Human Enhancement and the Concept of Liminality¹

• Authors: Miroslav Popper
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article considers human enhancement from the perspective of liminality. It defines the concept of liminality, introduced by ethnologist van Gennep in an attempt to generalise the rites of passage. It shows how, thanks to Turner, this concept has spread beyond anthropology to characterise the many situations ‘betwixt and between’ associated with transitioning from the original social structure to the new one. The article points out that, by definition, liminal situations break down traditional structures; hence, polemical debates on whether to allow human enhancement cannot be conducted from the position of existing normative standards. It argues, on the contrary, that these must be fundamentally expanded so as to reflect the current transitional phase from treatment to enhancement and that preparations must be made for the policies and institutions that will deal with the consequences. Otherwise, we will face threat of a new kind of totalitarianism.

Keywords

EN

liminality; human enhancement; normativity; human nature; structural changes

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 26
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 128-139

Dates

published

2016-04-01

online

2016-04-06

Contributors

author

Miroslav Popper

• Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 841 04 Bratislava 4, Slovakia

References

• Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2010). Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, 4(1), Article 4. Available online:
• Bostrom, N. (2005). The fable of the dragon-tyrant. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31 (5), 273-277.
• Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006). The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics, 116, 656-679.
• Bostrom, N., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Human enhancement ethics: The state of the debate. In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online:
• Heilinger, J., & Crone, K. (2014). Human freedom and enhancement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17(1), 13-21.
• Juengst, E. T., Binstock, R. H., Mehlman, M., Post, S. G., & Whitehouse, P. (2003). Biogerentology, “anti-aging medicine”, and the challenges of human enhancement. Hastings Center Report, 33(4), 21-30.
• Juengst, E., & Moseley, D. (2015). Human enhancement. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2015 ed.). Retrieved from:
• Miah, A. (2011). Ethical issues raised by human enhancement. In F. Gonzales (Ed.), Values and ethics for the 21st Century (pp. 199-231). BBVA, Spain.
• Sandel, M. (2004). The case against perfection. The Atlantic. Available online:
• Stenner, P., & Moreno, E. (2013). Liminality and affectivity: The case of deceased organ donation. Subjectivity, 6(3) 229-253.
• Sýkora, P. (2014). Kritika teologicko-teleologickej koncepcie ľudskej prirodzenosti ako dôvodu odmietnutia transhumanizmu. [A critique of the theological/teleological concept of human nature as a reason for rejecting transhumanism]. Filozofia, 69(6), 514-525.
• Szakolczai, A. (2009). Liminality and experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International Political Anthropology, 2 (1), 141-172.
• Thomassen, B. (2009). The uses and meanings of liminality. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 5-27.
• Tomašičová, J. (2014). Život v zóne biomoci. Etický a biopolitický diskurz o transhumanizme. [Life in the biopower zone: The ethical and biopolitical discourse on transhumanism]. Filozofia, 69(6), 461-471.
• Turner, V. W. (1964). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In J. Helm (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Meeting of the American Ethnological Society: Symposium on new approaches to the study of religion (pp. 4-20). Seattle: The University of Washington Press.
• Van Gennep, A. (1960) [1909]. The rites of passage. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/humaff-2016-0014