Postcolonial Criticism
As Barry explains, postcolonial criticism concerns itself with exposing the ways in which Western culture has (mis-)represented non-European cultures in the name of universal human values. To do this, it makes abundant use of poststructuralist notions of a non-essential, contingent self and the inability—or at least near inability—of subjectivity to break free of the "official" discourse of the dominent ideology.
Fourth Blog Assignment:
The articles by Chinua Achebe and Edward Said present two (actually, three) very different readings of Heart of Darkness. In "An Image of Africa," Achebe accuses Conrad of representing Africa and Africans in such a way that shows the desire and need "in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negations at once remote and vaguely familiar, in comparison with which Europe's own state of spiritual grace will be manifest" (Armstrong 337). One major point of his argument is that Conrad, though recognizing Europeans' kinship with Africans, ultimately falls into complicity with the prevailing notion of their inhumanity by not presenting an alternative framework for understanding them. This has the effect of purveying prejudices that enable the infliction of great suffering from one "section of humanity" on another.
Said, in "Two Visions in Heart of Darkness," actually seems to celebrate the manner in which the self-conscious and circular narrative form of the novella keeps "drawing attention to how ideas and values are constructed (and deconstructed) through dislocations in the narrator's language" (Armstrong 427). He sees Conrad as being somewhat ahead of his time, and writing in such a way that increased the possibility of awareness of alternative, and therefore resistent, thought.
With whom do you most agree, and why? What faults (if any) do you find in the arguments of either side? Is the Armstrong article any help in mitigating between Achebe and Said?
As Barry explains, postcolonial criticism concerns itself with exposing the ways in which Western culture has (mis-)represented non-European cultures in the name of universal human values. To do this, it makes abundant use of poststructuralist notions of a non-essential, contingent self and the inability—or at least near inability—of subjectivity to break free of the "official" discourse of the dominent ideology.
Fourth Blog Assignment:
The articles by Chinua Achebe and Edward Said present two (actually, three) very different readings of Heart of Darkness. In "An Image of Africa," Achebe accuses Conrad of representing Africa and Africans in such a way that shows the desire and need "in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe, as a place of negations at once remote and vaguely familiar, in comparison with which Europe's own state of spiritual grace will be manifest" (Armstrong 337). One major point of his argument is that Conrad, though recognizing Europeans' kinship with Africans, ultimately falls into complicity with the prevailing notion of their inhumanity by not presenting an alternative framework for understanding them. This has the effect of purveying prejudices that enable the infliction of great suffering from one "section of humanity" on another.
Said, in "Two Visions in Heart of Darkness," actually seems to celebrate the manner in which the self-conscious and circular narrative form of the novella keeps "drawing attention to how ideas and values are constructed (and deconstructed) through dislocations in the narrator's language" (Armstrong 427). He sees Conrad as being somewhat ahead of his time, and writing in such a way that increased the possibility of awareness of alternative, and therefore resistent, thought.
With whom do you most agree, and why? What faults (if any) do you find in the arguments of either side? Is the Armstrong article any help in mitigating between Achebe and Said?
posted by Jeff at
8:27 AM
2 Comments:
I preferred Said's article for the subtlety and complexity of his argument. While I didn't neccessarily find Achebe's article to be frustrating, it felt as though it was very single-minded and that Achebe was directed specifically to a condemnation of Conrad and the novel. When he condemns the work he says; "And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art."(344)To which he answers in the negative. When I was reading this, the word celebrates really jumped out at me. While I think there is a deeply flawed limitation to Marlow's understanding and description of the Africans he encounters, I never thought of it as a celebration. I felt that in the narrative, which certainly objectifies the African to a great extent, there is an attempt made to bridge the difference, and to recognize the injustice of the situation. This goes to Armstrong's ideas about Conrad's approaching communication between the European and the African but never actually accomplishing it.
I do think that Achebe's argument has validity as an opinion, as his perspective is certainly different from mine, and he makes some interesting points. However I don't think that it was incumbent upon Conrad to provide an alternative framework. To this point I liked Said's idea that because of his "outsider" status Conrad's lack of total identification with the imperial movement creates a dissonance, which affords the later reader the possibility "to imagine something other than an Africa carved up into dozens of European colonies, even if, for his own part, he had little notion of what that Africa might be."(426-7)
Armstrong's emphasis on contingency as an operative factor in the novel, and Said's perception of it, were helpful in crystallizing my opinion of the book. The precariousness of "civilization" is a strong theme of the novella, and Said's appraisal of the power of imperialism seems valid to me, especially when he argues that "Conrad could probably never have used Marlow to present anything other than an imperialist world-view, given what was avilable for either Conrad or Marlow to see of the non-European at the time."(425)I think that part of the value of the book is that Conrad, in spite of this, manages to raise the question in such a significant manner.
By
Robert Damon, at 8/03/2006 12:55 AM
Before I can get to my thoughts on Achebe's criticism (and from there, Said's), I have to respond to a few points made by Crystal, Robert and Brenna.
First, Crystal noted that we cannot blame the Europeans for their racism (nor can we blame Conrad, for that matter) because they were ignorant and did not have "movies, the internet, or even an abundance of photographs." Yet, Conrad was actually there, in Africa, and saw it with his own eyes! What the Europeans did have were written accounts of those who had been to Africa. They had HOD. And this is why Achebe is so angry with Conrad. So many racist and stereotypic views have been based on this image of Africa that Conrad promotes and Achebe knows that Conrad saw the continent himself and has no excuse for this point of view. Achebe himself grew up in Africa, and as Brenna wrote, if you read Things Fall Apart you see a very different Africa from the "dark continent" that Conrad describes. Achebe basically said that either Conrad flat-out lied, or his racism was so intense that he did not want to see the "real" Africa--he wanted to see a foil of Europe. I agree with Achebe here--there is no excuse for this type of account, especially for someone who has seen Africa. Due to this book, precisely because there were no movies, internet or photographs, people's impressions of Africa were affected, and this led to a much more sinister myth of the continent that was often used to justify imperialism, colonialism, and all the "isms" that Conrad seems to despise in this very book.
The next point Crystal made that I must respond to is a bit off-topic, and yet is so important to the Achebe piece that I am surprised no one else has responded to it. Crystal wrote, "I am constantly wondering what in evolution caused Caucasians to be able to create what is now considered modern society, and yet be so afraid of anything that is different from them." First of all, it is human nature to be afraid of the unknown, or different. This does not made Caucasians different from any other group of human beings. But fear is not the problem here. I don't think "fear" caused the Europeans to (excuse my blunt use of a very sensitive term) rape the continent of Africa, oppress its people, and steal its history. No, that is greed and pure hatred. And I must say that I cringed at Crystal's use of the word "evolution" here. Are you implying that whites have evolved where blacks could not? Knowing Crystal, I know this answer is a resounding "no" and this is simply a bad choice of words. But there are so many who truly believe this, and it is this attitude to which Achebe is responding. Also, why is the creation of "modern society" an accomplishment? Many would argue it is a grand failure--just look at Marxist criticism, for instance. And how did whites create "modern society?" For one perspective, read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel," which argues that geographic advantages have helped Europeans immensely. Lastly, whites did not create modern society alone. Did Africans not contribute, whether it be through slave labor, the arts (like Achebe noted), and science? Look at all the great accomplishments of African Americans in this country. America would look very different without the light bulb, peanut butter, jazz, the blues, rock, R&B, rap, and countless other scientific and cultural contributions that African Americans have made.
This brings me to the points that Robert and Brenna (and to an extent Allison) made, that Achebe's criticism lacked subtly or even an academic air. It seemed like Achebe was too emotional, and approached his criticism with a strong opinion, not an objective interest. This is actually an aspect of postcolonial criticism, according to Barry. Brenna noted that Achebe's criticism was "over the top" and this was due to his being "too close to the subject at hand." While this is true, I think it is also necessary. One flaw of academic criticism is that it becomes at times emotionless and removed from the world around us. Achebe refuses to detach himself from the horrors of his life. If I had to see, day after day, the horrible misconceptions of my homeland and the terrible consequences they cause, I too would be a bit emotional. Why didn't we get more involved in Rwanda but "saved the day" in Bosnia? I think part of the reason is because this country sees Africa as a lost cause. We see these warring nations (whom we call tribes!) and read the reports of atrocities and shrug. "Well, they have always been fighting. That's just the way things are in the 'dark continent.'" Achebe sees this too, and it makes him angry. So, when he reads HOD, he sees an intense racism that overshadows any academic analysis possible, and he sees this as the cause of many evils. For Achebe, this is too important to ignore, and frankly, I agree with him. Imagine if we were reading "Mein Kampf" for its literary value right now...that must be what it is like for Achebe to read Conrad.
My only criticism of Achebe's piece, actually, is his condemnation of Marco Polo! Aside from being off-topic, it is a weak support. So what if he did not see the Great Wall of China? First of all, it cannot be seen from the moon (that's a myth), and second, you can't just stand anywhere in China and see it. Maybe Polo never travelled to it? I think he is just giving the guy a hard time for no good reason. Otherwise, I was impressed with Achebe’s support of his arguments, whether he used outside-resources (like Conrad’s writings on the first time he met a black man and an Englishman) or selections from within the text. While I agree with Robert that he too easily dismisses the possibility of Marlow as a separate entity from Conrad, I also think that the language that Conrad used is so steeped in bigotry that, like Achebe noted, it is hard to believe that the words are not Conrad’s as well.
Ok, I have written too much. But Said’s essay was excellent as well, and served as an excellent companion to Achebe’s work.
--Matt
By
Matt Fisher, at 8/03/2006 6:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home