Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Inhuman: In Lyotard’s thought, the "inhuman" refers to forces that disrupt human-centered narratives, like technology, machines, and impersonal systems. It challenges traditional humanism by exposing limits of reason and identity, highlighting how the postmodern condition involves decentering the human subject in favor of nonhuman, fragmented, and anonymous processes. See also Humanism, Posthumanism, Anti-humanism, Lyotard._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Giorgio Agamben on Inhuman - Dictionary of Arguments
Braidotti I 120 Inhuman/Agamben/Braidotti: The inhuman for Agamben(1), not unlike Lyotard, is the effect of modernization, but he also learned from Hannah Arendt (1951)(2) to look at the phenomenon of totalitarianism as the ultimate denial of the humanity of the other. Arendt, however, constructed a powerful alternative to these political extremes by stressing the necessity of human rights for all, even and especially the de-humanized ‘others’. Arendt is, in Seyla Benhabib’s brilliant formulation, ‘a reluctant modernist’ (1996)(3). >Hannah Arendt, >Giorgio Agamben. Agamben, on the other hand, is less innovative and perpetuates the philosophical habit that consists in taking mortality, or finitude, as the trans-historical horizon for discussions of ‘life’. For him ‘bare life’ is not generative vitality, but rather the constitutive vulnerability of the human subject, which sovereign power can kill; it is that which makes the body into disposable matter in the hands of the despotic force of unchecked power. This is linked to Heidegger’s theory of being as deriving its force from the annihilation of animal life. >Being/Heidegger, >Body, >Life, >Death. Finitude is introduced as a constitutive element within the framework of subjectivity, which also fuels an affective political economy of loss and melancholia at the heart of the subject. Braidotti I 121 BraidottiVsAgamben: I am perturbed by this fixation on Thanatos that Nietzsche criticized over a century ago and which is still very present in critical debates today. It often produces a gloomy and pessimistic vision not only of power, but also of the technological developments that propel the regimes of bio-power. My understanding of ‘life’ as zoe ethics of sustainable transformations differs considerably from what Agamben calls ‘bare life’ or negative zoe.* >Inhuman/Lyotard, >Death/Braidotti, >Dying/Braidotti, >Post-humanism/Braidotti, >Biopolitics. * (…) the wider scope of animal and non-human life, also known as zoe. 1. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 2. Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt. 3. Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Agamben I Giorgio Agamben Homo sacer – Die souveräne Macht und das nackte Leben Frankfurt 2002 Braidotti I Rosie Braidotti The Posthuman Cambridge, UK: Polity Press 2013 |
||
