Apologetics and Criticism of Posthumanism (Review)

Posthumanistic ideas associated with the rejection of anthropocentric discourses and practices and implying (in transhumanism) the technological transition of man and society to a fundamentally new level of existence and organization of life, have a solid history of almost four decades. In Russia, with the exception of top essays such as “A Cyborg Manifesto” by Donna Haraway or “The Transhumanist FAQ” by Nick Bostrom, posthumanist conceptology began to take root intensively since the 10s. 21st century. Then “Cannibal Metaphysics” by Eduardo de Castro and “Being Ecological” by Timothy Morton first appeared on the Russian market. Gradually, the transmission of posthumanist ideas gained more intense momentum. Today, the domestic literary market features transhumanist literature (“Upgrade to Superhumans”), new anthropology, or “postanthropology,” marking the boundaries “beyond man,” representation of indigenous thinking, a series of books about socio-natural phenomena (“Insectopedia,” by Hugh Raffles, “How forests think” by Eduardo Kohn, “Gathering moss” by Robin Kimmerer), as well as new ontologies (Graham Harman, Ian Bogost), revising the classical subject-object picture of the world. Posthumanism can no longer be considered an inconspicuous cultural phenomenon. It is not surprising that sharp critical reactions appeared in the form of monographic studies. The article provides reviews of current Russian posthumanist literature and criticism. Particular attention is paid to the critical agenda, which positions posthumanism as a carrier of apocalyptic strategies for humans. The need for a careful study of the intellectual phenomenon and the search for common grounds for a constructive dialogue between cultures and concepts are argued.