Journal of Consumer Behaviour

J. Consumer Behav. 9: 86–101 (2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.306

The posthuman: the end and the

beginning of the human
Norah Campbell 1*, Aidan O’Driscoll 2 and Michael Saren 3
1
School of Business, Room 3.22, Trinity College, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
2
School of Marketing, Dublin Institute of Technology, Aungier St., Dublin 2, Ireland
3
University of Leicester Management School, Room 511, Ken Edwards Building, University of
Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

 Posthumanism is used as a collective term to understand ‘‘any discursive or bodily

configuration that displaces the human, humanism, and the humanities’’ (Halber-
stam and Livingston 1995:vii, emphasis added). There are compelling reasons for
introducing posthumanism to consumer research. Consumer research often theorises
technology as an externalised instrument that the human creates, uses, and controls.
In the 21st century we are beginning to realise that, far from being a mere tool,
technology is the centre of critical thought about culture and about nature. It has
recently been suggested that marketing and consumer research now need to think
about technology in a manner which reflects its ubiquity, its deeper symbolic and
aesthetic dimensions, and the ways in which it can radically change humanness and
human-centred approaches to researching the world. Posthumanism is fundamental
to theorising humanness in an era that is witnessing the complexification of new
technologies. To follow a posthuman mode of thinking will lead to important ethical
and metaphysical insights.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction how interpretative consumer research might

benefit by questioning the inherited, western
Humanistic inquiry has opened new vistas in
and ideological basis of humanism by acknowl-
consumer research because of its focus on
edging other, posthuman modes of existence.
‘some aspect of human nature, creativity or
life’ (Hirschman, 1986; Stern, 1989: 322; Stern
and Schroeder, 1994). However, humanistic
inquiry valourises an implicit worldview The posthuman: a structure
which limits understanding and discovery in of feeling
consumer research. In this paper we examine The cultural theorist Williams (1977) talks about
the strange way in which a sense of an era starts
*Correspondence to: Dr Norah Campbell, School of to be experienced in the social imagination.
Business, Trinity College, College Green, Dublin 2,
Ireland. Social forms are much more recognisable when
E-mail: [email protected] we have had some time to classify them,

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 87

articulate them and theorise them. We can point So resilient and seemingly undeconstructible is
to times in the past and say ‘that was an the idea of the ‘human’ that the fact it
Enlightenment sensibility’; ‘they were the has changed radically over time goes largely
Romantics’ or more recently, ‘that was post- unnoticed. Throughout intellectual history,
modernism’. But sensing the here and now, many modes of knowledge – from philology
articulating what is actually being lived at the to neuroscience, philosophy to evolutionary
present moment, are difficult things to do. This psychology, anthropology to molecular
type of ‘practical consciousness’, which pro- biology, psychoanalysis to bioinformatics,
vides an ineffable sense of a period, always exists management science to legal theory – have
at an ‘embryonic stage’; at the ‘very edge of in various ways attempted to comprehend
semantic availability’. It has yet to become ‘fully what it means to be human. In what seems like
articulate and defined exchange’. This, Williams an esoteric venture, what is the purpose of an
argues, is a ‘structure of feeling’ (Williams, 1977: inquiry into the concept of humanness?
130–135). In the contemporary west, longstanding
Structures of feeling are general and wide- notions of what it means to be human are
ranging sensibilities. Williams notes that undergoing intense philosophical, scientific,
changes in language, or buildings, or dress from technological and political interrogation. Some
generation to generation reflect changing of these attacks are happening so unexpect-
structures of feeling, but it is most often in art edly and developing so quickly that it is
and literature that the first indications of new difficult to theorise them as fully-formed
social experience are articulated. What structure knowledges and phenomena. Genomics, glo-
of feeling is forming in the contemporary bal finance and the nature of the social in
western world? The art of Stelarc and Bob virtual communities are only three divergent
Flanagan, the films of David Cronenberg or the phenomena that produce yet-to-be formalised
literature of Thomas Pynchon and John Updike paradigms of human experience. For the sake
are afloat in the social imaginary. We begin to of brevity, let us take the cases of two divergent
hear terms like ‘postbiological’, ‘postcorporeal’, disciplines to highlight how they have met
‘cyborg existence’ and ‘Bodies-Without-Organs’. with radical change in the face of new
Even as we grasp to understand the new challenges to what it means to be human –
sciences of complexity, nanotechnology and the disciplines of law and genomics.
genomics, we are inundated with ever newer As the arbiter of human rights, legal theory is
ones of synthetic biology, neurobotics and DNA of course fundamentally concerned with what
computation. In philosophy, Gilles Deleuze and it means to be human. However, advances in
Donna Haraway talk about ‘desiring machines’ technology over the past twenty years have
and ‘companion species’. In what ways do all fractured the concept of the legal self. In the
these derealise the borders between science and classical world, there was no concept of
fantasy? The natural and the artificial? The ‘human’ as a species. The word comes from
human and the nonhuman? In the contemporary Cicero’s humanitas – a legal term used by the
industrialised west, a new structure of feeling is public in ancient Rome to distinguish the
emerging – it is the posthuman. Romans and Greeks from the Barbarians
(Douzinas, 2006). This was the extent of the
taxonomies of the human species at this time.
So you think you’re human? It is interesting that since then, the term has
continued to be used as an exclusionary device
‘‘Humanity is in peril: not from the familiar around which battles – political and ethical,
menace of ‘mass destruction’ and ecologi- ancient and modern – concerning the inside
cal overkill – but from a conceptual threat.’’ and the outside, the human and the nonhuman
have raged. When 21st century high-technol-
(Fernández-Armesto (2005: 1). ogies enter this scene, the question of what it

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
88 Norah Campbell et al.

means to be human undermines modern legal

judgments. The technological complexifica-
tion of the state of humanness has made it
profoundly difficult to apply traditional law,
ranging from cases of humans in persistent
vegetative states (Protevi, 2006), the commodi-
fication and international trade of human organs
(Hables Gray, 2001; Scheper-Hughes, 2001), the
Human Genome Project (Waldby, 1995, 2000),
transsexuality (Stone, 1997; Stryker, 2000) and
xenotransplantation (Waldby and Squier, 2003).
In all cases, humanness is not a simple, a priori
state; it is in perpetual motion, fractured across
legal jurisdictions, technologies and markets.
In genomics, speciation has radically dis-
placed our western, (ethnocentric), inherited
sense of humanness. The ascendant ‘Tree of
Life’ which placed the human at the pinnacle
of creation (Figure 1) has been very recently
replaced by a model that classifies species
according to DNA. This method first of all
disregards morphological type (i.e. how
elements of a body appear), and secondly,
but more importantly, reveals the human to be
a tiny subspecies in a mass of absolute diversity
(Figure 2). We begin to understand ‘how truly
marginal most of what we have long called Figure 1. Ernst Haeckel (1879) The Tree of Life
(Wertheim, 2007: 57)
‘life’’ is within the grand scheme of nature’
(Wertheim, 2007: 56). Look at the radical
displacement of the human in the second
model. Many of these strange life-forms from classical philosophy, which was then
documented are microscopic, and many of scientised for a modern audience by Descartes
the archaea are very recent discoveries, and yet in the 17th century. The resulting discourse of
in each of these domains are creatures as humanism is predicated on fundamental
different from one another ‘as a giraffe is from a assumptions about the human – assumptions
mushroom’ (Wertheim, 2007: 55). The point which are rarely questioned because they are
that we are making here is that over the past 15 seen as a totally transparent, secular, scientific
years the social and cultural sciences have in and liberal way of thinking about the world.
different ways been profoundly influenced However, humanism is an ideologically loaded
by the ‘overspill’ of radical technoscientific and multifaceted concept, taken variously to
thinking into cultural and sociological theories mean a belief in progress, the technological
about bodies, minds and environments. How mastery over nature, the separation of the
will consumer research respond to the ‘tech- human and the animal, a therapeutic approach
nological unconscious’ (Thrift, 2005)? to human behaviour and a secular approach to
scientific inquiry. Two things are important
here. Firstly, humanism is not a universal,
Humanism
ahistorical constant. As Davies (1997: 25)
The assertion of the special status of the human points out, the notion of humanism – of ‘an
is rooted in a powerful model that emerged essential humanism unconditioned by time,

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 89

Figure 2. DNA-based Tree of Life 1992, in Wertheim (2007: 58)

place or circumstance’ – is a 19th century As Davies (1997), Soper (1986) and Williams
anachronism. But it is an anachronism that is (1976) point out, two ‘humanisms’ developed
‘still deeply ingrained in contemporary self- in the 19th century and beyond – interacting
consciousness and everyday common sense, to with each other to produce the polyvalence of
the extent that it requires a conscious effort, humanisms we encounter today. One, French
every time someone appeals to ‘human nature’ in origin and political in purpose, consisted of a
or ‘the human condition’, to recall how recent view of the human as the ‘hero of liberty’. The
such notions are, and how specific to a other, philosophical in direction and German
particular history and point of view, and in origin, was a view that embraced education
how odd it would seem, in cultures historically and knowledge as the key to human freedom
or ethnologically unlike our own, to separate and cooperation. This translated into the
out and privilege ‘Man’ in this way’. atheist tradition of scientific positivism, with

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
90 Norah Campbell et al.

proponents such as August Comte, who a series of fundamental, unproven assumptions

argued that the universe can only be under- about the world; assumptions which are
stood when the scientific exploration of ingrained in western culture and society:
phenomena was separated from supernatural
superstition (Venn, 2006). . . . all problems are soluble. . . All problems
The very term ‘humanist’ is almost univer- are soluble by people. . . Many problems
sally used to describe any ethical project that are soluble by technology. . . Those pro-
implicitly expresses the belief that society is blems that are not soluble by technology,
inherently progressive. Humanists tend to or by technology alone, have solutions in
believe that the world is, by and large, moving the social world (of politics, economics etc.)
towards increasing civilisation and progress. . . . When the chips are down, we will apply
Technology is gradually improving the human ourselves and work together for a solution
lot throughout the world. Indeed, few nuanced before it is too late. . . Some resources that
critiques of humanism exist. We make the case are finite or limited have substitutes. . .
that humanism needs to be deconstructed, not Human civilization will survive
in a blithe, postmodern or discursive way; . . . In this Age of Ironies this must be the
rather, the definitions of what it means to be greatest irony of all: humanism, which
human are of life-changing importance to proclaims and celebrates the critical intel-
stakeholders, and humanism’s supposed uni- ligence of humanity, has in the last
versality and transparency masks the fact that it analysis failed to invoke it where it is
is an inherited, western and relatively recent needed most, to test humanism’s own faith
philosophical perspective of the world. For by appraising the success of our inter-
example, while progress is lauded as a central actions with our environment.
tenet of humanism, it is implicitly conceived as
(Ehrenfeld, 1981: 16–19)
a technological, instrumental and profit-
oriented version of progress. It is especially
true that in times of great ‘human progress’, By the 1980s, it was acknowledged that
human rights, ecological states and animal embracing the disciplines of the humanities
welfare can seriously suffer, so it all depends could open marketing and consumer research
on what the term ‘progress’ means, and for to new vistas of inquiry, by focusing on ‘some
whom. For example, the revolutionary dis- aspect of human nature, creativity or life’. The
course of human rights, inaugurated in the humanist turn was singularly responsible for a
18th century by works like Rousseau’s Social more ecological attitude in consumer research
Contract (1792) and Thomas Paine’s Rights of – ecological in the sense of a discipline that is
Man (1791–1792) posited the idea of an both expanding and integrating (Hirschman,
essential humanism that was universal to all, 1986; Stern, 1989: 322; Stern and Schroeder,
simultaneously undermined the very notion. 1994). Humanistic inquiry has opened the field
By defining universal man, the exceptions to of marketing and consumer behaviour to a
the universal came flooding to the surface; the wider field of inquiry; the human in consumer
universal rights of woman, or of the slave, had research is no longer regarded as a disembo-
to be continually repressed in order to protect died information-processor with a rationalistic
and enhance the rights of universal man. Such identity and a computational approach to the
a dynamic – where universal rights and market. Humans began to be regarded as
protection depends on a logic of exclusion – culturally inflected, psychosocial producers of
is still of course in existence today, from the and produced by the market. But as we have
Guantánamo detention camps to the homeland seen, humanism contains an implicit world-
rights of Palestine. view. How can interpretative consumer
Ehrenfeld’s powerful critique of humanism research benefit from a perspective which
in 1981 argues that humanists take for granted acknowledges this ideology of humanism?

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 91

The posthuman: The end and the from posthuman thought is the cybernetic
beginning of the human organism, or ‘cyborg’, which, like the posthu-
man, has been associated with liberatory modes
The posthuman has been called ‘one of the of identity, as well as repressive ones. We could
most important concepts in contemporary thus argue that posthumanism is not new, but
literary theory, science studies, political phil- the range of posthumanisms that are produced
osophy, the sociology of the body, cultural and in this era of high-technology are new, and
film studies, and even art theory’ (Gane, 2006: deploy new modes of conceptualising human-
431). It is a term associated with celebratory ness. There exist political and ethical reasons for
declarations of the end of humanity as we doing so. In a very real way, technology decon-
know it, heralding an era when human being structs everyday human experience of agency,
will be superseded by technical being, which, free will, choice and self, the repercussions of
ironically, promises to vouchsafe human being which extend the sphere of ordinary, daily life
for eternity (Moravec, 1990; Pepperell, 1999; and of course practices of consumption.
Stelarc, 2006). This blend of posthumanism In the 21st century, we are beginning to
has been met with alarm (Fukuyama, 2002; realise that technology is at the centre of
McKibben, 2004; Winner, 2002). critical thought about culture and about
But the term posthuman has been used in nature. It has replaced religion and psychology
more than this obvious way. The term ‘posthu- as the main source of models for how the mind,
man’ has been used to describe anything which body and universe work (Rutsky, 1999; Davis,
extends human capacity – so, ironically, some- 1999). It has recently been suggested that
thing as ubiquitous, banal, ancient and human consumer research now needs to think about
as tool-use could itself be described as ‘posthu- technology in a manner which reflects its
man’ (Hayles, 1999; Stiegler, 1998; Wills, 2009). ubiquity, its deeper symbolic and aesthetic
Seen in this way, the ‘posthuman’ is as ancient as dimensions and the ways in which it can
the human itself. The posthuman is not an radically change humanness and human-
Enlightenment-style project to rectify human- centred approaches to researching the world
isms failure – to imagine it repeats a humanist (Berthon et al. 2005; Giesler and Venkatesh,
tendency to imagine discrete eras of linear 2005; Venkatesh and Meamber, 2006; Zwick
progressiveness. The posthuman is at once a and Dholakia, 2006; Campbell, 2008; Kozinets
radical recognition that the technological is an 2008). Such a shift in theorisation is already
originary logic, and an ethical sensibility – a well under way in social and cultural theory.
stepping-out of the enclosure of what is only
important and necessary to the human. Instead
of a temporal, ‘coming-after’ stage of humanity,
An agenda for posthuman
posthumanism might be more usefully seen as a
consumer research
concept that draws attention to the cracks that
have always existed in the water-tight descrip- For the most part, consumer research contains
tions of the human – how the ‘human’ has an explicit or implicit model of the human –
changed radically and continues to change either as an information processor, cognitive
radically over time. Importantly, the term has subject or cultural subject – all of which are
also been used to describe a liberatory ethics derived from humanistic epistemology (Giesler
which radically displaces the human as the and Venkatesh, 2005). Indeed, is it not amazing
centre of meaning-making (Haraway, 1991; that after billions of years and an infinity of
Braidotti, 2006; Wolfe, 2010). The posthuman practices, the complexity of life has been
is the ethical and radical realisation that the subsumed into just three models?
human only comes into existence by the work How could the posthuman as an orientation
of nonhuman Others, both organic and techno- be valuable to interpretative consumer
logical. One well-known figuration that emerges research? The list detailed below is not

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
92 Norah Campbell et al.

exhaustive; it is eclectic, and only addresses At its most obvious level, a posthuman
some of the range of applications. In it, we orientation may be useful because first and
argue that a posthuman view asks us to widen foremost it advocates a focus on deep-future
the temporal range of consumer research, and concerns. Innovation – or the development of
provide a focus for researchers who are incremental advances in products and services
interested not just in the immediate future, – is increasingly supplemented with a more
but the deep future, that is the future of the radical focus on deep-future technologies and
planet and humanity’s role in it in hundreds of their impact on consumer phenomenology.
years from now. Further, the posthuman could Take for example BT’s ‘Futurology Unit’ – a
take the form of an ethical inquiry, where the think-tank within the BT group which for-
human is no longer the centre of the world. By mulates and assesses views and predictions of
considering other perspectives that are not the future. Its head consultant Ian Pearson
‘purely human’ or ‘purely animal’ or ‘purely recently stated that ‘[r]ealistically, by 2050, we
machine’, new modalities of existence are would expect to be able to download your
produced that need new methods of examin- mind into a machine so when you die it is not a
ation. This might mean that consumer research major problem’. Virgin’s suborbital travel
would concentrate on the objects that humans airline Virgin Galactic offers commercial flights
have relationships with, and think through into suborbital space, with a 2012 start date
new methods and theories to account for and a s200 000 price tag. Virgin Health Bank
them. Also, the posthuman might encourage now offers a public and private storage bank
consumer research to think about the ontology for consumers’ stem cells, because while ‘[i]t’s
of technology. Finally, the posthuman might important to remember that the promise of
contribute to a debate about the most regenerative medicine is not here today. . .we –
prevalent contemporary discourse of the and, more importantly, many expert scientists
relationship of the human to the nonhuman and doctors – passionately believe in its
– that of sustainability. potential’. What does this cursory glance at
the orientation of a few multinationals tell us?
In an obvious way, a posthuman approach to
Consumer research and the deep
consumer behaviour is indispensable because
future
it recognises the technological complexifica-
If the 20th century was the ‘century of the tion of people’s lives, and is oriented to
gene’ (Fox-Keller, 2002), the end of the 21st explore the impact of such deep-future
century will be awash with postgenetic technologies on consumer phenomenology.
metaphors, materials and philosophies from
which to choose a defining moniker. It is
important to acknowledge that it is as yet
Aliveness of things
impossible to guess even the nature of what
such metaphors might be. Some artificial Russell Belk’s (1988) article ‘Possessions and
intelligent theorists declare that the west is the Extended Self’ is set against a backdrop of
now undergoing two simultaneous revolutions humanistic inquiry in marketing and consumer
that will out-scale the agricultural, industrial behaviour – one that began to address the area
and information revolutions put together – the of agency in nonanimate entities. While the
robotics revolution and the biotechnology concept of ‘extension’ still configures a
revolution, the nascent stages of which Cartesian subject at the centre of the world
humanity is only beginning to experience who imbues nonhuman things with meaning,
(Brooks, 2002). This realisation is so broad in Belk’s research constituted a first step in
its effects and so deep in its consequences that consumer behaviour towards thinking of the
it could come to define consumer research in importance of the ‘object’ world. Since this
this century. time, consumer researchers have taken the cue

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 93

from bodies of work in new disciplines such as consumer objects and brands, a ‘theory of the
Science and Technology Studies and Cultural consumption object itself still eludes’ consumer
Studies (especially cited in consumer research research (Zwick and Dholakia, 2006: 45–6). As
is the work of Appadurai, 1986; Beck et al. Borgerson (2005) correctly points out, inter-
1994 and Lury, 2004), consumer research has pretative consumer research has not yet
begun to develop an outlook that things are engaged with what the consumer actually is,
just as complex and social as people. what consumer objects actually are. For
Such a theoretical position allows alternative, example, when we say that consumers are
surprising perspectives to emerge. For example, ‘transformed’ or ‘emancipated’ by consumer
brands are now sometimes understood in this objects, what does this actually mean? (Borger-
‘posthumanist’ way – as entities that talk to and son, 2005: 439). Zwick and Dholakia (2006: 45–
interact with other brands (Schroeder and 6) point out that ‘[w]ithout exception, relation-
Salzer-Mörling, 2006), or entities that form ships between consumers and objects are
relationships with humans (Fournier, 1998). theorized from the perspective of the consumer,
Through anthropomorphism, interpretivist con- and from that vantage point, the ontological
sumer researchers have found a way to imbue status of the object depends on the needs,
brands and other consumption objects with desires and characteristics of the consu-
human or life-like qualities. This is important, mer. . .dependent on the personal history and
because it troubles the border between the alive cultural heritage. . .’. While there are exceptions
and the nonalive worlds, which leads us to to this claim, as we will examine shortly, the
question a humanist framework which con- point Zwick and Dholakia make still stands: to
ceives them as separate. However, there are an overwhelming extent, consumer research
limits to anthropomorphism. By subsuming all focuses on the ontological and epistemological
(nonhuman) worlds into our very limited and givens of only one entity: the consumer.
humanist notions of life, there is the possibility The sociologist of technology Turkle (1985,
that we miss the point again. For example, 1996) adopts an alternative conceptual
Haraway and Gane (2006) acknowledges that horizon to theorising how consumers change
critical work which anthropomorphises the through their relationship with the nonhuman.
nonhuman is vital, (here we could think about The technologies she studies change the
the work of animal rights activism or envir- nature of knowledge and consciousness of
onmentalism), but, as she points out, we do not the younger generations with whom she
yet know how to access, let alone account for, engages – a change that is fundamentally
the whole nonhuman world except through the different to older generations. For example
rather old, unwieldy and undeveloped strategy that children view certain objects in the world
of anthropomorphism. Radically new strategies around them as having ‘degrees of aliveness’.
of doing this, new ‘category work’, needs to be Children who have grown up with computers
initiated (Haraway, 2008). For consumer do not experience a dichotomy between
research, we must ask ourselves whether we biological and computational processes. When
can think of the living beyond the narrow children play with objects like the Transfor-
conception of humanist life. Many forms of life mer toy, the toy ‘shift[s] from being machines
exist in the world of consumption that cannot to being robots to being animals (and some-
be adequately explained through anthropo- times people). Children playing with these
morphism. How can we imagine the different toys are learning about the potentially fluid
‘lives’ that seem to exist in on the edges of boundaries between mechanism and flesh’
simple humanist life? For example, the ‘massive’ (Turkle, 1996: 62).
life of the market, the ‘excessive’ life of the Objects existing in the world like the
brand image or the ‘virtual’ life of Facebook? computer and the television are emblematic
Despite isolated attempts to theorise the of how humanistic inquiry – with its separation
importance of nonhuman entities such as of human and nonhuman, bounded and

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
94 Norah Campbell et al.

unbounded, material and discursive – is an not mere consumer–object interactions, but

inadequate analytical philosophy. Turkle ‘figures’ which are difficult to assign to the side
(1996: 22) for example notes the ontological of the human or the side of the nonhuman. In
stickiness of the computer, which is ‘a mind their research, figures emerge which are not
that is not yet a mind. . .inanimate yet inter- bounded, easily understood and separate
active. . .It does not think, yet neither is it ‘bodies’ of humans, dogs and technologies,
external to thought’. For their part, Menser and but rather ‘constructions of identities, bodies,
Aronowitz (1996: 18) show how the television practices and objects that make up how a
is ‘a complex object, constituted by and related particular cultural actor (in this case the
to many fields, from solid-state physics to Afghan hound) takes shape as a specific entity’
politics’ (see also ; Latour, 1992; Kittler, 1999; (Bettany and Daly, 2008: 410). The amalgam of
Sconce, 2000). Such a way of theorising is not ‘hu/dog’ is an example of such a figure – an
merely interesting; it is a precondition of an era entity which is produced through humans,
where radically new technologies produce dogs and technologies (Haraway, 2003, 2008).
entities as indefinable, complex and global as The hu/dog is a figure that repositions humans
the Human Genome Project, biofuel, supply- not as static, distinct entities, but ‘mutual
chains or climate change models. The job of becomings’ – a way of understanding that
separating the human from the nonhuman in seems more precise and realistic than ‘separate
an attempt to show how ‘each’ ‘affects’ the entities that have a relationship with each
other, seems increasingly untenable. other where the analytical focus is on the
Like Sherry Turkle, interpretivist consumer meaning drawn from this relationship by the
researchers are creating new concepts and consuming human subject’ (Bettany and Daly,
figurations in order to expand the borders of 2008: 410).
what constitutes life. Kajzer and Saren’s (2000, Two terms are critical from this discussion
2001) use of the ‘living-product’ metaphor that will become increasingly important in
works to re-conceptualise the relationship of consumer research – ‘figuration’ and ‘becom-
the human to its nonhuman colleagues. There ing’. Figurations are new ways of taking
is an obvious ethical dimension to this. As the account of the world. They are different from
authors point out, managerial thought often anthropomorphism because they express enti-
has a narrow definition of life, conceiving life ties not by a simple ascription of humanness
itself as ‘being human’. The concept of a living onto the other thing, but by refusing the
product shows how products are not just humanist sleight-of-hand which relentlessly
decontextualised objects that appear out of makes us separate the world into human/
nowhere, but material testimonies to the very nonhuman, practice/discourse, material/con-
real conditions of the world we live in (see also ceptual. A figuration asks us to collapse these
Bennett, 2007). inherited distinctions and see what happens.
The problem with the ontological division of As well as this it goes beyond metaphor
the consumer from the world of ‘objects’, as far because it speaks about practices that create
as Bettany and Daly (2008) are concerned, is ‘knots’ of material-semiotic actors (Haraway,
that it constitutes an ideological move which 2008). At the coalface of the practice of
privileges the human. Meaning, as it is under- everyday life, interpretivist consumer research
stood by the human, becomes the only source will make the most realistic figurations of this
of analytical attention – the human is the only century.
thing ‘doing the consuming, having the ‘Becoming’ is a term that has become pivotal
experience and making the meaning’ (Bettany in contemporary philosophy, sociology and
and Daly, 2008: 410). Extending existing ethics (Braidotti, 2005). At its most basic, it
theory on consumer–object relations, Bettany asks us to realise that the world is not made up
and Daly argue that everyday consumer of fixed entities, but rather that it is better to
practices, such as grooming your dog, are think of things as constantly evolving, con-

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 95

stantly in transit to becoming something else. ment, where objects can ‘talk to’ other objects,
Some have argued that this reflects a shift making decisions, which may be low in level,
towards a ‘process metaphysics’ that is less but will be huge in scale and create the context
about ‘being’ and more about ‘becoming’ in and through which higher level decisions
(Sobchack, 2002: xii). Such a metaphysics is are made. These are the next generation of
apparent in interpretivist consumer research. objects to inhabit the world, dubbed SPIMEs
Take for example Parson’s and Maclaran’s by science-fiction writer Bruce Sterling, where
recent call for papers on a special issue on SPIME connotes ‘the transition from thinking
disposal for this journal (Parsons and Maclaran, of the object as the primary reality to
2009). Following recent moves in sociology, perceiving it as data in computational environ-
they conceive that items of disposal do not fail ments, through which it is designed, accessed,
to exist after the consumer expels them, but managed and recycled into other objects. The
rather they are ‘moved along’, to other spaces, SPIME is ‘a set of relationships first and always,
politics and become other things – whether it and an object now and then’. . .’ (Sterling,
on the way to becoming a precious antique, a 2005: 77, in Hayles, 2009: 48, emphasis
water blockage, a source of marine death, a added). This will of course lead to radical
materially precious thing in another part of the shifts in theorising consumer behaviour,
world. Such a stance ‘avoids seeing the object because the nature of the object has changed.
as the outcome by which one structure out of a As Hayles (2009), Zwick and Denegri-Knott
set of predefined forms acquires reality’ (Lash (2009) and others have pointed out, an object
and Lury, 2007: 19). Instead, it is concerned is no longer just the tangible thing, but the
with ‘how things actually move, how they data about the object. These data, resident in
‘transition’ between many states’ (Lash and databases, RFID tags and GPS systems is
Lury, 2007: 19). another level of reality about the object which
High-technology revises the established is not addressed in consumer–object relations
humanistic psychological models used expli- research.
citly and implicitly by consumer researchers.
Take for example the taken-for-granted huma-
nistic tendency to associate the human as the The question concerning
source of cognition and decision-making, and
technology
how information-intensive environments are
radically changing this. By making objects as The posthuman is a key term in the con-
well as people centres of meaning-making, temporary western postindustrialised era, and
technology has moved ‘out of the box and into it is a term that has been used to describe a
the environment’ (Hayles, 2009: 48). In the highly technologised future existence. So in
near future, all objects will be embedded with order to appreciate the concept of the posthu-
radio frequency identification devices (RFID) – man, we need to first understand some things
miniscule microchips that contain a passive about technology. There exists a persuasive
and active radio wave which enables the conception of technology as a set of mono-
storage and transmission of information about lithic, often homogeneous claims about the
that particular object (its location in time and ‘novel’ historical moment in the west, be it
space, changes in its environment, and a host agricultural, industrial or informational. Other
of other data). Each RFID tag is coded with a stories about technology exist which refute (i)
unique identification number – the tags can the claim of novelty of this historical moment
generate 296 different codes, enough to code (ii) that technology is a sterile instrument and
80 000 trillion objects, whose unique numbers (iii) that it aids the human in his ascent to ever
could be attached to every single man-made greater degrees of humanity. In order to tell
object on the planet (Hayles, 2009). What this these stories, we have to think quite counter-
will to is create an ambient, lively environ- intuitively about technology – not as a ‘thing’

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
96 Norah Campbell et al.

that we humans use in order to make life more What can we learn from this foray into
efficient or enjoyable. In order to think deeply Heidegger’s conception of technology? There
about technology, we have to think about its are a number of changes in perspective that a
ontology. There are many important theorists deep technology can encourage, perhaps too
who have contributed to this discourse from many to detail here, so let us mention only two.
different disciplinary viewpoints; from the Technology needs to be understood beyond its
techno-sociology of Bruno Latour, to the instrumentalist, humanist history. This might
ecological feminism of Donna Haraway and first entail seeing it historically as an ancient
the post-Marxism of Tiziana Terranova. How- phenomenon, as old as (human) being itself.
ever for brevity we will make only one, short, For example, the absence of technology has
examination of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy often served as an indicator of primitivism
of technology. without any sort of reflexivity about what one
For Heidegger (1977: 3), technology is not might mean firstly by technology and secondly
just a ‘thing’ one finds in technological objects; about the primitive. The so-called ‘primitive’
in fact, the most dangerous thing we can do is societies such as paleolithic hunters have been
to think of technology as ‘something’ ‘neutral’. shown to be affluent and technologically
According to Heidegger, we often make two advanced (Sahlins, 1976). McQuire (2006)
intuitive, yet ideological jumps of reason when argues that technology is read through a
we think of technology. We often think of it as uniquely western historical lens: ‘the presence
(i) a means to an end (ii) created by humans. or absence of specific technologies has often
But this is only one dimension of truth about been read as a marker of cultural ‘back-
technology. It is an anthropological truth (i.e. it wardness’. . .Technology is [thought of as]
is a truth as it appears to human being) and it is something that comes from the West and does
an instrumental truth (i.e. a truth aimed at something to other people in other places,
getting things done, or making things work). such as the ‘Third World’ – a framework
But there is another mode of truth that which, even when well-intentioned, denies
Heidegger asks us to consider; technology is both agency and contemporaneity to the
the mode by which realities are brought into ‘other’’ (McQuire, 2006: 255, see Rutsky
existence in the world; technology is a mode of 1999: 2–3). Edgeton (2005) speaks of ‘tech-
unconcealing [her-vor-bringen] reality (Hei- nologies of poverty’, such as the bidonvilles in
degger, 1977: 10). However, we must remem- parts of India, which are overlooked because
ber that every unconcealment of reality is also we favour ‘rich-world’ technologies. An atten-
by necessity a concealment of another reality: tion to the ontological in technology might
‘Bringing-forth-hither brings hither out of secondly encourage us to see technology as a
concealment, forth into unconcealment’ (Hei- mode of unconcealing or revealing reality,
degger, 1977: 10). Such a process Heidegger which in turn acts to conceal other realities.
calls poie¯sis, from the Greek concept of For example, we are often told that the era we
‘bringing-forth’. The ancient Greeks realised exist in is the ‘Information Age’, that the world
this profundity about technology, argues is ‘networked’; or that marketing is ‘service-
Heidegger, and he points out that the Greek dominant’. What we should be suspicious
word techne¯ meant technology and art, about is the fact that such concepts are
derived from the term epistēmē, or epistem- described in universally positive terms. What
ology (which of course involves the ways in realities do the terms ‘information’ ‘network’
which one can know reality). Thus, technology and ‘service-dominant’ create, or unconceal?
is a type of epistemology, or a way of knowing, And, importantly, what do they conceal?
which leads Heidegger to maintain that In their overview of the past 20 years of
‘[t]echnology is therefore no mere means. interpretivist consumer research and reflec-
Technology is a way of revealing’ (Heidegger, tions on its future, Arnould and Thompson
1977: 12). (2005) do not once mention the word

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 97

technology, or how technological change highly mediated and technological that it

revisits questions as fundamentally as (i) what begins to generate behaviour and situations
the consumer is, (ii) the nature of consumer that are quite foreign to existing thinking about
consciousness, knowledge and desire. Mick what markets are and what consumers want’
and Fournier (1998) acknowledge that (Davis, cited in Giesler 2004: 400).
although technological products are prolific The role that technology has played in
in contemporary consumer culture, very little ‘revealing, eliciting and creating new realities’
research has concentrated on how the con- has received little attention in consumer
sumer relates to technology in a deeper sense research (Berthon et al., 2005: 112). Berthon
beyond its use-value. Studies in technology and et al.’s article considers technology not just a
consumer research have been limited to the passive substance, but an active force that both
antecedents, rates and act of technology ‘consumes’ and ‘creates’ consumers. They
adoption (Mick and Fournier, 1998: 123). Far demonstrate this by analysing a number of
from being a neutral, uncomplicated relation- technological phenomena, such as the car cup
ship, consumers develop strategic behaviours holder. While many sociological and psycho-
for coping with technology that is both logical factors are used to explain rising obesity,
paradoxical, fantastical, ideological and multi- the incorporation of the nonhuman and tech-
dimensional (Kozinets, 2008). For example, nological is often never accounted for. For
when Watson and Shove (2008) examine example, the car cup holder used to be a
consumers interested in DIY, they find that nonessential feature in a car but is now intrinsic
new DIY technologies (water-based varnishes, to it. An estimated one in five meals in the US is
plastic plumb fittings) do not simply ‘de-skill’ eaten in the car, critically stimulating the growth
the human, but rather it is better to see this of fast-food drive-thru, which in turn has led to
process as ‘forms of competence redefined and an auto-centric, sedentary population. Acknowl-
redistributed between hardware and humans’ edging the nonhuman, and perhaps seemingly
(Watson, 2008: 9). While identity is a much inconsequential, in the world of the human
theorized concept in consumer research, very recognises the complex, recursive effects
little work has been undertaken on the technologies have – effects which reverberate
important ways in which technology and through multiple dimensions of the human and
identity interpolate each other. Why might the nonhuman. At the beginning of the third
such a project be important? We argue that the millennium, some marketing theory has begun
most important global debates today – the fear to discern that a cultural approach to technology
of genetic determinism, the nature of con- necessarily involves accepting precisely this
sciousness and the similarities and differences multidimensionality of human and nonhuman
between computation and (human) being – are actors, or what Sherry (2000: 272) has called
intimately concerned with the status of ‘the numinous’ dimensions of technology.
humanness.
During the 1990s, a deeper appreciation of
the role of technology in the meaning of
Critiquing sustainability
consumers’ lives became not only useful but
fundamental, as cyberspace revealed consu- The concept of sustainability has accrued
mer behaviours that challenged established much currency in business in recent years.
theory, as in for example, gift-giving (Giesler, At its most basic, it represents the realisation
2006), or possession, labour, and self-concept that humanness is a major threat to all
(Schau and Gilly, 2003; Zwick and Dholakia, nonhuman planetary existence. But there are
2004). Erik Davis highlights the importance of two meanings of ‘sustain’: one implies rest, and
the virtual world in his vision of ‘posthuman even retreat. In other words, the radical threats
consumption’ as ‘the circulation of desire and to nonhumanness (animal life, oceans, atmos-
commodities in environments that are so pheres, geology and so on) must be warded off

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
98 Norah Campbell et al.

by radical decreases in human population, reaffirm a humanistic relationship with nature;

consumption and normative standards of the belief that nature can be brought under
living. It is difficult to imagine how such a control again and that, through technology, all
vision of sustainability could ever be embraced problems are soluble. A posthuman perspective
in the western world. In fact, more than the problematises the notion of sustainability.
ecological crisis or human inequality, more
than the threat of terrorism or nuclear Conclusion
proliferation, this notion of sustainability exists
We have abbreviated a set of wide-ranging and
radically, fundamentally, at the limits of human
complex arguments in this article – essentially
capability. This takes us to a second notion of
trying to question the humanist underpinning
sustainability. To ‘sustain’ also means to
of interpretivist consumer research, while also
lengthen, to extend or to strengthen — a
hoping to take technology more seriously.
definition that is by far the most common to
There is something deeply unsatisfying about
debates on sustainability in business theory
how we think of the technological in con-
and practice in general. Briefly, its underlying
sumer research. It always seems to exist in
implication is that humans constitute the
excess of the ways we have to describe it, and
worth of the planet; if we are not here then
there is a strong case for suggesting that we
nothing on the planet has worth; if humans
should find radically different ways to do so. As
do not exist, then the earth does not exist.
Hayles (2005) argues that there could never
Thus, our efforts of ecological sustainability are
have been any simple separation of the natural
intrinsically human-centred, seeking to address
and the technological, because technology has
(human-initiated) diverse problems with non-
co-evolved with being throughout billions of
humanness (carbon rates in the atmosphere,
years and helped in myriad profound and
glacial erosion, species extinction and so on)
subtle ways to make ‘human nature’ what it is.
with the sole goal of prolonging humanness.
We can discern a paradox here – it is ‘human
Obviously, there is nothing intrinsically
nature’ to use technology, while technology
objectionable in this; it is a survival instinct
changes ‘human nature’. Humanism’s attempt
common to most life forms. The problem of this
to separate the two becomes increasingly
implicit attitude is that it encourages the belief
untenable in an age where technology and
that the ecological problem is a short-term,
humanness co-evolve in complex ways. To this
albeit serious, matter – hence the designation of
end, we have argued that while not everything
the term ‘crisis’ to describe it – a word which
is technical, everything is technological. We
suggests an intense, short-lived episode in
have suggested that a posthuman stance might
human history. It also implies that this crisis
do a range of things – it is strategically oriented
will be solved by high-technology solutions,
towards the deep future, a temporality that is
whether nuclear power (John Gray, Bjørn
not represented in consumer research; it pays
Lomborg), synthetic foods (James Lovelock),
attention to the lives of nonhuman others, but
‘carbon scrubbers’ (see Broecker and Kunzig,
forces us to do more than anthropomorphise; it
2008) and so on. High-technology is a critically
‘gets ontological’ with technology; it problema-
vital mindset that the human race must now
tises the anthropological basis of some inter-
adopt in order to limit ecological crisis (which
pretivist consumer research methodologies and
includes the use of all the above technologies,
it critiques the human-centred notion of
and much more), and yet it is this same high-
sustainability. We hope that it can do more.
technology mindset that encourages the age-old
human illusion of mastery over the nonhuman,
Acknowledgements
as well as the belief that nonhumanness exists
solely as a resource for the human. ‘Posthuman’ The authors wish to thank the anonymous
high-technologies now constitute the only way reviewers for their detailed and insightful con-
to prolong human life on earth, but they also tributions to this article.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 99

Biographical notes Campbell N. 2008. The technologised gaze in

advertising. Irish Marketing Review 19(1–2):
Norah Campbell is a lecturer in Marketing in 3–19.
Trinity School of Business, Trinity College Davies T. 1997. Humanism. Routledge: London.
Dublin. Davis E. 1999. Techgnosis. Serpent’s Tail: London.
Aidan O’Driscoll is a senior lecturer in Douzinas C. 2006. Who is the ‘human’ of human
Strategic Management in Dublin Institute of rights? Paper presented at Forensic Futures:
Technology. Interrogating the Posthuman Subject. Univer-
Michael Saren is Professor of Marketing, sity of London, Birbeck College (16–18 March).
University of Leicester. Edgeton D. 2005. The Shock of the Old: Technology
and Global History Since 1900. Profile Books:
London.
References
Ehrenfeld D. 1981. The Arrogance of Humanism.
Appadurai A (ed.). 1986. The Social Life of Things: Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cam- Fernández-Armesto F. 2005. So You Think You’re
bridge University Press: Cambridge, NY. Human? Oxford University Press: New York,
Arnould EJ, Thompson CJ. 2005. Consumer cul- London.
ture theory (CCT): twenty years of research. Fournier S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: devel-
Journal of Consumer Research 31(March): oping relationship theory in consumer research.
868–882. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4) : 343–373.
Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. 1994. Reflexive Modern- Fox-Keller E. 2002. The Century of the Gene. Har-
ization. Polity Press: Cambridge. vard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Belk R. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Fukuyama F. 2002. Our Posthuman Future: Con-
Journal of Consumer Research 15(2): 189– sequences of the Biotechnology. Revolution.
229. Profile Books: London.
Bennett J. 2007. Edible matter. New Left Review Gane N. 2006. Posthuman. Theory, Culture and
45(May/June): 133–145. Society 23(2–3): 431–434.
Bettany S, Daly R. 2008. Figuring companion- Giesler M. 2004. Consuming cyborgs: constructing
species consumption: a multi-site ethnography posthuman consumer culture. Special Session
of the post-canine Afghan hound. Journal of Summary in Advances in Consumer Research
Business Research 61(5): 408–418. 31: 400–402.
Berthon P, MacHulbert J, Pitt L. 2005. Consuming Giesler M, Venkatesh A. 2005. Reframing the embo-
technology: why marketers sometimes get it died consumer as cyborg: a posthumanist epistem-
wrong. California Management Review 48(1): ology of consumption. Advances in Consumer
110–128. Research 32: 661–667.
Borgerson J. 2005. Materiality, agency and the Giesler M. 2006. Consumer gift systems. Journal
constitution of consuming subjects: insights for of Consumer Research 33(September): 283–
consumer research. Advances in Consumer 290.
Research 32: 439–443. Hables Gray C. 2001. Cyborg Citizen: Politics in the
Braidotti R. 2006. Transpositions: On Nomadic Posthuman Age. Routledge: London.
Ethics. Polity Press: Cambridge. Haraway DJ. 1991. Situated knowledges: the
Braidotti R. 2005. Metamorphoses: Towards a science question in feminism and the privilege
Materialist Theory of Becoming. Polity Press: of partial perspective. In Simians, Cyborgs and
Cambridge. Women: the Reinvention of Nature. Routledge:
Broecker WS, Kunzig R. 2008. Fixing Climate: New York; 83–201.
What Past CLimate Changes Reveal About the Haraway DJ. 2003. The Companion Species Mani-
Current Climate Threat – And How to Counter festo: Dogs, People and Significant Otherness.
It. Hill and Wang: New York. Prickly Paradigm Press: Chicago, IL.
Brooks RA. 2002. Robot: The Future of Flesh and Haraway DJ, Gane N. 2006. When we have never
Machines. Penguin: Harmondsworth. been human, what is to be done? Interview with

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
100 Norah Campbell et al.

Donna Haraway. Theory, Culture and Society Martinsons B, Menser M, Rich J (eds). Tech-
23(7–8): 135–158. noscience and Cyberculture. Routledge:
Haraway DJ. 2008. When Species Meet. University London, New York; 7–28.
of Minnesota Press: London, Minneapolis. Mick DG, Fournier S. 1998. Paradoxes of technol-
Hayles NK. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: ogy: consumer cognizances, emotions and cop-
Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and ing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research
Informatics. University of Chicago Press: Chi- 25(September): 123–142.
cago, IL. Moravec H. 1990. Mind Children: The Future of
Hayles NK. 2005. My Mother Was a Computer: Robot and Human Intelligence. Harvard Univer-
Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. University of sity Press: Cambridge, MA.
Chicago Press: Chicago and London. Paine T. 2000 (1791–1792). The Rights of Man. J.M.
Hayles NK. 2009. RFID: human agency and mean- Dent: London.
ing in information-intensive environments. Parsons L, Maclaran P. 2009. Moving things along
Theory, Culture and Society 26(2–3): 47–72. call for papers for special issue on disposal.
Heidegger M. 1977 (1954). The question concern- Journal of Consumer Behaviour.
ing technology. In The Question Concerning Pepperell R. 1999. The Posthuman Condition:
Technology and Other Essays, William L (ed.). Consciousness Beyond the Brain. Intellect
Harper and Row: New York London 3–35. Books: Bristol.
Hirschman EC. 1986. Humanistic inquiry in market- Protevi J. 2006. The Shaviro Case: Deleuzian jur-
ing research: philosophy, method and criteria. isprudence, biopower, and privacy as singularity
Journal of Marketing Research 23(August): paper presented at Forensic Futures: Interrogat-
237–249. ing the Posthuman Subject. University of
Kajzer I, Saren M. 2001. Breathing new life into London, Birkbeck College 16–18 March.
marketing’s relationship with the environment. Rousseau JJ. 2004 [1792]. The Social Contract.
30th European Marketing Academy confer- (trans. M. Cranston). Penguin: Harmondsworth.
ence, Norwegian School of Economics and Rutsky, R. L. (1999). High Techne: Art and Tech-
Business, Bergen, May. nology from the Machine Aesthetic to the
Kajzer I, Saren M. 2000. The living product: a Posthuman Minneapolis, MN: University of
critical re-examination of the product concept. Minnesota Press.
Business Strategy and the Environment Con- Sahlins M. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason.
ference, University of Leeds, September. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Kittler F. 1999. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter Schau HJ, Gilly MC. 2003. We are what we
Winthrop-Young G Wutz M (trans.). Stanford post? Self-presentation in personal web space.
University Press: Stanford, CA. Journal of Consumer Research 30(2): 385–
Kozinets RV. 2008. Technology/ideology: how 404.
ideological fields influence consumer’s technol- Scheper-Hughes N. 2001. Neo-cannibalism: the glo-
ogy narratives. Journal of Consumer Research bal trade in human organs. The Hedgehog
34(April): 865–881. Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary
Lash S, Lury C. 2007. Global Culture Industry. Culture 2(2): 79–99.
Polity Press: Cambridge. Schroeder JE, Salzer-Mörling M (eds). 2006. Brand
Latour B. 1992. Aramis, or the love of technology, Culture. Routledge: London.
Porter C (trans.). Harvard University Press: Cam- Sherry JF Jr. 2000. Place, technology and repres-
bridge, MA. entation. Journal of Consumer Research 27(2):
Lury C. 2004. Brands: Logos of the Global 273–278.
Economy. London; Routledge. Sconce J. 2000. Haunted Media: Electronic Pre-
McKibben B. 2004. Enough: Genetic Engineering and sence from Telegraphy to Television. Duke Uni-
the End of Human Nature. London; Bloomsbury. versity Press: Durham, NC.
McQuire S. 2006. Technology. Theory, Culture and Sobchack V (ed.). 2002. Meta-morphing: Visual
Society 23(2–3): 253–265. Transformation and the Cultural of Quick
Menser M, Aronowitz S. 1996. On cultural studies, Change. University of Minnesota Press: Minnea-
science and technology. In Aronowitz S, polis.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
The posthuman 101

Soper K. 1986. Humanism and Anti-Humanism. Waldby C. 1995. The body and the digital archive:
Routledge: London. the visible human project and the computerisa-
Stelarc. 2006. Live interview with Arthur and Mar- tion of medicine. Health: An Interdisciplinary
ilouise Kroker. Pacific Centre for Technology Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness
and Culture, Victoria University (Spring) Avail- and Medicine 1(2): 37–54.
able at: www.pactac.net/pactacweb/web-con- Waldby C. 2000. The Visible Human Project: Infor-
tent/video44.html [accessed on 02 May 2006]. matic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. Rou-
Sterling, Bruce (2005). Shaping Things Cambridge, tledge: London.
MA: MIT Press Waldby C, Squier S. 2003. Ontogeny, ontology, and
Stern BB. 1989. Literary criticism and consumer phylogeny: embryonic life and stem cell technol-
research: overview and illustrative analysis. Jour- ogy. Configurations: A Journal of Literature,
nal of Consumer Research 16(2): 322–334. Science and Technology 11(1): 27–47.
Stern BB. and Schroeder JE. 1994 ‘‘Interpretive Watson M. 2008. The materials of consumption.
Methodology from Art and Literary Criticism: Journal of Consumer Culture 8(1): 5–10.
A Humanistic Approach to Advertising Watson M. and Shove E. 2008. ‘‘Product, Compe-
Imagery’’ European Journal of Marketing: tence, Project and Practice’’ Journal of Consu-
New Paradigm Research in Marketing 28(8– mer Culture 8(1): 69–89.
9): 114–132. Wertheim M. 2007. Figuring life. Kabinet 27(Fall):
Stiegler B. 1998. Technics and Time: The Fault of 54–59.
Epitmetheus. Stanford University Press: CA. Williams R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of
Stone AR. 1997. The empire strikes back: a post- Culture and Society. Fontana Press: London.
transsexual manifesto. In Katie Conboy Writing Williams R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford
on the body: Female Embodiment and Feminist University Press: Oxford.
Theory, Medina N,, Stanbury S (eds). Columbia Wills D. 2009. Dorsality: Thinking Backwards
University Press: New York; 337–360. Through Technology and Politics. University
Stryker S. 2000. Transsexuality – the postmodern of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MA.
body and/as technology. In The Cybercultures Winner L. 2002. Are humans obsolete? Hedgehog
Reader, Bell D, Kennedy BM (eds). Routledge: Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary
London; 588–598. Culture. 4(2): 41–42.
Thrift NJ. 2005. Knowing Capitalism. Sage Publi- Wolfe, Cary (2010). What is Posthumanism?
cations: London. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Turkle S. 1985. The Second Self: Computers and Zwick D, Dholakia N. 2004. Whose identity is it
the Human Spirit. Touchstone: New York. anyway? Consumer representation in the age of
Turkle S. 1996. Life on the Screen: Identity in the database marketing. Journal of Macromarketing
Age of the Internet. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: 24(1): 31–43.
London. Zwick D, Dholakia N. 2006. Bringing the market
Venkatesh A, Meamber LA. 2006. Arts and aes- to life: screen aesthetics and the epistemic con-
thetics: Marketing and Cultural Production. Mar- sumption object. Marketing Theory 6(1):
keting Theory Special Issue on Aesthetics, 41–62.
Images and Vision, Schroeder JE (ed.). 11–39. Zwick D, Denegri-Knott J. 2009. Manufacturing cus-
Venn C. 2006. The enlightenment. Theory, Culture tomers: the database as a new means of production.
and Society 23(2–3): 477–498. Journal of Consumer Culture 9(2): 221–247.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Apr. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb