Alien aesthetics: xenofeminism and nonhuman animals
Abstract
The recently published Xenofeminist Manifesto refashions accelerationist politics into radical feminism.
Arguing for a universalist xeno-politics borne out of
alienation, xenofeminists see in nature an arch-enemy,
aligning with the algorithmical intelligence of
technology instead, celebrating artifice and strangeness
as the foundation of revolutionary politics to come. In
this paper, I argue that nature is but a phantom limb tied
to the decaying body of post-Enlightenment modernity.
Following the ontological turn in anthropology, I argue
that by legitimizing constructed dualisms of nature and
technology, xenofeminism fuels the very logic that it
seeks to overrun. Enlisting only with nonhumans that it
perceives as technological, xenofeminism excludes a
number of allies, such as nonhuman animals. Passing
beyond the limits of this nature/culture dualism could
open xenofeminism up to a full spectrum of nonhuman
confederates and lay foundation for speculative
aesthetics for all alien subjects.
Introduction
A recent entanglement of feminism and accerelationism,
xenofeminism marks the most visible cyber- and technooriented insurgence in contemporary feminist theory
since Donna Haraway’s influential A Cyborg Manifesto
[1] and Sadie Plant’s work with the Cybernetic Culture
Research Unit in the 1990s. [2]
Along with the publication of dea ex machina (2015)
[3], which traces the lineage of feminism(s) that take the
machinic state of contemporary existence as their testing
ground, xenofeminism aims to reclaim the liberating
potential of technology and alienation – a freedom to
seize technology rather than a freedom from it. [4]
On the surface, by aligning their revolution exclusively
with the technological dominium, xenofeminism departs
from ecofeminism, perhaps feminism's most visible
discourse from the 1980s until now, which seeks
revolution through reclaiming the connection between
women, nonhuman animals, and the environment.
In this paper, I argue that xenofeminism thwarts its
own emancipatory potential by relying on the same
dualism that informed ecofeminism: that of nature and
technology as disperse entities. Grounding the movement
into this unchallenged, universalized ontological
separation, xenofeminism narrows down the scope of its
metamorphic openness and excludes a number of
revolutionary allies, such as nonhuman animals.
Furthermore, it is only by re-evaluating this
unacknowledged
ontological
predicament
that
xenofeminism could produce a xeno-aesthetics as well as
new forms of subversive subjectivity. Thus, I suggest
that an overturning of this ontological axiom creates a
foundation for a futurist speculation borne out of
alienation, an aesthetic estrangement that cuts across the
category of species.
Accelerate! Alienate!
Xenofeminism’s prosthetic limbs extend in various
directions – its genealogy can be traced back to
cyberfeminist collectives such as VNS Matrix - yet rest
most firmly in the fertile grounds of accerelationism.
Accerelationism is a political movement focused on recutting the Left with blades of rationality and
technology.
Although radical techno-determinist Nick Land, one of
the key members of the Cybernetic Cultures Research
Unit at the University of Warwick, was accerelationism’s
most visible spokesman in the 1990s, xenofeminism
rather affiliates itself with “left-accelerationism,” best
encapsulated by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in
“#Accerelate: Manifesto for an Accerelationist Politics”
(2014). [5]
While global crises are accelerating, they argue, our
theoretical capacity has to accelerate along them in order
to shake off the post-structuralist “paralysis of political
imaginary.” [6]
Heavily critical of by-gone nostalgias such as localism
and direct action, they propose to seize the neoliberal
powers of capital and re-direct them in the interest of
social change. To simplify – push capitalism to its limits
and it will eventually collapse.
For the xenofeminists – xeno denoting “stranger” or
alien - alienation inscribed into technological state is the
condition of this revolutionary possibility. It was Marx
who made alienation a concept central to politics – along
with the automatization of production, he argued, the
working class had nothing to sell but their labor.[7]
Splitting up work into meaningless, minute tasks, the
mass production assembly lines generated alienation,
estranging the workers from their labor with the aid of
technology. For Marx, alienation is the inherent vice of
capitalism, preventing men (sic!) from reaching fruition
and happiness through work.
Yet, as the accelerationists argue in a neo- or postMarxist gesture, even Marx had already noticed that the
means to capitalism’s dissemination were in its own
workings. [8]
Xenofeminism also succumbs to this idea, arguing that
alienation is the “impetus to generate new worlds” and
“the labour of freedom’s construction.” [9]
Unlike in Marx, however, where alienation is the
worker’s forced loneliness, in xenofeminism alienation is
the perpetual state of estrangement that ensures the
fluidity of potentially liberating interactions between
technology and society. In xenofeminism, alienation is
the relation between humans and the inhuman
technology at the expense of “nature,” which the
Xenofeminist Manifesto proclaims the cause of all
injustice: where essentionalized identities – such as
‘female’ or ‘normal’ – are produced.
Alienation here has little do to with loneliness or
individualism – in fact, xenofeminism celebrates the
technologically-enabled communities and platforms of
“connection, organization, and skill-sharing” such as the
Internet. [10]
The point is not to be isolated – the point is to be alien.
Xeno-subjects
A discussion of xenofeminist aesthetics must begin with
the very core of the movement – with the alien. Xenoaesthetics should serve the revolutionary plans
proclaimed in the manifesto, and if they do, one must
ask: who speaks and who is listened to? What kind of
subjects are expressing and expressed in xeno-aesthetics?
How could we define this xeno-subject that is nonessentialized yet able to form groups and alliances?
Dissatisfied with contemporary feminism’s focus on
identity
and
micro-communities,
xenofeminists
affirmatively insists “on the possibility of large-scale
social change for all of our alien kin,” [11] a task that
they recognize demands large-scale, collective labour
that cuts across narrow confines of “natural” identities.
[12]
At this point, it is vital to ask who are these xeno
alienated subjects that enter the space of open-source
feminism in the technological age, and whether there
should be a place for nonhuman subjects – such as
animals - amongst them.
In his review of the recently published accelerationist
reader, [13] Simon O’Sullivan identifies the missing
component, pointing out that the movement fails to
theorize its subjects or methods for the production of
new subjectivities. [14]
“Technology isn’t inherently progressive,” the
Xenofeminist Manifesto asserts, and thus must be linked
to collective politics necessary to fashion it for the
benefit of social emancipation. [15]
Yet can there be a new politics without a subject to
carry out the turmoil? While xenofeminism advocates for
clever
subordination
rather
than
idealistic
insubordination, the deposition of capitalism and its
exploitative practices still remain the desired outcome.
To complete such a task, O’Sullivan argues, “it will not
be enough to take on… a new set of ideas, or put faith
solely in technological process – subjectivity has to be
produced differently.” [16]
While Land’s accelerationism indeed is a politics
without a subject – save for the carnivorous, inhuman,
algorithmic intelligence – xenofeminism seeks, through
its alliance with feminism, an articulation of subjectivity.
In the opening paragraph of the manifesto, xenofeminism
presents itself as the continuation of politics of affinity
instead of identity – a response “through coalition” as
Haraway calls it. [17]
Yet, unlike Haraway, whose further work extended the
cyborg subjectivity to nonhumans such as companion
animals, [18] xenofeminism, while portraying itself as a
universalist politics that is not of benefit to women
exclusively, scales down the mechanisms of affinity to
human beings exclusively.
While the manifesto insist on the necessity of claiming
technology for the subjects that it perceives as
traditionally excluded – “women, queers, and the gender
non-conforming” as well as differently abled - in its plea
to “cut across race, ability, economic standing, and
geopolitical position” it overlooks the category of
species. [19]
While xenofeminism makes for a renewed engagement
with insurgences of the past (and present), its disregard
for nonhuman subjects prevents it from becoming a
futuristic gesture that could indeed construct an
“emancipatory tactics … scaled up for universal
implementation.” [20]
Speaking as no-one? Xeno-animals
Following Donna Haraway, Emma Wilson states that
scientific knowledge has not as much as collapsed the
categories of “human” and “animal” into one but rather
rendered both categories meaningless – neither can be
placed exclusively in the category of “nature” or
“culture.” [21]
While the collapse of the human/animal boundary
poses challenges to previous constructions of human
identity, there has been very little discussion on how
could technology aid in liberating this polluted, nonessentialized animal subject. Can xenofeminism deliver
on its promise of universal liberation for all gendered
subjects without attempting to re-structure the predatory
relation between technology and nonhuman animals?
There exist multiple reasons why female – and male –
nonhuman animals should be woven into the formation
of subversive subjectivities as well as the aesthetics
bound to it. Given the length of paper, I will focus on
farm animals as an example.
First of all, technology created new forms of
oppression with regards to farm animals. This short
paper cannot afford the space to list all of the procedures
performed on female farm animals in industrial farming,
yet it must point out that more often than not, these
practices are highly sexualized. In the dairy industry, for
example, human employees place the cows on what is
commonly referred to as "the rape rack" [22] in order to
artificially inseminate them by pushing pipettes into their
vaginas to deposit the previously collected sperm. [23]
Most often, the calf is quickly taken away from its
mother and slaughtered. Thus, the patterns of abuse in
factory farming are linked not only to specific
technological inventions but also to an individual’s
gendered condition – females, as potential mothers,
would be submitted to different modes of abuse than
males.
Secondly, nonhuman animals are the alienated subjects
par excellence – it is their invisible labor that generates
benefits for other groups. In “Animal Capital: Rendering
Life in Biopolitical Times,” Nicole Shukin describes,
from a Marxist perspective, how sourcing labor from the
technologically confined bodies of nonhuman animals
ties in with the circulation of animals-as-capital. [24]
Without theorizing this alienation, as well as the methods
for re-appropriating the currently exploitative
technology, xenofeminism is not paying attention to all
xeno-subjects.
Finally, without addressing all of alienated, gendered
subjects, xenofeminism will be ill-equipped to provide a
solution to the crises of capitalism of which Williams
and Srnicek list “the breakdown of the planetary climatic
system” and “terminal resource depletion” as the most
substantial. [25] Xenofeminism shares Williams’s and
Srnicek’s anti- or post-capitalist concerns. “Capital,” it
claims, “by design only benefits the few” and its
technological circumstance currently targets “the world’s
poor [who are] laboring under abominable conditions.”
[26]
A great wealth of research has been already amassed
on the relation between factory farming, industrial
fishing, climate change, and poverty. [27] Thus,
reflecting on the relation between technology and
nonhuman animals is instrumental in addressing global
issues that involve everyone.
To sum up, because xenofeminism obeys the strict
division between technology and nature, it automatically
relocates “natural” subjects, such as nonhuman animals,
to the side of enemy at best and resource at worst. The
first step to be taken in the inclusion of nonhuman
animals is the demolition of dualisms that separate nature
from technology and thus create oppressive hierarchies
that mimic patriarchal, Eurocentric, and colonial
structures that gave birth to them. Placing itself at this
modern partition, xenofeminism cannot speak from a
metamorphic, non-essentialized point-of-view of no one
in particular that it aims for. [28]
Instead, it speaks from a consolidated and exclusive
position of power.
Natural technologies
“Accelerationism is a political heresy,” write Robin
Mackay and Armen Avanessian. [29] What is heresy if
not the very denial of naturalized ontologies,
unchallenged norms and axioms?
Donna Haraway captures this rebellious impulse in
other words: “Blasphemy protects one from the moral
majority within, while still insisting on the need for
community.” [30]
Xenofeminism also needs long-term collective labor
that cuts across identities in order to ripen. To envision a
xenofeminist aesthetics is to address the entanglement
that forms the movement's political kernel – xenosubjectivity built on the separation of nature and culture.
Thus, producing an inclusive, xenofeminist aesthetics
that would be open to all of alien subjects is a two-step
process: first, acknowledge the ontology that fuels the
production of xenofeminist subjectivity in order to create
space for nonhumans. Secondly, fill that space with
aesthetic speculation in order to produce new alien
subjectivities.
To rise above the partition of nature and technology,
we must retort to ontological investigations, which are
currently nowhere as thorough as in contemporary
anthropology. The essentialist separation of nature and
technology is a twin of another, more fundamental
divorce – that between nature and culture.
Emerging in the 1980s as a critique of ethnographic
politics of representation, the ontological turn contests
the once dominant view of different cultures as simply
divergent representations of one, objectively existing
Nature. [31] It insists that we should rather recognize
the existence of multiple worlds (ontologies) rather than
position the one we were born into as the objective onto
which other worlds map.
In Phillipe Descola’s categorization, based on years of
ethnographic research, there exist four ontologies that
delineate the relations between humans and nonhumans:
naturalism, animism, totemism, and analogism. [32]
Upheld through practice rather than belief, these
relations “exist under the form of mental structures,
partly innate, partly stemming from the properties of
social life.” [33]
In naturalism, the ontology that Descola allocates to
post-Enlightenment modernity, there exists a strict divide
between natural laws and symbolic, cultural, or
technological structures. Humans are presumed to be
exceptional in that they are the sole possessors of an
interiority, their bodies tying them to the nonhuman
world only by the virtue of shared physicality.
The engagement with nature as a discursive and geolocated concept is missing from the Xenofeminist
Manifesto. “We find,” it states “that our normative antinaturalism has pushed us towards an unflinching
ontological naturalism. There is nothing…that cannot be
studied scientifically.” [34] While this statement reveals
an entanglement of two different naturalisms – the first is
the colloquial “natural order of things” that punishes all
that is perceives an “unnatural,” and the second a
rationalist philosophy à la John Dewey, it does not
localize, explain or engage with the separation of
technology and nature through which xenofeminism
amasses its accusatory and revolutionary capital alike.
In this way, it departs from its roots in the writing of
cyborg feminists such as Haraway, for whom “the
historically specific human relations with ’nature’
must… be imagined as genuinely social.” [35]
In other words, the giveness of nature as the realm
beyond technology is the unexamined condition of
xenofeminism, one that prevents it from offering a truly
inclusive politics for all alienated subjects.
Producing subjectivities: alien aesthetics
How to remedy this ontological partition that leaves
nonhuman animals behind as the revolution marches on?
Xenofeminism, hinging on the imagery of cyberpunk,
hacktivism, and techno-futurism is a fabulatory exercise
of world-building in practice. Defining itself as an “open
source software… available for perpetual modification
and enhancement” [36] that “seeks to strategically
deploy existing technologies to re-engineer the world,”
[37] xenofeminism ties in with Williams’s and Srnicek’s
proposal that “acceleration [is] navigational…
experimental…within a universal space of possibility.”
[38] Thus, xenofeminist aesthetics should be nothing
short of speculative.
So far, there have been only a few explicit
engagements with the notion of accelerationist
aesthetics. While I argued above that the unaddressed
ontological premise interferes with producing a full
spectrum of xenofeminist subjects, Steven Shaviro
extends the problematic of ontology in accelerationism
even further. For Shaviro, aesthetics is ontology.
Accelerationist aesthetics, he argues, are spectral,
insubstantial, determined in the last instance.
"Accelerationism in philosophy," he writes, "offers us, at
best, an exacerbated awareness of how we are trapped."
[39]
When everything is subsumed under capitalism,
accelerationist aesthetics operate from the inside, with no
hopes for overturning the system. Instead, they produce
safe distance, cruel truth: we have already lost.
Accelerationist aesthetics should then allow us the
possibility of smiling at other prisoners as we are
suspended in an ever-expanding, excessive prison of
inhuman forces. Thus, the goal of art nowadays is not to
soothe us but rather to confirm that we are not insane:
the unease we feel is well-justified.
In his article on geo-political accelerationist aesthetics,
Benjamin Bratton notes that "it is not possible to
distinguish between what is existential risk and what is
an absolute invention, and what is both at once, and
mobilize 'positions' accordingly." [40]
In other words, we are now living under conditions that
demand a continuous mobilization of speculative
resources as if our lives depended on it – because they
might. Although Bratton proposes a planetary, cosmic
aesthetics, his arguments could also apply to aesthetics
inclusive of nonhuman animals:
The post-Anthropocene indicates that the
organizing work of a “xenogeopolitical
aesthetics” (or whatever) can be done only in
relation to a mature alienation from human
history and anthropocentric time and scale. As it
foreshadows and foregrounds the eclipse and
extinction of Anthropocenic anthropology and
corresponding models of governance, it
establishes not only that humanism disappears
with humans, and vice versa, but that the more
elemental genetic machines with which we now
co-embody flesh can and will, in time, re-appear
and express themselves as unthinkable new
animal machines, and with them, New Earths.
[41]
In a similar manner, Patricia MacCormack argues that
"the political role of aesthetics could [be] to catalyze
inhuman affective relations that are still to come."[42]
What then of xenofeminist aesthetics?
Following Shaviro, I would argue that a shift in
ontology would initiate an aesthetic change of gears.
Descola's ontologies are not fixed, they escape the
boundaries of time, space or identity formations – they
are simply descriptions of how humans and nonhumans
connect and disconnect on the axes of social practice.
Once naturalism is recognized for what is it – one
ontology among many – we may begin experimenting
with the other three, or maybe even draft a new one.
Descola acknowledges the potential of aesthetics to
speculate and travel within ontologies: " art, or certain
kinds of reflexive thought, or philosophy, enjoy a certain
degree of freedom, which affords the possibility of
stepping into different ontologies, divorced from the
once in which you were born." [43]
There have already been attempts at entering – through
aesthetic practice and philosophical or artistic
speculation – to experiment within ontologies in order to
re-construct social practice. For example, for Felix
Guattari animism, the ontology that Descola defines as
the opposite of naturalism, is characteristic of anyone
who enters the modality of passion, artistic creation or
madness. [44] In Guattari's work, animism is achieved
through neurotic phenomena, religious rituals or
aesthetic phenomen; a state of estrangement within the
self and a sense of community outside of the self. This
could be only the beginning of an inclusive xeno-politics
to come.
In xenofeminism, nothing is original. There is no
original human hiding beneath the layers of avatars and
code. To extend xenofeminism to its logical
consequences, we perhaps need to start acknowledging
that there might be no original animal under the layers of
disinfectants, hormones and vaccines, fences and creeps,
artificial light cycles, selective breeding and confinement
cells. Drawing a politics for the future can only begin
when the disappearance of nature is recognized with
regards to the nonhuman animal. To mobilize the
aesthetics and speculative powers of technology –
whether through research, art, design or environmental
architecture – in the service of cross-species xenosubjects would lay groundwork for a truly futurist
politics, where the currently unmapped regions of
thought and practice could house revolutionary impulses.
Xenofeminism demands: “If nature is unjust, change
nature.” [45] Perhaps this is not enough – perhaps if
nature is unjust, we need to erase it.
References
1. Thomas H. Corman, Algorithms Unlocked (Cambridge and
London: MIT Press, 2013), 40. [1] Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg
Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the
LateTwentieth Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:
The Reinvention of Nature (Free Association Books, 1991).
[2] Sadie Plant, Zeros and ones: digital women and the new
technoculture (Doubleday, 1997).
[3] Armen Avanessian and Helen Hester, ed. Dea Ex Machina.
(Merve Verlag Berlin, 2015).
[4] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 2
(0x14). Republished by AnarchoTranshuman. Access date
1/01/2016. http://anarchotranshuman.org/
[5] Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, “#Accelerate: Manifesto
for an Accelerationist Politics,” in #Accelerate# The
Accelerationist Reader, edited by Robin Mackay and Armen
Avanessian. Urbanomic Media Ltd, 2014, 349-362.
[6] Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, “#Accelerate: Manifesto
for an Accelerationist Politics,” 349.
[7] Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
(Progress Publishers, 1959).
[8] Benjamin Noys, The Persistence of the Negative: A
Critique of Contemporary Theory (Edinburgh University Press,
2010), 5.
[9] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 13
(0x01).
[10] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 4
(0x0C).
[11] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 3
(0x0A).
[12] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 3
(0x09).
[13] Ed. Robin Mackay and Armen Avanessian #Accelerate#
The Accelerationist Reader (Urbanomic Media Ltd, 2014).
[14] Simon O’Sullivan, “The Missing Subject of
Accelerationism,” Mute: published 12/09/2012. Access date
1/01/2012.
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/missing-subjectaccelerationism
[15] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 12
(0x02).
[16] Simon O’Sullivan, “The Missing Subject of
Accelerationism,” Mute: published 12/09/2012. Access date
1/01/2012.
[17] Donna Haraway, Simians, 155.
[18] Donna Haraway, When Species Meet (University of
Minnesota Press, 2007).
[19] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 12
(0x02).
[20] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 3
(0x0A).
[21] Emma E. Wilson, “Cyborg Anamnesis: #Accelerate’s
Feminist Prototypes.” Platform: Journal of Media and
Communication, A Manifesto for Cyborgs thirty years on:
Gender, technology and feminist technoscience in the twentyfirst century, Volume 6.2., 2015, 36.
[22] James McWilliams, "Milk of Human Kindness Denied to
Dairy Cows," Forbes Food & Drink, October 25, 2013,
accessed January 2, 2016.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmcwilliams/2013/10/25/milk
-of-human-kindness-denied-to-dairy-cows/
[23] R.A. McIntosh, "Artificial Insemination in Cows."
Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science, August 1942, 6
(8), 239-241.
[24] Nicole Shukin, Animal Capital: Rendering Life in
Biopolitical Times (University of Minnesota Press, 2009).
[25] Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, “#Accelerate: Manifesto
for an Accelerationist Politics,” in #Accelerate# The
Accelerationist Reader, edited by Robin Mackay and Armen
Avanessian. Urbanomic Media Ltd, 2014, 349.
[26] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 2
(0x08).
[27] Tony Weis, The Ecological Hoofprint: The Global Burden
of Industrial Livestock (Zed Books, 2013).
[28] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 2
(0x08).
[29] Robin Mackay and Armen Avanessian, "Introduction” in
#Accelerate# The Accelerationist Reader, edited by Robin
Mackay and Armen Avanessian. Urbanomic Media Ltd, 2014,
4.
[30] Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science,
Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the LateTwentieth
Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention
of Nature (Free Association Books, 1991), 149.
[31] Soumhya Vankatsen, “Ontology is just another word for
culture: Motion tabled at the 2008 meeting of the group for
debates in anthropological theory, University of Manchester.”
Critique of Anthropology, 2012, 30 (3), pp. 152-200.
[32] Philippe Descola, Beyond Nature and Culture (University
of Chicago Press, 2013).
[33] Philippe Descola, The Ecology of Others (University of
Chicago Press, 2013), 87.
[34] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 8
(0x11).
[35] Donna Haraway, Simians, 3.
[36] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 7
(0x10).
[37] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 12
(0x02).
[38] Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, “#Accelerate," 352.
[39] Steven Shaviro, "Accelerationist Aesthetics: Necessary
Inefficiency in Times of Real Subsumption," e-flux, no. 46,
06/2013. Access date 3/01/2016. http://www.eflux.com/journal/accelerationist-aesthetics-necessaryinefficiency-in-times-of-real-subsumption/
[40] Benjamin Bratton, "Some Trace Effects of the PostAnthropocene: On Accelerationist Geopolitical Aesthetics," eflux, no. 46, 06/2013. Acess date 3/01/2016. http://www.eflux.com/journal/accelerationist-aesthetics-necessaryinefficiency-in-times-of-real-subsumption/
[41] Ibidem.
[42] Patricia MacCormack, "Cosmogenic Acceleration:
Futurity and Ethics," e-flux, no. 46, 06/2013. Acess date
3/01/2016. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/cosmogenicacceleration-futurity-and-ethics/
[43] Eduardo Kohn, "A Conversation with Philippe Descola,"
Tipiti: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland
South America, Vol.7, Iss.2, Article 1, 2009, 143.
[44] Felix Guattari, Chaosmosis: An Ethicoaesthetic Paradigm
(Indiana University Press, 1995), 101.
[45] Laboria Cuboniks, “The Xenofeminist Manifesto,” 13
(0x1A).