SM5325 Chap.11 Feminist Posthumanism and Xenofeminism
Feminist Posthumanism and Xenofeminism
Two feminist responses to a technological world
Week 12 asks how xenofeminism would turn technology into an instrument for estranging and freeing gender, and how feminist posthumanities recast what we owe to animals, plants and environments in the Anthropocene. The readings are Cecilia Åsberg's essay on feminist posthumanities and the opening chapter of Helen Hester's Xenofeminism.
Both reject the idea that nature offers a pure ground to return to, and both treat technology as entangled with bodies and power, but they begin from different problems and end with different demands.
Åsberg and the postnatural
Åsberg starts from a world already reworked by technology, from undersea cables and oceanic plastic to electronic waste and conflict minerals.
She criticises the idea of the Anthropocene, an age in which humans act as a geological force, for treating humanity as a single undivided agent and hiding differences of impact and power, and she finds the same risk in some posthuman theory.
Her remedy is feminist posthumanities, an open and postdisciplinary practice that attends to our postnatural condition, in which no untouched nature remains as a ground for claims about sex, race or reproduction.
She separates this critical posthumanism from transhumanist wishes to overcome the body, and she frames her guiding question around who is admitted to the categories human and natural, and who pays for that.
Hester's three terms
Hester defines xenofeminism, a project first set out by the collective Laboria Cuboniks, as technomaterialist, anti-naturalist and gender abolitionist, using Shulamith Firestone's 1970 manifesto as a recurring reference.
Technomaterialism stresses infrastructure and access rather than a weightless idea of information, and treats technology as socially made and therefore open to struggle. Anti-naturalism refuses to treat the given body as a sacred limit, and Hester criticises the ecofeminist Maria Mies for romanticising nature.
Gender abolitionism aims at a world in which gendered traits no longer organise power, reached by proliferating differences rather than eliminating them, a demand she calls gender post-scarcity rather than austerity.
Where they meet and part
Both readings ask who is included and at whose cost, but Åsberg asks it of the categories human and natural, and Hester of the category gender.
Åsberg traces entanglements and their costs; Hester argues for seizing and redesigning the tools.
How the chapter is built
The chapter compares the readings in a table, places them on a position map, and applies both to a health-tracking app.
What this chapter covers
- 01
The Anthropocene and its critics
- 02
The postnatural condition
- 03
Posthumanism against transhumanism
- 04
Feminist posthumanities as a practice
- 05
Technomaterialism
- 06
Anti-naturalism and the critique of Mies
- 07
Gender abolition through proliferation
- 08
Who counts as human and natural
Worked example · free
Apply xenofeminism to a reproductive technology debate
- 3Show why Hester rejects the argument from unnaturalness.
- 3Show why she would not simply celebrate the technology either.
- 3Add Åsberg's question about who is counted and at whose cost.
Key terms
- Anthropocene
- An age in which humans act as a geological force, a concept Åsberg criticises for treating humanity as one agent.
- Postnatural
- A condition in which no untouched nature remains as a ground for claims about bodies and identities.
- Feminist Posthumanities
- Åsberg's open, postdisciplinary practice of studying the posthuman while asking who counts and at whose expense.
- Transhumanism
- Techno-optimist hopes of overcoming or escaping the limits of the human body.
- Xenofeminism
- A technomaterialist, anti-naturalist and gender abolitionist feminism that treats technology as a site of struggle.
- Technomaterialism
- Attention to the physical infrastructure and access conditions of technology rather than to information alone.
- Gender Abolitionism
- The aim of a world where gendered traits no longer organise power, pursued by proliferating differences.
Feminist Posthumanism and Xenofeminism FAQ
What is xenofeminism in simple terms?
A feminism that is technomaterialist, anti-naturalist and gender abolitionist. It treats technology as socially made and therefore open to struggle over design and access, refuses to treat nature or the given body as a limit to respect, and aims at a world where gender no longer structures power. Hester stresses that abolition means proliferating differences, not erasing them.
How is feminist posthumanism different from transhumanism?
Åsberg describes transhumanisms as techno-optimist wishes to overcome the body's limits or even escape it. Feminist posthumanism is instead a critical deconstruction of humanism that keeps bodies, environments and inequalities in view, and asks who counts as human and natural and at whose expense. It does not seek to leave the body behind.
Why do both readings reject a return to nature?
Åsberg argues we live in a postnatural condition in which technology and science have already reworked bodies and environments, so no untouched natural ground is available. Hester argues that appeals to nature have often been used to confine people, and she criticises the ecofeminist romance of nature for valuing disempowerment. Both redirect attention to who controls technologies and who bears their costs.
Assessment move
Take one technology that touches your body, such as a fitness band, a contraceptive or a skincare app, and write two short answers: who controls its design and access, following Hester, and whose bodies and environments it counts or leaves out, following Åsberg. The pair gives you a compact structure for a presentation on either reading.
