LAUSR

such as efficiency (84). But perhaps most interestingly, Choi’s analysis of the ways the emerging view of the body placed pressure on the old moral economies and forms of literature makes one thing very clear: the notion of the continuity of the body and environment, and thus vulnerability of the liberal subject, emerges simultaneously with the concept of that subject itself. Posthumanism is, in short, either connate with liberal humanism or a slightly belated twin. Choi demonstrates how narratives of bodily connections not only show pressure to reinscribe identity and belonging, but also offer an alternate model in which the individual easily dissolves into unmarked and anonymous bodily matter dissolved and dispersed through the social body as a kind of macro-organic structure (150). By the end of the century, Choi notes, “germ narrative initiated the reader into a new conception of sociality ... where contact with others was not only involuntary but also constant, not merely intersecting but also enveloping” (148). Choi suggests that although these new ways of understanding bodily connections might be represented within gothic invasion narratives, they also offered new, inclusive modes of thinking human sociality beyond traditional identity categories. Perhaps the next identity the Victorians will enable us to think past might be the human itself.