Reading Pickering (2005) on posthumanism – phew!!!!! I will try to summarise for myself and for others
Pickering suggests that the world of academics is split into two fields – the study of objects and things, the study of human meaning.
He suggests we need to think about the symbiotic relationship between the two rather than them as separate entities and quotes Karl Marx ” ‘production not only creates an object for the subject but also a subject for the object.’
He believes that if the relationship was more thought out many unnecessary side effects, disasters, resulting action would not be required. He goes on to suggest that the relationship should be more fluid and natural like de Koonings paintings evolving and simbiotic rather than prescriptive like Mondrian.
Where do the Eels come in……. He talks of Asian eels being imported as they are beautiful for aquariums, however they grew to large and could escape the tank, so people put them in local lakes, they escaped the lakes, they ate the local fish, the humand built walls to keep them out, they climbed over the walls, the humans drained the lakes, they buried in the soil and waited until they were refilled.
It reminds me of a broken path way when flowers break through – I always smile and have a feeling of joy at the strength of nature, however the posthumanist would acknowledge the whole relationship – someone will trip and get hurt, then sue the council, the council will pay for the hospital fees, the council will dig up the path, the road will be closed, the people will complain, the path will be replaced,and the person will work more hours to pay more tax, the plants will grow elsewhere. – I think ……………………..
Asian Eels and Global Warming: A Posthumanist Perspective
on Society and the Environment
Pickering, Andrew.
Ethics & the Environment, Volume 10, Number 2, Autumn 2005,
pp. 29-43 (
I think your emphasis on Pickering’s starting point – the ‘beautiful disciplinary dualism’ of the natural sciences and the humanities and social sciences – is a really good place to start your summary. Do you think he’s right, in his suggestion that ‘split’ between the disciplines partly works to help us maintain a clear boundary between the ‘material’ and the ‘social’? I think your example of the flower in the pavement, brief though it is, does a really nice job of blurring that boundary!
I think the two disciplines he mentions – social science and “pure” science have a distinctly clear boundary based upon their focus. However I think most other disciplines will have a blurred boundary and this is represented in University courses – I studied environmental science in my first year at University and this was 20 years ago. So the idea of separation is perhaps outdated, but Pickering lead me onto think of the vastness of impact between one another stretched from local to national to international to Global with a a variety of time spans included. The vastness of the interrelationships blew me away – I had to stop thinking about it as I lost myself in time and space!