Gaïa
Gaïa
»Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment. Gaia is not a person but complex systemic phenomena that compose a living planet.«
Donna Haraway 2016, 43
GaïaA troubling figure of thought
As a super-organism and primordial mother of all beings Gaïa is a figure
of thought that provides the Earth with another Gestalt to that imposed upon
her by the blue planet. She no longer accepts being a globe, the plaything
of a techno-world, mostly in the white hands of a man. People thought they could
arrogantly take her over, exploit her or ›take care‹ of her. Since the third
millennium, this image is rapidly slipping through their fingers. As we intend
to demonstrate in the following, Gaïa as a matriarchal form of natural
symbolism is not only of interest to gender studies. She is of much wider
relevance in promoting a dialogue between the natural and technical sciences
and the humanities and cultural studies. This is an interdisciplinary dialogue,
with multi-faceted insights into the Earth and the (body and gender) imagery
associated with her.
Gaïa und DE\Globalize
DE\Globalize Gaïa
With Gaïa’s help, it is possible to examine questions posed in gender-reflexive environmental research alongside considerations from Feminist Science and Technology Studies (FSTS). Social, ecological and (medial-) technological issues can thus be addressed in interlocking investigations.
These perspectives enable us to consider the themes in depth that have emerged from the artistic research project De/Globalize. Agential cuts through Critical Zones in Science and other Sediments – Kabini, Nile and Rhine. The critical theorist Vasanthi Dass will briefly introduce in that project.
Both web documentations – Gaïa and DE\Globalize – were created within the framework of the collective project Gendering MINT digital, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
These perspectives enable us to consider the themes in depth that have emerged from the artistic research project De/Globalize. Agential cuts through Critical Zones in Science and other Sediments – Kabini, Nile and Rhine. The critical theorist Vasanthi Dass will briefly introduce in that project.
Both web documentations – Gaïa and DE\Globalize – were created within the framework of the collective project Gendering MINT digital, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Gaïa’s Ambiguity
Gaïa’s Ambiguity
Gaïa’s ambiguity oscillates between the science of metaphor and the history of science. Here we have: Gaïa as a mythological figure; Gaiagraphies that have provided us with a detached view of the Earth through space exploration, challenging us to develop alternative visualizations, as well as the Gaia hypothesis formulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1960s, which describes the role of symbiogenesis in evolution and has attained new relevance in the third millennium.
Gaïa's AmbiguityGaïa – a mythological Figure
Gaïa refers to Earth personified in Greek mythology. It is she who gives birth. For the Orphists Gaïa derives from the primordial deity Hydrus, from water, as the only deity not resulting from fertilization, being the first deity to be created out of chaos according to the poet Hesiod. He also wrote that Gaïa’s offspring produced by her union with Uranus were the titans, but their father found them so abhorrent that he kept them hidden in a cave in the Earth, in their mother Gaïa. She summoned her children to revolt against their father. The only one to obey was Cronus, who castrated his father with a sickle. The blood flowing from Uranus’ wound fertilized Gaïa once again and Cronus became the supreme ruler of the two genders to which Gaïa gave birth.
Gaïa’s AmbiguityGaïagraphies
The first photos of missions in space provided human beings with an external view of their living space, the planet Earth. Since that time it has been possible for humankind, instead of thinking of themselves in terms of being part of the whole, to stand back and inspect the Earth from a distance. In line with this iconography, Homo sapiens see themselves as those who take hold of a spherical something in orbit in a managerial and protective manner. Their relationship to this something could be described as aloof, at best ecological-ethical (cf. Gerst 2018). It is doubtful that an emotional bond to this construction could be developed, bringing to the fore the diversity of who and what on this globe buds, creeps, lives, flourishes, dies and decays.
The photo shows »Earthrise« taken by Bill Anders from Apollo 8 on Christmas Eve 1968 during the fourth orbit of the satellite around the Earth on the first trip by humans to the moon.
The photo shows »Earthrise« taken by Bill Anders from Apollo 8 on Christmas Eve 1968 during the fourth orbit of the satellite around the Earth on the first trip by humans to the moon.
Gaïa’s AmbiguityTerrestrial Gaïagraphies
If we zoom from the Earth as a macrocosm, as seen from Space, into the microcosm, the Earth can be seen as territory, as »terrestrial« in the words of Bruno Latour (2018) in his manifesto with the same term in the title. It is a territory cultivated by people. The Earth can thus be understood both as land and as humus at one and the same time. From this perspective continents become lands, lands become properties, properties become plots, plots become gardens, and gardens become beds. In the vineyards on the hillside, which Latour knew how to cultivate in the family tradition, people get their hands dirty as they do from using the winepresses. We are used to giving the terrestrial a value. An emphatic value as nation or our home country, a monetary one as property or as a resource intended to satisfy basic human needs. But the Earth as »full of value« is at the same time a territory for which humans compete with other living beings, where different forms of existence come into conflict. – This territorial aspect draws us inextricably into the agony of living things, it binds us in cycles and involves us in the history of the struggles for survival of different species in cooperation or competition. It implicates us in the extinction of species, evoking concepts such as the Anthropocene, calling those whose expansive practices are leading to the unequal distribution of living space to take responsibility, instead of being totally committed to egomania and thus undermining the common good.
Gaïa’s AmbiguityGaïa Hypothesis
At the close of the 19th century Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, geologist, mineralogist and founder of geochemistry, introduced the concepts of noosphere (Gk: nous, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’) and biosphere (Gk. bíos, bios ‘life’).
The biosphere is used by Vernadsky to refer to the self-regulating biological, geological and chemical transformative processes powered by energy from the sun.
The noosphere in comparison refers to the sphere of the living, the biosphere, transformed through intellectual and mental cultural activity.
Vernadsky was interested in the interplay of these two spheres, but he considered the noosphere to be not only shaped by humans but also by all living beings, for their metabolism is also used to promote cognitive processes. This understanding of the Earth – bringing together natural scientific findings and philosophical reflections – is the contextual background of the thinking of James Lovelock, the British chemist, doctor and biophysicist and his Gaïa hypothesis, which he elaborated in collaboration with the evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis at the beginning of the 20th century. This states that Gaïa embodies the cybernetic interlinked sum total of all living processes on Earth. In this context attention is paid above all to concepts such as co-evolution and symbiogenesis. The conventional understanding of Darwinism based mainly on the genetics of egoism (cf. Dawkins 1976) is confronted with a genetics that entails cooperation. Margulis spoke out explicitly against the capitalist zeitgeist of Neo-Darwinism. In line with her approach it is appropriate to question the extent to which market economics and exploitation of Nature, denoted as female, have formed an alliance and continue to do so? (cf. Merchant 1990 The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution; for the topicality of the Gaia hypothesis see Friedrich et al. 2018 Ökologien der Erde. Zur Wissensgeschichte und Aktualität der Gaia-Hypothese).
The biosphere is used by Vernadsky to refer to the self-regulating biological, geological and chemical transformative processes powered by energy from the sun.
The noosphere in comparison refers to the sphere of the living, the biosphere, transformed through intellectual and mental cultural activity.
Vernadsky was interested in the interplay of these two spheres, but he considered the noosphere to be not only shaped by humans but also by all living beings, for their metabolism is also used to promote cognitive processes. This understanding of the Earth – bringing together natural scientific findings and philosophical reflections – is the contextual background of the thinking of James Lovelock, the British chemist, doctor and biophysicist and his Gaïa hypothesis, which he elaborated in collaboration with the evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis at the beginning of the 20th century. This states that Gaïa embodies the cybernetic interlinked sum total of all living processes on Earth. In this context attention is paid above all to concepts such as co-evolution and symbiogenesis. The conventional understanding of Darwinism based mainly on the genetics of egoism (cf. Dawkins 1976) is confronted with a genetics that entails cooperation. Margulis spoke out explicitly against the capitalist zeitgeist of Neo-Darwinism. In line with her approach it is appropriate to question the extent to which market economics and exploitation of Nature, denoted as female, have formed an alliance and continue to do so? (cf. Merchant 1990 The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution; for the topicality of the Gaia hypothesis see Friedrich et al. 2018 Ökologien der Erde. Zur Wissensgeschichte und Aktualität der Gaia-Hypothese).
Gaïa in (Feminist) STS
The treatment of the Gaïa hypothesis in this web documentation is based on the writings of two Science and Technology Studies (STS) researchers, the book Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime published in 2017 (2015) by Bruno Latour, and the monograph Staying with the Trouble: making Kin in the Chthulucene by Donna Haraway, published in 2016.
Gaïas [Bio-]Diversity
Gender reflexive environmental research Gaïas [Bio-]Diversity
[Bio-]Diversity refers to an approach that raises awareness of the diversity of flora and fauna as well as the myriad forms of human existence. Gaïas [Bio-]Diversity addresses the reciprocal relationship of »naturecultures«. Haraway uses this term to focus attention on the interlaced structures of natural and artificial-technical cultures.
Camille Stories
Speculative FabulationsCamille Stories
At this juncture I would like to encourage discussion of speculative narrations in critical engagement with the last chapter of her monograph Staying with the Trouble. Donna Haraway created The Camille Story: Children of Compost as a narrative that revolves around a future being: Camille. Being asexual, Camille is a cross between a human and a butterfly, the monarch butterfly. Before her birth Camille is implanted with gene sequences from the monarch butterfly. This human being’s skin is therefore covered with the patterns of the butterfly’s wings and Camille is able »to sense the delicate chemical signals in the wind that are so important for the adult monarch.« (Haraway 2018, 204) (Bitte Originalzitat einsetzen!)
These milkweed plants are threatened by gene technology and chemicals and with them the existence of the butterflies. Camille is able to empathize with this situation. An ability she is able to pass on to the next generation, so that Camilles 1.2.3.4. and 5 become more and more butterfly-like.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guttari speak of an »involution« in this sense. This does not refer to evolution as descent or inheritance but of becoming, not a kind of becoming equivalent or becoming identical but a process that »takes place through transversal communication forms between heterogeneous populations. It is a interlaced becoming. Becoming is involutive, involution is creative.« (Deleuze & Guttari 2002, 325)
»Make Kin, not babies!« is Haraway’s demand, illustrated in this Science Fiction narrative. With this she provokes discussion not only among critical theory researchers but also among those addressing cyber- and eco-feminism as well as postcolonial studies (cf. Subramaniam & Schmitz 2016 »Why We Need Critical Interdisciplinarity: A Dialogue on Feminist Science Technology Studies, Postcolonial Issues, and EcoDiversity«) With her Camille stories Haraway addresses several challenges of the Anthropocene in a way that evokes emotive protest: biogenetic manipulation, species extinction and overpopulation. It is a highly problematic, loaded and thus delicate theme that requires differentiated treatment. Haraway’s fabulations can only provoke this engagement and leave many unanswered questions, – Does Camille overcome human arrogance and thus the Anthropocene through empathy and biogenetic transformation? Could this be helpful against species extinction and overpopulation? And what does she understand by genetic-technological transformation of the human species in this context?
With her Camille Story Haraway emphasises once again what she calls the »artefactual character of (human) nature« and the entanglement of different creatures and technologies. We can only leave the Anthropocene behind us, according to this hypothesis, if – as she already stressed in her earlier writings on critical reflection of the oncomouse bred with cancer genes and patented – we see »life is a window of vulnerability. It seems a mistkae to close it.« (Haraway 1995, 190) (Bitte Originalzitat einsetzen!)
In view of all this, we should behave especially empathetically towards other living beings. An empathy as we are praticing in our dealings with ourselves and our own offspring. And – on a critical note – it is often lacking even here, as we become entangled in the biopolitics of exploitation of self and others, prioritizing control and manipulation over trust and solidarity.
These milkweed plants are threatened by gene technology and chemicals and with them the existence of the butterflies. Camille is able to empathize with this situation. An ability she is able to pass on to the next generation, so that Camilles 1.2.3.4. and 5 become more and more butterfly-like.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guttari speak of an »involution« in this sense. This does not refer to evolution as descent or inheritance but of becoming, not a kind of becoming equivalent or becoming identical but a process that »takes place through transversal communication forms between heterogeneous populations. It is a interlaced becoming. Becoming is involutive, involution is creative.« (Deleuze & Guttari 2002, 325)
»Make Kin, not babies!« is Haraway’s demand, illustrated in this Science Fiction narrative. With this she provokes discussion not only among critical theory researchers but also among those addressing cyber- and eco-feminism as well as postcolonial studies (cf. Subramaniam & Schmitz 2016 »Why We Need Critical Interdisciplinarity: A Dialogue on Feminist Science Technology Studies, Postcolonial Issues, and EcoDiversity«) With her Camille stories Haraway addresses several challenges of the Anthropocene in a way that evokes emotive protest: biogenetic manipulation, species extinction and overpopulation. It is a highly problematic, loaded and thus delicate theme that requires differentiated treatment. Haraway’s fabulations can only provoke this engagement and leave many unanswered questions, – Does Camille overcome human arrogance and thus the Anthropocene through empathy and biogenetic transformation? Could this be helpful against species extinction and overpopulation? And what does she understand by genetic-technological transformation of the human species in this context?
With her Camille Story Haraway emphasises once again what she calls the »artefactual character of (human) nature« and the entanglement of different creatures and technologies. We can only leave the Anthropocene behind us, according to this hypothesis, if – as she already stressed in her earlier writings on critical reflection of the oncomouse bred with cancer genes and patented – we see »life is a window of vulnerability. It seems a mistkae to close it.« (Haraway 1995, 190) (Bitte Originalzitat einsetzen!)
In view of all this, we should behave especially empathetically towards other living beings. An empathy as we are praticing in our dealings with ourselves and our own offspring. And – on a critical note – it is often lacking even here, as we become entangled in the biopolitics of exploitation of self and others, prioritizing control and manipulation over trust and solidarity.
Forum
InteraktionDiskussionsforum
Vielen Dank für den Besuch dieser Webdokumentation. Anregungen, Feedback, Kommentare, Überlegungen und Ideen können über die Projektwebseite von Gendering MINT digital kommuniziert werden. Wir freuen uns über den Austausch!
Gaiagraphie
›Critical Zone‹ Vasanthi Dass The Earth Below Our Feet
›Critical Zone‹ Vasanthi Dass The Earth Below Our Feet
Vollbild
In short, my aim is to examine and discover perspectives and manufacture discourses that may erode human alienation from Nature.
»The Earth,« he said, »has a skin, and this skin has diseases. One of these diseases is called ›Man‹.«
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
A projects titled »Critical Sciencing Zone« (March 2018, July 2018) was a major source of inspiration for this paper. The occurrences that followed the projects was an array of related incidents with real and fictional concatenations. The disaster that immediately followed in August 2018 was a rude awakening to two southern States in India, one in Coorg, a district in the State of Karnataka and in several parts of the neighbouring State of Kerala. The unusually severe rainfall, and heavy floods, not witnessed in nearly a century, caused landslides that washed away not only the houses and vegetation, but also the land itself which changed the geography of those regions. These occurrences unfolded the trepidations of the above projects. The calamity was incorporated into the Kochi Biennale Dec 2018-March 2019 (Kerala), at Kochi, a port city in Kerala. The ongoing Biennale titled »Possibilities for a Non-Alienated Life« includes several themes, and highlights ›ecological disaster on the planet.‹ This was an interdisciplinary workshop constituted by researchers from Science--Humanities—Design—Art—Social Sciences focusing on environmental question through the fundamental elements necessary for living: Air, Water and Earth. We engaged with Indo French Cell for water science, Wind Tunnel lab, and Earth Science departments at IISc. The participation and performance was by plants and animals (including Human beings) along with questions concerning the Anthropocene; the exponential development in Technology and hence human activity was the primary concern for our project.
Critical Sciencing Zone (March 2018) was a research process for 3 weeks, that ended in a performance(figure 1). It was inspired by Latour’s (2014) essay “Some Advantages of the Notion of »Critical Zone for Geopolitics« which was central to our discussions with scientists. The Critical Zone topic have been of great concern to scientists for a very long time, ever since the forecast of its fragility was speculated. It is the layer of the earth just below the atmosphere and it reaches below to the hard rock layer, also known as the mother rock—the continental crust. Therefore, Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) exist in different parts of the world, and they are equipped with sophisticated instruments where data is perpetually gathered and shared. Discussions with scientists, found objects and living beings around the Institute was used for the performance at a small auditorium at Center for contemporary Studies (CCS)in IISc.
It was an unusual staging and surprisingly the audience performed, including the ›intruding‹ bamboo stem that entered through the window out of curiosity, while a wasp hive was placed at the entrance, consequently the whole auditorium became a stage. We the expected performers remained off stage, and the stage was populated by other critical protagonists: a freshly cut wood found in the wooded areas, live streaming of the Wasp colony, a wasp hive and books used as reference material. The cut wood seemed to be reclining, and appeared like a dead being making the auditorium a funeral space. The puzzled audience must pay tribute to the dead and the living at once, although they were unaware of this predicament. The audience were requested to bring objects representative of their work to discuss, as a result they were forced to become the performers. Of course, we the so called performers were merely facilitators and performed to the extent that we introduced and reflected along with synthesized background sound found in the surroundings; extracted and shaped to highlight sounds that are forgotten in the Anthropocene.
The second event »Two Earth Labs« of Critical Sciencing Zone at IISc, was based on Land art work by Smithson. While the first event »Workshop and Exhibition« was a performance inside the auditorium, »Two Earth Labs« was outside the auditorium, in a small wooded area. One of them was nestled among the trees and a square piece of land of about 3m x 3m was cleared and dug out to a depth of about 6 inches. While the stage inside the audience was about 6 inches high, this dug out was an inverse of it and the performers sat inside the square and performed their respective research (figure 2). The space itself resembled a Bower bird’s nest to the scale of human, and just as they adorn them with colourful found objects we used serial lights that lined the entrance to the nest (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988). The male Bower birds (the stage bird variety) clip the leaves from a tree and drop them on the ground, and they also carefully turn the leaf over to get the right shade of green that they prefer. After setting the stage the male bird sings and performs. Nature continues to perform, come what may, and improvise from what is around: sometimes they even pick bright blue plastic corks to decorate their bower. The project continually improvised to include thoughts emerging from Nature. Within the square patch there were several mirrors on the ground facing the sky, but they hardly reflected the sky; the foliage and soil were reflected. One of the mirror that faced the sky, was strategically and partially buried in the earth and looked like a pool of water. The mirror in Farhana’s work and in »Two Earth Labs« are indicating narcissism, egotistical and megalomaniacal tendency that give rise to the exponential advancement in technology, and ironically this has happened despite the several severe humiliations suffered by the human ego through paradigm shift that emerged since the beginning of 20thcentury aggravated by 2 world wars. Radical paradigm shifts by Freud, Marx et al. contributed to a lack, and as a result the ego reinstates itself through endless substitutions. (Slavoj Zizek,1992). Indeed, the exponential acceleration in technology according to Zizek is a result of this humiliation, surpassed and harnessed by such achievements. The first event of Critical Sciencing Zone introduced death on the stage, and the second by digging out square patches marked burial: the grave became a stage for further research by Scientists, Theorists, and Artists. Perhaps for the death and transformation of the ego. Nietzsche’s citation at the beginning of the paper is a sharp diagnosis of the Critical Zone that proscribes for sure, but also prescribes investigation and remedy for the disease called »Man.«
»The Earth,« he said, »has a skin, and this skin has diseases. One of these diseases is called ›Man‹.«
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
A projects titled »Critical Sciencing Zone« (March 2018, July 2018) was a major source of inspiration for this paper. The occurrences that followed the projects was an array of related incidents with real and fictional concatenations. The disaster that immediately followed in August 2018 was a rude awakening to two southern States in India, one in Coorg, a district in the State of Karnataka and in several parts of the neighbouring State of Kerala. The unusually severe rainfall, and heavy floods, not witnessed in nearly a century, caused landslides that washed away not only the houses and vegetation, but also the land itself which changed the geography of those regions. These occurrences unfolded the trepidations of the above projects. The calamity was incorporated into the Kochi Biennale Dec 2018-March 2019 (Kerala), at Kochi, a port city in Kerala. The ongoing Biennale titled »Possibilities for a Non-Alienated Life« includes several themes, and highlights ›ecological disaster on the planet.‹ This was an interdisciplinary workshop constituted by researchers from Science--Humanities—Design—Art—Social Sciences focusing on environmental question through the fundamental elements necessary for living: Air, Water and Earth. We engaged with Indo French Cell for water science, Wind Tunnel lab, and Earth Science departments at IISc. The participation and performance was by plants and animals (including Human beings) along with questions concerning the Anthropocene; the exponential development in Technology and hence human activity was the primary concern for our project.
Critical Sciencing Zone (March 2018) was a research process for 3 weeks, that ended in a performance(figure 1). It was inspired by Latour’s (2014) essay “Some Advantages of the Notion of »Critical Zone for Geopolitics« which was central to our discussions with scientists. The Critical Zone topic have been of great concern to scientists for a very long time, ever since the forecast of its fragility was speculated. It is the layer of the earth just below the atmosphere and it reaches below to the hard rock layer, also known as the mother rock—the continental crust. Therefore, Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) exist in different parts of the world, and they are equipped with sophisticated instruments where data is perpetually gathered and shared. Discussions with scientists, found objects and living beings around the Institute was used for the performance at a small auditorium at Center for contemporary Studies (CCS)in IISc.
It was an unusual staging and surprisingly the audience performed, including the ›intruding‹ bamboo stem that entered through the window out of curiosity, while a wasp hive was placed at the entrance, consequently the whole auditorium became a stage. We the expected performers remained off stage, and the stage was populated by other critical protagonists: a freshly cut wood found in the wooded areas, live streaming of the Wasp colony, a wasp hive and books used as reference material. The cut wood seemed to be reclining, and appeared like a dead being making the auditorium a funeral space. The puzzled audience must pay tribute to the dead and the living at once, although they were unaware of this predicament. The audience were requested to bring objects representative of their work to discuss, as a result they were forced to become the performers. Of course, we the so called performers were merely facilitators and performed to the extent that we introduced and reflected along with synthesized background sound found in the surroundings; extracted and shaped to highlight sounds that are forgotten in the Anthropocene.
The second event »Two Earth Labs« of Critical Sciencing Zone at IISc, was based on Land art work by Smithson. While the first event »Workshop and Exhibition« was a performance inside the auditorium, »Two Earth Labs« was outside the auditorium, in a small wooded area. One of them was nestled among the trees and a square piece of land of about 3m x 3m was cleared and dug out to a depth of about 6 inches. While the stage inside the audience was about 6 inches high, this dug out was an inverse of it and the performers sat inside the square and performed their respective research (figure 2). The space itself resembled a Bower bird’s nest to the scale of human, and just as they adorn them with colourful found objects we used serial lights that lined the entrance to the nest (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988). The male Bower birds (the stage bird variety) clip the leaves from a tree and drop them on the ground, and they also carefully turn the leaf over to get the right shade of green that they prefer. After setting the stage the male bird sings and performs. Nature continues to perform, come what may, and improvise from what is around: sometimes they even pick bright blue plastic corks to decorate their bower. The project continually improvised to include thoughts emerging from Nature. Within the square patch there were several mirrors on the ground facing the sky, but they hardly reflected the sky; the foliage and soil were reflected. One of the mirror that faced the sky, was strategically and partially buried in the earth and looked like a pool of water. The mirror in Farhana’s work and in »Two Earth Labs« are indicating narcissism, egotistical and megalomaniacal tendency that give rise to the exponential advancement in technology, and ironically this has happened despite the several severe humiliations suffered by the human ego through paradigm shift that emerged since the beginning of 20thcentury aggravated by 2 world wars. Radical paradigm shifts by Freud, Marx et al. contributed to a lack, and as a result the ego reinstates itself through endless substitutions. (Slavoj Zizek,1992). Indeed, the exponential acceleration in technology according to Zizek is a result of this humiliation, surpassed and harnessed by such achievements. The first event of Critical Sciencing Zone introduced death on the stage, and the second by digging out square patches marked burial: the grave became a stage for further research by Scientists, Theorists, and Artists. Perhaps for the death and transformation of the ego. Nietzsche’s citation at the beginning of the paper is a sharp diagnosis of the Critical Zone that proscribes for sure, but also prescribes investigation and remedy for the disease called »Man.«
Klimafragen
Gender reflexive environmental research[Bio-]Diversity
»Civilization is not this delicate blossom anymore, which used to be
cared for and that was cultivated with great care in a protected corner of the
soil. Today, humanity resigns itself to monoculture. It composes itself to
produce civilization in mass just like sugar beets, and soon they will be its only nourishment.«
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques (1955)
[Bio-]Diversität refers to an approach that raises awareness of the diversity of flora and fauna as well as the myriad forms of human existence. Gaïa’s (Bio-) Diversity addresses the reciprocal relationship of “naturecultures”. Haraway uses this term to focus attention on the interlaced structures of natural and artificial-technical cultures.
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques (1955)
[Bio-]Diversität refers to an approach that raises awareness of the diversity of flora and fauna as well as the myriad forms of human existence. Gaïa’s (Bio-) Diversity addresses the reciprocal relationship of “naturecultures”. Haraway uses this term to focus attention on the interlaced structures of natural and artificial-technical cultures.
Interview
Zum AnfangInterview Narasimha HedgeParticipatory research
Interview for [Bio-]DiversityNarasimha Hegde
is an environmental scientist. In the context of the environmentali-scientific NGOs Life Trust and
Bioversity Internationale he works with rural communities in the Western Ghats in India.
The following articles describe his work:
Hegde, Narasimha (2014) Bearing the fruit of action. In: Deccan Herald.
Hegde, Narasimha/Elias, Marlene et al. (2017) Engaging local communities in social learning for inclusive management of native fruit trees in the Central Western Ghats, India. In: Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 26 (1): 65–83.
Photo from left to right: Victoria Vonau, Narasimha Hegde and a colleague from the NGO Life Trust.
The following articles describe his work:
Hegde, Narasimha (2014) Bearing the fruit of action. In: Deccan Herald.
Hegde, Narasimha/Elias, Marlene et al. (2017) Engaging local communities in social learning for inclusive management of native fruit trees in the Central Western Ghats, India. In: Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 26 (1): 65–83.
Photo from left to right: Victoria Vonau, Narasimha Hegde and a colleague from the NGO Life Trust.
Gendering Marteloscopes
WebdokumentationGendering Marteloscopes
regt an, über die »Monokultur« unter Menschen, sprich in der sozialen ebenso wie in der natürlichen Umwelt nachzudenken. Das bedeutet, über Vereinheitlichungen, Normierungen und den Umgang mit Differenzen zu reflektieren. Inmitten eines »Naturlabors« fragen wir, inwiefern geschlechtliche, kulturelle und fachspezifische Perspektiven den Blick auf Marteleskope prägen. Marteloskope sind ein Hektar große Waldflächen, in denen alle Bäume nummeriert wurden. In einer App auf Tablets können die Bäume ausgewählt werden, um ihre ökonomischen und ökologischen Werte einzusehen. Mit den Marteloskopen ebenso wie mit »Gendering Marteloscopes« wird ein integrativer Ansatz verfolgt. Es geht darum, ökologische Fragen mit ökonomischen zusammenzuführen sowie für Diversität unter Menschen ebenso wie für Biodiversität in Flora und Fauna zu sensibilisieren.
Zur Webdokumentation Gendering Marteloscopes
Zur Webdokumentation Gendering Marteloscopes
Reproduktionspolitiken
Gaïa – Reproduction & Sexuality
Dealing
critically with the biopolitics of the third millennium means, in the context
of questions around Gaïa, thinking about the right of one’s own seeds as well as
sexual and reproductive self-determination. How are both areas connected through control over the reproductive powers of nature as well as access to female
bodies in particular (Merchant 1990; Margulis & Sagan 1993;
Worthy/Allison & Bauman 2018)?
The videoloop shows a sequence from
Seeds Share - In Memory of Esiah Levy
The videoloop shows a sequence from
Seeds Share - In Memory of Esiah Levy
Seeds of Freedom
Gaia Foundation
Seeds of Freedom
Vandana Shiva
Reproductive Justice
Literatur
Gaïa-Bibliography
Gaïa-Bibliography
Vollbild
Darwkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Degele, Nina/Timothy Simms (2004) »Bruno Latour. Post-Konstruktivismus pur.« In: Martin Ludwig Hofmann/Tobias F. Korta/Sibylle Niekisch (Hrsg.) Culture Club. Die Klassiker der Kulturtheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix (1992) [1980] Tausend Plateaus. Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie. Berlin: Merve Verlag.
Friedrich, Alexander/Löffler, Petra /Schrape, Niklas & Sprenger, Florian (2018) Ökologien der Erde. Zur Wissensgeschichte und Aktualität der Gaia-Hypothese. meson press eG.
Gray, Chris Hables (1995) The Cyborg Handbook. New York & London & New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1991) Cyborgs, Simians, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge
Haraway, Donna (1995) »Primatologie ist Politik mit anderen Mitteln.« In: Barbara Orland & Elvira Scheich (1995) Das Geschlecht der Natur. Feministische Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theorie der Naturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 136-198.
Haraway, Donna (1995) »Situiertes Wissen. Die Wissenschaftsfrage im Feminismus und das Privileg einer partialen Perspektive«. In: Carmen Hammer, Immanuel Stiess (Hg.) Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Haraway, Donna (1996) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_ Meets_Oncomouse™. New York & London: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
ournal #75 - September 2016
Haraway, Donna (2016) Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene. In: e-flux, Journal #75.
Haraway, Donna (2016) Staying with the Trouble. Frankfurt M./New York: Campus Verlag.
Harrasser, Karin (2006) »Donna Haraway: Natur-Kulturen und die Faktizität der Figuration.« In: Stephan Moebius & Dirk Quadflieg (Hrsg.) Kultur.Theorien der Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Springer, 445–462.
Hayles, Katherine (1999) How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
Latour, Bruno/Woolgar, Steve (1986) Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2. Aufl., Princeton.
Latour, Bruno (1998) Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Versuch einer symmetrischen Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford.
Latour, Bruno (2006) »Gebt mir ein Laboratorium und ich hebe die Welt aus den Angeln.. In: Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Latour, Bruno (2018) [1999] Das terrestrische Manifest. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1995) [1955] Traurige Tropen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Mangelsdorf, Marion/Pregernig, Michael/Kuni, Verena (2016) »Introduction: (Bio-)Diversity, Gender and Intersectionality«. In: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien 22(2): 5–15.
Margulis, Lynn/Sagan, Dorion (1993) Geheimnis und Ritual. Die Evolution der menschlichen Sexualität. Berlin: Byblos Verlag.
Margulis, Lynn (2016) „Living by Gaia“. In: Jonathan White. Talking on the Water. Conversations Nature & Creativity. Texas: Trinity University Press.
Margulis, Lynn (2018) Der symbiotische Planet. Frankfurt am Main: Westend Verlag.
Merchant, Carolyn (1990) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
Nordmann, Alfred (2004) »Was ist TechnoWissenschaft? – Zum Wandel der Wissenschaftskultur am Beispiel von Nanoforschung und Bionik.« T. Rossman und C. Tropea. Bionik – Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Berlin: Springer.
Pitt, David & Samson, Paul R. (1998) The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change. London & New York: Routledge.
Saupe, Angelika (1997) »›Leben‹ im Zeitalter der Technoscience. Skizzen über künstliche Natur und technologische Rationalität«. Das Argument 221, 523-532.
Subramaniam, Banu & Schmitz, Sigrid (2016) »Why We Need Critical Interdisciplinarity: A Dialogue on Feminist Science Technology Studies, Postcolonial Issues, and EcoDiversity«. In: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien 22(2): 109–122.
Vernadski, Vladimir Iwanowitsch (1998) The Biosphere. New York: Springer Verlag.
Weber, Jutta (1998) Feminismus & Konstruktivismus. »Zur Netzwerktheorie bei Donna Haraway.« Das Argument. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Sozialwissenschaften. 227(5): 699-712.
Weber, Jutta (2003) Umkämpfte Bedeutungen. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.
Worthy, Kenneth/Allison, Elizabeth & Bauman, Whitney (2018) After the Death of Nature Carolyn Merchant and the Future of Human-Nature Relations. London & New York: Routledge.
Medien Kunst Netz Online-Artikel zu Cyborg Bodies. Das Ende des fortschrittlichen Körpers
Video
Gerst, Alexander (2018) »Ich muss mich bei Euch entschuldigen«
Degele, Nina/Timothy Simms (2004) »Bruno Latour. Post-Konstruktivismus pur.« In: Martin Ludwig Hofmann/Tobias F. Korta/Sibylle Niekisch (Hrsg.) Culture Club. Die Klassiker der Kulturtheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix (1992) [1980] Tausend Plateaus. Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie. Berlin: Merve Verlag.
Friedrich, Alexander/Löffler, Petra /Schrape, Niklas & Sprenger, Florian (2018) Ökologien der Erde. Zur Wissensgeschichte und Aktualität der Gaia-Hypothese. meson press eG.
Gray, Chris Hables (1995) The Cyborg Handbook. New York & London & New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1991) Cyborgs, Simians, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge
Haraway, Donna (1995) »Primatologie ist Politik mit anderen Mitteln.« In: Barbara Orland & Elvira Scheich (1995) Das Geschlecht der Natur. Feministische Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theorie der Naturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 136-198.
Haraway, Donna (1995) »Situiertes Wissen. Die Wissenschaftsfrage im Feminismus und das Privileg einer partialen Perspektive«. In: Carmen Hammer, Immanuel Stiess (Hg.) Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Haraway, Donna (1996) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_ Meets_Oncomouse™. New York & London: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
ournal #75 - September 2016
Haraway, Donna (2016) Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene. In: e-flux, Journal #75.
Haraway, Donna (2016) Staying with the Trouble. Frankfurt M./New York: Campus Verlag.
Harrasser, Karin (2006) »Donna Haraway: Natur-Kulturen und die Faktizität der Figuration.« In: Stephan Moebius & Dirk Quadflieg (Hrsg.) Kultur.Theorien der Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Springer, 445–462.
Hayles, Katherine (1999) How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
Latour, Bruno/Woolgar, Steve (1986) Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2. Aufl., Princeton.
Latour, Bruno (1998) Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Versuch einer symmetrischen Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford.
Latour, Bruno (2006) »Gebt mir ein Laboratorium und ich hebe die Welt aus den Angeln.. In: Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Latour, Bruno (2018) [1999] Das terrestrische Manifest. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1995) [1955] Traurige Tropen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Mangelsdorf, Marion/Pregernig, Michael/Kuni, Verena (2016) »Introduction: (Bio-)Diversity, Gender and Intersectionality«. In: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien 22(2): 5–15.
Margulis, Lynn/Sagan, Dorion (1993) Geheimnis und Ritual. Die Evolution der menschlichen Sexualität. Berlin: Byblos Verlag.
Margulis, Lynn (2016) „Living by Gaia“. In: Jonathan White. Talking on the Water. Conversations Nature & Creativity. Texas: Trinity University Press.
Margulis, Lynn (2018) Der symbiotische Planet. Frankfurt am Main: Westend Verlag.
Merchant, Carolyn (1990) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
Nordmann, Alfred (2004) »Was ist TechnoWissenschaft? – Zum Wandel der Wissenschaftskultur am Beispiel von Nanoforschung und Bionik.« T. Rossman und C. Tropea. Bionik – Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Berlin: Springer.
Pitt, David & Samson, Paul R. (1998) The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change. London & New York: Routledge.
Saupe, Angelika (1997) »›Leben‹ im Zeitalter der Technoscience. Skizzen über künstliche Natur und technologische Rationalität«. Das Argument 221, 523-532.
Subramaniam, Banu & Schmitz, Sigrid (2016) »Why We Need Critical Interdisciplinarity: A Dialogue on Feminist Science Technology Studies, Postcolonial Issues, and EcoDiversity«. In: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien 22(2): 109–122.
Vernadski, Vladimir Iwanowitsch (1998) The Biosphere. New York: Springer Verlag.
Weber, Jutta (1998) Feminismus & Konstruktivismus. »Zur Netzwerktheorie bei Donna Haraway.« Das Argument. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Sozialwissenschaften. 227(5): 699-712.
Weber, Jutta (2003) Umkämpfte Bedeutungen. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.
Worthy, Kenneth/Allison, Elizabeth & Bauman, Whitney (2018) After the Death of Nature Carolyn Merchant and the Future of Human-Nature Relations. London & New York: Routledge.
Medien Kunst Netz Online-Artikel zu Cyborg Bodies. Das Ende des fortschrittlichen Körpers
Video
Gerst, Alexander (2018) »Ich muss mich bei Euch entschuldigen«
Videothek
Gaïa-Videography
In the following we refer to trailers of documentary films or freely accesible lectures and statements of different Gaïa researchers.
Videothek
Storry Telling For Earthly Survival
Lecture by Bruno Latour
Produktion & Gestaltung
Production & Design
Production & Design
Vollbild
Gaïa – a troubling figure of thought
derives from the joint project Gendering MINT digital funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Responsibility for the content lies with the authors Project number 01FP1721, 01FP1722, 01FP1723
Production management and design
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Dr. Marion Mangelsdorf
Lioba Martin
Nathalie Plößl
Simon Schwab
Victoria Vonau
Hochschule Offenburg
Prof. Daniel Fetzner
Stefan Salm
Content design and editing
Marion Mangelsdorf, Victoria Vonau, Lioba Martin and Nathalie Plößl.
With thanks to Maren Krähling and Carmen Gransee, who contributed to the work on the biographical texts of Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour.
derives from the joint project Gendering MINT digital funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Responsibility for the content lies with the authors Project number 01FP1721, 01FP1722, 01FP1723
Production management and design
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Dr. Marion Mangelsdorf
Lioba Martin
Nathalie Plößl
Simon Schwab
Victoria Vonau
Hochschule Offenburg
Prof. Daniel Fetzner
Stefan Salm
Content design and editing
Marion Mangelsdorf, Victoria Vonau, Lioba Martin and Nathalie Plößl.
With thanks to Maren Krähling and Carmen Gransee, who contributed to the work on the biographical texts of Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour.
Ausgangspunkt
Gaïa and the ChthuluceneStaying with the Trouble
What will come after the human and how is Posthumanism to be understood?
Donna Haraway’s books are creeping and crawling with cyborgs, primates,
dogs and doves. The boundary between the human and the machine and between
people and other animals is in the process of breaking down. The Feminist
Science and Technology Studies researcher in her current monograph calls for
the era of the Chthulucene, that in contrast to the Anthropocene would not
place the human at the centre of all thinking and history but the life of other
species and creatures, such as octopi, corals or spiders. And this is not all:
she imagines posthuman relationships cutting across the concepts of biological
relationship. This leads Haraway on to questions of species extinction,
overpopulation and climate change.
Gaïa and the AnthropoceneThe Struggle for Gaïa
Bruno Latour engages critically with the Anthropocene, considering
various actors, the air, the seas, glaciers, the climate and the ground. In
contrast to concepts of the Earth as described by modern science, Gaia is the
central focus of his interests. Like any interactive being Gaia is hard to
define, not very stable and is made up of a series of feedback loops in
constant flux. Latour argues that the complex and ambiguous Gaia hypothesis, as
developed by James Lovelock, is an ideal way to disentangle the ethical,
political, theological and scientific aspects of an out-dated concept of
Nature.
Haraway
CYBORG-ONTOLOGIENDonna Haraway
»I have come to see cyborgs as junior siblings
in the much bigger, queer family of
companion species.« (Haraway 2003, 11)
Donna Jeanne Haraway is known for her provocative thesis of 1985: »The cyborg is our ontology.« (Haraway 1995, 34) With this she criticized the common rejection of technology in the heyday of ecofeminism by the feminist debate and argued for a critical appropriation and ironic sceptical intervention in New Technologies. Two decades later – in the heyday of technoscience – she caused a stir with her switch to eco-feminist issues. She reiterated her argument that neither rejection nor enthusiastic acceptance of technology is beneficial for feminist theory, in The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness published in 2003 and later in her monograph Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene published in 2016.
Haraway’s thinking has resulted in a new subject, sometimes called Cybergology, at others Cyborg Anthropology (Gray 1995; Weber 1998; Harrasser 2006).
Donna Jeanne Haraway is known for her provocative thesis of 1985: »The cyborg is our ontology.« (Haraway 1995, 34) With this she criticized the common rejection of technology in the heyday of ecofeminism by the feminist debate and argued for a critical appropriation and ironic sceptical intervention in New Technologies. Two decades later – in the heyday of technoscience – she caused a stir with her switch to eco-feminist issues. She reiterated her argument that neither rejection nor enthusiastic acceptance of technology is beneficial for feminist theory, in The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness published in 2003 and later in her monograph Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene published in 2016.
Haraway’s thinking has resulted in a new subject, sometimes called Cybergology, at others Cyborg Anthropology (Gray 1995; Weber 1998; Harrasser 2006).
Life and Work Donna Haraway
Life and Work Donna Haraway
Vollbild
»I was never a serious scientist like Evelyn Fox Keller, Anne Fausto Sterling or Elvira Scheich. From the beginning I was more of a hybrid creature.« (Haraway 1995, 100)
Haraway has been influenced by a wide spectrum of biographical contexts and discourses of the time. She was born in Denver, Colorado in 1944 into a white Irish Catholic family. In interviews she always stresses this influence on her way of thinking with its wealth of metaphors. After finishing High School she studied three disciplines at Colorado College: zoology, philosophy and English literature. It was not until after her graduation from college in 1966 that she first came into contact with left wing politics during a year abroad in Paris. She pursued her antiracist, feminist politics and active opposition to the Vietnam War while studying biology at Yale. Following her dissertation Haraway made her way into scientific research. Unlike Latour, who went into the lab as a sociologist, she was determined not to write her doctorate in biology in the lab. In 1974 she completed a scientific investigation of biological metaphors, tutored by George Evelyn Hutchinson, which was strongly shaped by the ideas of Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science, Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in 20th Century Developmental Biology. After teaching posts at the University of Hawaii and the History of Science Institute at the John Hopkins University in Baltimore Haraway was appointed in 1980 to the first chair of feminist theory in the USA. The History of Consciousness Board of the University of California in Santa Cruz was established at the end of the 1970s by Hayden White. He sought to bring young researchers to his institute, whose work crossed disciplinary boundaries, and came across Haraway in this context. In Hawaii and later in Baltimore Haraway had been politically involved. During her time at the John Hopkins University she read Science Fiction avidly along with philosopher Nancy Hartsock and was a member of the Marxist-feminist Women’s Union. Her separation from her husband Jaye Miller in Hawaii was a result of her increasing engagement in »gay liberation politics«, but they remained very good friends. In 1977 Haraway and Miller bought some land together with her new partner Rusten Hogness and Robert Filomeno. They wanted to live there together in a constellation that was more multi-layered and involved more complex friendships than the usual restricted models of family and couples.
In the early 1980s her work gathered pace and she became very productive. She continued her work on primatology and began her new complex about cyborgs. In 1986 Bob Filomeno died of AIDS, however, and in 1991 Jaye Miller was to follow. Haraway’s chapter on »The Biopolitics of Postmodern Bodies« in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women (1991) arose in part from her need to come to terms with these events.
Donna Haraway lives with her partner Rusten Hogness near the Sonoma County Town of Healdsburg. She taught at Santa Cruz until she retired.
Haraway has been influenced by a wide spectrum of biographical contexts and discourses of the time. She was born in Denver, Colorado in 1944 into a white Irish Catholic family. In interviews she always stresses this influence on her way of thinking with its wealth of metaphors. After finishing High School she studied three disciplines at Colorado College: zoology, philosophy and English literature. It was not until after her graduation from college in 1966 that she first came into contact with left wing politics during a year abroad in Paris. She pursued her antiracist, feminist politics and active opposition to the Vietnam War while studying biology at Yale. Following her dissertation Haraway made her way into scientific research. Unlike Latour, who went into the lab as a sociologist, she was determined not to write her doctorate in biology in the lab. In 1974 she completed a scientific investigation of biological metaphors, tutored by George Evelyn Hutchinson, which was strongly shaped by the ideas of Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science, Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in 20th Century Developmental Biology. After teaching posts at the University of Hawaii and the History of Science Institute at the John Hopkins University in Baltimore Haraway was appointed in 1980 to the first chair of feminist theory in the USA. The History of Consciousness Board of the University of California in Santa Cruz was established at the end of the 1970s by Hayden White. He sought to bring young researchers to his institute, whose work crossed disciplinary boundaries, and came across Haraway in this context. In Hawaii and later in Baltimore Haraway had been politically involved. During her time at the John Hopkins University she read Science Fiction avidly along with philosopher Nancy Hartsock and was a member of the Marxist-feminist Women’s Union. Her separation from her husband Jaye Miller in Hawaii was a result of her increasing engagement in »gay liberation politics«, but they remained very good friends. In 1977 Haraway and Miller bought some land together with her new partner Rusten Hogness and Robert Filomeno. They wanted to live there together in a constellation that was more multi-layered and involved more complex friendships than the usual restricted models of family and couples.
In the early 1980s her work gathered pace and she became very productive. She continued her work on primatology and began her new complex about cyborgs. In 1986 Bob Filomeno died of AIDS, however, and in 1991 Jaye Miller was to follow. Haraway’s chapter on »The Biopolitics of Postmodern Bodies« in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women (1991) arose in part from her need to come to terms with these events.
Donna Haraway lives with her partner Rusten Hogness near the Sonoma County Town of Healdsburg. She taught at Santa Cruz until she retired.
Life Sciences = Techno Sciences Donna Haraway
Life Sciences = Techno Sciences Donna Haraway
Vollbild
Technoscience debates emphasize that Life Sciences are also Techno Sciences: an increasingly technological concept of life should be recognized as a central shift in the discourse of the new science technologies, and of mainstream sciences (Saupe 1997, 523-532). Terms such as Life Sciences are often accepted more readily in social and scientific contexts than Techno Sciences. An indicator of this tendency can be discerned in the funding of research: Bio Valleys, those Parks where research consortia are based that cover the most diverse specialisations such as robotics, gene and nanotechnologies, receive far more third party funding and subventions than the inter- and transdisciplinary Institutes for the History of Science, Science Theory or the Centres for Science and Technology Studies and Gender Studies – which conduct critical metatheoretical technoscience – have ever enjoyed. And yet at first sight these appear on account of their hybrid nature to share a commitment to inter- and transdisciplinarity. In the new science technologies theoretical and methodical approaches cut across disciplines. In this sense, they are hybrid sciences.
On closer inspection of the research covered by the labels Techno or Applied or Life Sciences, it becomes clear that the aim is to promote exchange among natural sciences themselves and form a bridge to the technical sciences. Thus robotics involves other disciplines such as information science, electrical technology and mechanical engineering. The nanotechnologies encompass physics, chemistry and medicine. Furthermore, the umbrella term Life Sciences covers such diverse disciplines as biochemistry, bioinformatics, biomedicine, biophysics, nutritional science, food technology, medical technology, pharmacy, pharmacology, systems biology, environmental management and environmental technology.
In the late 1980s, especially in Great Britain and the United States, chairs and Institutes for Science and Technology Studies (STS) were established in parallel and in critical dialogue with the founding of the well-subsidized facilities for medical, natural and technical science research programmes – in close collaboration with industry – that are directly aimed at practical application. Institutes for STS were able to demonstrate that the so-called science technologies can provoke transdisciplinary perspectives via dialogue of an interdisciplinary nature. Hence, at these locations there is not only an internal exchange between medical, natural and technical sciences, but also an endeavour to view the big and hard sciences from the humanities and social- and cultural sciences perspective, often in a collaborative effort. Developments within the sciences and wider social changes are assessed for their ethical, jurisprudential and social dimensions. This goes much further than optimisation based on the anticipated results of technology. The different science cultures address each other in a mutual dialectical process. For in addition to a discussion of their social dimensions the focus is on the impact of medical, natural and technical scientific theories, methods and developments on the humanities and social and cultural scientific research themes and on the transfer in turn of imported social scientific conceptual models into the natural sciences. Looking back at this transfer from a historical point of view, it becomes clear that, in spite of the analytical differences, there is a fluid interface between the new science technologies and their critical appraisal, all being locked in a circular interrelationship, with many of the common related reference fields being located in cybernetics and beginning to oscillate into each other in Technoscience.
Haraway’s call for a feminist theory of technoscience means both analysing and shaping these.
On closer inspection of the research covered by the labels Techno or Applied or Life Sciences, it becomes clear that the aim is to promote exchange among natural sciences themselves and form a bridge to the technical sciences. Thus robotics involves other disciplines such as information science, electrical technology and mechanical engineering. The nanotechnologies encompass physics, chemistry and medicine. Furthermore, the umbrella term Life Sciences covers such diverse disciplines as biochemistry, bioinformatics, biomedicine, biophysics, nutritional science, food technology, medical technology, pharmacy, pharmacology, systems biology, environmental management and environmental technology.
In the late 1980s, especially in Great Britain and the United States, chairs and Institutes for Science and Technology Studies (STS) were established in parallel and in critical dialogue with the founding of the well-subsidized facilities for medical, natural and technical science research programmes – in close collaboration with industry – that are directly aimed at practical application. Institutes for STS were able to demonstrate that the so-called science technologies can provoke transdisciplinary perspectives via dialogue of an interdisciplinary nature. Hence, at these locations there is not only an internal exchange between medical, natural and technical sciences, but also an endeavour to view the big and hard sciences from the humanities and social- and cultural sciences perspective, often in a collaborative effort. Developments within the sciences and wider social changes are assessed for their ethical, jurisprudential and social dimensions. This goes much further than optimisation based on the anticipated results of technology. The different science cultures address each other in a mutual dialectical process. For in addition to a discussion of their social dimensions the focus is on the impact of medical, natural and technical scientific theories, methods and developments on the humanities and social and cultural scientific research themes and on the transfer in turn of imported social scientific conceptual models into the natural sciences. Looking back at this transfer from a historical point of view, it becomes clear that, in spite of the analytical differences, there is a fluid interface between the new science technologies and their critical appraisal, all being locked in a circular interrelationship, with many of the common related reference fields being located in cybernetics and beginning to oscillate into each other in Technoscience.
Haraway’s call for a feminist theory of technoscience means both analysing and shaping these.
Latour
The Social Metaphor LabBruno Latour
»The more one refuses to even think about hybrids, the easier it becomes to cross them.« (Latour 1998, 21)
At the beginning of his career Latour went directly into the lab as a sociologist using ethno-methodological means – in contrast to Haraway, who, coming from the study of history of science and critique of natural science, investigated laboratory practices from the outside, from a theoretical-philosophical point of view instead of practical-empirical, already while preparing her doctorate in biology. Latour emphasises that nature is not present in a laboratory, because the whole lab situation is highly artificial. Furthermore, the whole society can be understood as a gigantic lab; microstructures in the lab point to macro-structures in the approach to Nature. »The lab (…) becomes a paradigm for how society functions: as in a lab, culture/social worlds and Nature are mix and produce innumerable ‘hybrids’. Instead of regarding these as such, they are systematically categorized as ›natural‹ or ›social‹.« (Degele & Simms 2004, 262). But this in no way constitutes eradication, as Haraway asserted in relation to Latour, but rather to the implosion of boundary-crossings. The more hybrids are suppressed, the greater the diversity of forms in which they reappear.
At the beginning of his career Latour went directly into the lab as a sociologist using ethno-methodological means – in contrast to Haraway, who, coming from the study of history of science and critique of natural science, investigated laboratory practices from the outside, from a theoretical-philosophical point of view instead of practical-empirical, already while preparing her doctorate in biology. Latour emphasises that nature is not present in a laboratory, because the whole lab situation is highly artificial. Furthermore, the whole society can be understood as a gigantic lab; microstructures in the lab point to macro-structures in the approach to Nature. »The lab (…) becomes a paradigm for how society functions: as in a lab, culture/social worlds and Nature are mix and produce innumerable ‘hybrids’. Instead of regarding these as such, they are systematically categorized as ›natural‹ or ›social‹.« (Degele & Simms 2004, 262). But this in no way constitutes eradication, as Haraway asserted in relation to Latour, but rather to the implosion of boundary-crossings. The more hybrids are suppressed, the greater the diversity of forms in which they reappear.
Life and Work Bruno Latour
Life and Work Bruno Latour
Vollbild
»Whereas we now have fairly detailed knowledge of myths and circumcision rituals of exotic tribes of scientists, we remain relatively ignorant of the details of equivalent activity among tribes of scientists, whose work is commonly heralded as having startling or, at least, extremely significant effects on our civilization.«
Latour 1986, 17
Bruno Latour was born in 1947 in the small town of Beaune in Burgundy into a family of winegrowers. So it is not surprising that in an interview he expressed his hope that his books would prove as pleasurable to his readers as the tasting of the family’s house wine. Appreciation of his works depends on a readiness to engage with his provocative unorthodox hypotheses on Reassembling the Social. Society and Nature, the human and the nonhuman are, according to Latour, no longer separate entities. The development of his social science position has been informed by philosophical and cultural anthropological approaches.
Latour did his doctorate in philosophy and anthropology at the University of Tours in 1975. Then he conducted ethnological field research in Africa and California. Latour soon expanded on this classical anthropological method, whereby Western researchers investigate ›foreign cultures‹, to include a closer view of the practices of his own culture, in collaboration with the British sociologist Steve Woolgar. In 1979 he published the book Laboratory Life, together with Woolgar, in which they presented the results of their field studies in the medical lab of the future Nobel prize-winner Roger Guillemin.
On the basis of numerous studies on the general principles and methods of the natural and technical sciences as well as research management he developed the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Science & Technology Studies (STS), mainly in collaboration with Michel Callon and John Law. He is a member of the Society for Social Studies and Sciences (4S). With its interdisciplinary aspirations and the aim of crossing national boundaries this group became the most important organ of STS. Latour is one of the most prominent members of 4S along with Robert Merton, Michel Callon, Michael Lynch, Karin Knorr-Cetina and notable protagonists of Feminist Science & Technology Studies such as Donna Haraway, Susan Leigh Star, Judy Wacjman and Lucy Suchman.
He found himself caught in the crossfire of the so-called Science Wars of the 1990s only a few years after finishing his postdoctoral thesis at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in 1987. Latour was attacked by the American physicist Alan Sokal, who was launching a cultural dispute among the sciences at the time. Latour as a social scientist confronted these attacks in Pandora’s Hope. The critical engagement with the Technoscience project initiated by Latour and others, which foresees the crossing of disciplinary, institutional and international boundaries, runs through many passages of this book like a golden thread. Today he is one of the privileged in his field, who thinks writes and acts beyond the existing battle lines. One of these privileges is to be able to continue to expand his own frontiers into new fields.
Over the past few years his networked activities have moved ever more alpng the boundaries between art, the fictional and the narrative. This dissolution of the dividing lines between art and science is demonstrated by his collaboration on the exhibition Iconoclash (2002) curated by Peter Weibel and Making Things Public (2005) at the ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, with exhibition catalogues amounting in some cases to 1000 sides of discourse instruments. Similarly, a perusal of his website reveals not only a heading for normal articles but also one for publications about pop culture. In his academic books we even learn about his love of comics, while appreciating his manner of thinking and writing across boundaries, challenging scientific conventions. His writings are clearly rooted in the French tradition.
Latour 1986, 17
Bruno Latour was born in 1947 in the small town of Beaune in Burgundy into a family of winegrowers. So it is not surprising that in an interview he expressed his hope that his books would prove as pleasurable to his readers as the tasting of the family’s house wine. Appreciation of his works depends on a readiness to engage with his provocative unorthodox hypotheses on Reassembling the Social. Society and Nature, the human and the nonhuman are, according to Latour, no longer separate entities. The development of his social science position has been informed by philosophical and cultural anthropological approaches.
Latour did his doctorate in philosophy and anthropology at the University of Tours in 1975. Then he conducted ethnological field research in Africa and California. Latour soon expanded on this classical anthropological method, whereby Western researchers investigate ›foreign cultures‹, to include a closer view of the practices of his own culture, in collaboration with the British sociologist Steve Woolgar. In 1979 he published the book Laboratory Life, together with Woolgar, in which they presented the results of their field studies in the medical lab of the future Nobel prize-winner Roger Guillemin.
On the basis of numerous studies on the general principles and methods of the natural and technical sciences as well as research management he developed the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Science & Technology Studies (STS), mainly in collaboration with Michel Callon and John Law. He is a member of the Society for Social Studies and Sciences (4S). With its interdisciplinary aspirations and the aim of crossing national boundaries this group became the most important organ of STS. Latour is one of the most prominent members of 4S along with Robert Merton, Michel Callon, Michael Lynch, Karin Knorr-Cetina and notable protagonists of Feminist Science & Technology Studies such as Donna Haraway, Susan Leigh Star, Judy Wacjman and Lucy Suchman.
He found himself caught in the crossfire of the so-called Science Wars of the 1990s only a few years after finishing his postdoctoral thesis at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in 1987. Latour was attacked by the American physicist Alan Sokal, who was launching a cultural dispute among the sciences at the time. Latour as a social scientist confronted these attacks in Pandora’s Hope. The critical engagement with the Technoscience project initiated by Latour and others, which foresees the crossing of disciplinary, institutional and international boundaries, runs through many passages of this book like a golden thread. Today he is one of the privileged in his field, who thinks writes and acts beyond the existing battle lines. One of these privileges is to be able to continue to expand his own frontiers into new fields.
Over the past few years his networked activities have moved ever more alpng the boundaries between art, the fictional and the narrative. This dissolution of the dividing lines between art and science is demonstrated by his collaboration on the exhibition Iconoclash (2002) curated by Peter Weibel and Making Things Public (2005) at the ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, with exhibition catalogues amounting in some cases to 1000 sides of discourse instruments. Similarly, a perusal of his website reveals not only a heading for normal articles but also one for publications about pop culture. In his academic books we even learn about his love of comics, while appreciating his manner of thinking and writing across boundaries, challenging scientific conventions. His writings are clearly rooted in the French tradition.
Actor-Network-Theory [ANT] Bruno Latour
Actor-Network-Theory [ANT] Bruno Latour
Vollbild
»An ant writing for another ant, that fits my project very well!«
Following Latour as the actor of his own theories is a labyrinthine task. In the 1980s he constructed Actor-Network Theory (ANT) along with other sociologists. He went on to retract this social theory in writing in 1999, taking apart the basics of the theory term by term, only to allow it to rise again like the phoenix from the ashes in 2005 in his book intended as a teaching manual Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
To this day ANT has been a subject of controversy as a social theory in science and technology research, which does not accept technical or social determinism. The aim of ANT is ›to follow the actors themselves‹ in theoretical terms on the one hand and empirical models on the other. In this way it becomes possible to observe and describe technics, Nature and the social as a network with common characteristics, sharing the potential for action. Latour himself understood ANT less as a social theory and more of a method.
He describes with a wink the basic features of ANT in the afore-mentioned book Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory to a student. The student is at first thoroughly confused about how to use ANT and persists in asking questions, confronting inconsistencies in relation to what has already been learnt in sociology, thus unrolling the common critical arguments levelled against ANT. Latour makes a space in this clever mise-en-scène in which to confront the critics as well as misunderstandings and prejudices. For this controversy leads him to the conclusion that ANT must be a strong theory, because it isn’t one in the usual sense. Other theories are good at »saying something substantial about the basis of the social world.« ANT in contrast is a theory about »how things are to be investigated, or even more, how they should not be investigated – or even how to make a little more space for the actors to speak for themselves.«
In order to give space to heterogeneous actors, Latour seeks by way of ANT to mediate between micro-sociological and actor-based theoretical analyses on the one hand and macro-sociological and systems theoretical analyses on the other. This becomes apparent again in his most recent work on Gaïa.
Following Latour as the actor of his own theories is a labyrinthine task. In the 1980s he constructed Actor-Network Theory (ANT) along with other sociologists. He went on to retract this social theory in writing in 1999, taking apart the basics of the theory term by term, only to allow it to rise again like the phoenix from the ashes in 2005 in his book intended as a teaching manual Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
To this day ANT has been a subject of controversy as a social theory in science and technology research, which does not accept technical or social determinism. The aim of ANT is ›to follow the actors themselves‹ in theoretical terms on the one hand and empirical models on the other. In this way it becomes possible to observe and describe technics, Nature and the social as a network with common characteristics, sharing the potential for action. Latour himself understood ANT less as a social theory and more of a method.
He describes with a wink the basic features of ANT in the afore-mentioned book Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory to a student. The student is at first thoroughly confused about how to use ANT and persists in asking questions, confronting inconsistencies in relation to what has already been learnt in sociology, thus unrolling the common critical arguments levelled against ANT. Latour makes a space in this clever mise-en-scène in which to confront the critics as well as misunderstandings and prejudices. For this controversy leads him to the conclusion that ANT must be a strong theory, because it isn’t one in the usual sense. Other theories are good at »saying something substantial about the basis of the social world.« ANT in contrast is a theory about »how things are to be investigated, or even more, how they should not be investigated – or even how to make a little more space for the actors to speak for themselves.«
In order to give space to heterogeneous actors, Latour seeks by way of ANT to mediate between micro-sociological and actor-based theoretical analyses on the one hand and macro-sociological and systems theoretical analyses on the other. This becomes apparent again in his most recent work on Gaïa.
12 Terrestrial Questions to Bruno Latour
Scrollen, um weiterzulesen
Wischen, um weiterzulesen
Wischen, um Text einzublenden
Gaïa
Gaïa – a troubling Figure of Thoughts
Gaïa
DE\Globalize Gaïa
Gaïa’s Ambiguity
Gaïa – a mythological Figure
Gaïagraphies
Gaïas [Bio-]Diversity
Camille Stories
Vasanthi Dass
[Bio-]Diversity
Interview Narasimha Hedge
Participatory research
Narasimha Hegde
Gendering Marteloscopes
Gaïa – Reproduction & Sexuality
Seeds of Freedom
Reproductive Justice
Lecture by Bruno Latour
Staying with the Trouble
The Struggle for Gaïa
Donna Haraway
Bruno Latour
12 Terrestrial Questions to Bruno Latour