Cover Page


The today’s post-human era is characterized by transformation, mutation, and reinvention of social identities of agents. Transgenders, robots, сlones have been increasingly involved in social community and, thus, contributed to profound normative morphogenesis in the contemporary society. Consequently, there is a challenging primordial heteronormativity with some fundamental ascriptive binaries evident in transgressive confusion of the following oppositions: between human and subhuman (e.g. legitimation of animal or fetal rights); between cultural and natural (cyborgs); between animate and inanimate (android robots); between corporeal and incorporeal (virtual, ‘augmented’ and ‘mixed’ reality). A range of practices related to such transgression can be considered as trans-mobility that implies various selfdetermined individual transitions from the former ascribed position to a new transitive one and external transpositions due to forced alteration of individual or collective statuses/identities. The article considers three typical modes of morphological trans-mobility to identify the most important arrays the ontological binaries are de-ascribed in: visceral trans-mobility pertaining to all possible options to modify human corporality (including radical body modification); conversional trans-mobility beyond the line between life and death, being and nonbeing, corporeal (material) and incorporeal (immaterial) ontology (from bitcoins to clones); prosopopoeian trans-mobility involving initially non-social creatures into active social life (from pets to robots). The author seeks to answer the question of how current normative morphogenesis is embedded into social-normative order. Based on the theory of recognition, the article considers morphotaxis (an opposite of morphogenesis) as a latent compensatory mechanism to maintain the primordial social order by persistent reproduction of heteronormativity. Based on some empirical data, the author shows that dichotomized sexual (male-female), genetical (sexual-asexual) and biological (animate-inanimate) patterns with corresponding social norms still constitute the morphological foundation of the primordial social order despite the advanced post-human practices.

About the authors

I V Katernyi

Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University); Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS

Author for correspondence.
Prosp. Vernadskogo, 76, Moscow, 119454, Russia; Krzhizhanovskogo St., 24/35-5, Moscow, 117218, Russia



  1. Barrat J. Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press; 2013.
  2. Bartneck C., Kanda T., Ishiguro H., Hagita N. Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. New York: IEEE; 2007.
  3. Bostrom N. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics. 2005; 19 (3).
  4. Burleigh T.J., Schoenherr J.R., Lacroix G.L. Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29 (3).
  5. Burnham T.C., Hare B. Engineering human cooperation. Does involuntary neural activation increase public goods contribution. Human Nature. 2007; 18 (2).
  6. Case M.A. Why not abolish laws of urinary segregation? Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. H. Molotch, L. Norén (Eds.). New York: New York University Press; 2010.
  7. Dear colleague letter on transgender students. May 13, 2016. list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf.
  8. Dieterle R.L. The Encyclopedia of Hočąk (Winnebago) Mythology. ho.BerdacheOriginMyth.html.
  9. Durkheim E. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press; 1982.
  10. Francavilla J. The concept of the divided self in Harlan Ellison’s ‘I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream’ and ‘Shatterday’. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. 1994; 6 (2/3).
  11. French A.J., Adams C.A., Anderson L.S., Kitchen J.R., Hughes M.R., Wood S.H. Development of human cloned blastocysts following somatic cell nuclear transfer with adult fibroblasts. Stem Cells. 2008; 26 (2).
  12. Freud S. The ‘uncanny’ (trans. by A. Strachey). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. XVII. An Infantile Neurosis and Other Works. J. Strachey (Ed.). London: Vintage, The Hogarth Press; 2001.
  13. Greely H. T. The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.
  14. Heyselaar E., Hagoor P., Segaer K. In dialogue with an avatar, language behavior is identical to dialogue with a human partner. Behavior Research Methods. 2015; 49 (1).
  15. Honneth A. The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1996.
  16. Human Dignity and Human Cloning. S. Vöneky, R. Wolfrum (Eds). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2004.
  17. Jentsch E. On the psychology of the uncanny. Uncanny Modernity: Cultural Theories, Modern Anxieties. J. Collins, J. Jervis (Eds.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
  18. Lewkowicz D.J., Ghazanfar A.A. The development of the uncanny valley in infants. Developmental Psychobiology. 2012; 54 (2).
  19. MacDorman K.F., Entezari S.O. Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley. Interaction Studies. 2015;16 (2).
  20. Matsuda Y.T., Okamoto Y., Ida M., Okanoya K., Myowa-Yamakoshi M. Infants prefer the faces of strangers or mothers to morphed faces: The uncanny valley between social novelty and familiarity. Biology Letters. 2012; 8 (5).
  21. Mitchell W.J., Szerszen K.A., Lu A.S., Schermerhorn P.W., Scheutz M., MacDorman K.F. A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception. 2011; 2 (1).
  22. Mori M. Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. MacDorman K. Androids as an Experimental Apparatus: Why is There an Uncanny and Can We Exploit It? (Appendix B). Proceedings of the CogSci-2005, XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.; 2005.
  23. Mori M. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation. 2012; 19 (2).
  24. Park R.E. The mind of the hobo: Reflections upon the relation between mentality and locomotion. The City. R.E. Park, E.W. Burgess, D. McKenzie (Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1967.
  25. Piwek L., McKay L.S., Pollick F.E. Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition. 2014; 130 (3).
  26. Rose N. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton; Princeton University Press; 2007.
  27. Sandberg A. A transhumanist fault line around disability: Morphological freedom and the obligation to enhance. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2010; 35 (6).
  28. Schilt K., Westbrook L. Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: ‘Gender normals’, transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 (4).
  29. Sorokin P. On the Practice of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998.
  30. Starck C. The human embryo is a person and not an object. Human Dignity and Human Cloning. S. Vöneky, R.Wolfrum (Eds.). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2004.
  31. Steckenfinger S.A., Ghazanfar A.A. Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 106 (43).
  32. Thompson J.C., Trafton J.G., McKnight P. The perception of humanness from the movements of synthetic agents. Perception. 2011; 40 (6).
  33. Tinwell A., Grimshaw M., Abdel Nabi D., Williams A. Facial expression of emotion and perception of the uncanny valley in virtual characters. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27 (2).
  34. Tinwell A., Grimshaw M., Williams A. The uncanny wall. International Journal of Arts and Technology. 2011; 4 (3).
  35. Tinwell A., Sloan R. J. S. Children’s perception of uncanny human-like virtual characters. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 36.
  36. United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, G.A. Res. 59/150, U.N. Doc. A/R/59/80 (March 23, 2005).
  37. Urry J. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2007.
  38. Wakayama S. et al. Successful serial recloning in the mouse over multiple generation. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12 (3).



Abstract - 683

PDF (English) - 246




Copyright (c) 2018 Katernyi I.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies