Posthuman Imaginaries of Sustainability
Çağdaş Dedeoglu
In the face of escalating global sustainability challenges, ranging from extreme weather events to the sixth mass extinction and the increased exploitation of more-than-human beings, the limitations of anthropocentrism have become stark. Our planet shakes on the edge of ecological collapse, underscoring the need for innovative frameworks that extend beyond human interests to encompass the intricate web of life that sustains us all. It is within this context that posthuman imaginaries constitute a critical alternative to hegemonic imaginaries of sustainability. The ‘Posthumanism for Sustainability’ (PH4S) project (https://www.posthumanlab.org/project-ph4s) is aimed at providing a knowledge base and digital repository that can further expand discussions around posthumanist sustainability. In this short essay, I would like to present the objective and main findings of this project, as well as discuss its potential implications for the study of science and belief in society.
Sustainability is commonly understood as a paradigm for thinking through future challenges, one that sees the economic, social and ecological as intimately intertwined. This idea is at the heart of sustainable development practices that prioritize economic growth, such as green energy investments, or green buildings and infrastructures. Practices within this paradigm are thought to be shaped within struggles between three imaginaries of social change: modernization, transformation, and control (Adloff & Neckel, 2019). These struggles determine the formation of new physical and digital infrastructures, including knowledge infrastructures. Research agendas and funding mechanisms behind applied sustainability science also rely on humanist, anthropocentric frameworks of these imaginaries. Within these frameworks, a wind energy plant, for instance, can be considered a sustainable green investment even if it impacts the habitat of birds and other animals in the selected project area.
Some readers may consider these introductory comments normative. However, they are no more normative than core ideas behind sustainability science and practice that assume humans are both exceptional and exempt from certain measures of accountability. There is growing literature critiquing the normative dimensions of sustainability science and practice over the last couple of decades (Smith, 2019). These critiques point out that perceptions of objectivity in sustainability science, like all other sciences, are not exempt from normative, ethical, political, and religious considerations. In this sense, we cannot justify continuing to approach sustainability through an economic growth model simply by pointing to technological and scientific innovations. Increasingly precise and robust digitization and measurability techniques are insufficient to overcome larger political, environmental and ethical problems with anthropocentric sustainability. Moreover, these techniques pose a risk that corporate interests will continue to influence sustainability strategies and policies (Blühdorn, 2016). Therefore, to create truly sustainable societies, it is not enough to focus on the science of sustainability from a singular onto-epistemological position. Instead, multiple subjectivities, or onto-epistemological positions, and different political-ethical-religious perspectives need to be considered in sustainability science and governance.
Motivated by the pressing need for a paradigmatic shift in how we address ecological challenges, PH4S explores the potential of multiple posthumanisms to redefine the contours of planetary sustainability. This is not just about identifying the sustainability problems we face but about challenging the onto-epistemological foundations and methodological philosophies that underpin our understanding of and solutions for them.
With this objective, our research for PH4S has centered on existing scholarship at the nexus of posthumanism and sustainability. We analyzed 45 peer-reviewed journal articles that link posthumanism and sustainability in diverse disciplinary contexts, using VOSviewer (a software for visualizing bibliometric networks), and discussed our findings in our article, “Posthumanism for Sustainability: A Scoping Review,” published in the Journal of Posthumanism (Dedeoglu & Zampaki, 2023). Additionally, we curated a digital repository (https://www.posthumanlab.org/peer-reviewed-articles) with the purpose of supporting future research.
The main findings of this study can be grouped under five themes:
POST-HUMANISM calls us to expand our ethical universe to encompass non-human life, advocating for an understanding of humanity that avoids exclusionary definitions and valuations. It urges resistance against the ‘regimes of truth’ propagated by governments and big corporations, which highlights the necessity of transforming ecological concerns into central matters of political-ethical consideration.
POST-ANTHROPOCENTRISM extends our gaze beyond the human species, promoting a conception of sustainability that is inclusive of all forms of life. It encapsulates a commitment to ‘just sustainability’ through policy frameworks that recognize the interconnectedness of human and non-human entities.
By challenging the dichotomies that have traditionally separated humans from nature, or mind from matter, POST-DUALISM fosters a holistic view of the world. It also suggests that spirituality and materiality are not opposites but interconnected aspects of the fabric of existence, urging a reintegration of humans into the ecological web.
POST-ENLIGHTENMENT is a critique of Enlightenment rationality and progress narratives, calling for a more pluralistic approach to knowledge and understanding. It values the multiplicity of ways of knowing, encompassing scientific inquiry, traditional ecological knowledge, and indigenous wisdom, advocating for a more humble, curious stance toward the mysteries of existence.
POST-TECHNOLOGISM emphasizes the importance of critically assessing technology’s ecological impact and multiplier effects on global injustices while acknowledging the potential benefits of technological advancement. It advocates for technological development that is in harmony with natural processes and the vision of fair, inclusive, and sustainable societies.
It is evident from this thematic interpretation that posthumanism needs sustainability and sustainability needs posthumanism when thinking about the problems of our technologically dense, ecologically wounded world, and perhaps even about humanist aspirations regarding other planets.
Within this context, I argue that these five dimensions of the posthumanism-sustainability nexus should be complemented by the addition of a posthuman-religious dimension. This is because none of these dimensions can be thought of as independent from hegemonic interpretations of world religions. Thus, religion can be intricately linked to posthumanisms (in their plurality) through its potential to influence and reshape our understandings of the human condition, interconnectivity, and the broader cosmos. By challenging the dominant interpretations of monotheistic religions alongside dogmatic beliefs in humanist Enlightenment sciences, posthuman religion opens the door to reevaluating beliefs and practices in the context of a more inclusive, ecologically sensitive, and interconnected existence. This reevaluation allows for the integration of (non)religious perspectives into the diverse and pluralist ontological and epistemological frameworks of posthumanism, encouraging a more holistic and inclusive approach to understanding the complexities of life and existence beyond human-centric views.
I want to point out two research directions that can link posthuman sustainability to posthuman religion. First, a nuanced critique of human-centered notions of sustainability through posthumanism necessitates a posthuman religious dimension, which is still widely omitted in sustainability studies. Second, a radical socio-psychological critique of science and belief can enhance our understanding of human attitudes towards science and religious and challenge perceptions that there is an inherent conflict between the two. These two research directions can significantly contribute to a richer debate around posthuman sustainability. This corresponds with a revised conceptualization of postsecularism, especially with respect to techno-ecological entanglements.
I have addressed the technological aspect of these entanglements elsewhere (Dedeoglu, 2020), in a paper exposing the existence of an inherent belief bias in AI programming. Taking the findings of the PH4S project and this earlier critique of belief bias in the context of artificial intelligence together, I suggest two implications for the study of science and belief. First, the interaction between science and belief is an inherently posthuman phenomenon. Second, the post-dualist dimension of our posthuman critique can and should engage with emerging discussions among religious scholars around the impact of contemporary science on belief in human societies. Keeping in mind that our current posthuman condition also corresponds to an increasingly postsecular worldview (Graham, 2016), a post-dualist understanding of sustainability can benefit from a thorough understanding of contemporary scientific and religious manifestations in society. This means that a better comprehension of the human experience—scientific, religious, or otherwise—that goes beyond Western, white, and capitalist men and a limited concept of humanity may help us design more inclusive sustainability policies, tools, and practices. A posthuman, postsecular framework can thus help researchers address the hegemonic assumptions of sustainability science, including the development of sustainable technologies, which are built upon the beliefs, prejudices, and interests of privileged humans.
Works Cited
Adloff, F., & Neckel, S. (2019). Futures of sustainability as modernization, transformation, and control: A conceptual framework. Sustainability Science, 14(4), 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00671-2
Blühdorn, I. (2016). Sustainability—Post-sustainability—Unsustainability. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199685271.013.39
Dedeoglu, C. (2020). “Hey Siri: Do you believe in god?” A posthuman exposé of belief bias in AI programming. In W.H.U. Anderson (Ed.), Technology and theology (pp. 77-90). Vernon Press.
Dedeoglu, C., & Zampaki, N. (2023). Posthumanism for sustainability: A scoping review. Journal of Posthumanism, 3(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.33182/joph.v3i1.2761.
Graham, E. (2016). Manifestations of the posthuman in the postsecular imagination. In J. B. Hurlbut & H. Tirosh-Samuelson (eds.), Perfecting human futures (pp. 51- 72). Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft Und Gesellschaft/Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Smith, T. S. J. (2019). Sustainability, wellbeing and the posthuman turn. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94078-6
Çağdaş is a posthuman social scientist, founding director of The Posthuman Lab and a Professor of Liberal Arts at Yorkville University. As Çağdaş puts it, his interests inhabit “the science of everything.” He is especially engaged in trying to find common trends across multiple intellectual and disciplinary paths, hoping to synthesize and mobilize diverse ways of knowing in order to help design better solutions for global sustainability challenges.