Abstract
The current use of the term ‘Human Enhancement’ (‘HE’) implies that it is a modern, new phenomenon in which, for the first time in history, humans are able to break through their god or nature-given bodily limits thanks to the application of new technologies. The debate about the legitimation of ‘HE’, the selection of methods permitted, and the scope and purpose of these modern enhancement technologies has been dominated by ethical considerations, and has highlighted problems with the definition of the relevant norms. For example, ‘HE’ always presupposes that the current state of the ‘natural human’ or ‘healthy’ body is defined in opposition to an ‘artificial human’ or ‘diseased or disabled’ body, and also desirable technologies and methods are not but should be defined on the basis of objective, universally accepted criteria. All these definitions are, however, linked to socio-cultural norms and ideals, which can vary over time and between cultures. It is therefore impossible to arrive at a universal, durable definition of ‘enhancement’ that can be shared and understood globally, and will remain permanently valid. This discussion note contrasts the terms ‘HE’ and ‘Body Modification’ (‘BM’), and their respective strengths and weaknesses. ‘BM’ is a neutral term that is capable of encompassing every kind of modification, be it cultural, physical, psychological or neurological, is not limited to certain techniques and is not reliant on normative sub-definitions (such as ‘natural’, ‘artificial’, etc.). In the light of this analysis, it is proposed that the term ‘HE’ be replaced with ‘BM’ in order to allow a neutral, unprejudiced discussion to take place.
References
Bammann K (2008) Der Körper als Zeichen und Symbol: Tattoo, Piercing und body modification als Medium der Exklusion und Inklusion in der modernen Gesellschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden, pp 257–265
Béland J-P et al (2011) The social and ethical acceptability of NBICs for purposes of human enhancement: why does the debate remain mired in impasse? NanoEthics 5:295–307. doi:10.1007/s11569-011-0133z
Biller-Andorno N, Salathé M (2013) Human Enhancement: Einführung und Definition. Schweiz Ärzteztg 94(5):169–172
Gehring P (2006) Was ist Biomacht? Vom zweifelhaften Mehrwert des Lebens. Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main
Haraway D (1985) Manifesto for Cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Social Rev 80:65–108
Jotterand F (2008) Beyond therapy and enhancement: the alteration of human nature. NanoEthics 2:15–23. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0025-z, Springer Science + Business Media BV
Juengst ET (2009) Was bedeutet enhancement. In: Schöne-Seifert B, Talbot D (eds) Enhancement – die ethische Debatte. Mentis, Paderborn, pp 25–45
Jung EG (2007) Tätowieren und Tattoo. In: Jung EG (ed) Kleine Kulturgeschichte der Haut. Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt, pp 171–176
Kasten E (2008) Body modification: psychologische und medizinische Aspekte von Piercing, Tattoo, Selbstverletzung und anderen Körperveränderungen. Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, Munich, 2006
Klein G (2010) Soziologie des Körpers. In: Kneer G, Schroer M (eds) Handbuch Spezielle Soziologien. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden, pp 457–473. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92027-6_26
Latour B (1999) Pandora’s hope: an essay on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press
Leenhardt M (1985[1947]) Do Kamo: La personne et le mythe dans le monde mélanésien, Gallimard, 1947, 1971, 1985
Lobstädt T (2011) Tätowierung, Narzissmus und Theatralität, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2011, ch. 4, ‘Die Zeichentheorie der Tätowierung’ 97–142. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-93365-8_4
Lüthy CH (2013) Historical and philosophical reflections on natural, enhanced and artificial men and women. In: Koops B-J et al. (eds) Engineering the human. Springer Verlag, Berlin, ch. 2, 11–28. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35096-2_2
Museum der Kulturen, Basel (2013) Make up – Shaped for Life? Exhibition-Paper, published to accompany the Make up – Shaped for Life exhibition, September 2013–July 2014
Mauss M (1989 [1950]) Sociologie et Anthropologie. In: Balandier G (ed) Sociologie d’aujourd’hui, Presses Universitaires de France, 1950; German Translation: Moldenhauer, E. et al.: Die Techniken des Körpers: Soziologie und Anthropologie 2, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1989
Ritzmann I et al (2013) Vom gemessenen zum angemessenen Körper – Human Enhancement als historischer Prozess. Schweiz Ärzteztg 94(11):417–422
Weber K (2012) Körperkult und -inszenierung – Entwicklung, Trends, Motive. AV Akademikerverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Saarbrücken
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rembold, S. ‘Human Enhancement’? It’s all About ‘Body Modification’! Why We Should Replace the Term ‘Human Enhancement’ with ‘Body Modification’. Nanoethics 8, 307–315 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0205-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0205-y