{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018461538461538463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002307692307692308, 'mean_word_length': 4.940639269406392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modernism and Nihilism (review)

829 This volume generally challenges the definition of modernism as an elite European practice implicitly through the terms of historicized raciologies. An exception to this challenge is Doyle’s essay on Hurston and McKay, an essay that demonstrates how the volume’s interest in European genealogies of race may be productively combined with the postcolonial, black Atlantic, and American materialist criticism by which it feels crowded out. Doyle describes the history of a major discourse of Anglo-Saxonism in Europe, but she then explains how this discourse of racialized fitness for freedom and government traveled the routes of imperial power. As a result, she argues, the next stage in the development of and challenge to the reproduction of racial ideologies could not be identified as fully European. Indeed, her account of McKay in the States resonates with Booth’s account of McKay in Britain to underscore this point. The issue of respatializing modernism to include artists outside of Europe does not emerge as a central debate in Modernism and Race. One might argue, as Howard J. Booth does in his essay on McKay, that it is in any case not much of a change to expand the modernist canon solely by assimilating more and more non-European authors into it: