Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways

N. Katherine HaylesN. Hayles

doi:10.12184/wspppllWSP2515-470201.20200402

PDF
导出
分享
收藏
专辑

Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways

4卷第2期

浏览量: 0 Downloads: 26

Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways
Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways
2020年4卷第2期页码：6-29
纸质出版日期： 2020 ，
DOI：10.12184/wspppllWSP2515-470201.20200402
Accepted：

Scan QR Code

N. Katherine HaylesN. Hayles. (2020). Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways . 批评理论（英文版）, 4(2), 6-29.

N. KATHERINE HAYLESN. HAYLES. (2020). Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways . Critical Theory, 4(2), 6-29..
N. Katherine HaylesN. Hayles. (2020). Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways . 批评理论（英文版）, 4(2), 6-29. DOI： 10.12184/wspppllWSP2515-470201.20200402.

N. KATHERINE HAYLESN. HAYLES. (2020). Posthumanism at a Crossroads:Latour’s Dangerous Vision, N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth,” and the Search for Better Pathways . Critical Theory, 4(2), 6-29.. DOI： 10.12184/wspppllWSP2515-470201.20200402.

摘要

Abstract

In Down to Earth and Facing Gaia

Bruno Latour flirts with treating Earth as an intentional entity—an implication already present in his adoption of “Gaia” to describe earth systems. In addition

he proposes that science and religion be put on an equal footing with regard to producing reliable knowledge about the world

suggesting that they are simply two equally contending parties along with many others such as nations

regions

ethnicities

etc. This essay argues on the contrary that scientific knowledge practices incorporate a critical attribute absent from religions

namely the power of disconfirmation. By largely ignoring this attribute

Latour drastically downplays the ability of the sciences to deliver robust

reliable knowledge about the world

at precisely a time when scientific methods are crucial to understanding global warming

species extinction

the coronavirus pandemic

and many other threats facing life on earth. To explore why the appeal to an intentional Earth is attractive to Latour and many others

this essay analyzes N. K. Jemisin’s “Broken Earth” trilogy

in which Father Earth figures as the living antagonist to the varieties of people inhabiting this future time. At the same time it acknowledges the power of kinship and the problems it poses for human solidarity

thus anticipating the problems of Latour’s proposed politics of disunity

the trilogy also holds open the possibility of a future when all people

human and not

can live and flourish together.

关键词

Keywords

PosthumanismBruno LatourN. K. JemisinThe Broken Earth Trilogy

references

1 I was not fortunate enough to be in these audiences, so my suggestion is only a speculation. I did, however, hear Latour when he spoke on similar themes at Uppsala Universityin October 2019, and then the skepticism in the audience toward the idea of an intentional planet was very visible.2 Among the lowest points of the so-called Science Wars was the publication of Gross and Levitt’s Higher Superstition ( 1997 ) and the Alan Sokol hoax (see Editors of LinguaFranca, 2000).3 I find this aspect of Latour’s argument convincing, but see Malm ( 2020) for a vigorous counter-argument.4 See Malm ( 2015) and Moore ( 2017) for why capital, and not other fossil-burning systems such as the Soviet Union, should be held responsible.

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

Submit

No data

Related Author

No data

Related Institution

No data

⁰