David Shaw writes “the day that we can no longer tell the difference [between bodies and AI] is the day when we can safely leave embodiment behind as a criterion for the human or posthuman”. In a way, this is the contemporary Turing Test, but how much do you agree or disagree with this statement when we look at medieval bodies that we cannot tell are human on first encounter? (Yonec’s father, the Hairy Hermit, talking Werewolf, Bisclavret)
ENGL 360 | Future Perfect Human
Prof. Myra Seaman | Fall 2016
If anything, I think the medieval texts we’ve been reading prove that embodiment hasn’t been thought of as a criterion for humanity for a long time. Medieval writers share many of the same ideas as contemporary writers when they exclaim things such as that for one to be human they must be able to reason and to die, as with the werewolf. Certainly, the werewolf does not embody the form that we understand to be human, however, the story presents himself as just as human as anyone else. The same is encouraged in Bisclavret, where the wolf’s “monstrous” actions are well in reason and a retaliation against his disloyal wife. The story urges us to empathize with the wolf’s actions and see him as human instead of demonize him. This is again presented in the story of Yonec, whose father portrays many good qualities we relate to humanity despite having the supernatural ability to turn into a hawk. Yonek’s stepfather, on the other hand, embodies the human form but acts cruel and unjustly.
There is definitely an interesting relationship going on in our medieval texts when it comes to embodiment. On the one hand, like we said above, there is a lot of liberty when it comes to the physical, all kinds of crazy changes happening. However, there always seems to be a return to human form or an emphasis on physical human traits. Bisclavret RETURNS to his human form, his status as a werewolf is contingent on him being a human as well, and his state as a wolf is considered a curse. The Hairy Hermit is revealed as not a bear or a monster precisely because of his “distinctly” human genitalia, an important if strange call to the embodied state of humanity. Even Yonec’s father, who takes the form of a hawk, is a distinctly human king with a human existence and form, and it is in this form that he primarily communicates and interacts with the locked up beauty. It seems both fluid and fixed.
I never considered the concept of “returning” to the human form. It would seem that that is a new concept and one that asks larger questions. Would someone be “human” if they were instead an animal first that changed into human physical appearance and then “returned” back to its original animal form? Interesting concept, and one I think can springboard into a lot of other conversations.
I agree, the physical form (even in medieval texts) doesn’t seem to be what makes a person human, just their actions and the traits that they exhibit. Bisclavret is described as being “noble” when asking the king for mercy while a wolf, and Yonec’s father is a better man than the stepfather despite his ability to step away from his human form. This shows that medieval literature didn’t see the form as necessary for humanity, but the soul that inhabited the body (no matter the shape) had to conform to the ideals of the human in order for a being to be considered human. The ability to shift back and forth seems to just be a bonus added to the humanity of the shifters, instead of an act of removing their humanity.
For medieval authors, embodiment was not the only aspect that made one human. Though evidence of a human mind played a role as well, it seems that knowledge of God frequently ensured outsiders that the hybrid figure is human. When Yonec’s father first comes to his mother, she is wary of his ability to transform into a human from a bird. Even though he speaks rationally, she wants to be sure that he is human, and so he offers to accept the Eucharist. After he has done so, Yonec’s mother immediately accepts that this strange man is in fact human. This emphasis on humans knowing God and being able to take sacraments points to a medieval definition of human that ties in religion as an important feature.
I like how you brought in the religious aspect that medieval literature used to identify humans. Yes, Yonec’s father took communion to prove his humanity and in other texts as well, religion is a form of proved humanity (Gerald’s’ tale of the talking wolf). But how is this concept of religion present, or not present, in Marie De France’s other tales? We have not read them all but let’s look at Bisclavret – how is the religious aspect of humanity working here?
Shaw, like Hayles, suggests that embodiment is necessary to express the self and satisfy social recognition, asserting “if the self didn’t come with a body, then one would need to be created for it” (7). However, an nonhuman materiality is not necessarily conducive to being nonhuman; as the medieval texts so far have proved, an inhuman form can be occupied by a distinctly human consciousness. Therefore Shaw contends “the proof of the posthuman won’t be an operation of assessing the corporeality but rather the personality and sustainability of that personality” (6). Bisclavret, Muldumarec, and the wolves seeking last rites support the idea that “personality” represents humanity, and that physicality is negligible– ultimately, this supports Shaw’s claim that a human body is not a defining characteristic of the human.
In thinking of “leaving embodiment behind as a criterion for the human or posthuman” I can’t help but wonder what Hayles would think. In the first half of the course, I really came to appreciate and even agree with a lot of Hayles’ discussion of the importance of embodiment. Having read Hayles, when reading the medieval texts I can see a lot of emphasis and concern for embodiment. As others have commented, there seems to be a lot of liberty in the physical forms of the posthuman (the talking Werewolf, Bisclavret, the Hairy Hermit), but I agree with Carlos in that these texts almost always return to, comment on, or consider the human form. Because of this I think that embodiment remains important in these medieval texts.
I disagree with David Shaw’s statement that when we can no longer tell the difference between bodies and AI, we can safely leave embodiment behind. I actually think that when we can no longer tell the difference between bodies and AI is a time when we should be most concerned and insistently be reminded of the importance of embodiment. I think the medieval texts have a similar attitude. For example, the story of Bisclavret seems very much concerned with embodiment and how the distinction between human and (in this case) animal are difficult to decipher. When a human takes on animal form are they still human? To me, embodiment remains an important criterion for the human or posthuman.
I really agree here with what I think Hannah and Amanda are suggesting about the specific Medieval conception of humanity, especially as it relates to issues of embodiment. As seen in Bisclarvet, (and touched upon by Amanda), Medieval wirters seem to have no trouble ascribing highly “human” characteristics to beings / creatures that are not housed within an outwardly human form. Elsewhere, such as in the priest’s encounter with a wolf in “Of the Prodigies of Our Times…,” I think readers are even intended to see such a humanistic creature in a highly sympathetic way. In this way, it seems, embodiment holds little of the significance for Medieval writers that it does for later writers dealing with “posthuman” issues.
I would suggest, as Hannah alludes too, that the reason for this apparent disregard for embodiment is history. The rampant concern with embodiment and physicality seen in alter texts is, I think, a sign of the development of liberal humanism, which emphasized the self and the individual, two things most obviously represented in a human body. For Medieval writers, who, of course, were writing before this new conception of the self, the self / soul were still firmly connected to issues of spirituality and, more specifically, religion. Within a world view that holds the individual as essentially insignificant in relation to royalty and especially God, the physicality of the individual matters much less. In this way, Medieval writers such as Marie de France have no problem ascribing human qualities to creatures and human hybrids, even outside of an overtly religious context.