The Denial of  Humans

“It takes a strong man to deny what’s right in front of him. And if the truth is undeniable, you create your own.” - Spec Ops: The Line, 2012^[1]

How is it that a video game can convince readers of such an unquestionable truth by pinpointing the ignorance of a whole population? From navigating my way through the Anthropocene and reflecting on our course syllabus, I realize I began our readings completely incorrectly by searching for every trace of nature within our first texts because I had yet to overcome my inexperience with perception. Heck, if anything, reading the way I did reminds me greatly of Yedda Morrison’s poetic take in Darkness, where every instance of nature and organic adjective are the only bits left remaining. In reading a text such as Darkness, I can recall my constant frustration due to not being able to grasp onto what I was reading, similarly to when you get distracted during a reading and have to re-read a paragraph Lord knows how many times before actually comprehending it. Well that is exactly how I felt in beginning this class, for I was reading strictly through the naive human lens of just seeing nature for what it is, rather than analyzing what it was and could be.

In totally refocusing my gaze on denial, and what this means in understanding the Anthropocene, I chose this quote from Spec Ops because, well, we humans are constantly denying what is happening around us and it takes an unthinkable amount of strength to act as if nothing is wrong… rather selfishly, even. But this idea of truth and how it ought to be told, I wonder why it is all too easy to create our own when we refuse to believe the evidence: which story we choose to tell (Lewis & Maslin), human dominance and the search for godliness (Conrad), the decline of species (Montero), deficiency in understanding the conditions in which environmental injustice can be read (Wenzel), lack of guilt based on evidence (Ghosh), and absence of truth in communication (Habila). This is a lot to examine, I know, but the harsh realism of what makes this epoch so challenging is the need to want to engage to know that, in its entirety, each of these markings of proof are contributors to the devastation of the planet. Not one key piece can be misunderstood, so telling the truth in the best way I know seems the most plausible in helping others to see the world through a new lens -- as I have by means of these documentations. So, join me in perceiving the Anthropocene from a different perspective; seeing the facts as an actuality rather than a false reality.

Homo Deus

“Perhaps we have become a ‘god species’, Homo deus, with the clever deployment of technologies solving our problems. To others a human-driven epoch is the heights of hubris, the ultimate folly of the illusion of our mastery over nature… These are not abstract concerns: the story we choose to tell matters.” - Lewis and Maslin, The Human Planet, 2019^[2]

        To begin by defining society as “Homo deus,” in which humans are their own gods in how they live to provide for themselves and only for themselves, is crucial to mention when knowing we cannot accomplish such rapid advancement without the assistance of another force. Sure, humans created these improvements, but I feel as if we are notorious for making things, or other people, do the dirty work for us to reach certain goal-posts -- exemplified in Heart of Darkness. For instance, The Human Planet’s introduction states that “The Anthropocene began with widespread colonialism and slavery: it is a story of how people treat the environment and how people treat each other,” and this seems to be a truth in how we carry out the Anthropocene by passing on the work to something like technology.^[3] Regardless, it comes down to the story we choose to tell, for no matter how you look at it, something is wrong and there must be a reduction and/or reversal of the monstrosities we have done to the planet and the various life-forms alongside us.

In chapter 11 another quote stood out that states, “While technologically feasible and economically possible, it is beyond highly ambitious. To achieve it [a reversal] society would

need to place the eradication of greenhouse gas emissions at the same level of importance as the pursuit of economic growth,” which kind of makes me laugh because, in all reality, we have the resources and the means of working towards a better world for our future but, when it comes down to it, does this “height of hubris” blind us from what is morally and naturally good?^[4] If you simply watch the news for a few minutes you see the glimpses of destruction that occur day to day, but what do we do about it? It is beyond disappointing how much value we place in economic success, but what kind of revolutionary story do we have to tell to get these environmental concerns at the same level as the need for human prosperity?

The Wretchedness of Humans

In kicking off this journey, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is more difficult for me to interpret, given I began the course believing I was to solely seek out nature in every source. While this has proven to be important, allowing me to visualize what is happening around any given setting or character, I want to narrow-in on a quote because I find explaining denial to encompass what it means to be a human living among nature. What I mean by this is, at this time in the Congo, corruption and evil were really starting to make way in strangling the natural world around it. When referencing a character such as Marlow and his view of Kurtz, what interests me is how he originally envisions Kurtz to be some heroic being that Marlow is so curious to encounter. However, we later realize this is not the case at all, where the undeniable truth is that Kurtz embodies some sort of defective nature that is, quite possibly, due to a heightened hubris and haughtiness that is challenging to visualize. Kurtz was far from a hero (a man pretending to be a god, in fact) by his means of decapitating people, sticking their heads on poles, and snatching mass amounts of ivory through human force. In this way, Kurtz is symbolizing much of what is yet to come in our human existence, by maneuvering through his pride to depict himself as morally above other members of society and so justifying his horrendous actions of exploiting those “inferior.” Does that not sound familiar? We see individual vanity corrupting the mindsets and actions of those around us, but what does that mean to witness these things and still not do something about it?

Considering the Anthropocene is characterized by human dominance of the Earth’s major processes, and global environments are shifting at an unprecedented speed due to human interference, this quote from Heart of Darkness allows me to ponder the concept of the human shadow -- attached and a part of the human but withholding all destruction, greed, and envy from the physical form, where “… their two ridiculous shadows of unequal length, that trailed behind them slowly over the tall grass without bending a single blade.”^[5] Specifically, the view of the natural world in the novel seems to be primarily described as something dark, buzzing with various life, and, sadly, something to take from. Taking is an understatement though, aligning with what happened in the Congo when the taking and utilization of what nature provided was through barbaric actions -- which was by no means necessary other than to fulfill an assertive, personal desire for white folk such as Kurtz. So, being able to picture the shadow of a human simply dancing across the grass without damaging a single blade reminds me that it does not have to be this way -- the damage, that is. While urbanization and advancement are notions highly valued in this day and age, the extraction of natural resources so fiercely is just as unnecessary as before. Being human does not have to entail such ruin, for pretty soon the truth will ring true in there being nothing left to take from. No opportunities will remain for senseless shadows to represent the gentle aspects of walking through life.

Impacts of Indifference

        Behind the fog of human extraction, the decline of species that is occurring is a critical story to tell in accepting the truth that the impact on animals is just as significant on plants and rural areas. Looking into In the Palm of Darkness, Montero introduces readers to countless examples of amphibian species that have disappeared unknowingly, or their fading has become trivial, to emphasize the rapid rate at which various life forms are dying out due to our ignorance. Throughout the novel there are a few random, factual excerpts placed towards the end of chapters to bring readers back to reality by reminding us that a species is disappearing, but always with an insensible answer alluding to a simple, “they had gone away,” or had become a “fait accompli”:

Figure 1. Photo I made to represent just a matter of time.

At first we avoided calling it by that name and used less violent words: ‘Decline’ was my

favorite, amphibian populations were ‘declining’; entire colonies of healthy toads went

into permanent hiding; the same frogs we had grown tired of hearing only a season earlier

fell silent and became rare; they sickened and died, or simply fled, and no one could

explain where or why… Eleutherodactylus milesi, Hyla soralia, Plectrohyla dasypus, and

Plectrohyla teuchestes, whose populations once abounded in the region, had given no

prior indications of problems in the habitat, or any signs of decline.”^[6]

The species listed in this quote, though, is not even an inclusive list of the others dispersed throughout the novel, thus hinting that the issue is a lot bigger and a lot more significant than we may like to believe. Something like mass extraction or, in this case, mass extinction, has been practically ignored and abused. So, with that, something that is so precious, like finding the last grenouille du sang, is not desired to be found for beneficial purposes such as preservation; rather, for selfish remembrance.

With remembrance in mind, this just brings me to a quote I find fascinating since it connects the concepts of love and memory, where “What you love, you must respect, and the principle of all love is memory.”^[7] How I unpack this is, if “declining” species are so highly desired for the sake of memory, how is it that something like the grenouille du sang is loved, but not respected? Similar to a lot of the destruction humans are causing, either gradually or suddenly, it seems so ironic that they claim to love and cherish these forgotten species or demolished landscapes, but the respect is completely lost and disguised by an “in loving memory of…” you would find on a memorial card. The truth is before our very eyes, and we see this in Victor’s expedition to Haiti to discover this final grenouille du sang. While he clearly knows something is wrong, given there is only one remaining, he goes to no great extent to care or even teach others about the issue; rather, to teach others about what once was. This behavior is 100% an Anthropocene characteristic, for “A man never knows anything” and, evidently, humans deny the truth behind most things… and that is our downfall.^[8]

Reading for the Planet

While I recognize the texts we have read do not have to announce concerns with the environment in its theme and plot to illuminate relationships among nature, culture, and power, I believe injustice is best understood as a problem of invisibility, which is theorized upon the “Enlightenment” ideal of bringing things to light as a catalyst for change. This leads me to be so intrigued by the idea of “reading for the planet,” for it is an undeniable truth that visibility -- whether helpful or not -- is not enough. Wenzel’s Disposition of Nature touches heavily on the concept of reading to save the environment, where communication and/or misunderstanding just so happens to be a common theme among my notes throughout the course, but what stood out to me in particular was considering under what circumstances these items would really mean something within a reader’s head, described as “… world-imagining, and it entails ‘reading for the planet’ in another sense: thinking in terms of legibility and intelligibility rather than visibility. The salient question is not whether environmental injustice can be seen, but under what conditions it can be read, understood, apprehended.”^[9]

This reminds me of our brief discussions of fog, and the impact foginess has on the eyes of the viewer as seen in Heart of Darkness when we read, “When the sun rose there was a white fog, very warm and clammy, and more blinding that the night,” which makes me think that fog, potentially resembling a curtain of disbelief that renders our vision blind, is worse than not knowing what is going on due to lack of resources and/or knowledge on the topic. So, would that not make reading more in-your-face and easily understandable? I think a lot of this plays into where we stand in society and the privileges we have in saying, “oh, we can fix that later.” In many cases, this fixing needs to happen now, and yet we choose to do the opposite because of the absorption in our own truth of denial that envisions the world as something far better than the visible reality. 

An Alternate Sense

        When considering the destruction occurring in our everyday lives, I feel it is rather simple to be completely blindsided and/or ignorant towards what our earth has become so familiar with, because that is the truth we want so desperately to believe. Whether land is being destroyed, species disappearing, or the utter fact that humans desire themselves at the forefront, I wonder how we have not become convinced by the evidence of our eyes that the world is essentially dying, inch by inch. But that is the funny thing, for our eyes provide a form of perception, right? Visual association is a powerful one, because sometimes we do not believe until we see for ourselves, “But if you’re not convinced by the evidence of your eyes, then perhaps you will have to use your ears.”^[10] Why does the incomprehension remain? What does it mean to use our ears? What will it take to become fully aware of the wreckage from our human behaviors? Maybe a transition to a different “sense” of discernment would be of assistance.

This brings me back to a quote found in the chapter “Negotiations,” where Moyna expresses that “her life would be a lot easier if her husband had a little more gyan and a little less gaan,” meaning she wishes Fokir had more knowledge and less song.^[11] It is almost like Moyna is searching for a visual representation of knowledgeable change from Fokir. But since she is not convinced by her eyes that he knows what he is doing, has she tried using her ears? Has she tried listening to the songs he sings to represent his value? It is all so interesting to me because this epoch we live in requires significant human awareness, but what does that mean to everyone?

“For once, I shall be glad if my imperfections render me visible”… If the earth could speak, I imagine this is what it would say.^[12]

Writing for the Planet

        If the earth could speak, I wonder which aspects of it’s story would even be considered “valuable” enough to be listened to and told / which parts deserve to be written about. In referencing a character such as Zaq from Oil on Water, I find it interesting how confidently he states his profession, journalism, to be at the head of discovering how nations are built when the truth lies within how vital our natural world is in advancement, and yet is completely destroyed in the process. “He said journalism shows you firsthand how nations are built, how great men achieve their greatness. And then he had quoted the proverb about how elephants achieve their great size: they simply eat up everything that stands in their path, trees and ants and plants and dirt, everything.”^[13] I cannot say I disagree, for journalists are supposed to get into the literal action to write that “juicy” story people are itching to read about. But to see this human greed for power and authority first-hand seems to be the greatest lesson of all, for if you consistently write about all the horrid stories witnessed within a community, would you not figure something is wrong and must be broadcasted?

In reference to a previous question I asked, “But since she is not convinced by her eyes that he knows what he is doing, has she tried using her ears? Has she tried listening to the songs he sings to represent his value,” this brings back the notion of communication and what it means to impactfully and truthfully get a message across. As seen in other readings, characters like Rufus and Zaq display an ignorance to do better for the community, for they jump through all these hoops to learn about others, to discover horrible sights, just for a paycheck from their lofty report. But do they really care about the situation? Similarly to what Habila writes, I guess it is all about being that elephant, achieving great size, by eating up what is in their path. Whether that be large-scale -- viewing it from an authoritative perspective in governing through reign of terror -- I find this elephant to represent our very simpleton journalists, as well, for they take in every ounce of thoughtless information that gets in their way in order to write that story, creating a destruction of its own. Why is it that these men, traveling to all these sights where extraction of oil has proven to harm, have not chosen to publish a journal pertaining to the defeat, ruin, and division that comes with it? When encountering terror, they only photograph the mutilated bodies on the scene; not necessarily the other major catastrophes surrounding them left and right. Has the oil, the pollution, and the constant burning become so normalized that it is not worth reporting? I find that to be so disappointing.

This leads me to ponder what it means to write for the planet. Our world has plenty of references to access in terms of how literary criticism can demonstrate the accumulation of capital and its entanglement with the accumulation of environmental danger, but why in these terms do characters choose to create literary devices that completely brush these facts aside? I feel as if everything is about us and what we do, but never the effects this places on living things outside of the human race. So, writing for the planet would be to center nature in the mix of mistakes humans have made, for that is the underlying truth I have witnessed to be so easily forgotten and misconstrued. Like Rufus and so many others, we become sucked-in to the drama amongst our lives (especially with money involved) because we view humans as superior or first priority. Stop being so nit-picky and write about something other than ourselves. Write for the sake of the planet!

Figure 2. Photo depicting mass extraction from Anthropocene, 2018.^[14]

Final Thoughts

        Many of the questions I have proposed are fairly unanswerable, but I believe they stir our minds to think about the significance of the Anthropocene and what it means to discover the truth outside of our denial. In this case, from interpreting these texts and finding notable truths, tying back to my opening quote from Spec Ops:The Line seems adequate in realizing the various man-made truths our characters have created from the novels. Looking at someone like Victor from In the Palm of Darkness, you read first-hand how someone knows the underlying issues behind why there is a single grenouille du sang remaining from an entire species, and yet he chooses to deny the actuality that this disappearance is something someone like him is guilty of, thus initiating his need to construct a truth that he will be a hero in killing this frog for the sake of money, publicity and knowledge. Similar notions are found in how Rufus chooses to write about human versus human impacts, rather than the abundance of environmental catastrophes that surround him, or how Moyna takes part in thinking those who are “in touch” with nature, such as Fokir, are stupid or incoherent, for she is one who actively participates in placing the human first.

With all things considered, I have to pose the question why so many of us are still quiet about the issue? Well, I am assuming this is because we know what we have done and are currently doing, and we feel inferior in preventing the problem. But that is just the thing, how our global order of knowledge -- its truths of solidarity -- are predestined by this storytelling nature through the lens that humans are rational and make appropriate decisions. But why must it be this way -- the reality of our agency in nature left non-transparent, through attributing agency to authoritative entities? Spec Ops gives us another hard-hitting quote to finalize this pondering of truth and realization of corrupt agency, in which “I thought I had to protect the people from the storms, but I really only had to protect them from you.”^[15] The biggest takeaway then, in my opinion, is allowing yourself to learn from your truths where denial is present, to realize you have been looking at things all wrong. I mean, I began the quarter highlighting our texts with the sole purpose of finding nature and the role it plays as our environment, rather than acknowledging that it is not necessarily about its distinction, but what happens to it based on human ignorance. You begin to then look back on your own aspects of agency in your character, where you see that it is not just society as a whole that ruins the truth but you, as well. You have just as much of an impact, even though it is something you wish to hide.