Introduction
Modern transplantology, while life-saving, raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of our civilization. This article examines this phenomenon through the lens of Bogusław Wolniewicz’s and Stanisław Lem’s thought, questioning the moral neutrality of medical procedures. Is the widespread acceptance of transplants a sign of progress, or perhaps a symptom of a profound axiological shift? You will discover how technology redefines the concept of the sacrum, how language masks the objectification of the body, and why the disappearance of traditional death rituals may threaten communal cohesion.
Neocannibalism: Utilitarian Consumption of Bodies and the Abolition of Taboos
Bogusław Wolniewicz introduced the provocative concept of neocannibalism to describe the practice of harvesting organs from the deceased. According to the philosopher, transplantology is functionally identical to ancient cannibalism—in both cases, one life is strengthened at the expense of another's bodily matter. The difference is merely formal: consumption has been replaced by implantation. This perspective challenges the archaic taboo of the inviolability of the corpse, which until now belonged to the realm of the sacrum.
From an anthropological standpoint, the sacrum is a domain excluded from use not because it is useless, but because its instrumentalization violates human dignity. This approach varies globally: while the West treats the body as a resource, the Shinto concept of spiritual integrity in Japan creates strong cultural barriers against desecrating remains. Transplantation dethrones the body from its sacred status, turning it into a component of a technological circuit.
Technology Annexes the Sacrum: The Body as Raw Material
Stanisław Lem warned that technology is encroaching upon areas previously reserved for religion and nature, becoming a substitute for transcendence. In this process, the reification (objectification) of human remains occurs—the body ceases to be a trace of a person and becomes "biological material." To normalize this extreme, medicine employs euphemisms: instead of "cutting a piece from a corpse," one speaks of "harvesting an organ from a donor."
Such language masks the moral implications of these procedures and leads to a situation where the primacy of function over form becomes the norm. Lem emphasized that changes in the technical world inevitably change man himself and his scale of values. There is a risk that uncontrolled progress will generate an axiological nihilism, where everything technically feasible is deemed morally permissible, and humans begin to view themselves solely as a resource to be utilized.
The State and the Disappearance of Rituals: The Mechanism of Norm Erosion
The modern state acts as a custodian of meaning, imposing legal frameworks such as presumed consent. In this model, the body of the deceased becomes a public resource unless the citizen registered a veto during their lifetime. This is the opposite of explicit consent, which more strongly protects individual autonomy. Wolniewicz points here to a mechanism of norm erosion: major civilizational changes occur in "small steps," from transfusions to brain transplants, gradually desensitizing our sensibilities.
Simultaneously, we observe the disappearance of traditional death rituals, which, according to Émile Durkheim, destroys communal cohesion. Instead of rites of passage, we are given cold medical procedures, creating a ritual vacuum. The body, instead of returning to the earth, enters a technological circuit. The state's task should therefore be not only to regulate medicine but also to protect the dignity of the deceased and the rituals that give death a human dimension and shield us from spiritual emptiness.
Summary
By donating our bodies to science and medicine, are we quietly surrendering a part of our souls? In sterile operating rooms, a quiet revolution is taking place—one that may bring healing, but also perdition. The question is whether, in our pursuit of life, we will lose what makes us human, and whether death remains a transition rather than just a loss. We must remember that the body is not merely matter, and community exists also to preserve a shared meaning that technology cannot provide.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF