************************************
Introduction

Western 21st century thought (the ways in which
humans in the Western world construct their thoughts and form
beliefs) is largely influenced by what is known as ‘Enlightenment’
thinking.
In this essay I will be discussing what ‘Enlightenment’ thinking means,
along with how and
why some of the primary ideologies pushed forward by the movement, such
as rational, individualism
and essentialism, are limiting and even damaging in today's
socio-political climate.
I will then further be exploring alternative, more inclusive thinking
technologies advocated by thinkers such as Donna
Haraway in their book, Staying with the Trouble (2016). This includes
tentacular thinking and string figuring, and I will later be applying
those thinking technologies to real life social issues in the 21st century, particularly
focused on gender and the body in this discussion. To accompany this, I will also be making links with my findings from the Xenofeminist Manifesto (2018) by Laboria Cuboniks with their passages on anti-naturalism and the rejection of purity to further back my argument. I will show examples of my work as visual embodiments for the more fluid and free flowing way of thinking that Haraway encourages, along with explaining my intentions and the method of making. The intention of this project is to dismantle and criticise the very binary and linear thought patterns introduced to the western world by the enlightenment era and explore alternatives. This is in the hopes that we can broaden our perspectives and understanding of ourselves, others and the world around us in order to work towards a more equal, safer and sustainable world for all. It is vital to acknowledge that such schools of thought have originated from, and remain active in, indiginous politics. My argument acknowledges that the following approaches are not ‘new’ by any means. However, thinkers such as Haraway have interpreted these findings in ways that I consider accessible for me. In my view, it is crucial for me to utilise my privilege as a white, cisgender woman to magnify this as a means to educate and create an accessible space for those who need it in which to continue the conversation.



















Historical Overview of Enlightenment Thinking

The term ‘Enlightenment’ usually refers to the academic and intellectual advancements that took place in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries. This period oversaw rigorous academic debate and enormous advancements in the fields of Science, Politics and Philosophy; ultimately, shaping the ‘modern world’ and our patterns of thought and reason along with it (British Library, 2018). Sometimes also referred to as the ‘Age of Reason’, the ideology that underpins Enlightenment thought is that reason should sit at the forefront of all thinking, being held as the primary source of legitimacy and authority. This entailed a preoccupation, one might argue obsession, with processes of naming, cataloguing and categorising, setting the precedent for modern scientific and academic practice. Other underlying themes of the enlightenment era include individualism and essentialism and too these ideologies are still interwoven into the belief systems of the western world. Whilst the progressive nature of the Enlightenment had some positive outcomes, such as freedom of expression and attempts to eradicate religious authority, it did give way to what might be considered a toxic Positivist school of thought - despite its ‘liberal’ veil, most Enlightenment thinkers did not advocate for universal equality (Lumen learning, no date). In today’s socio-political climate, particularly in the Western world, it is clear how harmful and limiting certain aspects of Enlightenment thought have been, particularly in terms of the way we think about gender, sexuality, race and class. This, I propose, is due to the extremely concrete, binary and linear patterns of thought encouraged by Enlightenment thinking. The movement made little room for the voices of those belonging to marginalised groups and historically, such groups have been vilified and left out of the discussion entirely. To relate more to the current day, the invention of the internet in the 1960’s has brought about the amplification of these voices (for those who are privileged enough to access it), by giving them a platform with which to broadcast their experiences to the world. In doing so, members of such groups are working to combat the infrastructures built upon Enlightenment-style thinking, and their heteronormative, cisnormative, misogynistic, racist and classist tendencies (ABC, 2020) that are essentially at the the foundation of ‘modernity’ in Europe.

Thinkers such as Donna Haraway and Isabelle Stengers, who have gone on to inspire a myriad of collectives and manifesto’s such as Laboria Cuboniks and their seminal text The XenoFeminist Manifesto and The VNS Matrix, advocate for a more fluid way of thinking - a rejection of binary habits of thought and a speculative feminism. According to them, such reform would facilitate movement towards a safer, sustainable and more equal world for all by combating the “deadly lack of balance in earthly matters''( Strelka Mag, 2020).

Tentacular Thinking

One of the ways in which Haraway summarises her findings and advocates for such reform is through her thesis, ‘Tentacular Thinking’ in her book, ‘Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene’ (2016). Haraway reminds us that tentacle originates from the Latin word tentaculum, meaning “feeler”, and tentare meaning “to try” and “to feel” (Haraway, 2016, p.31) - this is in direct correlation with how we should approach thinking tenacularly, juxtaposing the very premise of Enlightenment thinking entirely. ‘Tentacular Thinking’ not only reflects the physical, anatomical and genetic makeup of the tentacular ones (including but certainly not limited to: cephalopods, jellyfish, spiders, millipedes and many other critters and fungi for example), but additionally the ways in which such creatures interact amongst themselves and inhabit their environments. Tentacular thinking is a symbol for nonlinear, multiple networked way of existing and processing. “The tentacular ones make attachments and detachments; they make cuts and knots; they make a difference; they weave paths and consequences but not determinisms; they are both open and knotted in some ways and not others” (Haraway, 2016, p. 31) Harway expresses, and in turn proposes an entirely radical form of consciousness. Powered by question and speculation by challenging the linear thinking structure of Enlightenment style thinking, it’s a kind which requires a sort of composing and decomposing of the skills for exploring them. Tentacular thinking is continuous and interrupted whilst continuing to be fluid and free flowing; reason is now an entity to be challenged using a critical yet playful and aware mind.


Fig 1.



String Figures

To follow on from this, String Figures and Cat’s Cradles, ‘SF’ for short, is another form of thinking technology that Haraway encourages us to partake in; this intermingles with Tentacular Thinking. String Figuring allows us to further “drop the binary habits of thought”(Haraway, 2016), and instead, pay attention to what kind of pattern making is happening around us. The physical fibre arts of string figure making is a constructive way to visualise how the mind would think tentacularly; the strings will cross back and forth, over and under one another representing the thinking process - how we make use of these threads is important. Not only this, the physical movement of one’s hands whilst making a Cat’s Cradle is significant in that it symbolises the, “Action and passion”, the “holding still and moving.” (Haraway, 2016) - Isabelle Stengers, a philosopher of science (The Information Philosopher, no date), relayed back to Haraway how that in order to make a pattern, something has to hold still for something else to move. More importantly, the act of string figure making highlights the importance of working well with other partners - even if those partners are your own two hands (Haraway, 2016). Enlightenment style thinking opposes this because it lends more of its focus to the individual as opposed to community (Study.com, no date). SF making, also an umbrella term for speculative fabulation, science fiction, science fact, speculative feminism and so far, offers a kind of symbiotic (living together, usually to the benefit of all involved) living system. Endosymbiosis: Homage to Lynn Margulis (2012) is a painting by Shoshana Dubiner which interprets such symbiotic relationships; it was made in tribute to Lynn Margulis who was a controversial evolutionary biologist and one of Dubiner’s heroines. Margulis’ endosymbiotic theory proposed that evolution at a cellular level happens primarily through symbiosis as opposed to random mutation. This suggests that “creatures who might otherwise eat and thus kill each other, end up living inside the other, creating more complex organisms and cooperating with each other to the advantage of both organisms” (Dubiner, 2012). Dubiners painting is a reflection of Margulis’s theory - what we take from this can relate to the “thinking-with” and “becoming-with” (Haraway, 2016, p. 34) nature of string figuring, the entanglements of the tentacular ones; how in Cat’s Cradling one hand is passive, offering the result of the previous operation for the other to operate, only to become active again the next steps (Haraway, 2016).


Fig 2.

Sympoietic and Autopoietic Living Systems

Haraway appropriately calls this phenomena that arises through SF ‘sympoiesis’. Sympoietic systems can be defined as “collectively-producing systems that do not have self defined spatial or temporal boundaries. Information and control are distributed among components. The systems are evolutionary and have the potential for surprising change.”. This is in contrast with autopoietic systems which are self producing “autonomous units with self-defined boundaries that tend to be centrally controlled, homeostatic, and predictable.”(Dempster, B. 1998, p. 4). Autopoietic systems lend themselves to the individualistic Enlightenment style thinking and are still considered the superior system in the modern western world (Capitalism). Individualism was another significant theme to arise from the Enlightenment era and the general belief was that the individual human being was to be viewed as a “self-made man”. This belief contains the individual as autonomous and independent, embodying two of the main values of the modern Western world (Conceição, S. 2018), even going as far to suggest that living with others is generally conceived as not being necessary. Soares, an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Management, Portuguese Catholic University in Porto, Portugal ( European SPES Institute, no date), noted that the concept valorizes the individual as an “isolated entity separated from its own environment, living as a self - sufficient being.” (Conceição, S. 2018, p. 11) and that “individuality, not community, is humankind’s predicament”(Conceição, S. 2018, p. 14). Haraway says that neither biology nor philosophy can vouch for the notion of independent organisms in the environment any longer (Haraway, 2016) as this essentially manufactures competition among individuals (NCBI, 2014). Soon, the concept of harmony quickly becomes unfathomable as we can see this in current western world affairs. For example, the UK is under a capitalist government and capitalism pushes the individual as the forefront, suggesting that the individual is only responsible for their life, some might say “private ownership” (Investopedia, 2020). As a result, Haraway encourages us to live in contrast to this: sympoietically. This way, it’s not that we forget about the individual entirely, rather we have a collective awareness of knowing and doing; Haraway calls this cultivating response-ability - “Whether we asked for it or not, the pattern is in our hands'' (Haraway, 2016, p. 34). The individual must cultivate the capacity to respond (Haraway, 2016) and be open to all perspectives, possible outcomes and ideas; much similar to the polymorphic Cephalopods we can envision in Tentacular thinking and in the process of string figure making. Marilyn Strathern taught Haraway, “It matters what ideas we use to think other ideas'', following this by saying, “I compost my soul in this hot pile: The worms are not human; their undulating bodies ingest and reach; and their feces fertilize the worlds. Their tentacles make string figures''. Here we can understand the importance of “what thoughts think thoughts” and how “it matters what relations relate relations” (Haraway, 2016, p. 34). Balia Goldenthal’s painting, Cat’s Cradle / String Theory (2008) is a visual interpretation of this mattering, encapsulating the importance of living amongst and alongside others and the social / cultural responsibility that should entwine with this. This kind of thinking opposes Enlightenment style Individualism. This is because rather than proposing the individual as a concrete and separate entity from the environment and those surrounding, sympoietic living and SF making highlight the importance of the individual in the sense of community and networking. Individuals should collectively respond to and with one another, carving paths and patterns in a
wholly unpredictable and responsive fashion.


Fig 3.

The Bee Orchid is an example of the kind of significance that sympoietic living relations have in which Haraway refers to in her text, Staying with the Trouble (2016). This goes to say, the importance the individual has in a networked community; how the ways in which you interact and integrate with the beings and environment around you can have lasting consequences for generations to come. The “Bee Orchid” is a special orchid which has evolved over time to attract the bees that pollinate it by having petals which mimic the appearance of a female bee who is “hungry for copulation”(Haraway, 2016, pg. 69). When the male bees tried to mate with them, they transferred pollen. However, the species of bee which used to pollinate the orchid no longer exists; the Bee Orchid has resorted to self pollinating, a survival genetic strategy that only slows down the inevitable. The only way we as humans today know this bee existed is through the interpretation from the flower. Some might say, “the only memory of the bee is a painting by a dying flower” (Xkcd, no date) - The flower has encapsulated the presence of the bee “in desire and mortality” and is now only somewhat a speaker for the dead, “once embraced by living buzzing bees”. (Haraway, 2016, pg. 69). The Bee Orchid is not only just an example of responding to and with others in a SF sense, but it also highlights how autopoietic systems (the fact that the orchid is now self pollinating) are not sustainable. Living with and responding to others is the only long - term way that we can seek such progressive reform for a safer and more sustainable world. We know that the time will come for the Bee Orchid, but for now, what we can take from this is that it matters what stories tell stories for the future generations. The past presents itself in foundational structural ways in society that can have long lasting effects, such as ideologies such as Enlightenment thinking, whether that be for the positive or negative.


Fig 4.

Anti-Naturalist + Xeno Feminism

Another way in which Enlightenment style individualism is harmful is due to the fact that one of the main distinctions of Individualism is that “man is endowed with certain liberties or rights'' (Study.com, no date). This essentially means that these certain rights and liberties were granted to the individual by God or nature and this is fixed or unchangeable. Of course this stance is very out-dated and damaging in today’s society. It is extremely limiting and otherwise, simply not true. Those who do not meet the Western ‘ideal’ will be very familiar with this; the trans, queer and the differently abled amoung us, for example. Laboria Cuboniks is a Xenofeminist collective, the author of “The Xenofeminist Manifesto” (2018), who advocates for a juxtaposing ideology and urges feminists to equip themselves. “If nature is unjust, change nature!” - Laboria Cuboniks champion that biology is not your destiny and that “injustice should not just simply be accepted as ‘the way things are’” (Laboria Cuboniks, 2018) whether that be because of tradition or religion etc. They pride themselves on being anti-naturalist in the sense that, like Isabelle Stengers (Mode of Existence, 2015), propose that “nothing should be accepted as fixed, permanent or ‘given’ - neither material conditions nor social reforms''(Laboria Cuboniks, 2018, pg. 15). They recognise that anyone who has been considered ‘unnatural’ in the face of ruling biological norms or has experienced injustice due to the ‘natural order’ has realised that the glorification of the ‘natural’ has very little to offer us (Laboria Cuboniks, 2018). Laboria Cuboniks consider themselves “Haraway’s disobedient daughters'' and agree that it “will not help - intellectually, morally, or politically - to appeal to natural and pure” (Hester, 2018, pg. 21). Helen Hester, a member of Laboria Cuboniks and author of “Xenofeminism”(2018), understands nature as not “an essentializing underpinning for embodiment or ecology, but as a technologized space of conflict that fundamentally shaped lived experiences” (Hester, 2018, pg. 13). With today's technological advances, particularly in the Western World, technology and science has enabled a specific set of “conscious interventions” within the “so-called ‘natural’ world” (Hester, 2018, pg. 12), allowing us the ability to achieve things that nature would have otherwise denied us. This does not go to say that Xenofeminism denies that there is a “biological stratum to embodied reality” (Hester, 2018, pg. 12) ; they acknowledge certain bodies have differing capacities and susceptibilities (for example, the capacity or susceptibility to incubate a foetus) . However, what Xenofeminism does argue is the concept that this ‘stratum’ is rigid and unchangeable simply because it is biological or natural. This partly involves acknowledging the role that social constructs play in the understanding of embodiment (this includes insisting that numerous ideas about gender and the body are ideological), but potentially more importantly, it involves “framing the terrain of biology as itself rightfully subject to change” (Hester, 2018, pg. 21). To declare that rational or reason is ‘by nature’ is a “patriarchal enterprise” is to “concede defeat” (Laboria Cuboniks, 2018, pg. 21), opposing the main themes of the Enlightenment entirely by rejecting traditional reason and naturalistic individualism. I propose that by implementing this alternative way of thinking into your lives you are living tentacularly; fluidity in thought. By not viewing biology and nature as something that is concrete or fixed, one is challenging the linear thinking habits that movements such as the Enlightenment pushed to the forefront. This way of thinking can be applied to the larger social and political issues in the Western world particularly in terms of gender and the body and promotes inclusivity amongst all. Not only does XFM anti-naturalism promote tentacular thinking, it also links in with string figuring. Questioning and speculation is encouraged, particularly of the sciences and the natural world in this discussion, and the individual amongst it’s community has a responsibility to ‘equip’ themselves in knowledge and in allyship to those who have ever faced injustice in the name of biological ruling. One should not have to settle and suffer injustices due to the rights and liberties they have been ‘granted’ with, juxtaposing Enlightenment individualism following suit of, ‘if nature is unjust, change nature!” (Laboria Cuboniks, 2018) .

The Rejection of Purity

To lead on from Xenofeminism’s anti-naturalist stance, it is also noteworthy to mention their advocacy on the rejection of the concept of purity. Framing Xenofeminism as a “politics without the infection of purity” (Laboria Cuboniks, 2018), with this, we can make links. We can see how this connects with anti-naturalism and highlight how this way of thinking challenges the Essentialism that was rife throughout the Enlightenment era and still prominent today in the western world. In its most stripped down sense, essentialism is the ideology “that people and/or phenomena have an underlying and unchanging ‘essence’.”. That every entity has a fixed set of functions and characteristics, and if that entity does not possess those qualities, it is not that ‘entity’. Primarily, this refers to biological, physiological and genetic factors as clarification for human social behaviour. Little explanation is given for cultural, sociological or psychological behaviour so the main intention is to utilize biology (nature) to proclaim that a certain social difference / behaviour is solid and unchangeable. An example that Richard Twine gave to describe this is that “to argue that men are more aggressive than women and that this is inevitable due to hormonal differences” (Richardtwine, no date) would be an example of essentialism. Essentialism paints biology to be a realm that is static and as already discussed we know how harmful this can be in society, particularly in terms of an all-inclusive feminism. By rejecting purity, you are rejecting the notion that natural equals purity, and that being ‘pure’ is the desired form. You reject the notion that ‘mother nature’ knows best and that the ‘natural’ is no longer considered any more valid or credible than something that wasn’t ‘given’. Enlightenment essentialism, naturalism and the concept of purity go hand in hand. The damage that these ideas have done to marginalised communities, particularly in gender and race politics, is rampant and by rejecting the illusion that is the concept of what is ‘pure’ and what is not, you are helping to build a more equal and safe world.

To offer a furthered perspective, Haraway voices, “To be one at all, you must be a many.. And it’s not a metaphor.” (Haraway, 2014). With this, Haraway reminds us of how we aren’t singular beings, but rather we are merely limbs in a complex, multi-species network of entwined systems of existence. “Our bodies and minds are not just made of us, but also, for example, of billions of bacteria inhabiting our guts.” (Rutanen, no date). To distance yourself from the bounded individualism, essentialism and rational that was encouraged by enlightenment thinking, and instead, recognise how intrinsically we are not just our bodies, it can help open doors to a different perspective of yourself and others along with human behaviours and the belief systems themselves. Whilst some may argue that this take on reality is purely metaphysical, I propose that this way of thinking can be applied to all areas of life - particularly in terms of the socio-political issues of the western world. Additionally, I believe that this way of thinking and living is another example of being tentacular in life. There is understanding, acknowledgement and acceptance or ‘otherness’; an otherness that challenges the foundations of what may have only been considered to be ‘right’ or ‘true’ throughout civilisation for as far as we can document. This is inherently tentacular because one is pushing further questioning of the proposed ‘facts’ or ‘stories’ we have been fed our whole lives about the way things should be. In actuality there are a plethora of ways of ‘being’ and existing on this planet that we have been limited to, and still are being hidden from due to fear of change, or perhaps, the threat from larger, more powerful corporations - corporations who have had their firm grip on our worlds for too long. Not only is the attitude that biology itself is not static at all, but rather something that is malleable and alterable, it also challenges the individualistic and essentialistic ideologies pushed forward by the Enlightenment era thinking; your biology isn't your destiny. To refer back to the previous ‘Bee Orchid’ is an example of how biology and nature itself is ever changing (why can we, as humans, not follow suit?) in a naturalistic sense, however, there are safe and proven scientific technological advancements that allow one to have more control and say over their own body in society, especially in the western world. Hormone therapy and reproductive rights are two examples, and whilst both are incredibly important, there are a myriad of other scientific technological developments that can help people feel more in control and at peace with their physical selves. “Like all manifestations of nature, gender must not be confused with a ‘pure’ and timeless structure’” (Hester, 2018, pg. 39); this is something that we should encourage and be excited about - speculative fabulation.

My Work

Conclusion