Abstract
The ambition of this paper is to reason the consistency and logical coherence of the concept of Giorgio Agamben‘s anthropological machine. The important puzzle is that although Agamben emphasized the importance of having this machine destroyed, he did not suggest any clear and specific way to achieve it. The concept of a cyborg, developed by Donna Haraway, has been introduced to rethink the anthropological machine through the eyes of the cyborg. So, the main question of this paper is: whether or not the destruction of the anthropological machine is possible using the concept of the cyborg? The cyborg has been chosen because it blurs the boundaries among various oppositions. Oppositions (e.g. animal / human, man / woman, public / private) are exactly what the anthropological machine establishes, moreover, it also empowers itself through the existence of those oppositions. Cyborg has material substance inside its own “body” right from the beginning, so through this understanding we can incorporate the questions about the environment (broadly understood) and the self in every cyborg. The cyborgs, paraphrasing Haraway, are very good at cat’s cradle game when the interactions could be seen very clearly between our everyday acts and some global or political issues.
Highlights
Giorgio Agamben is very well known for the idea of rethinking and reconsidering Michel Foucault’s idea of biopower
If, according to Haraway, all people are already cyborgs, why the anthropological machine, that shaped and continues to shape our history, politics, philosophy and culture is still operating? Why do we continue to act according to the established dogmas, why humanist tradition is still vivid in our daily lives if the cyborg is completely detached from it or in other words, if the cyborg is a post-humanistic subject? A short answer to this question might be that we are still in the initial state of cyborgization
Agamben defines the anthropological machine as a constructor and as a driver of the Western civilization. He notes that hierarchical differentiation performed by this machine is dangerous, as it enforces the anthropocentrism disregarding other species, but it allows the emergence of “bare life”
Summary
Giorgio Agamben is very well known for the idea of rethinking and reconsidering Michel Foucault’s idea of biopower. Agamben’s Anthropological Machine are relevant though provocative; they confront with a strong response among actors of various kinds of anti-authoritarian political activism In his 2002 work titled The Open: Man and Animal, Agamben extends the scope of the issues of biopower and politics by addressing them through the distinction between an animal and human being. It can be stated that the main objective of this paper in terms of its added value to the contemporary philosophical discourse is a new interpretation of the destruction of Agamben’s anthropological machine, which is based on a reconsidered and updated Haraway’s concept of the cyborg. A part of criticism that Agamben receives is focused on the fact that he analyses the consequences of the anthropological machine faced only by man, while animal life remains without consideration in his texts Animal as such never finds its way into the horizon of Agamben’s messianistic politics. Haraway’s concept of the cyborg; and the third part is devoted to demonstrate, through the concepts of the cyborg and cyborgization, the way to destroy the anthropological machine
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
