A Reply to Bradley Lewis’s “Prozac and the Post-human Politics of Cyborgs”

It might be appropriate to begin my commentary by disclosing the fact that Brad Lewis and I are good friends. “Oh, no, ” you might think, “this will be one of those cozy, mutual back-patting, insider sessions that so often take place in the American Philosophical Association group meetings. ” But never fear. For one thing, I’m no insider to the intellectual circles represented in Dr. Lewis ’ bibliog-raphy. Indeed, I’ve read only two of the 32 works listed there. (Depending on how you look at it, that may make me either completely unqualified to comment on this paper or exceptionally well-qualified for reasons of critical distance.) Also, friendship and constructive criticism are entirely compatible in my book. And, to paraphrase a philosopher of some importance, “Brad is dear, but the truth is dearer.” I will begin my commentary by identifying some of Brad’s theses that I find interesting, important, and well-supported. The second part of my commentary will elaborate my major concerns about the paper. This part will be longer, not because my overall reaction is more critical than favorable, but because exploring different viewpoints generally takes more space and time than noting points of agreement. In my conclusion, I will suggest that many of the paper’s insights are likely to sail better if some of the baggage from postmodernism and cultural studies is thrown overboard. KEY POINTS THAT SEEM ON TARGET The claims advanced in Brad Lewis ’ paper form a complex and subtle tapestry so I will have to be selective in highlighting particular strands. I believe all of the following claims are interesting, important, and well-supported (either in the pape