In an inter-objective and intra-objective world, the traditionally humanistic “Human” undergoes a profound reconfiguration, shifting away from being a central, autonomous figure to becoming a relational node or process within broader networks of meaning, materiality, and existence. This transformation challenges human exceptionalism and forces a reevaluation of the human’s role within systems that are both human and non-human.
1. The Human in an Inter-Objective World
In the inter-objective framework, the “Human” is no longer a privileged subject but one entity among many, embedded in and mediated by networks of objects, systems, and relations.
Key Implications:
• Decentralization:
• The human is not the sole creator or interpreter of meaning. Instead, meaning arises from the interplay of human and non-human actors (e.g., technologies, environments, infrastructures).
• Example: A person navigating a smart city where algorithms, sensors, and urban structures actively shape behavior and experience.
• Relationality:
• The human exists in co-dependence with non-human systems (social, technological, ecological).
• Example: Climate change highlights the inter-objective entanglements between humans, carbon emissions, and planetary systems.
• Agency Redistribution:
• Agency is no longer exclusively human but distributed across networks.
• Example: The rise of artificial intelligence as a “participant” in decision-making processes challenges the traditional notion of human-centered agency.
2. The Human in an Intra-Objective World
In an intra-objective framework, the “Human” is understood as a self-organizing, intra-active system, where human identity, agency, and experience emerge from internal relational processes.
Key Implications:
• Deconstruction of the Autonomous Self:
• The human is not an isolated, stable subject but a process constituted by intra-actions between thoughts, emotions, biology, and social inputs.
• Example: Neuroplasticity demonstrates how the brain’s structure and function are shaped by its own intra-active processes.
• Emergent Identity:
• Human identity is dynamic and contingent, emerging from intra-active processes rather than being pre-given.
• Example: A person’s sense of self shifts over time, shaped by internal dialogues, memories, and changing contexts.
• Dissolution of Boundaries:
• The human body and mind are porous and intertwined with their environments.
• Example: The microbiome (bacteria in the human body) challenges the boundary between “self” and “other.”
3. What Happens to Humanism?
Traditional humanism, which places the autonomous human subject at the center of the universe, becomes problematic in these frameworks. However, this does not mean abandoning the human entirely but rather rethinking its place:
Post-Humanism:
• Relational Humanism:
• Emphasizes interconnectedness and co-constitution with the non-human.
• Example: A shift in ethics from “human rights” to “rights of all beings” (e.g., environmental ethics, animal rights).
• Distributed Subjectivity:
• Recognizes the human as a part of a larger web of agency and meaning.
• Example: A human interacting with AI systems, where cognition and action are co-produced.
New Ethical Groundings:
• Humility:
• Accepting the human as one among many agents, fostering respect for the non-human.
• Example: Indigenous worldviews often emphasize relationality and interdependence with the natural world.
• Responsibility:
• Recognizing the human’s unique capacity to reflect and act within these networks.
• Example: Addressing the human role in ecological crises while acknowledging systemic entanglements.
4. A Potential Synthesis: The Human as a Mediator
In this reimagined world, the “Human” can still hold significance, not as a dominant figure but as a mediator:
• Mediating between inter-objective systems (e.g., technological and ecological systems).
• Navigating intra-objective processes (e.g., self-awareness, reflection, and creativity).
• Embodying a unique ethical and imaginative capacity to acknowledge entanglements and act responsibly.
Closing Thought:
The “Human” in an inter-objective and intra-objective world is no longer the heroic centerpiece of existence but becomes a participant, interpreter, and witness within a vast web of relations. This redefinition invites a radical humility and a renewed sense of responsibility for how humans engage with both their internal and external worlds.
Would you like to delve deeper into how this perspective might reshape specific humanistic disciplines (e.g., ethics, politics, art)?
