eee ‘CRITICAL DIGITAL STUDIES: A READER edited by Srthur Kroker and Marilouise Kroker vom the spectacular emergence ofnew media innovations such as blogging, podcast ing, Bushanobs, mashups, and BSS feeds to videoshsring websites, ke MySpace and Youtube, and online roleplaying games, contemporary socery, culture, and polities are being tansformed continuously by new digital communication technology. In tical Dal studi, internationally renowned theorists Arthur and Marllouite roker jead the search for anew method of understanding digitally mediated culture Digit sadies sa rapidly expanding field that encompasses the research interests ofsotal scientists and humanities scholars, multimedia arss, and activists, With this groundreaking reader, we are introduced to a new style of choughe char has trnerged directly from Internet culture ite. rite Digital Studie i inspired by the Same spkit that gave rise to the Open Architecture Movement, Shareware, Web 20 sc reathe mashup, mixing the enduring human demand to understand the world sound ws with the new means of analysis, communication, and living that define the ‘wenty rst century ‘hn indispensable recousce for instructors and students in digital studies programs, crcl Digital Studies is a comprehensive, creative, and fascinating look at a digital culture satis struggling tobe bor, survive, and flourish. rou snort is the diector of the Pacific Centre for Technology and Culture, and Canada Research Chair in Technology, Culture, and Theary a the Universi of Veto 1a He's co-eitor ofthe elecuonie peer-reviewed journal Theory uasitowse xzoxeR isa senior research scholar in the Pacific Centre for Technology and Clture 2¢ the University of Victoria. She is co-editor ofthe electronic peer-reviewed journal Theory,9 Biophilosophy for the 2st Century EUGENE THACKER Soul-Meat Pater ‘There have only ever been three approaches to thinking about life; sou, mea, an pation. ‘Within this minty is everything deemed to be animate ving, and vital. Soul i not jut the Scholastic, theological, peronal oul, but the Aristotelian principle of life fc), the bincpe ofits onization. The vegetative soul of plans the animate and seezte soul ‘fanaa and the rational soul of human beings, The hierarchy of souls is not unlike the (Great Chain of ing, a biological theology of divide and ierachize By contrast, ‘mais brute matter, unthinking mechanism, the clockwerle onganism, the be mackie described by Descae ~ animal or machine, it makes no difeence Mechanism 1a sense 2 thinking about as meat, and meat fle (elif that i ees seat ot machine), Folly, issict fom ‘soul and ‘meat isa ded approach, tat of pater Te ‘woul sem thatthe emphasis on pater isa disney postmodera phenomenon, the tenn of cybemevs, information theory and selforganiation. But this is only pare of the story. Aaa, stot the biologist equates frm ed and ‘ous the dscns snark betwen the plat, the animal, 2nd the humans fis in ther mode of organization, how they seactulie inte (fic moves, i's aive’) Ye, Aristotle is inked to conten porary selfxganization research in tht neither can explain how oiganiztin occu, ‘ther than to reves thatthe wholes more than the su oft par “hs, su "meat and pattern’ form ein The iy loa triptych: sulin the cente, mest onthe right-hand side, and on the le, pattem. An image of thought that continuously switches, sap, displaces, and replace the place ler that fines life from pry to mechanism and animal clectcty tothe ‘germs’ and ‘pangens’t DNA and the ‘code of fe’ However, these three approaches donot form 2 periodizaton, with iso's pyc fllowed by Deeeartes” ockaork body fl lowed by the genetic code Instead asa tniysripyeh they forma kind of yore a fac, a fail eld of blaccholes and white wal within which and upon which often writen: ‘eis that whose cotence can be deduced an yet whose essence escapes all deduction’ ~ soutmeatpatern Bach of these posts 2 ental, universal, ' om, 2s. We can ref eset honanenage ec spoglie een tee practice as boundare of artcdtion. Together, the pnp of es we ofan ne te to meds ough whic the We a eae 1Cajenventd eng about fe Biophilosophy forthe ast Century 133 senal principle of organization tht culminates in the ving the organist 2 ie ox force: oe ttt nmancnse eeepc Seas Savroer tae rch ot hot anhing wih oe an oes) geting sch ric sue py tats ashe pn if econo concent vy fie eld of nvestgaton. ach approach fers in ts pace older, bt oa the weadesrpattern pte alo aes boundare ere rpiorpais sntetenainate, but abo aimabrchie Estrin Life ofthis tiling. The is padcuming med an outar-ming pect ‘Peotone tes ad eens specs ad pe be cua can ages beundarie and ponon the rng agus he ntving making ow eeeeRmenalty 2 steningeeve The mncaming pet metabo a tac gece te tite i meray Oe ee se oinaton a e og the ens opees a roe adage & inmandopc er manges bound, ‘ges nt page eth eons een, hepa eae Sr coroen esing i mil, he sdb ving in proximity ih bee: Neve hse aaa someting acon bh ape Te avarice peri neu ecw pec os Bp Stings pdt an ene Anepdenicemes eid ed sateen pas eee ais 2 naa, pa across species borders {and national borders), What is the unit of analysis ra Sou ikem, he cueard- ting spect abl to manage bound rll theming ape reel ea son Frist ‘Tiecnonig par tv pote gan tin fom ent, there ning a eens. arin Soave vis ten ering ect We wold ane at wc perou fendenang but the xpi loge, og, Cente pce rim eh te el sete trang ae ‘Efe the tn nec poh nn nt ned lps of he suwatuming apes? The iva aring acuta aing Spee thn cpa cc te ene ni Senet oi describe their relationship, a: Gilles Deleuze does, as one of folding (in-folding, folding, an embryology having nothing to do with “development’).194 Technology density and Survellnce Soulmeat-patter - again, thisis not. tes, as ina time ofnetworks, swat sé multitudes, ie would seem: that the third approach, ~ that of ‘pattern’ - is today dominant in the life sci lg care btsdncog dase elegy elf, iia niger) ne (bioterror. emerging epidemics) and even alternative scientific viewpoints (biocom, dlvideand-hierrcize mental of thinking about Ife? I ‘patean’ simpy the new soul” Traditionally, these questions about the principle of life come under the oman of the philosophy of biology. But what would it mean to invert the Philos. phy of biology? What would it mean to invert this thinking (soul-meat-pattern) and, instead a bopibsoply? Perhaps itis precisely Tife itself that isthe problem, not the am or the goal Instead of considering the pro} s 1 merinsic properties of fe, what about con- sidering life as extrinsic, as always going outside of itself? Instead of centing life (an essence, an organizing principle), what about considering life at the peripheries - carn life, a life always going outside of itself peripheral fe? ‘Biophilosophy vs Philosophy of Biology ‘What, then is biopilosopi? To begin with, biophlosophy isnot the same as hsp of logy Wha sal enc he alse of Boley both a syntagmatic anda paradigmatic side tot, a hovizontal and vertical dimension The horizontal dimension isthe elucidation of universal characteristics ofthe org Jam, which are perceived to be pat ofits essence or principle of organization (gronth and decay reproduction and development, evolutionary adaptation). The vertical dimension i the development of tis thinking historical in Wester thought, fom ‘Asstt, to ncur history, o Darwinian evolution, tothe new synthesis in genetics and biochemisuy. In genera, the philosophy ofbilogy highlights and extends the philosophical dimensions of biological knowledge Tues pertaining to evolution, bio- legless and elo) may be conser inthe contest ofthe fe sciences such 2b comparative anatomy, pypiology, genetic, Bo ery, erly gr thor nd deepal tes they Te oe thy of tology informs the three approaches to thinking about ie mentioned above soumeat pattem, The philosophy of biology also undertakes the twofld method of identifying a principle of fe and boundaries ofaiultion. can be understood 38 an attempt to pose the question “ts the living diferent fora the nom ing?” ~ an ontological question ~ in the context of another question‘ the study ofthe living (biology) deren from other fields of study? ~ an epistemological question. op tha genet and in Son technologies are the ose avanced mode of nar and oot cuing ee Es Biopilosphy forthe ist Century 335 sctiophlospey ply the opposite ofthe pilsopy of ilo? Net gu. i> eset eral ctiqu ofthe wpe of philosophy of Blogy Bait ee vidos ovng rough the eoukmeatpacem approach, while ing wth Se 2 a the onclogilcuetns tate posed and that fen get reduced lg cones over canicaton, Whereas eh psophy of Bel said mh arcltng a concep oe that would dese chs essence ofS cone concerned wth ardating thos things tat eased eanwown sit ppp, fe = malls Wheres te pilsophy of biology Process by 1B pono universal characteris oa if, bopsesphy proen by dew thee tanks hat lay athe ig ow el an anes ingen tas oppome to sins charters. Wherear the pslosophy of Bly (zy inh twentieth cena) at Bee neaingyconemed nh elven (eaber (fom mechani to gents), iopiloxophy see diferent Kid of ve re one tat rans through ie (a ombitator, proliferating number, che aur sarap, groups and eet). Whereas the plloropy of Bology renews mecha ar aeder to purge tse ofa vitalism (vitaism’ i one of the curse words of ‘igs toplalosophy renews wan in order to puget ofall theology andi his sense numbers vials) (ALife' not Life ste ciel with the philosophy of biology ~a with nea all piloophicl chink ingot ‘the anima’ ~ ro resist the antopomeorpism of ou thinking about fe The eoahof the picrophy of biology, the apreach of sou-meat pater, cores ad sareup ce concept ofthe human so that cis nt only tomerpble with fe Janay ne above ile (ie tel? athe pinnacle and ‘mere fe a the base or fandation) Tis has a murmberof effects on our thinking about Lf, fri sultane soap paces the homan athe top ofthe Great Cain wile io ceserving a ua ‘hey loan, non-anizal place for the human. This the red drama of the human, sSonee parang of the animal natura, iological woud, and yet ncesanly sing “Hove and beyond producing abetactimonledgesystems, constructing world ad Iie npoing forthe spiral (real Heidegger’ thes concerning animal: he stone is wondles, the anima is poorinworld, and the human is world-building), I is 2 teow thats by tums tragic and absudist. Contemporary bio-att practices can be underwood asa commentary on ths drama, producing dai marinas exta cas ‘iwi wings, act cops, and ‘zy biological sabotage* ophilnophy ples ertiqueof all anthropomorphic conceptions of fe But ic pone to chink this on-anthroperorphic fet re we determined yet again fo supplant an ald term (pattern) witha new one (tpl) The problem is nat Shy a nominalstone, not simply a game of logic the problem ithe very relation tenneen ie’ and ‘thought (both Georges Canguihers and Michel Foucault note