The Poetic and the Political in Valery Podoroga’s Analytical Anthropology

The article is devoted to an analysis of the creative work of the Russian philosopher Valery Podoroga. It focuses on the special discipline he created, namely, “analytical anthropology”, and the book “Anthropograms”, in which Valery Podoroga sets out the basic principles and analytical tools of his philosophical work. Examining the books of the philosopher that preceded the creation of analytical anthropology and those that were written later, it is possible to single out two important lines of his research. First, the philosophy of literature and second, research in the field of the political. Podoroga’s understanding of literature is broader than that of a cultural practice or a social institution. For him, it is the space of the corporal experience of contact with the world, in which the affective aspect of thinking is realized. This line of analysis points to the “poetic” dimension of the experience of thinking, since the emphasis here is on what Jakobson called the “poetic function of language”, its orientation toward itself. It is precisely the literary aspect that becomes important when analyzing the texts of philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger); however, what is even more important is that in the very experience of fiction Podoroga is trying to find new means for philosophy. His “poetic line” is closely connected with the poetics of space (Bachelard) and the phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty, Henry). It is the combination of poetics and phenomenology that allows Podoroga to overcome both the orientation of poetics exclusively toward language and the categorical apparatus of philosophy. The main result of Valery Podoroga’s work is the creation of an “anthropogram”, a special kind of scheme in which the action of the Work (a literary work, but not only) is immanent to the dynamics of the world. Is it possible to create such anthropograms outside the field of literature? Podoroga does not specify. The article attempts to show how Podoroga’s ways of working with literary texts correlate with his works dealing with the technologies of power and violence, transforming separate political and ethical terms into anthropograms, that is, forms of thought immanent to life itself.

From Analytical Аnthropology to Generative Anthropology

This article discusses the role of the technical in V.A. Podoroga's project of studying the literature worlds as archives of human experience. On the level of content, among many other components of these worlds he distinguished working and non-working machines, “gizmos” and various optical devices, including the mechanic eye, camera, mounting, etc. Formally, the action of these machines can be assessed as alienation, though in the context of modern media studies and exploration of the perspectives of anthropology, they can also be described as a problematic contact zone between the human and non-human, with a bias towards breaking the already historically disrupted bodily-affective interaction with the “outside”. Studies of Andrei Platonov's show the most radical interaction with the technical, in this case causing dissimilation of the human. However, even for this “inhuman” material, Podoroga chooses a form of human-measured approximation and distancing, which allows defending the position of an active researcher, observer, anthropologist. His efforts produce a kind of reconstruction, which at a certain time distance reveals the “seams”, “folds”, “cuts”, “plexuses”, “gaps” that formed at once the experience of the body and experience of writing. This is how the components of literature worlds are extracted, and from them “a picture of the universe can be deduced”. Although an external position to technics is considered to be the only guarantee of the human, even if it is strange, symptomatic, seizure-like, a different understanding of the technical is possible. Without claiming that a “machine” can assemble components in the absence of the observer's (reader's) comprehension ability, it seems nevertheless possible to relate the technical to more general principles: the methods of dispersion and gathering that form the form, the principles of intervalization and binding the heterogeneous, and most importantly, the principle of generating conditions for detecting an event. Then it will be necessary to clarify the relationship between techne and literature in the broader sense of poiesis, in the process of which elements can be formed from the indivisible “compressed”.

In Search of the “Society Genes”: What Could Be a Link Between Individual Genetics and Social Structure

Genome editing technologies make it important to look for genetic determinants that can influence the structure of society and basic social relations. This paper proposes to look for such determinants in the evolutionarily ancient mechanisms of group interaction, namely in the genes that determine the balance of cooperation and competition. The opposition of these two forces is thought to be the basis of the evolutionary development of intelligence in higher primates and humans. The article provides examples showing that individual characteristics such as extraversion/introversion as measured by the "Big Five" methodology, aggressiveness, which strongly associates with the risk taking, and the level of intelligence, all of these traits a) greatly influence the organization of social processes and b) are largely genetically determined. As a development of this approach of searching for socially significant genetic determinants, it is proposed to model genetic changes in sociality, aggressiveness and intelligence at the individual level, followed by an analysis of the resulting social changes.

Biocultural theory and the problem of human editing

The transition from an irregular understanding of nature as a given to the regulatory concepts of human development is one of the central philosophical and socio-humanitarian issues in the development of not only biotechnologies, but also society as a whole. In the theory of philosophy of biomedicine, the discussion is structured as the positioning of various problematic approaches, modeled using the principles of bioethics and philosophical ethics, taking into account the actual experience of the application and social perception of biomedical technologies. The status of problematic approaches is determined not only by philosophical ethics, but also by the willingness of society to accept something new as its own future. At the same time, accepting the future is impossible without rooting the future in the past - the beliefs and expectations that legitimize the future. The correlation of such concepts as the authentic autonomy of J. Habermas and the expansion of utilitarianism into the problems of editing the human genome, the conflict associated with challenges requiring collective moral action, and the rigidity of traditional moral mechanisms lead to the search for such a sociobiological language that would be formed from competitively coexisting old, traditional, and new, bioengineering, concepts of human development. The idea of biocultural theory as a form of connection between culture and biological foundation is associated with the work of A. Buchanan and R. Powell, who propose a systemic definition of biocultural theory as a mutual biological and cultural transformation of a person. Biocultural theory is aimed at shaping such a philosophical horizon, where the body, not only carnal, such as organs, but also personal - the awareness of its own bioidentity, becomes open and understandable due to the expansion of the connection between biology and culture, but at the same time acquires problems that becomes the subject of philosophy and ethics, since now a person, comprehended as a body, receives a variability that is no longer associated exclusively with culture. The goal of the article is to show that editing a person is not so much a traditionally understood risk as a transformation of the understanding of the cultural and biological conditions for the formation of his bioidentity.

Biohacking: Changing Yourself to Reformat Science

Тoday the term «biohacking» is used in two main meanings. First, as a part of «garage science» movement, whose members experiment in home laboratories with self-created required equipment. Secondly, as the human enhancement practices aimed at improving the quality of life and the struggle for immortality. In the article, we show the integrity of these two seemingly unrelated aspects. For this purpose we use Fuller's post-truth concept, which allows us to analyze biohacking in the context of the more general processes of science democratization and the ongoing changes in the knowledge and power distribution system. The article refers to the conceptual metaphors of lions and foxes, which traditionally distinguish two types of elites. According to this division we consider biohackers as «fox strategists». Lion's conservatism implies status quo maintaining of order power/knowledge apportionment. The foxes try to change the order by questioning the «rules of the game». We demonstrate the joining of do-it-yourself ideology and «care of the self» principles by the case of biohackers interaction at the reddit.com forum, and its section dealing with transcranial direct current stimulation devices. The analysis of this case allows to identify biohackers strategies for academic science boundaries eroding, especially, science and non-science boundaries, individual scientific disciplines and «national sciences». Authors conclude that biohackers can be considered as philosophers of science. In this framework their practices of «personal science» and precedents creating represent the process of rethinking both the essence of science and its rules.