Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 5 Number 3, December 2004
___________________________________________________________________
Weinstone, Ann. Avatar Bodies: A Tantra for Posthumanism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. 227 pages. ISBN 0-8166-4147-1. $53.95 (HB), $17.95 (PB).
Reviewed by
University of Florida
In Avatar Bodies: A Tantra for Posthumanism, Ann Weinstone seeks to alter the movement and shape of current arguments on posthumanism to rely on more plausible and sustainable concepts of posthumanism so that posthumanism can succeed in removing elitism and at becoming more encompassing. The overall argument is a shift of syntax using Tantra’s modal ontology to remove hierarchies while respecting the other and while focusing on pleasure, love, and friendship for all relationships. The book is also written as a Tantra or a set of instructions with multiple short sections that all orient around posthumanism in much the same way that Deleuze and Guattari’s plateaus orient around particular concepts. Weinstone’s initial argument on the need for a greater exploration of positive aspects of humanism within posthuman discourse and theory are apt and needed.
Weinstone argues that posthumanism has not succeeded in its goal of “disrupting notions of a stable, autonomous, uniquely human self[...] to create the conditions for the emergence of less hierarchical and less violent political relationships” (6). She argues that this goal has not been met because posthumanism, in its attempt to mitigate hierarchies, has removed human-to-human relationships: “The cyborg is never a hybrid of two or more people” (6). Beginning with a history of posthumanism from posthumanist and deconstructionist works like Derrida’s Of Grammatology, Donna Haraway’s “A Manifesto for Cyborgs,” and N. Katherine Hayles’ writings, Weinstone situates her arguments within works that specifically class themselves as posthumanist or works that study the cyborg. She does this to argue that the current construction of posthumanism needs to be enlarged in order to fully include human-to-human relationships. In doing so, Weinstone rightly acknowledges the strides made by earlier theorists, and uses those works to make her argument as the next step. Working from interstices, edges, and borders Weinstone argues for a view of posthumanism, and of theory in general, that embraces pleasure and joy. Acknowledging that this is goal is “perhaps sappily” driven, she states, “I want to attend, in the present, to both mourning and the hope embodied in pleasure that in future times, pleasure will assist, and not arrest, the ethical touch” (41). The inclusion of pleasure and hope is an natural extension of the ethics and underlying drive towards empathy and equality from existing works on posthumanism and deconstruction.
Weinstone’s corrective for the failings of posthumanism is to use email as part of a posthuman attitude by which people can communicate, embracing the benefits of humanism, while also refuting the problems of humanism in a positive manner that embraces friendship; “The devotional gesture I propose her is the daily, diaristic practice of writing to strangers” (176). The overall argument for using Tantra provides an alternate, and possibly more viable model for posthumanism. As Weinstone states, “Indian Tantra points both deconstruction and posthumanism toward a thinking of the self as a zone of relationality, a zone of expressions or immanent emanations” (40). This situates a Tantra for posthumanism within other models, like Haraway’s cyborg or Deleuzian becomings; however, Weinstone argues that this model can be used to reinsert the benefits of humanism for ethical politics. Because this model allows the threat of a humanist reinsertion, Weinstone also argues for a return to the body and the importance of the body in these relations. The syntax change also includes a focus on “to belong” rather than “to have” (28) because “to have” implies owning while “to belong” implies relations and connections. Similarly, Weinstone argues for a conception of “there is” rather than “I am” because it emphasizes relation and connection (74).
By furthering the existing posthumanist theories to rely on a more complex conceptualization of difference, Weinstone uses that more complex conceptualization to exceed (and return to) deconstruction to focus more fully on the possibilities for friendship, love, empathy, respect, and intuition. In doing so, Weinstone’s book provides a natural extension to existing theories by reinserting and placing play and paradox more prominently.
Despite the brilliance, logicality, and emotive power of the first section of the book in arguing for a new conception of posthumanism, the book stumbles in its call for action. Weinstone suggests that a devotional of writing daily email to strangers could serve to enact this new conception of posthumanism specifically because of the parallels between email as a posthumanist communication method and letters as a humanist communication method. While the distinction between email as posthumanist and letter writing as humanist is provocative, Weinstone offers a somewhat romanticized overview of email and other computer mediated communication methods. This romanticization proves problematic because it is embedded within an otherwise so articulate book. The call to action spans pages roughly forty pages, which include portions on the larger argument within, constituting a small overall portion of the book. Despite this problematic section, Weinstone’s book provides a needed entry on posthumanist theory by foregrounding the connections with deconstruction and then opening new possibilities based on those connections. Weinstone’s argument for a more ethical conceptualization of posthumanism, and one that embraces pleasure, is eloquently argued and could serve as the next step in a more holistic and faithful version of posthumanist theory.