Literature

RE-WRITING THE COLONIAL DISCOURSE

Written by: Nouha Mahjoubi
Supervised by: Professor Beltaif

The world’s structure today is tightly linked to the historical development and events. One of the most noticeable historical processes is colonization. The British Empire was one of the greatest imperialist powers. It is through colonization that the Western world is gaining a kind of prominence and domination in the world. The influence of colonization may not be very obvious nowadays as the concrete and direct conquest is over. Yet, a deeper observation would reveal the continuation of the process of colonization called “neocolonialism”. It is not a military or armed invasion, it rather an intellectual, ideological, political, and economic colonization. The most prominent type of neocolonialism may be the economic one. This is obvious through the economic dependency of the “third world” on the western or developed world. In terms of cultural and ideological features, neocolonialism is also there. The former colonized nations do adopt their ex colonizer’s cultural traditions or practices in an attempt to reach development through imitating the developed nations. This may lead us to a relevant notion in this context which is universalism. It is under the umbrella of universalism that the developed and former imperialist powers still practice authority and dominance. Any practice or feature created by the west is judged to be universal whether economic processes, political regimes or even cultural aspects like fashion, music, and language. Assuming that the European practices are universal, the process of neocolonialism is ensured and continuing. This fact does inevitably contribute in the effacement of the non European cultures and identities as a whole. Considering that the economic independence is still a hard task for the developing and former colonized nations, other tools of resisting the European powers are introduced. These tools are mainly ideological and intellectual ones.
No one can deny that one of the facilitators of neocolonialism is the image depicted by the Europeans and Westerners in general about the non Europeans nations. It is through degrading these countries that Europe justifies and legitimizes its ongoing process of domination and authority. Beside the concrete practices of Europe on its former subjects-embodied for example in the economic investments that obviously look like economic supports but actually it reinforces exploitation and economic dependency- the developed world shows a sense of superiority through intellectual practices particularly through literature. This process has started since earlier centuries that witnessed the celebration of the British Empire as one of the most brilliant and flourishing powers in the world. Our main focus can be considered as one of the examples of what is known as “colonial discourse” or “Western canon” and its counterpart is known as “the counter discourse” or “the post colonial writing”. The former is embodied in Robison Crusoe by Daniel Defoe and the latter in Foe by J.M Coetzee.
Africa is one of the central colonial subjects of the British Empire. Even after its independence, Africa still suffers from identity problems caused by the territorial colonization and the intellectual one too. The intellectual or abstract colonization is embodied in the concept created in the mind of the colonized; the idea that they are inferior, savage, ignorant, inhuman, and incapable of self-governing. Through seeding such notions in the colonized nations, the colonizer ensures its domination and authority and legitimizes the invasion of other countries. The white man is therefore considered as the rescuer or saver of the other nations; it is “the white man’s burden” or what is also called “the civilizing mission” that places the colonized in the inferior position waiting for the “divine duty” of the white man to save him. The colonizer is thus imbued with notions of knowledge, progress, development, and civilization and defines the colonized as its opposite or antithesis which is associated with ignorance and savagery.
This image depicted by the Westerners or Europeans about the non Europeans is shown through the negative stereotypes of the colonized nations in literature. It is another means that enables the Europeans to assert their supremacy even at the expense of reality and the truth of the colonized. Such kind of literature is known as the colonial discourse that fits the Western canon or modal of literature. Foucault believes in the power of stories and novels in consolidating the European supremacy: “More than the power of the cannon, it is canonical knowledge that establishes the power of the colonizer ‘I’ over the colonized ‘other’”. In this respect, Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe can be considered as one of the very first texts that announced the supremacy and development of the British Empire as one of the greatest imperialist powers that succeeded in bringing civilization over nature (the island) and savagery (Friday).
A post colonial study of this novel would reveal a main characteristic of colonial discourse which is misrepresentation. Post colonial literature or counter discourses are literary works that react against the falsehoods and the defamation of the non European identity and culture. Its main goal is attacking the misrepresentation and helping the former colonized nations in regaining belief in themselves by dissolving the false concepts that lead to self degradation. Post colonial writers aim to correct colonial discourses and rebuild a solid national identity free from misjudgment and misrepresentation. This can be achieved through the process of rewriting some of the European colonial discourses. As for Robinson Crusoe, Foe is its rewritten version by the post colonial writer J.M Coetzee. Before focusing in the process of rewriting, we shall observe the main features that make Defoe’s novel fit to the colonial discourse and focus also in the instances of misrepresentation in this text.
Robinson Crusoe is characterized by two major features; the depiction of a rational and powerful hero who is able to build a new world and correct what surrounds him and the presentation of any element other than the colonizer as the submissive one who is usually dependent on the power of the colonizer to pursue his life and achieve development.
Robinson is the presented as the rational and active man who was able to bring life and order to an inhabited island. This image of the imperialist hero is very obvious in Robinson Crusoe. He starts with building his lodge; he built even a supplementary one. He was also successful in his agriculture and in guaranteeing the essential needs of his life in the island. The reader comes to admire the capacities of Robinson which made him the colonizer’s prototype as James Joyce asserts: “The true symbol of the British conquest is Robinson Crusoe, who cast away on a desert island, in his pocket a knife and a pipe, becomes an architect, a carpenter, a knife grinder, an astronomer, a backer, a shipwright, a potter, a saddler, a farmer, a tailor, an umbrella maker and a clergyman. He is the true prototype of the British colonist, as Friday (the truly savage who arrives on an unlucky day) is the symbol of the subject races.”
Along with his success in subjugating the island, Robinson was also successful in manipulating Friday and forming his identity. He starts with giving him the name “Friday” in reference to the day of his arrival, without even bothering to know his old name. Then he imposes a sort of cultural imperialism. He starts with teaching Friday the English language, but he limited his knowledge to the words that ensure their relationship as a master/slave since he began his teaching with the word ‘master’ that further ensures the position of Friday particularly and the whole African nation generally that was considered only as a subject of colonization and its knowledge or intellectual aspect was completely deleted under the name of slavery. Robinson uses religion as another tool of subjugation. During teaching Friday “the knowledge of the true God” (Robinson Crusoe p171) a clear deconstruction of the religious notion of “the poor man” as described by Crusoe, was very obvious. Robinson goes further to consider Friday’s religion as a false one: “I endeavour’d to clear up this fraud, to my man Friday, and told him, that the pretence of their old men going up to the mountain to say O to their God Benamuckee was a cheat.” (Robinson Crusoe 171) Here we notice one of the main objectives of colonization; the destruction of the native history and identity and the building of a new one that is capable of ensuring domination and authority through degrading the colonized identity and presenting it as false and vain. Frantz Fanon’s quotation would be relevant in showing the strategies of colonization in destructing the native culture and replacing it by a deformed one to dissolve difference and facilitate the process of hegemonization: “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.”
A clear misrepresentation is therefore introduced in Robinson Crusoe. Another instance of this process is manifested in the fact of considering Friday a cannibal: “I found Friday had still a hankering stomach after some of the flesh, and was still a cannibal in his nature”. (Robinson Crusoe 164) “Friday: yes my nation eat man’s too, eat all up” (169). The stereotype of the colonized or the non European is present in Defoe’s narrative which makes it one of the most influential colonial discourses. Robinson is presented as the wise governor who tries to tame Friday, the cannibal. It is a kind of legitimization of colonialism through showing the benevolence of Robinson and his attempt to help Friday in getting rid of his savagery and ignorance. One of the motifs also introduced in the text is the gun which refers to the notion of force. The latter is the means by which Robinson comes to subjugate all what surrounds him; the island and even Friday. Weapons and force become a crucial element in man’s life which enables him to pursue his life and protect it.
The way by which the relationship between Robinson and Friday is depicted reveals some sense of gratefulness, as if Friday must be thankful to Robinson who saved his life and provided him with knowledge. The two men are, therefore, contrasted; Friday is mainly associated with savagery, labor, passivity, and lack of reflection. In the other hand, Robinson is imbued with notions of wisdom, force, intelligence, and rationality. Not only was he able to discover religious notions-like the power and wisdom of Providence- on his own, but he was also a successful preacher who helps other people in finding Truth and understanding the “real” notions of God and religion. Robinson is thus depicted as a hero in contrast to the submissive Friday who shows a great loyalty to his saver without whom he is unable to live.
Such discourse reveals a plain misrepresentation of the colonized nations and the non Europeans in general. The stereotyping of both the colonial hero and his subject is one of the urging elements for rewriting the colonial discourse. This process is known as the counter discourse and is classified in the post colonial writings.
Post colonial literature in general aims at correcting the misrepresentation and struggling against stereotyping the Africans (and the oppressed nations in general) that define these nations according to the colonizer’s perception and not according to reality or truth. The role of the post colonial writer therefore is to present a truthful image of the former colonized people and to deconstruct the Eurocentrism and logocentrism that usually characterize colonial discourses. Post colonial novelists assume the responsibility of telling their peoples’ stories themselves and this pushed them to rework some Western writings. Such literature questions the credibility and reliability of the Western works and shakes the established order that enables Europeans to take the position of interpreters. This process of rewriting ensures the reassertion of the African identity through weakening the position of Europeans or the colonized as it is the case with Coetzee’s Foe.
One of the most important techniques used in postcolonial writings is the inversion of the hierarchy or binarism. The African is no longer that submissive and passive element of narratives. Instead he becomes the center of the writing and the element without which a complete and true story is never achieved. In this context Ashcroft argues: “Postcolonial culture has entailed a revolt of the margin against the metropolis, the periphery against the center, in which experience has become uncentered, pluralistic and nefarious”. In Coetzee’s version, the deconstruction of this hierarchy can be revealed through the study of the African character Friday. Although he is tongueless, Friday plays an essential role in the development of the novel. The protagonist, Susan Barton, is not autonomous or free to report whatever she wants. In fact, she is dependent on Friday and the secrets he bears inside him that will make the construction of a complete story possible. This way, Coetzee reasserts the importance of the African people in general-who are symbolized through Friday-in depicting the truthful image and reporting their real story. Despite his muteness, Friday didn’t lose his presence, in contrary he becomes the manipulator of the story and the only source of truth. “…many stories can be told of Friday’s tongue, but the true story is buried within Friday, who is mute. The true story will not be heard till by art we have found a means of giving voice to Friday.” (Foe 118) This passage further emphasizes the inability of interpreting or telling stories according to the European perspective. The African here plays the role of the guide and the source of truth upon which all the story depends. Here, we can notice a clear subversion of the established hierarchy. Coetzee is therefore questioning the truthfulness of Defoe’s novel; in other words we come to believe that the original version cannot be trusted since the only source of truth is mute. The issue of representation can be raised through the muteness of Friday, as if he refuses to be presented and prefers to keep his secrets and truths unknown. As a consequence, a complete representation would be impossible. It is a type of resistance and rejection of the false and misleading depiction in the Western writings.
Friday’s tonguelessness may also signify the agony and atrocities of people, who were oppressed and silenced only because of their race or skin color, it symbolizes also the inexpressible damage and impact of colonization and psychology of the natives. Friday is a sample of the oppressed people who-though he holding truth- are unable of expressing it because of the exterior oppression and the interior pressure. The handicap caused by Friday’s silence aims at showing the negative impact of colonialism even in the Europeans or the colonizer. Susan Barton and Defoe seem to be disabled and crippled because of Friday’s muteness. Coetzee shows the damages of colonization in all levels and to both parts. This way, Foe proves the futility of representing the African World through the gap that prevent Susan Barton from achieving a complete story and thus the impossibility of creating further representation that aims to deform and falsify the true image.
Along with Friday’s muteness, Coetzee used other tools to counter Defoe’s writing. In an attempt to question authority and domination, Coetzee introduced Defoe and Cruso as minor characters. Defoe relies mainly on a female narrative voice-Susan Barton herself to deconstruct the patriarchal writing of Defoe. As for Cruso, he is depicted as almost the opposite of the original Robinson. Far from being a rational and active European man, Coetzee’s Cruso is an idle one who is preoccupied with building huge terraces without having a fixed goal. When Susan asked him “And what will you be planting, when you plant?” his answer was “We have nothing to plant. That is our misfortune.” (Foe 33) here Coetzee used a kind of irony or mockery; Cruso is the king of an island, yet he makes effort to accomplish a vain and futile activity. Ti is an attack to the rationality and logocentrism that is presented in Defoe’s novel and also a subversion of the typical colonial hero. This Cruso has no gun, no creativity, and no bible. He doesn’t even have a means of timing or records in which to document important events and dates. This degradation of Cruso emphasizes the centrality and importance of Friday who enjoys a crucial role in the novel despite his silence.
Moreover, the futility of Cruso and his activities may refer to the futility of the Empire that tends to dominate and rein huge spaces but with no purpose or benefit. Foe becomes a pure postcolonial writing attacking colonization in its different aspects and consequences.
Another difference or opposition is also present in the appearance of Friday. In Robinson Crusoe, he is not described as a totally black man, but he has “delicate features”. In contrast, in Coetzee’s version, Friday is a purely Black African with thick lips, wooly hair, and dark skin. Such description is used to insist on the black identity in its true and real features without any change. It is also a resistance to the racist perspective of Defoe who associates beauty and delicacy with whiteness and ugliness with blackness. In other words, Friday is handsome because he is not purely black. Coetzee tries to reassert the black identity with all its characteristics whether good or bad as long as they are true.
Coetzee raised the issue of the credibility of the Western canon through dealing with the faithfulness of writing “…a multitude of castaway narratives, most of them, I would guess, riddled with lies” (Foe 50) “…a being without substance, a ghost beside the true body of Cruso. Is that the fate of all storytellers?” (Foe 51).These quotations are direct questioning of the reliability of writings. It is an allusion that the Western canon should not be taken for granted and therefore its report of what is seen in the colonized or the non European nations is not forcibly true and relevant. Coetzee goes further to assert that cannibals are added only to make Defoe’s story more attractive: “As for cannibals, I am not persuaded, despite Cruso’s fears, that there are cannibals in those oceans” and also: “What I saw, I wrote. I saw no cannibals; and if they came after nightfall and fled before the dawn, they left no footprints behind.” (Foe 54) As if the writer is saying that Western writings are far from being faithful representations, instead they are seeking fame and money through adding some elements that have nothing to do with reality. In Foe, Susan Barton is somehow contrasting Defoe, she insists on reporting the story as it really was, but still, she is conscious that the real story is dull and boring. In page 81, she says: “But what shall I write? You know how dull our life was, in truth. We faced no perils, no ravenous beasts, not even serpents. Food was plentiful, the sun was mild. No pirates landed on our shores, no freebooters, no cannibals save yourself; if you can be called a cannibal.” We can deduce that fiction does not reflect truth since the latter is very ordinary and dull. It is therefore a shaking to the whole western canon or fiction that uses imaginary additions to create an amusing writing at the expense of truth and faithfulness of representation.
“Alas, we will never make our fortunes, Friday, by being merely what we are, or were…Who would wish to read that there were once two dull fellows on a rock in the sea who filled their time by digging up stones.” Here Susan Barton starts to understand Defoe’s attention to the issue of cannibals; at last she comes to understand the reason that pushed him to insert some extraordinary element. Another instance contributing also in proving the futility of the western writings; when Friday took Defoe’s place and starts to write, Susan cried “He will foul your papers” but Defoe’s answer was “My papers are foul enough, he can make them no worse.” (Foe 151) this is another metaphor aiming at undermining the white literary canon.
Foe can be considered as a post colonial writing that counters or resists the European colonial discourse, namely Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. It is the process of rewriting that enables postcolonial novelists and writers in general to defend their people and their native culture that has been misrepresented by the European imperialist powers. We can speak of a rewriting and a re-righting also. Africans are restoring their right to represent their culture and history themselves and their right to oppose and fight the falsehoods of the Western canon. Foe can be considered as one of these counter discursive writings that attempt to report a faithful image of the Africans and also to uncover the strategies and processes used by European writers. At the end of the day, Susan Barton comes to believe that Friday is a human being and she shows a kind of admission that all people are equal. She says: “I have no doubt that amongst Africans the human sympathies move as readily as among us.” She says also: “We are all alive; we are all substantial, we are all in the same world.” It is therefore a restoration of humanity to the African that was absent in colonial discourses.
Coetzee’s novel can also be considered as a call for a pluralistic world in which the center and the other are enjoying equal rights that enable them to achieve development and Truth. This objective is symbolized through the dependency upon Friday to accomplish the writing of the story.
It is true that Friday “doesn’t have tongue, but he has fingers”; he is able to write and thus able to express and defend himself. It is a reference to the importance and the value of literature in rebuilding the African identity and redeeming the self confidence and the pride of one’s native culture.