UNDERTAKING GENDER IN DEATH A Dissection of Transhumanist and Death Positive Understandings of Being Human Alexandra Løvås Kristinnsdottir Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Gender Studies Centre for Gender Studies University of Oslo Blindern, Norway 29.11.2019 © Alexandra Løvås Kristinnsdottir 2019 Undertaking Gender In Death. A Dissection of Transhumanist and Death Positive Understandings of Being Human http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo iii iv Abstract This thesis examines how we might say that death is gendered, and what that might mean for feminist questions of justice. To explore these questions, I use two movements that are in a discursive struggle for definitional power over death: death positivity and transhumanism. I consider the movements’ use of the concepts ‘the self’, ‘the body’ and ‘nature’, as well as gender, and how these negotiate meanings in death. The movements propose very different solutions to the problem that death poses, despite some common motifs, based in their different relationships to the above concepts. I suggest that transhumanism, a radical futuristic movement, aligns with an anthropocentric understanding of the human, which causes problems like climate change. We are, at the moment, in an unprecedented timescape called the Anthropocene, characterized by human intervention in the natural world, revolving around a subject that positions the human as above and outside the material of nature. This human self is justified in its exploitation of those that do not conform to its ideal form of being human, those who are othered through their difference from this ideal self. One of these types of difference is gender. The othered, human and non-human, are subject to necropolitical exertions of power, power that decides life and death. I argue that dislodging the human at the center of the world to address its problems starts with acknowledging death as a phenomenon. Death positivity emerges as a challenge to these unequal necropolitics, where they advocate for others’ participation in discursive constructions of death, as well as empowerment through their personal relationships to death. The death positive movement serves as a practice of ‘staying with the trouble’ (Haraway 2016) in deeply troubling times. v vi Acknowledgements Every text is a a part of an ongoing conversation, owing to a system of interrelated influences. For helping me stay with the trouble of writing this thesis, I wish to offer my thanks. My supervisor Sara E. S. Orning, for helping me through the monstrous birthing process it is to write a longform research project. Mine was more drawn out than most, and being a doula is work on its own, even if it is for the work of others. Your guidance has been productive, thoughtful and always kind, and I am so grateful to have had someone who practices what they preach be my guide. Deeply, sincerely, heartfelt thanks. The other supervisors whose presences were brief, but whose interest and input still shaped my thoughts. Elisabeth L. Engebretsen, for the enthusiasm you showed for my ideas. Agnes Bolsø, for theoretical wrangling and a sympathetic cup of coffee. You are both inspirational in fighting the power; thank you. Professor Patrick W. Galbraith, whose quick observation of death positivity as relevant for mass death concerns sparked a cascade that finally helped me realize how I could write my thesis. ありがとうございました. To my fellow students at the Centre for Gender Studies at UiO, who have lived in the trouble with me. The Queer Death Studies network, for compassionate collegiality. My friends and family, for offering shelter, nourishment and emotional support. My ex-partner, for support in emotionally difficult times and facilitating circumstances to let me write. And then breaking up with me at a critical point in the thesis. Thank you, up yours. vii viii Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ vii Contents ................................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research questions and theoretical background ............................................................... 2 1.2 What is at stake? “Real world” ramifications .................................................................. 5 1.3 Selection and methodology .............................................................................................. 7 1.3.1 What is transhumanism? ............................................................................................ 9 1.3.2 What is death positivity? ......................................................................................... 11 1.3.3 Discourse and social construction ........................................................................... 12 1.3.4 Positionality and choice of material ........................................................................ 16 1.4 Thesis structure .............................................................................................................. 18 2 Background and theory ................................................................................................. 20 2.1 Social, material, psychological: death as a contingent phenomenon ............................. 20 2.1.2 Philippe Ariès and ‘The Invisible Death’ ................................................................ 21 2.1.2 Thomas Laqueur and mattering ............................................................................... 24 2.1.3 Ernest Becker and the heroic subject ....................................................................... 27 2.2 The gendered body, self and death ................................................................................. 29 2.2.1 Simone de Beauvoir’s the One and the Other ......................................................... 30 2.2.2 Julia Kristeva and abjection ..................................................................................... 34 2.3 Nature and the (post)human ........................................................................................... 36 2.3.1 Val Plumwood and the discontinuous human ......................................................... 38 2.3.2 Donna Haraway and the ambivalent and troubling ................................................. 46 2.4 Summary Remarks ......................................................................................................... 50 3 Visions of the future: transhumanism .......................................................................... 52 3.1 Transhumanist thought in context .................................................................................. 53 3.2 Who is it for? The human subject in transhumanism ..................................................... 54 3.3 The “Transhumanist Declaration (2012)” ...................................................................... 56 3.4 Summary remarks .......................................................................................................... 66 4 Death positivity: an alternative vision of death ........................................................... 68 4.1 Death positivity in context ............................................................................................. 69 4.2 Who is it for? Gendered participation in the death positive movement ......................... 73 4.3 The death positive pledge ............................................................................................... 77 ix 4.4 Summary remarks .......................................................................................................... 88 5 Always threatening: returning themes in transhumanism and death positivity ...... 89 5.1 Gender’s presence and absence ...................................................................................... 91 5.2 The body problem .......................................................................................................... 92 5.3 Meaningful discrete and ongoing selves ........................................................................ 93 5.4 One foot in nature ........................................................................................................... 95 5.5 Chaos/order .................................................................................................................... 96 5.6 Power and positivity ....................................................................................................... 98 5.7 Harm/reduction ............................................................................................................... 99 5.8 Techno-futures ............................................................................................................. 101 5.9 Summary remarks ........................................................................................................ 103 6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 104 6.1 Fruitful future investigations .......................................................................................