Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
direction particular lots ought to be cast. In Haraway's postmod-
ernism/posthumanism, moral and ethical sentiments are always emotive
and personal, expressed on the fly rather than rigorously argued. In an
odd way, the philosophy of science in this mode echoes the prejudices of
the logical positivists decades earlier for whom moral judgments were
little more than expressions of personal taste.
41
In the end, as Haraway describes the ongoing mergers of natural and
artificial things, she clearly sides with the artificial. Her topics and writ-
ings take delight in depicting and deconstructing the projects and prod-
ucts of corporate technoscience, modestly witnessing a flow of laboratory
and corporate concoctions that will leave indelible marks on the future.
At the same time, she derides attempts by others to uphold some things
as “natural” as a risible blunder. Indeed, the valence of her writings lends
support to the radical restructurings of natural creatures and their habi-
tats, including measures that involve obvious acts of violence. A similar
disposition seems to have taken hold within the new subdisciplines of
science studies, cultural studies, and technology studies: a kind of
bemused indifference when confronted with a world filled with artificial
devices, artificial systems, and now, artificially produced living beings.
Scholars began with a methodological affirmation that the world for us
is composed of social and cultural constructs. Perhaps it is no surprise
that they ended up embracing things that most clearly are constructs,
hybrid entities that are the products of engineering broadly conceived.
In this way, the new scholarship meshes nicely with the work of radical
reconstruction and recapitalization at stake in today's technical and cor-
porate realms. In fact, many scholars enjoy the work of ethnography and
theory that places them elbow to elbow with the scientific researchers
and business leaders who move and shake with initiatives in globaliza-
tion. Overlooked in this approach is a haunting memory: that most of
the world still consists of things and creatures that neither scientists, busi-
ness people, nor social theorists had any hand in making.
Conclusion
Will the prevailing winds in the three arenas of discussion I have
described eventually come together to produce a change in climate in
society's view of the prospects for posthumanism? It is too soon to tell.
