Introduction

At the intersection of anthropology and transhumanism lies a fascinating field of exploration that invites us to reflect on the complexity of the human body and its transformation in the contemporary era. Anthropology, as a discipline aimed at understanding cultural diversity and the human experience, offers valuable perspectives on analyzing the relationship between the body and society. On the other hand, transhumanism, with its forward-thinking vision, posits the possibility of surpassing biological limitations and enhancing human capabilities through technological integration. In this context, I will explore how these two dimensions converge and diverge in their interpretations of the body—from cultural practices to potential future transformations—challenging traditional conceptions and sparking debate about the role of the body in humanity’s evolution.

Anthropology or the Resistance of Flesh

The Renaissance’s influence on the conception of the human being is undeniable, encompassing a pivotal period in the construction of modernity. This era marked a significant shift in political and cultural thought, aspiring toward the creation of an ideal society. Utopian visions often highlighted human ideals such as freedom and religious separation, foundational elements of modern thought. This transformation also introduced new perspectives on the body.

In the 17th century, the rise of mechanistic philosophy in Western Europe disconnected the human body from its religious underpinnings. Philosophers and scholars, freed from theological constraints, began to reflect on nature at a human-centric level. As Le Breton (2002) notes, “The reflection on nature, carried out by philosophers and scholars, was liberated to take place at the human level.” Descartes, one of the most influential philosophers of the era, established a dualistic framework that laid the foundation for individualism and the modern ideal human. This approach positioned the body as a tool for expression and existence—a machine housing the self.

The advent of medicine brought a radical shift in body perception and self-control. Johannisson (2006) recounts how the medical field evolved from narrative-based diagnostics, rooted in dialogue between doctor and patient, to a clinical framework that disciplined bodies for the physician’s convenience. In the clinical context, patients were often reduced to anatomical models devoid of identity, contrasting with their social and political prominence as individuals.

The human body, composed primarily of biological matter prone to decay, is also a rich source of cultural expression. As a phenomenological system, the body simultaneously serves as a secondary canvas, representing symbolic and social realities. From Descartes’ perspective, the minimal significance attributed to the flesh aligns with his body-mind duality, relegating the body to a tool for exploration rather than a source of knowledge. In contrast, Spinoza’s monist perspective reveals body and mind as two facets of a single substance, influencing phenomenological thinkers such as Merleau-Ponty and anthropologists like Le Breton.

For anthropology, the body operates as a symbolic and classificatory mechanism. Durkheim and Mauss (1996) explain that classification goes beyond grouping; it establishes hierarchical relationships:

“We represent these groups as coordinated or subordinated, with some dominating and others dominated. Classification implies a hierarchical order for which neither the physical world nor our consciousness provides a model” (p. 30).

This hierarchical structuring influences relationships with objects and living beings, exemplified by phenomena like religion. Leach further highlights the role of symbolic behavior in communication, integrating biological, technical, and expressive aspects to explain human conduct. His analysis underscores the body’s centrality in cultural production and symbolic exchange, revealing its overlooked yet vital role in everyday interactions.

Scholars like Mary Douglas and Marcel Mauss understand the body through symbolic systems and classifications. These classifications delineate boundaries between conformity and transgression of symbolic systems. For Foucault, society and culture mold the body, reflecting symbolic oscillations. Douglas (1973) notes that physical experiences are socially conditioned, framing the body as both an expression and a site of control. Institutions like family and religion participate in “disembodiment” and moral regulation, while the physical body symbolizes societal microcosms.

From Flesh to Code: Narratives and Critiques of Bodily Obsolescence

For decades, Darwinist theories dominated biological thought on evolution, influencing fields like communication. Susan Blackmore’s (2000) concept of “temes,” or external replicators using human bodies for survival, parallels extreme technophobic and transhumanist views. These perspectives frame modifying technologies as external forces, potentially transforming life itself.

Transhumanism begins with the premise of enhancing the human body through technology. Huxley envisioned the unmodified human as an intermediate stage, suggesting technology could enable humanity to chart its evolutionary path by merging organic and mechanical elements. This vision gained traction in the 20th century, especially during the space race, when the term “cyborg” emerged. Coined in the 1960 paper Cyborgs and Space by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, it described augmenting humans to survive hostile environments like space, marking a milestone in integrating biology with technology.

The philosophical underpinnings of the 17th century, the decline of religious fundamentalism, and technological advances shaped the modern understanding of the body. Yet, as bodies are increasingly viewed as replaceable entities, questions arise: How will these transformations affect entrenched cultural classifications? What new symbolic perspectives will emerge?

Anthropologically, human modification implies complex cultural shifts. Transhumanist practices challenge traditional notions of corporeality, generating new symbolic systems that redefine individual and collective identity. However, ethical and moral dilemmas persist, particularly regarding economic inequality. Access to transformative technologies could exacerbate social divides, making bodily modification a marker of status.

Biohacking demonstrates that not all transhumanist practices require high technology. For example, physiological biohackers modify their bodies through diet and lifestyle changes, reflecting collective aspirations for perfection. Such practices influence societal standards of beauty and health, reshaping cultural ideals and social dynamics.

Conclusions

Transhumanism transcends the biotechnological sphere, deeply permeating the human experience. From a symbolic anthropological perspective, body and technological transformations reveal intricate intersections between technology, culture, and identity. These changes challenge traditional corporeal conceptions, inviting reflection on ethical limits and social implications.

Ultimately, transhumanism highlights the body’s dual role as a site of cultural expression and technological intervention. This phenomenon not only transforms individual identities but also reconfigures collective understandings of humanity in an era of unprecedented technological integration. Recognizing these dynamics is essential for addressing inequalities and fostering inclusive cultural evolution.