TRANSHUMANIST UTOPIAS: RETHINKING ENHANCEMENT AND DISABILITY By Melinda Hall Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School at Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Philosophy August, 2013 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Kelly Oliver Professor Lisa Guenther Professor Charles Scott Professor Eva Kittay Copyright © 2013 by Melinda C. Hall All Rights Reserved This work is dedicated in memory of philosopher, feminist, and my advisor at American University, Lucinda Joy Peach iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest thanks go to Kelly Oliver, the chair of my committee and my mentor. Her “response-ability” and the generosity with which she gives of her time, energy and resources are truly astounding. Thanks are also due to Lisa Guenther, who provided me with detailed and invaluable comments on earlier drafts (the impact of which is sprinkled throughout these pages), and to Charles Scott, whose incredible kindness supported me at key moments in my project. Eva Kittay generously agreed to read this project; my admiration of her work stems from my time as an undergraduate philosophy major—she helped clarify my interest in philosophical issues surrounding disability. I am grateful to my friends and fellow graduate students at Vanderbilt University, who were always remarkably ready with listening ears and friendly beers. I was also sustained by my family, especially my mother Linda’s willingness to read every word I write. The final product and truly, my work in graduate school, would not have been possible without the support of Steven Smallpage. He encourages me in every way. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS* Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv Chapter INTRODUCTION: WHY ENHANCEMENT? BIOETHICS AND TRANSHUMANISM ........................................................................................................................................... vii Contemporary Debate ............................................................................................ ix Transhumanism .................................................................................................... xxi Methodology ......................................................................................................... xli Chapter Outline ................................................................................................... xliv I: FROM PHYSICAL CULTURE TO GENETIC CULTURE: A GENEALOGY OF GENE-OLOGY....................................................................................................................1 The Quest for Enhancement: Anchors in History and Culture ................................2 Physical Culture, Discipline, and Healthy Choices .................................................5 The Birth of Endocrinology ...................................................................................15 Post-War Rehabilitation of Eugenic Ideals ............................................................19 Genetic Visions ......................................................................................................24 Conclusion .............................................................................................................40 II: NEGATIVE GENETIC SELECTION: ENHANCING RISK, ENHANCING DISABILITY .....................................................................................................................45 Explanation of Terms .............................................................................................50 Procreative Beneficence .........................................................................................53 The Disability Critique ..........................................................................................58 On Whom Does the Onus Rest? ............................................................................72 Enhancing Risk, Enhancing Disability ..................................................................87 Rationing ..............................................................................................................100 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................102 III: MODELS OF DISABILITY: MEDICAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL ..........................106 Thinking Disability ..............................................................................................107 Models of Disability ............................................................................................113 Social Constructions of Disability .......................................................................132 Stigma and Identity ..............................................................................................135 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................144 v IV: RECIPROCITY AND TROPE: DISABILITY AND LIBERALISM ......................145 John Rawls and the Heritage of Liberalism .........................................................146 A Contractualist Account of Liberalism ..............................................................148 The Magic Negro, Black Oppression, and Disability Oppression .......................157 Possibilities for Transformed Theorizing ............................................................167 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................175 CONCLUSION: TRANSHUMANIST UTOPIAS IN CONTEXT .................................177 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................182 *Note on the contents: chapter two is a revised version of “Reconciling the Disability Critique and Reproductive Liberty: The Case of Negative Genetic Selection,” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 121-143. Reprinted here by permission of copyright holder, Indiana University Press. Material appearing in the Introduction will also appear in “Vile Sovereigns in Bioethical Debate,” forthcoming in the Disability Studies Quarterly Special Issue: “Improving Feminist Philosophy and Theory by Taking Account of Disability” (September 2013). vi INTRODUCTION WHY ENHANCEMENT? BIOETHICS AND TRANSHUMANISM Enhancement is the use of medical and technological strategies to augment human traits. The strategy of genetic enhancement, perhaps the most controversial, would use genetic engineering technology to achieve this end. Bioethicist John Harris claims that enhancement is good and desirable by definition; according to him, “if it wasn’t good for you it wouldn’t be enhancement” (2011, 131). Yet, “enhancement” is a loose concept that could apply to a variety of things humans can use; for example, anything from shoes and caffeine to neural implants and prosthetics could count as enhancements (e.g. Buchanan 2011, Preface and Bostrom and Savulescu 2011, 2). Indeed, for some proponents of enhancement, the moral acceptability of enhancement strategies stems directly from their supposed similarity to everyday activities of improvement, such as learning (cf. Bostrom and Savulescu 2011, 3).1 Ethically separating, for example, strength training and steroids seems to require uneasy notions of the “natural” or the “authentic,” wherein strength training is morally acceptable while steroids involve “cheating.” Or, the invocation of the long-contested divide between therapy and enhancement could separate reconstructive plastic surgery from cosmetic plastic surgery. Some bioethicists maintain that only therapeutic or natural “enhancements” are morally acceptable, while others such as Harris argue that all enhancements are not only morally acceptable but also possibly morally obligatory. 1 Some counter that novel medical interventions are a unique set of means for everyday ends – i.e., beauty (social acceptability) and the like (e.g. Parens 1998). vii Meanwhile, many feminists and disability theorists find it suspect that critics of enhancement often seem forced to prove why one shouldn’t do what is obviously good for one or one’s children (Buchanan et al. 2000, Ch. 5; Ida 2011, Sandel 2004 and 2007). Usually debates over enhancement are debates over what types of enhancements are morally acceptable. Many times they revolve around the difference between negative eugenics, which aims to cure diseases and prevent so-called birth defects, and positive eugenics, which aims, in Harris’s words, to “make better people.” I seek to reframe these debates in terms of the explicit and implicit goals and desired futures proposed by proponents of enhancement. Rather than enter debates over where we should draw the lines between therapeutic interventions or enhancements, negative or positive eugenics, I critically analyze the ways that proponents’ discussions of the ethics of enhancement for humans not only involves specific goals and desired futures, but also are often less about available technology than potential technology deemed worthy of investment. For them, investment in the research and development of potential futures becomes a moral obligation. I argue that the burden in the debate should fall to proponents of enhancement, not critics, especially in light of the goals of proposed enhancements themselves, which often are couched in fantasies of possible transhuman futures that presuppose