Posthuman Critical Theory

  • Rosi BraidottiEmail author


This essay proposes a genealogical cartography of the emergence of a posthuman turn in critical theory, including feminist theory, based on the convergence of posthumanism with post-anthropocentrism. The former critiques the universalist posture of the idea of ‘Man’ as the alleged ‘measure of all things’. The latter criticizes species hierarchy and the assumption of human exceptionalism. It then explores the implications of the posthuman turn for political subjectivity, notably in terms of the relation between human and nonhuman agents. The essay then critiques the current tendency to create new negative or reactive re-compositions of a new pan-humanity based on vulnerability and fear. The case is made instead for critical posthuman thought and a definition of the subject as nomadic, that is to say: transversal, relational, affective, embedded and embodied.


Radical Immanence Feminist Politics Human Enhancement Process Ontology Internal Fracture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alaimo, S. (2010). Bodily natures: Science, environment and the material self. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity. Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, M. (1987). Alien to femininity: Speculative fiction and feminist theory. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, M. (1993). Lost in space. Probing feminist science fiction and beyond. Chapel Hill and London/Chicago University Press/University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Oxford: Blackwell’s.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Borradori, G. (2003). Philosophy in a time of terror. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bostrom, N. (2003). Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly 53(211), 243–255.Google Scholar
  11. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora-contesting identities. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Braidotti, R. (1991). Patterns of dissonance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subject: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses. Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Braidotti, R. (2011a). Nomadic subject: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press (second and enlarged edition).Google Scholar
  17. Braidotti, R. (2011b). Nomadic theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Braidotti, R., & Griet, R. (2012). Nomadology and subjectivity: Deleuze, Guattari and critical disability studies. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes & L. Davis (Eds.), Disability and social theory. New developments and directions (pp. 161–178). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Enquiry, 35, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, D. (2013). What’s death to do with it? The New Scientist, May 11, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar
  22. Colebrook, C. (2000). Is sexual difference a problem? In I. Buchanan & C. Colebrook (Eds.), Deleuze and feminist theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Colebrook, C. (2004). Postmodernism is a humanism. Deleuze and equivocity. Women: A Cultural Review, 15(3), 283–307.Google Scholar
  24. Colebrook, C. (2009). Agamben: aesthetics, potentiality, life. South Atlantic Quarterly, 107(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Colebrook, C. (2014). Sex after life. Open Humanities Press/University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Collini, S. (2012). What are Universities for? London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  27. Collins, P. H. (1991). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus. Biotecnology & capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  29. Cornell, D. (2002). The Ubuntu Project with Stellenbosch University. Accessed 8 August 2016.
  30. Creed, B. (1993). The monstrous-feminine. Film, feminism, psychoanalysis. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Deleuze, G. (1993). The fold. Leibnitz and the baroque. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1977). Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and schizophrenia I. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  34. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Esposito, R. (2008). Bios. Biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism and new materialism. Differences and relations. Existenz. An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics and the Arts, 8(2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  37. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of human sciences. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  38. Foucault, M. (1997). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  39. Franklin, S., Lury, C., & Stacey, J. (2000). Global nature, global culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Fraser, M., Kember, S., & Lury, C. (Eds.). (2006). Inventive life. Approaches to the new vitalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future. Consequences of the biotechnological revolution. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  42. Gatens, M., & Lloyd, G. (1999). Collective imaginings: Spinoza, past and present. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Giffney, N., & Hird, M. J. (2008). Queering the non/human. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  44. Gilroy, P. (2000). Against race. Imaging political culture beyond the colour line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies. Towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Grosz, E. (1995). Sexy bodies: The strange carnalities of feminism. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Guattari, F. (2000). The three ecologies. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  48. Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. Halberstam, J. (2012). Gaga feminism: Sex, gender and the end of normal. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Halberstam, J., & Livingston, I. (Eds.). (1995). Posthuman bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_Oncomouse. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto. Dogs, people and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
  53. Haraway, D. (2014). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Cthulhucene. On-line talk 27 September 2014. Consulted May 4, 2015.Google Scholar
  54. Hayward, E. (2008). More lessons from a starfish: Prefixial flesh and transspeciated selves. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 36(3&4), 64–85 (Fall/Winter).Google Scholar
  55. Hayward, E. (2011). Sensational jellyfish: Aquarium affects and the matter of immersion. Differences, 25(5).Google Scholar
  56. Irigaray, L. (1985). This sex which is not one. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Irigaray, L. (1993). An ethics of sexual difference. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Johnson, B. (1998). The feminist difference: Literature, psychoanalysis, race and gender. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kelly, J. (1979). The double-edged vision of feminist theory. Feminist Studies, 5(1), 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kirby, V. (2011). Quantum anthropologies: Life at large. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kung, H. (1998). A global ethic for global politics and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lazzarato, M. (2012). The making of indebted man. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Livingston, J., & Puar, J. K. (2011). Interspecies. Social Text, 29(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  64. Lloyd, G. (1984). The man of reason: Male and female in western philosophy. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lloyd, G. (1994). Part of nature: Self-knowledge in Spinoza’s ethic. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lloyd, G. (1996). Spinoza and the ethics. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. MacCormack, P. (2008). Cinesexualities. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. MacCormack, P. (2012). Posthuman ethics. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  69. MacCormack, P. (2014). The animal catalyst. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  70. MacPherson, C. B. (1962). The theory of possessive individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Margulis, L., & Sagan, D. (1995). What is life? Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  72. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  74. Moulier-Boutang, Y. (2012). Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  75. Noys, B. (2010). The persistence of the negative. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Olkowski, D. (1999). Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of representation. Irvine: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  78. Parisi, L. (2004). Abstract sex. Philosophy, bio-technology, and the mutation of desire. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  79. Pearson K. A. (1999). Germinal life. The difference and repetition of Deleuze. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Rabinow, P. (2003). Anthropos today. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Rich, A. (2001). Arts of the possible: Essays and conversations. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  82. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twentieth-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Said, E. (2004). Humanism and democratic criticism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions-brutality and complexity in the global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy. The plunder of nature and knowledge. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Rules for the human zoo: A response to the ‘letter on humanism’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smelik, A., & Lykke, N. (Eds.). (2008). Bits of life: Feminism at the intersections of media, bioscience and technology. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sobchack, V. (2004). Carnal thoughts. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  89. Williams, J. (2013). Gilles Deleuze’s difference and repetition: A critical introduction and guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the HumanitiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations