Inhuman, All Too Human: Virginia Woolf and the Anthropocene Emma Brush (bio) The idea that we are living in a time of crisis may be less contentious than the claim that we find ourselves in the Anthropocene— a new geological era defined by human impact— but the two often go hand in hand. Dipesh Chakrabarty’s four theses on the “current planetary crisis of climate change” offer one view of the ways in which crisis and Anthropocene have combined to characterize, and disrupt, modern life and understanding.1 According to Chakrabarty, climate change and the accompanying Anthropocene formulation together trouble not only the scale of human history and the scope of what it means to be human but also the potential for a legible future altogether. The need to internalize these conceptual ruptures becomes as urgent as it is difficult— we can no more experience the full force of global impact than we can the life of the species nor the possibility of its extinction. As a result, the Anthropocene concept emerges as a formal challenge and imperative— to come to terms with the facts of planetary crisis, collective interdependence, and the potential elision of futurity— for the sake of living on.2 But however novel, as an environmental condition, the Anthropocene as discourse owes to a longer conceptual lineage— and a particular inheritance, I argue, from literary and artistic modernism— that complicates these claims. The comparison might begin with the rhetoric of newness (the “structural principle of radical rupture,” to quote Susan Stanford Friedman) that reenacts in a different century the modernist imperative to “make it new.”3 The Anthropocene’s “turn toward epochal time” similarly appears in the modernists’ fascination [End Page 69] with the prehistoric, the primeval, and the primordial.4 Indeed, the species thinking prevalent in Anthropocene discourse originates in evolutionary theory, the provocations of which feature prominently in early twentieth-century thought and literature. The millenarian posture of contemporary environmental discourse, meanwhile, evokes a modernist temporality, in which the “past, present, and future exist in a relationship of crisis” in response to perceived decline and looming catastrophe, both increasingly out of control and of humanity’s making.5 Technological advance and the social structures underpinning it play a central role in this narrative of decline and rupture, just as they do for the modernists. As Sarah Cole writes in her study of modernism and violence, “The precariousness of humanity, in the face of a bewildering array of powers— mass violence, totalitarianism, bureaucracy, technology, the onslaught of visuality— is one of the primary morals of the twentieth century.”6 Cole’s framing suggests that the Anthropocene’s basic motif— the impotence of the human faced with the force of humanity’s collective work— derives much from the social and political disruptions of the first half of the twentieth century and the modernist articulations forged in response. Without question, climate change brings unprecedented scientific and technological challenges and beckons perilous social, political, and environmental consequences. But the Anthropocene, as a rhetorical response to climate change and other anthropogenic activity, does not authorize any self-evident ethical or political answers. Modernism’s example “as a discourse of diagnosis and protest, an artistic response to a social problem,” serves as a reminder that such projects need not serve democratic governance nor equitable outcomes.7 A shadow side of modernism was an often-racist reification of nature and place, an offshoot of Darwinism and imperialism that manifested most directly in the form of eugenics and fascism, but also in a wide range of misanthropic, chauvinistic, and primitivist formulations that continue to trouble scholars of the period.8 Anthropologist Andrew Bauer has argued that the Anthropocene might similarly promote “a regressive environmental politics based on romanticized notions of nature,” essentialized versions of humanity, and inequitable forms of knowledge production.9 The larger work of this essay will be to begin to contextualize the figural and rhetorical work performed by the Anthropocene concept within the modernist canon and legacy, in an effort to sharpen [End Page 70] its use and articulate its hazards, with an eye, ultimately, toward better navigating the material conditions the term succeeds in calling into view. As a...
Read full abstract