Disentangling the Posthuman: Broadening Perspectives of Human/Machine Mergers through Inter-relational Subjectivity by Judy Ehrentraut A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2019 © Judy Ehrentraut 2019 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Dr. Isabel Pedersen Title: Associate Professor Supervisor Dr. Marcel O’Gorman Title: Professor Internal-external Member Dr. Daniel Vogel Title: Associate Professor Internal Members Dr. Aimée Morrison Title: Associate Professor Dr. Neil Randall Title: Associate Professor ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract In the conclusion of How We Became Posthuman, N. Katharine Hayles states that the terror of posthumanism comes from its dual connotation of superseding the human and coming after it, implying that the days of being human are coming to an end. Certain branches of posthuman discourse suggest that the intersection of humans and advanced technologies has already resulted in the dissolution of essentialist understandings of the human to make way for the posthuman. While some theorists interpret this emergence as marking the human’s fall and subsequent rise as a transcendent being imbued with technological adornments, others rightly see it as the disbanding of the human of Enlightenment philosophy. Yet as this dissertation argues, even iterations of posthuman thought that attempt to reject anthropological and sociocultural essentialisms inadvertently re-affirm humanist ideologies. This is mainly due to normative and dogmatic ideas about technology’s place in the human world that frame it as dehumanizing and oppositional on the one hand, or transcendent and empowering on the other. In both cases, the human/technology relationship is pre-coded by the assumption that technology gesticulates a dislodging of “natural” human purity, which encourages the fear that human agency predicated on self-possession is at risk. Engaging with the works of Hayles, Rosi Braidotti and Karen Barad, I propose that agency is not something one possesses, but an outcome of entanglements where identity is formed when the subject recognizes difference over assimilation. My contention is that humans typically approach potential connections with technologies as opportunities to extend the individual unitary self, rather than exploring the self as open, incomplete and always emerging. When technology is perpetually seen as an intrusive addition to the human, a false dichotomy develops where authentic self-representation is endangered by technological mediation. As well, iv the rhetoric that technology possesses the power to make us “more human” (Case 2010; Hauskellar 2013; Taylor 2011; Casey 2013) frames it as a vehicle with which the normative able-bodied human elevates its control over the world. Thus, in response to the increasing demonization of communication technologies, my critique of digital abstinence initiatives reveals the ableist, racist and classist underpinnings that discount the varied ways all humans entangle with artifacts to participate in subject-making. Rather than theorizing how posthumanism represents the promises of technological extension, I evaluate the underlying exclusions that assign certain humans as lacking and needing improvement. Building on Braidotti’s ethics of becoming and the movement from a unitary to nomadic subject, my conception of “inclusive posthumanism” disengages from the idea that the human’s purpose is to progress. By rejecting individualism and self-interest to promote a larger inter-relationality with other human and non-human artifacts, I see the inclusive posthuman as an opportunity to theorize subjectivity as a decentralization of the human’s role within a larger system. This both recognizes the human’s importance without implying its obliteration, and offers constitutions of a collective self that is uncovered through chance encounters. v Acknowledgements First and foremost, I need to thank my family for their limitless patience while I completed this PhD. None of you quite understood what I was doing or why, but you were all on board from the beginning, and I can’t thank you enough for being there throughout my journey and continuing to encourage me for all these years. I’d also like to thank the English department at the University of Waterloo, and my supervisor Dr. Marcel O’Gorman for his long-standing support of my research, going back to my second year where he oversaw me in a directed reading course where I wrote my first book chapter that ultimately helped shape this dissertation. Thank you for helping me train for this marathon, and for including me in the Critical Media Lab’s many ventures in its many locations. I’m especially grateful that I was able to host the Posthuman Film Club (and thank you from the bottom of my heart to everyone who attended, no matter how weird the films were). Thank you to Dr. Neil Randall for his unwavering support dating back to my first year in the program, and through the many changes this project went through. A big thank you to Agata, the VR Working Group and everyone at the Games Institute for giving me the green light every time I proposed a research project. Also, thank you to Dr. Aimée Morrison for her invaluable insights and for helping me take on a very challenging but necessary perspective in the later stages of writing. A profound thank you to my many friends in Toronto, Kitchener, and Hamilton. I couldn’t have done this without you. Thank you all for letting me spend the night whenever I needed to, for helping me take the breaks I desperately needed to take, and for excitedly asking me how the work was going every time I showed up to things. You made these last few years easier and helped me see the importance of work/life balance. I’m forever grateful for the music, the forest, and the good vibes. Lastly, thank you to Bean, who was there the whole time. vi Table of Contents Introduction: Technology for the People 1 Chapter 1: The End of the Human: Extricating Posthumanism from Humanism 25 Chapter 2: Bad Posthumanism and Fearful Wish-Fulfillment: Androids, Cyborgs, 57 and Uploaded Consciousness Chapter 3: The Promise of Mobile Telephony: ‘Real’ Connections and 90 Individual Spaces of Control Chapter 4: Assembling with Technology: Considering the Incomplete Body 133 Chapter 5: Unpredictable Encounters with the Technological Kind 169 Conclusion: Future Speculations of the Human in a Posthuman World 208 References 222 vii Introduction: Technology for the People We need to become the sorts of subjects who actively desire to reinvent subjectivity as a set of mutant values and to draw our pleasure from that, not from the perpetuation of familiar regimes. Rosi Braidotti, The Posthuman, 93 “Mobile phones, once created to connect, are now putting more distance between us.” This is what a European start-up company called Mudita1 believes is the greatest consequence of telecommunication technology, an otherwise exciting cultural enterprise that has put all the world’s information at our fingertips. As their mission statement explains, “this paradise of endless options is turning into a hell of anxiety” because people can no longer enjoy moments of solitude without incurring boredom. As a solution, Mudita advocates “technology of the present moment” intended to “bring balance and quality to your life.” They advertise “humane products that put well-being first” by creating a minimalistic phone that blocks apps and has a screen made of electronic ink to reduce eye strain. The product claims it “supports your conscious use of technology” and is “inspired by your wise choices.” It is intended to bring smartphone usage back into the control of the individual, helping users “find deeper focus, get more done and build authentic relationships” (Mudita). Mudita is not the first company to try to solve the problem of attention deficit by reducing smartphone functionality, and their product is merely symbolic of a larger mindfulness 1 “Mudita” is a Sanskrit word that roughly means “sympathetic or unselfish joy in the good fortune of others. English-speaking teachers broaden the definition of mudita to include ‘empathy’” (O’Brien). 1 movement that Silicon Valley has been popularizing for over a decade.2 Mudita advocates for meditation practice as a pathway to self-awareness that can only begin by alleviating distraction and regaining control of our devices. Yet despite their campaign for mental calmness, the underlying message is carefully centered on efficiency. Mudita juxtaposes smartphone mobility, which has allowed us to “finally fulfill all our potential and make profitable use of every minute,” with a new social model that encourages a repossession of our time and energy so we can accomplish more. With this comes an understanding of agency as something we must also possess, predominantly over the very devices now thought to be holding us back. But what exactly are we being held back from, and why does the conversation begin with the design of these devices, rather than on their societal conception and cultural use? The Cyborg Conversation When we speculate about the seamless integration of pervasive devices and human life, we are engaging in a conversation about modern-day cyborgs, whether we realize it or not. A person may claim they can barely tell the difference between their hand and their mobile phone, and wonder what measure of authenticity and human experience they lose through digital engagement. Their conversation partner might remind them we have always been cyborgs, for the distinction between organic and inorganic has always been blurred, as Donna Haraway tells us in her 1985 manifesto.