A few interesting points were raised in class discussion on Tuesday. Much talk was provoked by Achebe’s essay, “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” For the purpose of this response, I will limit my attention to the relationship of character and author, leading to the question of Conrad/Marlowe’s racism. I do so of course, with the hopes of offering at least, yet another interpretation of the controversy that it sparks.
Achebe writes, “But if Conrad’s intention is to draw a cordon sanitare between himself and the moral psychological malaise of his narrator his care seems to me totally wasted because he neglects to hint however subtly or tentatively at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters” (342). In other words, Achebe is not contending that Marlowe and Conrad are one in the same, but instead that Conrad does little to try to distant himself from the thoughts and opinions of his character which would then make it seem as though Conrad is speaking through Marlowe. This perhaps is why then, Achebe asserts that Conrad is racist.
Racist, however, in the sense that Conrad does not offer to his reader any alternative to the idea of African’s as savages, uncivilized, inhuman beings because he does not give us another side to their face for comparison. Instead, Conrad exploits African inferiority and in turn promotes European superiority. Achebe would agree that, with the power of authorship, Conrad has the capacity to create a character that challenges the perception that the Europeans hold of the African’s, but chooses not to causing him to be viewed by others as a racist. I think it would be safe to say that in real life per say, Conrad would not be a racist, but within the context of his novel, Heart of Darkness he sure is.
Once again, this notion of Conrad not being racist is addressed at the end of Achebe’s essay. In fact, Achebe states, “Conrad saw and condemned the evil of imperial exploitation but was strangely unaware of the racism on which it sharpened its iron tooth” (349). Here we notice that Achebe is confirming the idea that Conrad is not a racist person, but one driven by the necessity to acknowledge onto his readers the negativity behind Imperialism. The purpose of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is to criticize Imperialism. Unfortunately, in order for this to be achieved Conrad is forced to present a one-sided story that highlights the limitations of the “other” it foils. I think that Conrad could careless what others think of him, but is thrilled with the reaction that his novel has stirred. If nothing at all, Heart of Darkness, at least works to make the reader think twice about chastising “others” due to differences, because we share unimaginable similarities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the greatest flaw in the racial argument against Conrad is simply the source from which it is based from. Heart of Darkness is still just a novel, with a story told almost entirely in 1st person through the eyes of Marlow (Not Conrad). That being said, it's technically impossible to prove any of Conrad's intentions behind the novel, whether they were racist, heroic, or just purely for the sake of being creative. Basing any opinions off of Heart of Darkness, no matter how profound they may be, without hard evidence (something like Conrad's personal diary) can only be viewed as pure supposition.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to consider that while someone may be capable of spewing inflammatory remarks or biased opinions in a certain context, they should also be granted amnesty from first impressions and prejudice. Giving the benefit of the doubt in most cases is harder than quickly labeling someone as guilty of something. I (Like Achebe and Lizette) share the sentiment that Conrad's intentions deserve the respect of objective review and not given an easy classing into that of "Racist."
I don't know.... I'm in between the assumption that Conrad might be a racist or not. However, I am leaning more to the notion that Conrad is not a racist. Thus I also don't believe that Conrad is in some way trying to voice his opinions through his character Marlow.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing with authors... many times we put ourselves through the trouble of analyzing these authors of controversial books, and try to figure out if these authors such as Conrad, Nobokov, maybe even Bronte were trying to speak through their characters or were their characters an image of themselves.
it is true to some extent that authors do incorporate some descriptions of their own observations and experiences in life when writing fictitious stories. But it is only (as I believe)to add a bit of reality in order to get a response from the reader, may it be positive, negative or even allow a reader to relate to the characters. Thus, controversies is what draws the audience or appeals to them in some way.
Great writers of literature have the ability to be very opened minded... they are magicians who with their pen as their wand, create a variety of worlds in which their stories takes place, and like Conrad's Heart of Darkness, it sometimes cannot always be a fairy tale, as history itself is not one either.
After reading the post that was written by Lizette and the comment that Christopher made as well, I decided to attempt to draw a connection between Heart of Darkness and our reading for tomorrow, Things Fall Apart.
ReplyDeleteFor our discussions of Heart of Darkness, we focused on the issue of racism and grappled with the ideas of Conrad being racist, Conrad not being racist, and all of these other combinations of Marlow being racist but Conrad not being racist or Marlow not being racist and Conrad not being racist... and so on and so forth. Why is this even important to know? Why do we feel so strongly about arguing our point? Does it in fact change the way we read a text if we know for sure that the author was racist? How about if instead of the author being racist, we wonder if he was sexist?
As I read the first eight chapters of Things Fall Apart, I was slightly surprised at the blunt sexism in the text. Women in this story are extremely inferior beings that are constantly beaten and disrespected. (The only woman who is not disrespected is the priestess who sits in the cave.) There are so many phrases like "do what you are told, woman" (14) and "no, that is a boy's job" (44 - in reference to Okonkwo's daughter asking if she could carry his chair to the wrestling match). These two examples are both spoken by Okonkwo. Is he sexist? He beats his wives severely. Does this then make him sexist?
I think Okonkwo obviously has a very sexist mentality - but then again, my real question is - does this all matter? Also, if some people were saying that Conrad was racist because of Marlow's actions and speech, can we argue that Achebe is sexist because of Okonkwo's actions and speech? In my opinion, I think the slight difference in point of view for these two texts greatly impacts the audiences perception of both the narrators and the characters. However, to answer my own overall question of "does it matter," I think I would like to hear other opinions before I can make my own.