POSTMODERN DIVIDUAL AND ITS/HIS/HERHABITATS
Abstract
The concept of the dividual in the postmodern discourse, in which this concept was developed, is analyzed. Its distribution in a number of discourses has enriched it with new meanings. Therefore, the concept of the dividual is examined in the general scientific, political, biotechnological, bioethical, information-technological, and religious context. In the postmodern perspective, the dividual is represented as a fragmented, unstable, torn, divisible, and ambivalent entity.
The dividual is formed by dividuation, one of the forms of subjectivation in post-industrial societies. Individuation did not disappear but was supplemented by a parallel process that occurred with individuals immersed in virtual space, under conditions of cybercapitalism, under the influence of digital culture and high technologies. The influence of these factors could lead to the extraction of human dividuality, not belonging to a person, but to transnational corporations. The latter might accumulate information about one’s economic behavior and everyday life gathered via smartphones, fitness trackers, various game consoles, and other devices.
In general, the collective image of the dividual is constructed by taking into account its representations in five discourses. The dividual has a dividuality alienated from it/him/her, which is “informated” by its origin, obtained through dehomogenization of its individuality, structurally stratified and always directed outward from the individual. Based on this, the definition of dividuation in the postmodern discourse was put forward.
The falsity of the idea of an individual’s indivisibility as a holistic subject is demonstrated. The analysis carried out in this paper is important for improving the political and theoretical understanding of the human condition in a more complex world, compared to his/her condition in traditional and modern societies.
Downloads
References
Balinchenko, S. (2018). Dividual Projections of Otherness Viewed Through the Context of Territorialization and Deterritorialization. Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series Philosophical Political Studies, 18, 48–54. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Vlu_fps_2018_18_8 (In Ukrainian).
Balinchenko, S. (2019). Mythologeme-Related Crisis of Identity:Reality and Fictional Markers of Alienation. Future Human Image,11, 5–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/fhi/11/1
Bogard, W. (2007). The Coils of a Serpent: Haptic Space and Control Societies. C-Theory. URL:https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14513/5354
Bogard, W. (2008). Empire of The Living Dead.Mortality, 13(2), 19 p.URL: https://www.academia.edu/4544710/Empire_of_the_living_dead
Bruno, F., & Rodríguez, P. M. (2022). The Dividual: Digital Practices and Biotechnologies. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(3), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764211029356
Cvejić, B. (2016). In States of Transindividuality. Published in STATE STATE STATE. (Eds. I. M. Fiksdal, and J. C. Petersen). Oslo: Samizdat. URL: https://www.academia.edu/27214896/In_States_of_Transindividuality
D’Amato, P. (2019). Simondon And The Technologies Of Control: On The Individuation Of The Dividual. Culture, Theory and Critique, 60(3–4), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2019.1694211
Khoruzhyi, H. F., Borovska, L. O., Kulahin, Yu. I., Lipin, M. V.(2018). Samoidentyfikatsiia osobystosti filosofskyi analiz. Samoidentyfikatsiia Osobystosti: Filosofskyi Analiz : Monograph. Ed. by H. F. Khoruzhyi.URL: https://knute.edu.ua/file/MjIxNw==/888da03d58e4d33afa7688566fcd20a2.pdf (In Ukrainian).
Kolot, A. (2014). Indyvidualizatsiiaosobystosti ta formuvanniaindyvidualizovanohosuspilstva yak fenomensuchasnosti: Naslidky ta uroky.Ukraina: Aspektypratsi, 2, 3–10. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Uap_2014_2_3 (In Ukrainian).
Lazzarato, M. (2014). Signs And Machines: Capitalism And The Production of Subjectivity (J. D. Jordan, Trans.). South Pasadena: Semiotext(e).
Linkenbach, A., & Mulsow, M. (2020). Introduction: the dividual self. Religious Individualisation: Historical Dimensions and Comparative Perspectives(pp. 323 344). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110580853-015
Lushetich, N. (Ed.). (2020). Big Data: A New Medium? Routledge.
McGonigle, I. (2019). Genomic Data And The Dividual Self. Genetics Research, 101, e12, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672319000107
Ott, M. (2018). Dividuations: Theories of Participation (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Raunig, G. (2016). Dividuum: Machinic Capitalism and Molecular Revolution, Vol. 1 (A. Derieg, Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). (Original work published 2014).
Smith, K. (2012). From Dividual And Individual Selves To Porous Subjects. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 23(1), 50–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-6547.2012.00167.x
Voropai, T. S. (1999). V poiskakh sebya. Identichnost i diskurs / T. S. Voropai. – Kharkov : KhDPU (In Russian).
Vujanović, A., & Cvejić, B. (2022). Introduction. Toward a Transindividual Self: A Study in Social Dramaturgy (PP. 9–28). Oslo–Brussels–Zagreb: Oslo National Academy of the Arts–SARMA– Multimedijalni Institut. URL: https://www.academia.edu/75620244/Toward_a_Transindividual_Self_Introduction
Zahurska, N. V. (2016). Posthuman. Version N / Postman. Version N. Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (In Russian).
