Postantropocentryczny demos i porządek obywatelski

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.88.3.16

Keywords:

post-humanism, post-anthropocentrism, pluriversum, public sphere, emancipation

Abstract

THE POST-ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEMOS AND CIVIC ORDER

The aim of this article is to hermeneutically analyse the narratives associated with the post-anthropocentric turn and their implications for the transformation of political and civic order. These issues can be situated within a framework of broad political thought and theory based on the work of Rosi Braidotti, Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour, or Michel Serres. Emphasising multispecies justice, the demands of post-humanist positions and adjustments to social theory refer to a concern for a stable future of human and non-human collectivities. They concern the expansion of the public sphere and the political emancipation of hitherto marginalised peripheral actors, reclaiming as they do their voice. This non-anthropocentric point of view refers to elements of nature as well as the technological world gaining legal status. This raises the question of its political consequences for society and the civil order. It involves the restoration or granting of legal and moral subjectivity to non-human entities. Will the next step, therefore, also be to give them political subjectivity and a revolution to match the new social contract? The structure of the text addresses issues such as the evolution of civil society, the possibilities and consequences of moving beyond the category of anthropos, the proposal of monism as ontological egalitarianism, the presentation of examples of non-human actors in the public sphere and Latour’s project of a parliament of things – the pluriversum.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Edyta B. Pietrzak, Lodz University of Technology

    Antropolożka i politolożka, profesorka na Wydziale Organizacji i Zarządzania PŁ, wykładowczyni na Erasmus Mundus Master’s Degree in Women’s and Gender Studies GEMMA. Autorka ponad dziewięćdziesięciu publikacji naukowych. Zajmuje się teoriami społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, politycznością różnorodności oraz społeczno-politycznymi kontekstami zarządzania.

References

Barad K., Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart, „Parallax” 2014, vol. 20, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623
View in Google Scholar

Barad K., Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter, „Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society” 2003, vol. 28, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.1086/342584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
View in Google Scholar

Beck U., Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej nowoczesności, Warszawa 2002.
View in Google Scholar

Bennett J., Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, Durham–London 2010, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv111jh6w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv111jh6w
View in Google Scholar

Błaszczyk M., Spór o humanistykę nieantropocentryczną, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 2021, R. 30, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.24425/pfns.2021.138103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24425/pfns.2021.138103
View in Google Scholar

Braidotti R., Teratologies, [w:] Deleuze and Feminist Theory, red. I Buchman, C. Colebrook, Edinburgh 2000.
View in Google Scholar

Braidotti R., The Posthuman, Cambridge 2013.
View in Google Scholar

Czapliński P., Końca świata nie będzie. Literatura, polityka i katastrofa klimatyczna, Krasnogruda 2022, [online] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdyRdYv6ybA.
View in Google Scholar

De Landa M., The Geology of Morals, A Neo-Materialist Interpretation, 1996, [online] http://future-nonstop.org/c/818d3d85eca43d66ff0ebd1dfedda6e3.
View in Google Scholar

Derrida J., The Animal That Therefore I Am, przeł. D. Wills, New York 2008.
View in Google Scholar

Domańska E., Humanistyka nie-antropocentryczna a studia nad rzeczami, „Kultura Współczesna” 2008, t. 3, nr 57.
View in Google Scholar

Donaldson S., Kymlicka W., Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights, Oxford 2011.
View in Google Scholar

Fiedorczuk J., Wywiad z Lawrencem Buellem, [w:] Cyborg w ogrodzie. Wprowadzenie do ekokrytyki, red. J. Fiedorczuk, Gdańsk 2015.
View in Google Scholar

Haraway D.,, A Cyborg Manifesto: Sciencie, Technology and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century, Warwick 1980, [online] https://web.archive.org/web/20210908121413/
View in Google Scholar

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fictionnownarrativemediaandtheoryinthe21stcentury/manifestly_haraway_----_a_cyborg_manifesto_science_technology_and_socialist-feminism_in_the_....pdf.
View in Google Scholar

Haraway D., Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene, Durham–London 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q
View in Google Scholar

Haraway D., The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others, [w:] D. Haraway, The Haraway Reader, New York–London 2004.
View in Google Scholar

Harman G., Traktat o przedmiotach, Warszawa 2013.
View in Google Scholar

Koselleck R., Trzy światy obywatelskie? Wprowadzenie do porównawczej semantyki społeczeństwa obywatelskiego w Niemczech, Anglii i Francji – zarys dziejów teorii, [w:] Rozmowy w Castel Gandolfo, red. K. Michalski, Warszawa–Kraków 1994.
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., Dajcie mi laboratorium a poruszę świat, „Teksty Drugie” 2009, nr 1/2.
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Cambridge 2004, https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039964
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford 2005, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge 1993.
View in Google Scholar

Marzec A., Zmierzch natury – w stronę ekologii politycznej Bruno Latoura, „Kultura Współczesna. Teoria, Interpretacje, Praktyka” 2011, nr 1.
View in Google Scholar

Pietrzak E., Ku globalnemu społeczeństwu obywatelskiemu. Transgresje idei, Warszawa 2014.
View in Google Scholar

Pietrzak E., Polityczność różnorodności jako problem hermeneutyczny, „Przegląd Politologiczny” 2019, nr 1, https://www.doi.org/10.14746/pp.2019.24.1.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2019.24.1.2
View in Google Scholar

Pietrzak E., Współczesne teorie społeczeństwa obywatelskiego w świetle nowego materializmu, „Eastern Review” 2017, t. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1427-9657.06.03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1427-9657.06.03
View in Google Scholar

Stone Ch.D., Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment, New York 2010.
View in Google Scholar

Szaj P., W stronę hermeneutyki postantropocentrycznej, „Zoophilologica: Polish Journal of Animal Studies” 2020, nr 6, https://doi.org/10.31261/ZOOPHILOLOGICA.2020.06.04. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/ZOOPHILOLOGICA.2020.06.04
View in Google Scholar

Szostek M., Postantropocentryzm, czyli rzecz o poszerzaniu granic wspólnoty, „Przegląd Humanistyczny” 2014, nr 1.
View in Google Scholar

Teubner G., Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law, „Journal of Law and Society” 2006, vol. 33, no. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00368.x
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

06-12-2024

Issue

Section

Dilemmas of European societies

How to Cite

“Postantropocentryczny Demos I Porządek Obywatelski”. 2024. Politeja 21 (1(88/3): 247-57. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.88.3.16.