Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

The Animal and the Technological: Technological Instrumentalization Seen as Animalization

Lo animal y lo tecnológico: instrumentalización tecnológica como animalización




Section
Artículos

How to Cite
Liceaga, I. (2024). The Animal and the Technological: Technological Instrumentalization Seen as Animalization. Tabula Rasa, 51, 95-123. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n51.05

Dimensions
PlumX

This article analyzes the technological from a view of “the animal” and by bridging the gap between philosophy of technology, political philosophy, political ecology, and emerging aesthetics, informed by a postcolonial critique. “The animal” is drawn throughout the text as produced and as on the threshold of the indetermined and a rearticulation between the human, the living, the non-living, and the instrumental. Therefore, its definitions and transformations, its actualization are part of an anthropogenetic machine, depending on contingent decisions subject to dynamics of violence, conquest, and domination. This paper argues that animalized bodies are not only those we are accustomed to identify as “living”, but also those that the dominant patterns of production of the “human” have naturalized as “non-living”. Thus, the threshold of “the animal” allows us to operate processes of instrumentalization as processes of animation/animalization of the “non-living”.


Article visits 28 | PDF visits 31


Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Agamben, G. (2017). El uso de los cuerpos. Adriana Hidalgo.
  2. Agamben, G. (2006). Lo abierto. El hombre y el animal. Adriana Hidalgo.
  3. Ávila Gaitán, I. D. (2017). El Instituto de Estudios Críticos Animales como proyecto decolonial. Tabula Rasa, 27, 339-351. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.454
  4. Ávila, I. D. (2016). La cuestión animal(ista). Ediciones desde abajo.
  5. Andreessen, M. (2023). The Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Andreessen Horowitz (16 October). https://archive.is/IachA
  6. Beardsworth, R. (1998). Thinking technicity. Cultural Values, 2(1), 70-86.
  7. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press.
  8. Benyera, E. (2021). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Recolonisation of Africa: The Coloniality of Data. Routledge.
  9. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.
  10. Derrida, J. (2008). El animal que luego estoy si(gui)endo. Trotta.
  11. Godenzzi, J. C. (2005). En las redes del lenguaje. Cognición, discurso y sociedad en los Andes. Centro de investigación de la Universidad del Pacífico/Colegio de las Américas/ Organización Universitaria interamericana.
  12. González, A. & Ávila, I. D. (2022). Glosario de resistencia animal(ista). Ediciones desde abajo.
  13. Haff, P. (2014). Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review, 1(2), 126–136.
  14. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Women. Routledge.
  15. Herrera Lima, S. (2016). Del progreso a la armonía. Naturaleza, sociedad y discurso en las exposiciones universales (1893-2010). Iteso.
  16. Hornborg, A. (2019). Nature, Society, and Justice in the Anthropocene: Unraveling the Money-Energy-Technology Complex. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Hornborg, A. (2016). Global Magic: Technologies of Appropriation from Ancient Rome to Wall Street. Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Jozefowiez, J., Staddon, J. E. R. & Cerutti, D. T. (2009). Metacognition in animals: how do we know that they know? Comparative Cognition and Behaviour Reviews, 4, 29 – 39.
  19. Kornell, N. (2009). Metacognition in Humans and Animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 11-15.
  20. Kirby, V. (Ed.). (2017). What if Culture was Nature all Along? Edinburgh University Press.
  21. Kohn, E. (2013). How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. University of California Press.
  22. Koyré, A. (1977). Estudios de historia del pensamiento científico. Siglo XXI.
  23. LaFrance, A. (30 de enero de 2024). The Rise of Techno-authoritarianism. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valleypolitics/677168/
  24. Lemke, T. (2015). New Materialisms: Foucault and the “Government of Things”. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(4), 3-25.
  25. Lemm, V. (2010). La filosofía animal de Nietzsche: cultura, política y animalidad del ser humano. Universidad Diego Portales.
  26. Lenkersdorf, C. (1996). Los hombres verdaderos. Voces y testimonios tojolabales. Siglo XXI.
  27. Liceaga Mendoza, R. (2023). Tecnología como proyecto territorial de conquista y espacio como producción política. Eutopía, Revista de Desarrollo Económico Territorial, 24, 96- 117.http://doi.org/10.17141/eutopia.24.2023
  28. Liceaga Mendoza, R. (2022). Esclavitud y tecnología: una aproximación filosófica, política y ecológica. Andamios, revista de investigación social, 19(48), 183-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v19i48.900
  29. Liceaga, R. (2021). Internet, Coloniality and Environment: Technology, Economic Commensurability of Diversity and Ich’el ta muk’. Forum for Inter-American Research: Technologies and Social Change in the Americas, 14(1), 89-106.
  30. López, X. (2015). Yo’taninel bajtik, re-ch’ulel-izarnos y revivir lo sagrado desde nuestra propia humanidad como matriz del fin de la Jow-hidra capitalista, El Pensamiento Crítico frente a la Hidra Capitalista, Vol. III. (pp. 262-276). Rincón Zapatista.
  31. Marder, M. (2016). Trough vegetal being: two philosophical perspectives. Columbia University Press.
  32. Mbembe, A. (2016). Crítica de la razón negra. Ensayo sobre el racismo contemporáneo.
  33. Futuro Anterior Ediciones.
  34. Merchant, C. (2014). Mining the Earth’s Womb. En R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.). Philosophy of Technology. The Technological Condition: An Anthology. 2nd ed. (pp. 471- 481). Wiley.
  35. MIT Website (s.f.). Inventing disruptive technologies for nanoelectronic devices and creating new paradigms for life-machine symbiosis. https://www.media.mit.edu/groups/ nano-cybernetic-biotrek/overview/
  36. Mumford, L. (2014). Tool Users vs. Homo Sapiens and the Megamachine. En R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.). Philosophy of Technology. The Technological Condition: An Anthology. 2nd ed. (pp. 381-388). Wiley.
  37. Osman, H. N. (2023). From leaf to bomb: plant nanobionics and the operationalization of ecology. Digital War, 4, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-023-00061-0
  38. Parikka, J. (2015) A Geology of media. University of Minnesota Press.
  39. Pugliese, J. (2020). Biopolitics of the More than Human. Duke University Press.
  40. Reygadas, P. & Contreras, J. M. (Coords.). (2021). Sentipensares: El co-razon-ar de las filosofías amerindias. Tomo I y Tomo II. El Tiempo que Resta A. C., Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Transmodernos, Editorial Praxis.
  41. Schatzberg, E. (2018). Introduction: An Odd Concept. En Technology: Critical History of a Concept (pp. 1-15). The University of Chicago Press.
  42. Schuhl, P-M. (1955) Maquinismo y filosofía. Galatea.
  43. Simondon, G. (2017) On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Univocal.
  44. Sosa, I. O. (2007). Nanotecnología. Instantáneas del cambio tecnológico. Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México.
  45. Vargas García, B. (2023). Blanquidad, animalidad y brujería zoológica: un acercamiento a Aph Ko y Syl Ko desde el sur global. Tabula Rasa, 45, 49-72. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n45.03
  46. Wiener, N. (1946). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. John Wiley & Sons.
Sistema OJS 3.4.0.5 - Metabiblioteca |