[Book Reviews].

Abstract

The notion of interspecies is potentially a fascinating idea that at its heart questions the assumed distinctions between humans and non-humans. It is also an idea that challenges not just the biological understanding of the human, but also the complex socio-political nature of biological knowledge. The edited volume under review attempts to analyse some aspects of this notion by drawing on interesting case studies and is largely influenced by the posthumanist tradition. The interpenetration of technology and the body, such as in the creation of cyborgs, catalysed the posthumanist argument that the organic body cannot be the defining characteristic of categories such as human. Is this topic relevant for scientists? It is for the simple reason that it is eventually an attempt to understand the nature of being human. It is obvious that the hard distinction between humans and animals is a product of certain human interests. But how are these distinctions to be grounded? Is there stability to such distinctions when we critically enquire into them? This book expands these questions by considering forms of life as varied as pests and viruses along with the triad of humans, animals and plants. As the editors note, the notion of interspecies challenges traditional taxonomical distinctions and highlights the historical and sociological processes behind these classifications. By critiquing modern taxonomy, the grand project of interspecies studies is to ‘go beyond species’ by discovering other kinds of relationships between objects in nature. Foucault’s influential idea of biopolitics arguing for the historical and ideological construction of the human as a species is an influential theme in this project. The essays in this volume draw extensively from race studies, post-colonial studies and science studies. They give us an inkling of how to rethink and thereby expand the meanings of objects belonging to biology and medical science. Cohen’s essay on the virus is one such attempt. He begins by pointing out that ‘viruses were parasites before they were viruses’ (p. 22) and were first understood through the model of parasitism, which itself was derived from ancient political theories. By playing on the nature of a parasite, Cohen points to the inherent paradox in our very attempt to define a virus. These are exemplified in linear narratives which science uses to describe the effects of virus and in so doing, Cohen suggests, that we forget the larger politics in the creation of such narratives. As he remarks, how we think about viruses is precisely the way we think of the vulnerability of humans (p. 29). The goal of xenotransplantation (transplants using animal tissues and organs on humans), as Sharp describes it, ‘is to merge human and animal species within single bodies’ (p. 45). There are many hidden historical narratives which scientists use in order to promote and legitimize xeno research. This essay describes the early stories of xeno transplantation, including the first famous case of a baboon heart transplant on a newborn child. The early use of simians for xeno transplants was catalysed by the belief that they are a close relative of the humans. However, the shift to pigs as an ideal candidate for transplantation has interesting consequences for the idea of interspecies. The important point made by Sharp that science ‘creates’ its objects in the way it defines them is central to the theme of interspecies. A similar story of the creation of an object called ‘chocolate’ is described by Delbourgo, where he points out that this object is created through the relation between ‘botanical science, colonial trade, and Atlantic slavery forged between West London and the West Indies in the early modern period’ (p. 72). This trend is part of a larger historical process where botanical objects were not only categorized in particular ways, but were also taken into the colonizer’s culture through the use of science. A good example is the colonial botanical engagement with Indian plants. Echoing the colonial practice in India, Sloane, who is described as the inventor of ‘milk chocolate’, builds his knowledge based on already available local knowledge and skill. More importantly, the story of cacao goes way beyond classification of plants or creating new objects for science. As Delbourgo notes, Sloane’s work ‘was part of a broader natural-historical enterprise that included intelligence gathering concerning foreign peoples’ (p. 87). Humans in other cultures were studied and categorized like plants were; humans themselves began to be classified racially as in the use of the word ‘chocolate’ as a racial term. The complex nature of scientific imagination is also well illustrated in the creation of the very idea of species. Anker and Franklin’s essay begins with the idea of the specimen; collecting specimens and exhibiting them were not only the precursors to modern biology but also to photography and modern art (p. 104). The notion of a museum and exhibition of curios were integral to the development of the institutions of science. Technological vision has changed the idea not only of specimen, but also of vision. This essay focuses on foetal imagery – as can be expected, the foetus plays an important role in many debates on speciation, evolution and the idea of life itself. The interview with an artist (Anker), as part of this essay, opens up new ways of articulating visual representation and how that feeds into our ideas of species. Starting somewhere in this essay, the book begins to lose steam. The remaining