More-than-Human
Selected page from More-than-Human, 2022.
Click button below to download full research file.
More-than-Human is a research map and research summary created in the context of applying for Olafur Eliasson studios.
Context
The bouleversement that was experienced by ‘us’ all with the Covid-19 pandemic provoked both opportunities and anxieties, not only within human societies but also encompassing non-humans, materials, environments, landscapes, and the entangled interdependencies between them.
Sociologists, like Bruno Latour, attempted to spark alternative ways of thinking to prevent a return to the pre-crisis production model,1 while designers reflected on transitioning away from the centrality of the human being to make way for new paradigms and meanings.2 The issues with the politico-economic infrastructure in guiding collective imaginations became more evident, and isolation further divided communities of people and things from each other, leaving a void of intimacy on several levels.
Summary
The more-than-human concept is an approach that can be seen in a variety of fields (eco-femi- nism, geography, design, Indigeneity, art education) and that seeks to deconstruct the socially constructed ontological dichotomy between culture and nature. David Abrams used ‘more- than-human’ to develop a deeper understanding and awareness of the world, as it is inhabited not only by human societies, but also by other beings and things, and of the reality that consists of relationships and connectivities between them.
Though the definition is nebulous, it can be described as the transition away from human exceptionalism towards a post-Anthropocene that is yet to be defined and that requires taking on new imaginary futures (with explicit inclusion of materials and of the non-human and not-only-human). Donna Haraway also contributed to the concept, adding that natureculture could be used to describe entangled multispecies histo- ries (cultural-natural continuum), which therefore necessitates “an alternative understanding of the countless cosmoses surrounding us.”3
In other words, more-than-human expands agency and reality to meaningfully include that which is not human, including viruses, trees, gravity, electricity, or scallops. However, in contrast to the Actor Network Theory, which gives agency to non-human actants in relation to human actants (integration), the more-than-human approach is a more dynamic, albeit unstable, process as it complexifies relationships beyond the human-centred framework of understanding (inclusion).4 That is, to understand more-than-human requires breaking down the boundaries of our collective consciousness so that differences can be felt, reflected, seen, acknowledged from non-human and not-only-human perspectives. In a way, the more-than-human approach requires from human beings both humility and empathy.
Importantly, the approach “does not exclude human beings as a fundamental component”,5 but merely calls for the inclusion of other materials and things as key elements of our en- tangled collectivities.6 For example, although intentionality is accorded privilege in our knowledge production of phenomena, a burst of wind that knocks down a tree has no intention nor cognition, but it still has consequences and an activity within processes and relations (climate, weather, gravity, ecosystems).
More-than-Human in the artistic field
In relation to Olafur Eliasson’s artistic practice, which carefully considers embodied seeing, physicality, and reflected intimacy, more-than-human represents a possibility for enhancing the humanistic perspective by expanding the consciousness and awareness beyond the human.
In the same way that museums allow for spaces of co-production between the artist, the works, and the public, an imaginary future may allow us to see and feel the co-existence of humans and non-humans, taking on non-human experiences to help us re-evaluate the way we think and the way we understand. The Life exhibition at Fondation Beyeler, for instance, is a demonstration of the entanglement of the human and non-human, beyond our current imaginations and awareness.
Though the definition is nebulous, it can be described as the transition away from human exceptionalism towards a post-Anthropocene that is yet to be defined and that requires taking on new imaginary futures (with explicit inclusion of materials and of the non-human and not-only-human). Donna Haraway also contributed to the concept, adding that natureculture could be used to describe entangled multispecies histo- ries (cultural-natural continuum), which therefore necessitates “an alternative understanding of the countless cosmoses surrounding us.”3
In other words, more-than-human expands agency and reality to meaningfully include that which is not human, including viruses, trees, gravity, electricity, or scallops. However, in contrast to the Actor Network Theory, which gives agency to non-human actants in relation to human actants (integration), the more-than-human approach is a more dynamic, albeit unstable, process as it complexifies relationships beyond the human-centred framework of understanding (inclusion).4 That is, to understand more-than-human requires breaking down the boundaries of our collective consciousness so that differences can be felt, reflected, seen, acknowledged from non-human and not-only-human perspectives. In a way, the more-than-human approach requires from human beings both humility and empathy.
Importantly, the approach “does not exclude human beings as a fundamental component”,5 but merely calls for the inclusion of other materials and things as key elements of our en- tangled collectivities.6 For example, although intentionality is accorded privilege in our knowledge production of phenomena, a burst of wind that knocks down a tree has no intention nor cognition, but it still has consequences and an activity within processes and relations (climate, weather, gravity, ecosystems).
More-than-Human in the artistic field
In relation to Olafur Eliasson’s artistic practice, which carefully considers embodied seeing, physicality, and reflected intimacy, more-than-human represents a possibility for enhancing the humanistic perspective by expanding the consciousness and awareness beyond the human.
In the same way that museums allow for spaces of co-production between the artist, the works, and the public, an imaginary future may allow us to see and feel the co-existence of humans and non-humans, taking on non-human experiences to help us re-evaluate the way we think and the way we understand. The Life exhibition at Fondation Beyeler, for instance, is a demonstration of the entanglement of the human and non-human, beyond our current imaginations and awareness.
2Alessandro Biamonti, “The Political and Social need for a New Design Culture,” in From Human-Centered to More-than-Human Design, ed. Barbara Camocini and (Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli s.r.l. 2021): 15-27.
3Carlos Roberto Bernardes de Souza Júnior, “More-than-human cultural geographies towards co-dwelling on Earth,” in Revista de Geografia da UFC 20, no. 1 (2021): 1-10.
4Alessandro Biamonti, “The Political and Social need for a New Design Culture,” in From Human-Centered to More-than-Human Design, ed. Barbara Camocini and (Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli s.r.l. 2021): 15-27.
5Barbara Camocini and Francesco Vergani, “Introduction,” in From Human-Centered to More-than-Human Design, ed. Barbara Camocini and (Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli s.r.l. 2021): 7-13.
6Olli Pyyhtinen, More-than-Human Sociology: A New Sociological Imagination (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmilllan, 2021).