posthumAnItArIAn fIctIons 119activating the potentialities of dehumanism through which we might let
ourselves be haunted by those we have (in more and less overt ways) ag-
gressed. These fictions ask us to become haunted, to listen to our hauntings
even when we cannot translate their ghostly messages.
Across posthumanitarian fictions, the ability to be a “good” human is
afforded to humanitarians precisely through their material participation
in dehumanization; the humanization of the humanitarian and the work
of dehumanization turn out to be inseparable practices. While posthu-
manitarian fictions do not proscribe radically new forms of political being,
their representations of humanitarian actors ask us whether it is possible
to imagine a humanism that would not structurally and materially (re)pro-
duce mastery and dehumanization. My desire is to engage dehumanism
as a recuperative practice that casts ourselves as vulnerable to the ways
that other beings—“human” and otherwise—have been subjected to de-
humanization. These ways of living in exile from the realm of “Man” can
become, as Alexander Weheliye (2014) argues, critically instructive in the
imagination of alternate forms of collective life and being. If we can learn
how to recognize our own surprising complicities with dehumanization,
we can also learn how to abide with others (human, inhuman, and dehu-
manized) that have enabled us to become particular kinds of masterful
subjects. Precisely in this abiding, in consciously reading ourselves and at-
taching ourselves to that which we have subjected, we can begin to learn
how to become differently relational with others. Perhaps more radically
still, we might also learn how to become relational with ourselves as inti-
mate others.
What comes after Singh’s failure to howl? What forms of ethical action
might circumvent the need to undo oneself completely in the face of one’s
own complicity? If we can stall the disavowal of our masterful complicities
and stay with dehumanization as it presents to us other forms of human
being, we might offer ourselves new ways of becoming human. What is
vital to this becoming is to revise our own narrative formations, making
our narratives infinitely more dynamic than we have yet let them become.
Embracing Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) summons to elaborate the infinity of
traces that have been left on and through us as particular psychic and em-
bodied subjects, we can begin to discover the limits of our own narrative
formations and to layer and unfold them as we shape ourselves into new
kinds of subjective beings.