology p o ides he g ound o hink he e ogenei y and inexhaus ible no el y- p oducing p ocesses ha unde lie all phenomena. Deleuze’s concep is indelibly a ached o a non-an h opocen ism, pu ing o wa d ha “No man as he king o c ea ion, bu a he as he being who is in in ima e con ac wi h he p o ound li e o all o ms o all ypes o being, who he is esponsible o e en he s a s and animal li e“ (Deleuze, 1977: 4–5. See also he chap e ellingly en i led “Becoming-In ense, Becoming-Animal, Becoming-Impe cep ible”, in A Thousand Pla eaus). We will y o es ablish in i s ull impac he implica ions o such a concep o he eplacemen o he exclusiona y ace o an h opocen ism by a e hinking o he human sel as an ins an ia ion o a ne wo k o connec ions, exchanges, linkages, and c ossings wi h all o ms o li e. A enewed unde s anding o he human sel as being less abou Being and mo e abou a ‘becoming-wi h”, o use Ha away’s ph asing in When Species Mee (2008). I should no go unmen ioned ha , a om signi ying a all in o ela i ism o nihilis ic de ea ism, he pos humanis s andpoin a gues o a sus ainable e hics o a non-uni a y subjec and p oposes an enla ged sense o in e -connec ion be ween sel and o he s (including he non-human o he s. Gi en he cu ing-edge na u e o pos humanis esea ch, solid c i icism o he ield only eme ged wi hin he las wo decades. Hayles’ How We Became Pos human (1999), inspi ed by Ha away’s hough , was pano amic in scope and indeed pionee ing in he way i succeeds in mapping he pos human in he ligh o a semio ics o i uali y. Badming on’s Pos humanism (2000) was he i s an hology o heo e ical ex s on he subjec , bu so a i has no inspi ed simila e o s. The subjec is no aken up in any leng h un il 4 yea s la e when, ollowing on he oo s eps o G aham’s Rep esen a ions o he Pos /Human, Badming on’s Alien Chic (2004) explo es he con amina ion o he human by i s inhuman o he s, pa icula ly in he ep esen a ion o aliens in science ic ion. Choosing a di e en me hodological ou look, he wo k o Wol e/Cla ke has con incingly shown how cybe ne ics and sys ems heo y p o ide an analogical amewo k o pos humanism. In 2012, a special issue on Pos humanis Subjec i i ies appea ed in Subjec i i y: whils showcasing compelling con ibu ions ha e-e alua e he impac o pos s uc u alis hough on pos humanis subjec i i ies, i ne e heless alls sho on alluding o he mani old implica ions ha he p esen p ojec seeks o add ess, namely he ways in which li e a y wo ks in pa icula open up al e na i e ways o concep ualizing he human subjec and i s ela ionship o o he modes o exis ence. In 2014, a special issue on Eu opean Pos humanism appea ed in he EJES, ed. He b ech e /Callus. Bu he e oo, e en i ui ully dis/loca ing Eu opean pos humanism, a li e a y s andpoin is clea ly missing, a di e en pe spec i e which would o he wise b ing o he o e po en ial ajec o ies o he pos human. The las ew yea s ha e wi nessed insigh ul new wo k om 4 leading au ho s in he ield: Wol e’s Wha is pos humanism (2009), B aido i’s The Pos human (2013), He b ech e ’s Pos humanism (2013), Naya ’s Pos humanism (2014). Bu al hough hese ecen book- leng h con ibu ions undoub edly display he main me i s o pos humanism, hey ne e heless also mani es a de icien ea men o li e a y igu a ions o pos humanis subjec i i ies. O cou se he e a e no able excep ions, wo ks ha ha e been engaged in a ca e ul analysis o he ela ionship be ween pos humanism and li e a u e, namely: Wallace’s D.H. Law ence, Science and he Pos human (2005), he collec i e ol. Cy-Bo ges (2009), Moo e’s P ac icing he Pos humani ies (2011), Thomsen’s The New Human in Li e a u e (2013) o he long-awai ed The Camb idge Companion o Li e a u e and he Pos human, edi ed by B uce Cla ke and Manuela Rossini, which posi ions i sel as one he mos impo an ools o his ield o s udy. Howe e , i should no go unmen ioned ha wi hin 194 RICARDO GIL SOEIRO REVISTA 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 he las decade we ha e wi nessed a deep-sea ed in e es in he cons ella ion o pos humani y, wi nessing he p oli e a ion o academic wo ks and esea ch p ojec s on hese ma e s. I d aw you a en ion only o he p ojec “Pos -Human Aes he ics”, p omo ed by he Uni e si y o Aa hus, in Denma k, he ounda ion in 2017 o he Jou nal o Pos human S udies (di ec ed by S e an Lo enz So gne ), he book se ies “Beyond Humanism: T ans-and Pos humanism”, published by Pe e Lang o he ecen c ea ion o a numbe o in e na ional ne wo ks, such as he C i ical Pos humanism Ne wo k o he Pos human New Yo k G oup, ac i ely con ibu ing o he cons i u ion o a ib an in ellec ual communi y o pos humanism. 2. Li e Beyond Species: Rosi B aido i’s The Pos human and he Pos - An h opocen ic Tu n Le us now u n ou a en ion o B aido i’s The Pos human (2013), one o he mos in luen ial s udies on he opic o pos humanism. Fi s o all, le me s a o by alluding o he elling co e o he book. In he i s chap e , she poin s ou ha “ he allegedly abs ac ideal o Man as a symbol o classical Humani y is e y much a male o he species; i is a he. Mo eo e , he is whi e, Eu opean, handsome, and able-bodied” (B aido i, 2013, p. 24). To coun e monis ic celeb a ions o Leona do Da Vinci’s Vi u ian Man as he pilla o he p ojec o imagining Wes e n Man, B aido i pu s o wa d he image o a “New Vi u ian Woman” (a digi al a wo k by Jim Downdalls), as an al e na i e o he ep esen a ions o male embodimen . Th oughou he book, B aido i pu sues a wo old aim: on he one hand, she add esses he ques ion o wha he pos human migh look like in a pos -an h opocen ic pe spec i e while, a he same ime, she ies o a gue he case o a pos human heo y ha akes in o acoun an in ica e concep ualiza ion o pos humanis ic subjec i i y. The discussion is, he e o e, laid ba e on wo dis inc , ye in e wined planes: i explo es he ex en o which a pos humanis mo e displaces he adi ional humanis ic uni y o he subjec , u he a guing ha his loss o sel -mas e y may indeed help us make sense o ou lexible and mul ple iden i ies. Simul aneously, claiming he pionee ing ace o he philosophical en e p ise, B aido i add esses he impo ance o de ising new concep s, inno a i e concep ual ools ha would aid us in hinking abou he challenges o he pos human condi ion. I is p ecisely a his junc u e ha his chap e wea es oge he hese wo dimensions. Mainly d awing upon Spinoza, Deleuze and Nie zsche, he one o he essay is a i ma i e and, e y much like Deleuze’s uno hodox epis emology, B aido i’s le el o analysis is no solely a ques ion o in ellec ual unde s anding, bu a he one o in ensi y and esonance, wo king as she cla i ies in he conclusion “wi hin he belly o he beas ”, ha is o say, esis ing he my h o o ganicism and holis ic ha mony, as well as wha she calls capi alis oppo unism. He chie goal is clea : a mo e a i ma i e app oach o he ede ini ion o pos human subjec i i y, as in he coun e models o ans e sal, ela ional nomadic assemblages. In sho , a esh app oach wo hy o he complexi ies o ou age, a nomadic zoe-cen ed app oach ha would be able o connec human o non-human li e so as o de elop a comp ehensi e eco-philosophy o becoming. As al eady men ioned, one o he c ucial poin s is he need o hink di e en ly, o hink o he wise, by u ging us o eassess ou linguis ic and concep ual ools. He e we canno help bu be eminded o Wi gens ein’s amous analogy, in which language is compa ed o a bag o ca pen e ’s ools, each wi h i s own equipamen , i s own ules, i s own c i e ia o success and ailu e; and, su ely enough, new ools and new games can be added in ini ely. B aido i u ges us, he e o e, o be expe imen al and e en ansg essi e. VIBRANT MATTER 195 Re is a 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 As she poin s ou in he inal page o his chap e : “As Deleuze and Gua a i each us, hinking is abou he in en ion o new concep s and new p oduc i e e hical ela ions” (2013, p. 104). Deleuze concei ed o philosophy as he p oduc ion o concep s. In Wha is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Gua a i second Nie zsche’s iew ha philosophy should “in en modes o exis ence o possibili ies o li e” (1977, p. 72). To be su e, he e is messianic o e ones in hei musings, when hey claim ha “ he c ea ion o concep s in i sel calls o a u u e o m, o a new ea h and people ha do no ye exis ”, aiming a “ he cons i u ion o an ea h and a people ha a e lacking” (p. 108). The making and emaking o concep s se s in mo ion a c ea i e p ocess, which is no educible o a s a ic ecogni ion bu demands a dynamic, expe ien ial and expe imen al encoun e ha o ce us o cons uc meaning o a pa icula expe ience which is as ye p esen ly un hough o and lacking sense. Agains his backg ound, B aido i begins by emb acing a Spinozian i alis ma e ialism, s a ing ha : “ aw cosmic ene gy ha unde sco es he making o ci iliza ions, socie ies and hei subjec s. Vi alis ma e ialism is a concep ha helps us make sense o ha ex e nal dimension, which in ac en olds wi hin he subjec as he in e nalized sco e o cosmic ib a ions (Deleuze)” (pp. 55–56). Ques ioning Desca es’ philosophy and ejec ing anscenden alism in a ou o a “ adical immanence”, B aido i p oceeds o spell ou Spinoza’s monism, acco ding o which ma e , he wo ld and he humans a e no dualis ic en i ies s uc u ed acco ding o p inciples o in e nal o ex e nal opposi ion. B aido i’s ehabili a ion o Spinozis monism ( he uni y o all li ing ma e ) will cons i u e an impo an ool o o e coming dialec ical opposi ions, hus engende ing non-dialec ical unde s andings o ma e ialism i sel . Calling o a pos -an h opocen ic u n, she makes plain ha : “These monis ic p emises a e o me he building blocks o a pos human heo y o subjec i i y ha does no ely on classical Humanism and ca e ully a oids an h opocen ism” (p. 56), and u he adds: “In my iew, he e is a di ec connec ion be ween monism, he uni y o all li ing ma e and pos -an h opocen ism as a gene al ame o e e ence o con empo a y subjec i i y” (p. 57). Since ansdisciplina y complexi ies he issue a hand, and since he neo-Spinozis app oach is ein o ced by new de elopmen s in he mind-body in e ela ion wi hin he neu al sciences, he key ques ion o B aido i is qui e simply o ask: “wha unde s andings o con empo a y subjec i i y and subjec - o ma ion a e enabled by a pos - an h opocen ic app oach? Wha comes a e he an h opocen ic subjec ?” (p. 58). This issue is u he complexi ied by he echno-scien i ic s u uc u e o con empo a y global economy. Placing a s ong emphasis on he biogene ic s uc u e o con empo a y capi alism, one o he majo challenges consis s in explo ing he ways in which con empo a y ma ke economies p o i om he con ol and commodi ica ion o all ha li es, he commodi ica ion o Li e by bio-gene ic ad anced capi alism. These shi s and disloca ions induced by globalized cul u es and economies b ing abou impo an implica ions on subjec i i y: “Wha happens o subjec i i y in his complex ield o o ces and da a lows? My a gumen is ha i becomes an expanded ela ional sel , engende ed by he cumula i e e ec o all hese ac o s” (p. 60). This p emise is pa icula ly meaning ul, inasmuch as i pa es he way o making a s ong case o a non-uni a y o nomadic concep ion o he subjec . In u h, he au ho ’s li elong engagemen in he p ojec o nomadic subjec i i y is nicely encapsula ed in he epig aph o he essay “W i ing as a Nomadic Subjec ” (2014), which she bo ows om Vi gina Wool ’s The Wa es: “I am oo ed bu I low”, a poignan line which echoes h ougou some o he p e ious unde akins, namely: Nomadic Subjec s. Embodimen and Sexual di e ence in Con empo a y Feminis Theo y (1994), and T ansposi ions: On Nomadic E hics (2006). 196 RICARDO GIL SOEIRO REVISTA 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 She p oceeds by adding ha he ela ional capaci y o he pos human subjec is no con ined wi hin ou species, bu i includes all non-an h opomo phic elemen s, emphasizing he non-human, i al o ce o Li e – zoe, as she labels i . She speci ies i in he ollowing manne : “’Li e’, a om being codi ied as he exclusi e p ope y o he unalienable igh o one species, he human, o e all o he s o o being sac alized as a p e-es ablished gi en, is posi ed as p ocess, in e ac i e and open-ended. This i alis app oach o li ing ma e displaces he bounda y be ween he po ion o li e – bo h o ganic and discu si e – ha has adi ionally been ese ed o an h opos, ha is o say bios, and he wide scope o animal and non-human li e, also known as zoe. Zoe as he dynamic, sel -o ganizing s uc u e o li e i sel […] s ands o gene a i e i ali y. I is he ans e sal o ce ha cu s ac oss and econnec s p e iously seg ega ed species, ca ego ies and domains. Zoe-cen ed egali a ianism is, o me, he co e o he pos -an h opocen ic u n: i is a ma e ialis , secula , g ounded and unsen imen al esponse o he oppo unis ic ans-species commodi ica ion o Li e ha is he logic o ad anced capi alism” (p. 60). B aido i picks up he ini ial h ead she has le behind and comp ehensi ely e u es he oppo unis ic poli ical economy o bio-gene ic capi alism ha u ns Li e/zoe in o a commodi y o ade and p o i . She c i icizes he capi aliza ion o li ing ma e since he oppo unis c poli ical economy o bio-gene ic capi alism downplays he dis inc ion be ween he human and o he species. Global economy is pos -an h opocen ic in ha i ul ima ely uni ies all species unde he impe a i e o he ma ke . The e o e, wha is a s ake he e is a nega i e so o cosmopoli an in e connec ion which is es ablished h ough a pan-human bond o ulne abili y. She hen goes on o a gue: “The pos human dimension o pos -an h opocen ism can consequen ly be seen as a decons uc i e mo e. Wha i decons uc s is species sup emacy, bu i also in lic s a blow o any linge ing no ion o human na u e, an h opos and bios, as ca ego ically dis inc om he li e o animals and non-humans, o zoe” (p. 65). The close link be ween pos humanism and decons uc ion has been p e iously made clea by Neil Badming on in his essay “Theo izing Pos humanism”: To engage wi h humanism, o acknowledge i s pe sis ence, is no necessa ily o suppo humanism. De ida’s call o c i ics o epea “wha is implici in he ounding concep s and he o iginal p oblema ic” is by no means a demand o a simple, s aigh o wa d epe i ion o hose concep s. Decons uc ion, a he , as he has insis ed on a ious occasions, consis s in epea ing hings “in a ce ain way,” in o de o expose he o e whelming unce ain y o e en he mos appa en ly ce ain discou ses. I he e sion o pos humanism ha I am ying o de elop he e epea s humanism, i does so in a ce ain way and wi h a iew o he decons uc ion o an h opocen ic hough (Badming on, 2003, pp. 15–16). In wha emains o B aido i’s ex , he chie pu pose is o ackle “ he p oduc i e aspec s o he pos human p edicamen ” (B aido i, 2013, p. 66), by opening up pe spec i es o a i ma i e ans o ma ions o bo h he s uc u es o subjec i i y and he p oduc ion o heo y and knowledge: hese p ocesses a e labelled as “becoming-animal, becoming-ea h and becoming-machine”, d awing inspi a ion om Deleuze’s and Gua a i’s philosophy. The o e iding goal is o displace he hie a quical, he dialec ics o o he ness and so e eigni y. In luenced by he wo k o De ida, Ha away and Ca y Wol e, B aido i aims a a “displacemen o an h opos”, while placing a pa icula emphasis on empa hy. Acco ding o B aido i, he majo challenge is “how o de i o ialize, o nomadize, he human-animal in e ac ion […] The pos human in he sense o pos -an h opocen ism displaces he dialec al scheme o opposi ion, eplacing well-es ablished dualisms wi h he ecogni ion o deep zoe-egali a ianism be ween humans and animals. The i ali y o hei bond is based on sha ing his plane , e i o y o en i onmen on e ms ha a e no longe VIBRANT MATTER 197 Re is a 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 so clea ly hie a chical, no sel -e iden . This i al in e connec ion posi s a quali a i e shi o he ela ionship away om species-ism and owa ds an e hical app ecia ion o wha bodies (human, animal, o he s) can do. An e hology o o ces based on Spinozis e hics eme ges as he main poin o e e ence o changing human-animal in e ac ion” (pp. 71-72). He pe spec i e is clea : he in e - ela ion human/animal is cons i u i e o he iden i y o each, i is hus a “ ans o ma i e o symbio ic ela ion ha hyb idizes and al e s he ‘na u e’ o each one and o eg ounds he middle g ounds o hei in e ac ion” (p. 79). Once again asse ing he “a i ma i e b and o pos human hough ” in ha i challenges he so e eigni y o Sameness, she con ends ha : “In ensi e spaces o becoming ha e o be opened and, mo e impo an ly, o be kep open” (p. 80). Subsequen ly B aido i sheds ligh in o “ he Pos human as Becoming-ea h”, add essing pos -an h opocen ic shi owa ds a plane a y, geo-cen ed pe spec i e. U ging us o de elop a dynamic and sus ainable no ion o i alis , sel -o ganizing ma e iali y, B aido i’s app oach seeks o enla ge he ame and scope o subjec i i y, and she does so by encompassing he idea o subjec i i y as an assemblage ha includes non- human agen s which means ha subjec i i y is no he exclusi e p e oga i e o an h opos: “we need o iualize he subjec as a ans e sal en i y encompassing he human, ou gene ic neighbou s he animals and he ea h as a whole” (p. 82). The ques ion o language and ep esen a ion esu aces ye ano he ime: “we need o de ise a new ocabula y, wi h new igu a ions o e e o he elemen s o ou pos human embodied and embedded subjec i i y” (p.82). A need o concep ual c ea i i y is s essed, a new scheme o e hinking pos human subjec i i y. In his ega d, she e en alludes o he own e o s in de ising al e na i e igu a ions, namely he nomadic subjec . She calls o a adical pos -an h opocen ic amewo k: a way o upda ing c i ical heo y o he hi d millennium, esis ing all o ms o esidual an h opomo phic no ma i i y. As we ha e seen, he s epping-s one o B aido i is he p oposal o an upda ed b and o Spinozism: “I see Spinozis monism, and he adical immanen o ms o c i ique ha es upon i , as a democ a ic mo e ha p omo es a kind o on ological paci ism. […] In my iew, monis ic ela ionali y s esses he mo e compassiona e aspec o subjec i i y. A Spinozis app oach, e- ead wi h Deleuze and Gua a i, allows us o by- pass he pi alls o bina y hinking and o add ess he en i onmen al ques ion in i s ull complexi y” (p. 86). In his con ex , B aido i e e s o Deleuze’s and Gua a i’s use o James Joyce’s neologism ‘chaosmos’. Joyce used he e m o designa e a “cosmos a he e ge o chaos, one ha is su ging owa d he exci ing possibili y o going ou o exis ence, s uggling onwa d a he edge o he exis en ial abyss.” (p. ) This concep i will play a majo pa in he hough o he Deleuze and Gua a i who desc ibed a , philosophy and science as h ee dis inc ways o plunge in o chaos in an a emp o ame i . One impo an no e should no be o e shadowed: by s essing he “ adical” one o pos humanism, B aido i places he main ocus in he c i ical dimension o pos humanism, so much so ha he posi ion se s i sel apa om he mo e popula s and o pos humanism (bes exempli ied in cinema and pop cul u e, and cybe punk ic ion) which me ely implies a hagiog aphy o echno-modi ica ions o he human, a guing ha echnological and biological modi ica ions will imp o e he human (a so o ans- humanism which is p escien ly exposed by Wol e as being a me e in ensi ica ion o humanism). Con a y o his s and, B aido i’s pos -an h opocen ic shi away om he hie a chical ela ions ha had p i ileged ‘Man’ equi es a o m o es angemen and a adical eposi ioning on he pa o he subjec ” (p. 88), pa ing he way o “c ea i e al e na i es” (p. 89) and ac i e de e i o ializa ions which mi o policen ic al e i ies. 198 RICARDO GIL SOEIRO REVISTA 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 B aido i w aps up he ex wi h he pos human as becoming-machine: “The pos human p edicamen is such as o o ce a displacemen o he lines o dema ca ion be ween s uc u al di e ences, o on ological ca ego ies, o ins ance be ween he o ganic and he ino ganic, he bo n and he manu ac u ed, lesh and me al, elec onic ci cui s and o ganic ne ous sys ems” (p. 89). She “sus ains a i alis e hics o mu ual ans-species in e dependence. I is a gene alized ecology […] which aims a c ossing ans e sally he mul iple laye s o he subjec , om in e io i y o ex e io i y and e e y hing in be ween” (p. 92). This p ocess is wha she means by “pos -an h opocen ic pos humanism”, an app oach which is being ad oca ed h oughou he book and which is ensh ined in he nomadic subjec , combining non-uni a y subjec i i y wi h e hical accoun abili y by o eg ounding he on ological ole played by ela ionali y” (p. 93). “The subjec is on ologically poly ocal”, she summs i up nea ly, whils endo sing an incisi e diagnosis o he implica ions o a pos human poli ics ha che ishes he ans e sali y o ela ions and he ingenious “elabo a ion o al e na i e modes o ans e sal subjec i i y” (p. 98). Closing in he same a i ma i e ein, B aido i p aises he concep o di e ence, as i en isages an on ological ela ionali y, a humbling expe ience o no -Oneness, cen al o he non-uni a y subjec ha is ancho ed in an e hical bond o al e i y: “I ha e s essed di e ence as he p inciple o no -One, ha is o say as di e ing […], as cons i u i e o he pos human subjec and elabo a e pos -an h opocen ic o ms o e hical accoun ibili y o ma ch i . In my iew, pos human e hics u ges o endu e he p inciple o no -One a he in-dep h s uc u es o ou subjec i i y by acknowledging he ies ha bind us o he mul iple ‘o he s’ in a i al web o complex in e ela ions. This e hical p inciple b eaks up he an asy o uni y, o ali y and one-ness” (p. 100). 3. One amongs many: he poe y o Wisława Szymbo ska Keeping in mind his heo e ical amewo k, I will now u n my a en ion o he poe y o Wisława Szymbo ska. B ie ly ocusing on he an hologies View wi h a G ain o Sand (1995) and Map: Collec ed and Las Poems (2015), I will y o examine Szymbo ska’s poe y om a pos humanis pe spec i e. My aim is o show in wha ways is i possible o pe cei e in Szymbo skian poe ics a pos humanis s andpoin , as e idenced by composi ions ha es and display an in-dep h e ision o he an h opocen ic di ide be ween he human and he non-human. My a gumen depa s om he hypo hesis ha li e a y ex s can be pe cei ed as imagina y labo a o ies o bo h he possible and he impossible, se ing as a specula i e s aging-g ound o an h opologies and pos -an h opologies o he pas , he p esen , and he u u e. 1) I we concede ha “Li e a u e in pa icula is an epis emological de ice o in e minably de e ing he loca ion o an ul ima e pe spec i e om which he being o hings could be hough o be known once and o all” (Cla ke, 2008, p. 71); 2) i we u he mo e acknowledge ha “Li e a y ex s a e no me ely passi e condui s” bu a he “ac i ely shape wha he echnologies mean and wha he scien i ic heo ies signi y in cul u al con ex s” (Hayles, 1999, p. 21); 3) i we conclude ha “While he cen al ole o li e a u e migh be ques ioned in he (pos ) humani ies, he p inciple o ‘ ic ionali y’ – he igh , in p inciple, o be allowed o ‘say any hing’ – his ic ional eedom o a i ma ion, his ‘as i ’ (…) canno be abandoned” (He b ech e , 2013, pp. 175-176), hen i is a he unequi ocal how deeply insigh ul he li e a y objec may be o a pos humanis inqui y. In wha emains o his a icle, I will y o pe suade you ha he wo k o Szymbo ska elici s such a eading, by claiming ha he poems pa adigma ically illus a e a VIBRANT MATTER 199 Re is a 2i, Vol. 2, N.º 2, 2020, pp. 191-204. eISSN: 2184-7010 pos humanis s andpoin and pu in o play he e hical implica ions o li e a y con igu a ions o pos humanis subjec i i ies. Widely ecognized as one he mos o iginal and compelling Eu opean poe s o ou ime, polish w i e Szymbo ska has ecei ed in e na ional ecogni ion when she was he ecipien o he Nobel P ize o Li e a u e in 1996. In awa ding he p ize, he Academy p aised he o “poe y ha wi h i onic p ecision allows he his o ical and biological con ex o come o ligh in agmen s o human eali y.” Selec ions o he poems we e published in such collec ions as People on a B idge (1990), View wi h a G ain o Sand: Selec ed Poems (1995), Mi acle Fai (2002), Monologue o a Dog (2005), Enough (2012), He e (2013), and Map: Collec ed and Las Poems (2015). A selec ion o he sho p ose pieces was collec ed in he olume Non equi ed Reading: P ose Pieces (2002). One o he mos s iking ea u es o he oeu e is a powe ul poe ic alchemy p oduced by he i onic elegance and he decep i e simplici y o he poe ic language. Dodging a ly ical exace ba ion and hus esis ing he ap o g andiloquence, Szymbo sky's poe y shows an i esis ible polyphonic quali y ha is e lec ed in a se o mul iple in e sec ions. He e he i ial in e sec s wi h he sublime, and i is his nuanced ligh ness ha has allowed he poe y o he e e yday (s emming om Baudelai e) o eed om a a ie y o hemes, whils no shying away om an exis en ial inqui y. You will no ice a a cu so y glance ha , “As onishmen ”, o example, displays Szymbo ska’s abili y o hink o he o en i e wo ld (human, animal, inanima e, in e galac ic) as a majo in e wo en ab ic and wonde a i s deep in e connec edness: Why a e all his one and no he es ? Why his speci ic sel , no in a nes , bu a house? Sewn up no in scales, bu skin? No opped o by a lea , bu by a ace? Why on ea h now, on Tuesday o all days, and why on ea h, pinned down by his s a ’s pin? In spi e o yea s o my no being he e? In spi e o seas o all hese da es and a es, hese cells, celes ials, and coelen e a es? Wha is i eally ha made me appea nei he an inch no hal a globe oo a , nei he a minu e no aeons oo ea ly? Wha made me ill mysel wi h me so squa ely? Why am I s a ing now in o he da k and mu e ing his unending monologue jus like he g owling hing we call a dog? (Szymbo ska, 2015, p. 177) By emb acing con ingency and ela i ism, by cons an ly changing pe spec i es, Szymbo sky's poe y allows us no only o o e come dogma ism, bu also o g asp he di e en nuances o a eali y in pe manen me amo phosis. And isn’ he poe ’s job o be, as Elias Cane i so eloquen ly pu i in The Conscience o Wo ds (1979), he “keepe o me amo phoses” (Hü e de Ve wandlung)? The ques ion o pe spec i e is he e o pa amoun impo ance. Szymbo ska’s poems body o h wha could be desc ibed as a p isma ic poe ics, since i p esen s di e se poin s o iew, di e en pe spec i es assumed by di e en ly ical cha ac e s, emb acing a mul iplici y o oices. This ocaliza ion (in Gene e’s e ms) allows a di e si y o angles, p oducing a complex con igu a ion o u e ances ha p i ilege one pa icula iew o e ano he and which se s us he challenge o disce ning in he poem who speaks and who lis ens, who sees wha and how. As s a ed by Bojanowska: “The open-endedness o he poems on na u e, o en achie ed by pe asi e and mul idi ec ional i ony and he di e si y