Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species written by Anna Tsing is a salute to fellow posthumanist feminist scholar Donna Haraway for her writing on ‘companion species’, a term Haraway uses to describe the complex co-constitution of human and nonhumans (Haraway, 2003). Tsing opens her essay by stating ‘human nature is interspecies relations’. From the experience of mushroom foraging to the symbiosis between plants, fungi, and humans, she traces the history of domestication and European colonialism; linking concepts of diversity and hygiene, she shows how multispecies interactions unfold alongside global capitalism and offers an insightful overview of the material and semiotic basis of our world. Also on the social, cultural, historical, and material entanglements of humans and nonhumans, geographer Sarah Whatmore surveys the ‘material turn’ in cultural geography, its importance, and the challenges it faces (Whatmore, 2006). She argues that this new branch of geography is attentive to the ‘livingness’ of (human and nonhuman) bodies and geophysical worlds. This is shown through a shift in analytic focus from discourse to practice, from meaning to affect, from politics of identity to the politics of knowledge, and the adoption of more-than-human modes of inquiry. The more-than-human approaches entail an engagement with different (and conflicting) disciplines and knowledge practices, and more importantly, an experimental imperative that goes beyond conventional research methods and subjects.
Anna Tsing 的文章《不羁的边缘，作为伴侣物种的蘑菇》（Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companian Species）是向同为后人类主义女权主义学者 Donna Haraway 的致敬，因她写了关于「伴侣物种」的作品。Haraway 用这个术语来描述人类和非人类的复杂共同构成（Haraway，2003）。Tsing 在她的文章中开宗明义地指出「人性是物种间的关系」（human nature is interspeices relations）。从采集蘑菇的经历到植物、真菌和人类之间的共生关系，她追溯了驯化和欧洲殖民主义的历史；她还将多样性和卫生的概念联系起来，展示了多物种的互动是如何与全球资本主义一起展开，并对我们世界的物质和符号学基础提供了一个有洞察力的概述。同样是关于人类和非人类的社会、文化、历史和物质纠葛，地理学家 Sarah Whatmore 调查了文化地理学中的「物质转向」、其重要性和它所面临的挑战（Whatmore, 2006）。她认为，这个新的地理学分支关注的是（人类和非人类）身体和地球物理世界的「生活性」。这表现在分析重点从话语到实践，从意义到影响，从身份政治到知识政治的转变，以及采用超越人类（more-than-human）的调查模式。超越人类的方法需要与不同的（和冲突的）学科和知识实践接触，更重要的是，需要超越传统研究方法和课题的实验性要求。
The posthumanism development in social science is put into a specific empirical context and scrutinized by Abrahamsson and colleagues in their responses to Jane Bennett’s investigation of omega-3 (Abrahamsson et al., 2015). Albeit acknowledging the importance of attending to the materialities of our social fabrication, Abrahamsson and colleagues find that Bennett’s conceptualization of omega-3 and its agency obscure the specificity of the matter at hand. They question the scientific validity of the causal effects of omega-3 and highlight its research contexts and its relational aspects, including its effects on fish and fishermen in the Global South. By situating omega-3 in its context, they argue that it is necessary to shift from the matter’s ability ‘to act’ to explore its different modes of doings: how it engages in relations and mediates these relations.
Abrahamsson 及其同事在回应 Jane Bennett 对 omega-3 的调查时，将社会科学中的后人类主义发展放到了一个具体的经验背景中，并对其进行了仔细研究（Abrahamsson et al，2015）。尽管承认关注我们社会制造的物质性的重要性，Abrahamsson 和同事发现 Bennett 对omega-3 及其能动性的概念化过程中掩盖了物质本身的特殊性。他们质疑了 omega-3 因果效应的科学性，并强调其研究背景和关系，包括它对全球南方的鱼和渔民的影响。通过将 omega-3 置于其研究背景中，他们认为有必要从物质的「行动」(to act)能力转向探索其不同的行为模式（modes of doings）：它如何参与到关系，并调和这些关系。
For my research on amphibian and reptile farming and conservation in China’s food systems, I intend to use the social practices approach to analyze the domestication of wild animals and their global commodity chains. This approach is regarded as post-humanist as it puts material and non-material components of practices on the same plane, but the scholarship seems largely focused on the ‘doings’ that are carried out by human actors. An investigation of how amphibians and reptiles are enmeshed in webs of ecological and social processes might be helpful to reveal the ‘seams of global capitalism’ (Tsing, 2012, p.152), the different modes of doings performed by these animals, and how they shape farming practices, eating practices, in addition to the politics of conservation science. Following Whatmore's (2006) suggestions, the ‘meaning’ elements of social practices could be substituted by ‘affect’. This notion is also supported by environmental sociologists who call for a more inclusive ontology towards nonhuman animals in the discipline (Tovey, 2003; Twine, 2020). Tovey points out that environmental sociologists need to rethink society as one that includes animals, who have not just instrumental but also communicative relations with humans. Another inspiration I draw from the literature is the shared philosophical root between China’s developmental paradigm ‘Ecological Civilization’ and Haraway’s posthumanism. Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, which influenced Haraway’s thoughts on the ‘prehensions’ of beings, is heavily studied in China with dozens of graduate programs and research centers devoted to it. The Communist Party of China quite explicitly links this paradigm to the Whiteheadian ontology of internally related processes through its official rhetoric of ‘constructing’ an Ecological Civilization, which promotes a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. It might be possible to make this shared philosophical grounding of society more prominent in my study and build a theoretical bridge between posthumanism and Ecological Civilization.
在我对中国食品体系中两栖动物和爬行动物的养殖和保育的研究中，我将会使用社会惯习（social practices）的方法来分析野生动物的驯化及其全球商品链。该方法被认为是后人类主义的，因为它把惯习中的的物质和非物质成分放在同一个平面上，可是，大多数的学术研究似乎仍主要集中在由人类行为者进行的「行为」上。调查两栖动物和爬行动物如何被卷入生态和社会进程的网络中，这些动物表现出的不同行为模式，以及它们如何塑造繁育惯习、饮食惯习，以及保育科学中的政治，可能有助于揭示「全球资本主义的缝隙」（Tsing, 2012, p.152）。根据 Whatmore（2006）的建议，社会惯习只的「意义」元素可以被「情动」（affect）所取代。这种想法也得到了环境社会学家的支持，他们一直在倡导该学科需要发展出对非人类动物更包容的本体论（Tovey, 2003; Twine, 2020）。Tovey 指出，环境社会学家需要重新思考社会，将动物纳入其中，它们与人类的关系不仅仅是工具性的，也是交流性的。我从文献中得到的另一个启发是中国的发展范式「生态文明」和 Haraway 的后人类主义之间的共同哲学根源。阿尔弗雷德-诺思-怀特海（Alfred North Whitehead）的过程哲学，影响了Haraway 关于各种生命之间「预感」（prehensions）的思考，一直以来在中国被广泛研究，成立了几十个研究生课程和研究中心。「建设」生态文明的官方言论，相当明确地将这种范式与怀特海的内部相关过程的本体论联系起来，以促进人类与自然的和谐共处。在我的研究中，也许可以更加凸显这种共同的社会哲学基础，并在后人类主义和生态文明之间建立一座理论桥梁。
Though I am generally sympathetic towards posthumanist thoughts, I have doubts about their ethical and political potential and worry that they might resemble a kind of one-sided wishful thinking. The fact that nonhumans co-constitute our material and discursive world has to be emphasized in social sciences perhaps tells us something about our deep-rooted unwillingness to make a more honest appraisal of humankind and its darker implications. Posthumanism scholars might not be so immune to human exceptionalism. One can argue that the interdependence between humans and many nonhumans is largely asymmetrical. Humans cannot survive without ants, bees, or fungi, yet these species almost certainly can survive without us. I do not suggest that human lives are insignificant, but rather that the collective human contribution to net-positive relations with nonhumans is not nearly as significant as many want to believe. Psychologists might go so far as to say that we may have evolved to develop a disgust for our animal nature as a health-preserving adaptation: when the boundaries between humans and nonhumans are dissolved, we are reminded that we are just as vulnerable to death as other creatures (Rozin & Haidt, 2013). Although such hypothesis remains a matter of debate, this seemly irreconcilable tension between animality and human mortality is manifested quite clearly during outbreaks of zoonotic diseases. Bats are scapegoated and attacked for spreading diseases; pigs, chickens, and minks are culled on a monstrous scale to control viruses; monkeys used for vaccine experimentations have run into a shortage. During China’s lockdowns, cruelty to pets and stray animals has skyrocketed, high volume of chemical disinfectants is prayed directly on outdoor greenery. Though it might sound counterintuitive to point out that lives cannot be saved but only extended (often poorly), xenotransplantation is celebrated as a medical breakthrough. The development of brain-computer interface devices, again perpetuates the enormous suffering of nonhuman primates, has become a global arms race. Throughout human history, we have seen repeatedly the ways that humans cope with mortality always involve more harming of the nonhumans (Benatar, 2007).
虽然我对后人类主义思想总体上表示同情，但我对其伦理和政治潜力表示怀疑，并担心它们可能类似于一种片面的一厢情愿的想法。社会科学中对非人类共同构成了我们的物质和话语世界的强调也许告诉我们：我们对人类及其黑暗影响作出更诚实的评价的不情愿是根深蒂固的。后人类主义学者可能也对人类例外主义没有那么大的免疫力。可以说，人类和许多非人类之间的相互依存关系在很大程度上是不对称的。没有蚂蚁、蜜蜂或真菌，人类无法生存；但这些物种几乎可以肯定能在没有人类的情况下继续生存。我并不是说人类的生命是无足轻重的，而是说人类对与非人类的净积极关系的集体贡献并不像许多人想的那样重要。心理学家甚至可以说，我们可能已经进化到对我们的动物本性产生厌恶，作为一种保护健康的适应：当人类和非人类之间的界限被打破时，我们被提醒，自己和其他生物一样迟早会死亡（Rozin & Haidt, 2013）。尽管这种假设仍然有争议，但在人畜共患的疾病爆发期间，这种看似不可调和的动物性和人类死亡之间的紧张关系表现得相当明显。蝙蝠因传播疾病而被当作替罪羊受到攻击；为了控制病毒，猪、鸡和貂被大规模地宰杀；用于疫苗实验的猴子也出现了短缺。在中国的封锁期间，对宠物和流浪动物的虐待激增，大量的化学消毒剂直接喷洒在室外的绿色植物上。尽管指出生命不能被拯救而只能被延长（往往以很差的质量）听起来可能有悖常理，但异种移植被赞誉为医学上的突破。脑机接口设备的开发——再次延续了非人类灵长类动物的巨大痛苦——已经成为一场全球军备竞赛。纵观人类历史，我们一再地看到，人类应对死亡的方式总是涉及对非人类动物的更多伤害（Benatar, 2007）。
Describing the intricacies of human-nonhuman entanglements might not be radical enough. I’d be curious to know whether such situational investigations could also pave the way for more rigorous and prescriptive ethics, the kind of social sciences that stress the importance of our moral obligations towards nonhuman lives. While it seems that animal and environmental ethicists have exhausted the debates on nonhuman agency, social sciences have just begun to take it seriously and their audience might not yet be ready for the dark implications it necessitates (Dow & Lamoreaux, 2020). If it is predominantly one species that are making all the trouble, would posthumanist readers consider it a fair game to make oddkin with said species? To paraphrase Korsgaard (2018), if we continue to cause immense suffering to other beings and their communities with whom we share the world, we might not be qualified for the kind of human nature that Tsing describes.
只形容人类与非人类之间错综复杂的关系可能还不够激进。我很想知道这样的情景调查是否也能为更严格和规范的伦理学铺平道路，即一种能强调我们对非人类生命的道德义务的重要性的社会科学。虽然动物和环境伦理学家似乎已经消耗尽了关于非人类能动性的辩论，但社会科学刚刚开始认真对待它，他们的听众可能还没有准备好接受它所带来的黑暗后果（Dow & Lamoreaux, 2020）。如果主要是一个物种在制造所有的麻烦，那么后人类主义的读者会认为与上述物种进行奇特的游戏是公平的吗？（注：这里借用了 Haraway 的表述：Staying with the trouble requires making oddkin）套用 Korsgaard（2018）的说法，如果我们继续给与我们共享世界的其他生命和他们的社群造成巨大的痛苦，那我们或许没有资格拥有 Ting 描述的那种人性。
References:
Abrahamsson, S., Bertoni, F., Mol, A., & Martín, R. I. (2015). Living with Omega-3: New Materialism and Enduring Concerns. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1068/d14086p
Benatar, D. (2007). The Chickens Come Home to Roost. American Journal of Public Health, 97(9), 1545–1546. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.090431
Dow, K., & Lamoreaux, J. (2020). Situated Kinmaking and the Population “Problem.” Environmental Humanities, 12(2), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-8623230
Haraway, D. J. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/C/bo3645022.html
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Species, Communities, and Habitat Loss. In Fellow Creatures. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198753858.003.0011
Rozin, P., & Haidt, J. (2013). The domains of disgust and their origins: Contrasting biological and cultural evolutionary accounts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.001
Tovey, H. (2003). Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of Animals. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00241
Tsing, A. (2012). Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species. Environmental Humanities, 1(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3610012
Twine, R. (2020). Where Are the Nonhuman Animals in the Sociology of Climate Change? Society & Animals, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10025
Whatmore, S. (2006). Materialist returns: Practising cultural geography in and for a more-than-human world. Cultural Geographies, 13(4), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474006cgj377oa