In response to Philippe Descola’s call for a cosmopolitics adequate to the crisis of the multiscalar Anthropocene, this paper interrogates the problem of entangled coexistence by shifting the analytical register to sensibility. The paper therefore proposes the speculative concept of cosmic sensibility, which mobilizes sense as constitutive of cosmopolitics and names a relational openness through which distinct entities become mutually sense-able without necessarily presupposing their commensurability. The concept synthesizes insights from the ontological turn (Descola, Viveiros de Castro, Hui), process-relational cosmology (Whitehead) and cosmopolitics (Stengers), as well as feminist STS (Barad, Haraway), in order to sketch its provisional contours across three interconnected registers: onto-epistemological, cosmopolitical, and ethical. Reading in parallel a line of authors who rethink the anthropocentric assumptions of the cosmos in relational terms, the paper contends that ontological plurality becomes cosmopolitically consequential only insofar as agents inhabiting heterogeneous worlds can enter into relations of mutual sense-ability. Cosmic sensibility thus reframes entangled coexistence as a practice of dwelling halfway, sustaining difference while remaining response-able to the worldings produced through the encounter.
Barad, K., 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
Branco, E. A., 2025. Beyond the epistemic crisis: A speculative turn for Earth Science in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 13(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196251399163
Crutzen, P. J., 2002. The “Anthropocene”. Journal de Physique IV France 12(10): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1051/jp4:20020447
Deleuze, G., 1990. The Logic of Sense. Translated by M. Lester, C. Stivale. Edited by C. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press.
Descola, P., 2013. Beyond Nature and Culture. Translated by J. Lloyd. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Descola, P., 2025. Cosmopolitics of the Anthropocene with Philippe Descola [video]. Uploaded by Columbia Maison Française. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-gsyHP8nJg [Accessed 17 March 2026].
Hamilton, S., 2017. Securing ourselves from ourselves? The paradox of “entanglement” in the Anthropocene. Crime, Law and Social Change 68: 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9704-4
Haraway, J. D., 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Haraway, J. D., 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780
Hui, Y., 2017. On Cosmotechnics: For a Renewed Relation between Technology and Nature in the Anthropocene. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 21(2-3): 319–341. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne201711876
Kleinman, A., 2012. Intra-Actions. Mousse: Contemporary Art Magazine 34: 76–81.
Latour, B., 2004. Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge 10(3): 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-10-3-450
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leddy, S., 2025. The anthropocentric sensorium: how an anthropocentric distribution of the sensible makes us human. The Sense and Society 21(1): 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17458927.2025.2597727
Lemmens, P., 2020. Cosmotechnics and the Ontological Turn in the Age of the Anthropocene. Angelaki 25(4): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2020.1790830
Sabolius, K., 2019. Antropocenas kaip vaizduotės problema. Athena: filosofijos studijos 14: 172–186.
Sehgal, M., 2014. Diffractive Propositions: Reading Alfred North Whitehead with Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. Parallax 20(3): 188–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927625
Stengers, I. 2005a. Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural studies review 11(1): 183–196. https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v11i1.3459
Stengers, I., 2005b. The Cosmopolitical Proposal. In: Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, eds. B. Latour, P. Weibel. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 994–1004.
Stengers, I., 2006. Whitehead and science: From philosophy of nature to speculative cosmology [lecture]. McGill University. Available at: https://www.mcgill.ca/files/hpsc/Whitmontreal.pdf [Accessed 3 April 2026].
Stengers, I., 2011a. Cosmopolitics II. Translated by R. Bononno. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Stengers, I., 2011b. Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts. Translated by M. Chase. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Stengers, I., 2012. Reclaiming Animism. E-flux journal (36): 1–9.
Stürmer, M., & Bella, D., 2022. Inheriting Cosmopolitics: Pericles, Whitehead, Stengers. Theory, Culture & Society 40(3): 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221092300
Viveiros de Castro, E. V., 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3): 469–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034157
Viveiros de Castro, E. V., 2014. Cannibal Metaphysics: For a Post-Structural Anthropology. Translated and edited by P. Skafish. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Whitehead, A. N., 1978. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: The Free Press.
Woods, D., 2014. Scale Critique for the Anthropocene. The Minnesota Review (83): 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-2782327
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.