Jasmijn Leeuwenkamp

This chapter argues that the ‘posterizing impulse’ has been part of the posthumanist discourse from the 1970s onwards, but stemmed from the debate about ‘transhumanism’ that came up in the optimistic 1950s already. The actual notion of ‘posthumanism’, when it was introduced in the 1970s, formed part of the postmodern, reflexive and ironic discourses of the time, which did not so much claim a historical shift or rupture, and did not imply a ‘space-clearing gesture’ towards a different future, but rather announced a position towards the present, a cultural critique, an explanation of ‘how we became posthuman’. It remains a question, however, how much ‘post’ was needed here, or whether, perhaps, the gesture towards a ‘post’ was rather a ‘problem’ than a helpful impulse. This chapter suggests that contemporary philosophical discourse on ‘posthumanism’ is very much aware of how it can remain trapped in the boldness of the posterizing gesture. It therefore seeks an earthly, ‘staying with the trouble’ kind of ‘post’, or rather a ‘com-post’, while being less academic, ironic and literary than the early postmodern posthuman.

The prior issue of Krisis (42:1) published Critical Naturalism: A Manifesto, with the aim to instigate a debate of the issues raised in this manifesto – the necessary re-thinking of the role (and the concept) of nature in critical theory in relation to questions of ecology, health, and inequality. Since Krisis considers itself a place for philosophical debates that take contemporary struggles as starting point, it issued an open call and solicited responses to the manifesto. This is one of the sixteen selected responses, which augment, specify, or question the assumptions and arguments of the manifesto.

In 2019, in the Urgenda case, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch state had to increasingly reduce its carbon emissions to fulfill its human rights obligations under international law to its citizens. Many saw the ruling as a promising historical precedent for international climate change litigation. Notwithstanding the importance of demanding climate action by state actors, this chapter argues that the reframing of the climate crisis as an international human rights issue has at least two important limitations. First, reference to anthropocentric human rights leads to the prioritizing of human over nonhuman life. Second, as posthuman and postcolonial theory shows, the anthropocentrism of human rights is conceptually and historically grounded on a hierarchical logic defining the ‘human’ in teleological terms, externalizing this human’s ‘Others’. The universal ‘human’ of human rights and the notion of a universal anthropos in ‘Anthropocene’ mask exclusions and related inequalities in power, responsibility and vulnerability characterizing the climate crisis. This chapter proposes that a critical analysis of the genealogy of international human rights shows that pursuing a human rights strategy in responding to climate change limits a more critical re-evaluation of what human threatened human and nonhuman life.

This chapter argues that the ‘posterizing impulse’ has been part of the posthumanist discourse from the 1970s onwards, but stemmed from the debate about ‘transhumanism’ that came up in the optimistic 1950s already. The actual notion of ‘posthumanism’, when it was introduced in the 1970s, formed part of the postmodern, reflexive and ironic discourses of the time, which did not so much claim a historical shift or rupture, and did not imply a ‘space-clearing gesture’ towards a different future, but rather announced a position towards the present, a cultural critique, an explanation of ‘how we became posthuman’. It remains a question, however, how much ‘post’ was needed here, or whether, perhaps, the gesture towards a ‘post’ was rather a ‘problem’ than a helpful impulse. This chapter suggests that contemporary philosophical discourse on ‘posthumanism’ is very much aware of how it can remain trapped in the boldness of the posterizing gesture. It therefore seeks an earthly, ‘staying with the trouble’ kind of ‘post’, or rather a ‘com-post’, while being less academic, ironic and literary than the early postmodern posthuman.