Terrestrial Cosmopolitanism, Posthumanism, and Multispecies Modes of Being in Cereus Blooms at Night

Abstract

Cosmopolitanism has generally been used to describe a philosophy that imagines all humans as citizens of a single “human” community. This article explores a terrestrial cosmopolitanism that challenges the colonial discourse of human exceptionalism by extending the democratization of people to include environmental bodies within their global context, replacing hierarchies with collectivities to reveal humanism’s underrepresented others. Examining interspecies alliances in Shani Mootoo’s Cereus Blooms at Night, I look towards terrestrial cosmopolitanism as an alternative to anthropocentric forms of cosmopolitanism that continue to reinscribe colonialist aspirations and ontologically exclusionary practices. Mootoo’s work decenters how we think about humans and the environment and offers a nuanced depiction of a positive interspecies community that resists harmful humanist taxonomies. Reading the novel’s protagonist, Mala, as a posthuman figure, I argue that her rejection of human language, in conjunction with her nonhuman interactions, positions her as a keeper of collectivity, as she creates a third space of subjectivity in her garden that blurs the boundaries between humans and nonhumans.

Curiosity and Democracy: A Neglected Connection

“…Postmodern human sciences are now taking great pains to decolonize themselves from such legacies of imperial curiosity. They admit that the colonial project "strives towards the taxonomical standardization of humans based on race, sex, and gender" in ways that are not just uncosmopolitan but also "intrinsically flawed" in obscuring that "what is human is always already a heterogeneous construct based on interspecies dependencies" [15] (p. 7). The contribution of some modern philosophy, and, later, of postmodern (mainly French continental) philosophy, to the demystification of colonial curiosity is complex.…”

“…In fact, curiosity may even be modulated by field [24]. Allegiance to a specific group affects the range of excited curiosity 15 and so does the global interconnectivity that also demarcates what passes for appropriate inquisitiveness, regulates the filter of transparency and adjusts the lens of visibility accordingly.…”

“…However, we may learn not only from the curiosity of resistant and welcomed movements but also, and this may seem a scandalous claim (then again, one of the unparalleled merits of democracy is its being deep-down scandalous), from movements that infuriate us, and, as critical theorists, we should study them not moralistically but socio-politically. Finally, I see the prospect of challenging "the colonial discourse of human exceptionalism by extending the democratization of people to include environmental bodies within their global context, replacing hierarchies with collectivities to reveal humanism's underrepresented others" [15] (p. 1), as one also depending on appropriate political curiosity/restraint. Different historicizations and politicizations of the curious Eye/I and the curiosity about the world must be examined.…”

“…and acquires the normative tint that we notice in Zurn's above-cited passage on collective curiosity when the curiosity of specific groups is deemed "resistant" and that of others "institutionalized" or "regressive". 15 Consider, here, for example, the differences in what excites the curiosity of groups differentiated on grounds of the COVID-19 "pro-vaccine" and "anti-vaccine" newly produced social category. What they want to know and what they cast aside as inappropriate concern (e.g., whether the virus escaped from laboratories or not), that is, to what they exert epistemic restraint, becomes decisive for their self-identification and for their trust or mistrust concerning official narratives.…”