LITR / CRCL 5734:
Colonial & Postcolonial Literature
Sample Student Midterm 2003
April Davis
Dr. Craig White
LITR 5734
7 June 2003
Identity Crisis
Does postcolonialism eventually end and something new begin? Are postcolonial societies forever doomed to identify themselves in terms of their previous oppressors? Salman Rushdie questions the very idea categorizing postcolonial literature, arguing “at best, what is called ‘Commonwealth Literature’ is positioned below English literature proper,” placing “English Literature at the center of the world and the rest of the world at the periphery” (Rushdie/Guneratne 1). This idea certainly evokes an image of the English as the center of the universe; and although the British have been driven out of most countries, elements of the Western culture still linger. In fact, it is a former British colony that currently seems to be on an imperialistic quest – that is the United States. It may now be more appropriate to picture the United States as the center of the universe – or at least as an example of colonial revolt taken to the extreme. And if the postcolonial period does come to an end, what new identity will emerge? The effects of imperialism on identity may be examined on a continuum beginning with colonial ethnic purity, next splintering into postcolonial hybridity and possibly evolving into a global consciousness.
Colonialism is the term used to describe the period during which the British Empire colonized Africa, India, and other various parts of the world. Exploitation of land, labor, and resources was the driving force behind the colonization of these undeveloped countries. The success of colonization was due in part to its adherance to the idea of ethnic purity, or the idea that the identities of the conquerors and the conquered are distinct and separate. Often natives of conquered lands were dehumanized in an attempt by the colonizer to maintain control of the indigenous peoples. This dehumanization was an effect of and at the same time contributed to the idea of ethnic purity. Dehumanization served to reinforce the idea of civilized versus savage and reaffirmed British superiority over the natives. Ideologically this was important because a strong British identity was key to building and maintaining its empire.
The novel was the major vehicle for literature of the colonial period because its allowance for multiple voices, dialogue, and conflict proved the ideal means for the storytelling aspect of a human journey into foreign lands. Unfailingly, the voice in colonial novels is that of the oppressor. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, for example, the voice is that of a white entrepreneur named Marlow. Although the narration shifts on occasion, for the most part there is no African voice in the novel. Marlow’s descriptions of the Africans, which tend to dehumanize them to an almost animal-like level, are the reader’s only glimpse of the native people. According to Marlow, “They [the Africans] howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces…” (Conrad 37). In spite of his air of superiority, Marlow manages to point out, perhaps inadvertently, various accounts of the British dehumanization of the Africans. Near the beginning of the story he witnesses the natives starving and left to die in the woods. Later, he reveals that the British are starving the Africans by throwing their meat source overboard. But in spite of Marlow’s occasional criticisms, the reader is reminded at all times of the European’s strong belief in their own distinct and superior identity.
However, George Orwell presents another angle of the story of the oppressor in his story “Killing an Elephant”. Orwell suggests a somewhat less intimidating colonizer, uncertain and fearful in a land of hostile natives. In the story, Orwell goes against his own moral beliefs and shoots an elephant in an attempt to live up to what he sees as the expectations of the natives. Orwell’s moral conflict stems from his position as the ‘hated Imperialist’ in a colonized country where he spends his life trying to impress the “natives” and avoid embarrassment or shame (Herz 1). He equates this sacrifice of identity with wearing a mask, which his face grows to fit (Orwell/Herz 1). It is because of this that he realizes that imperialism works not only against the natives, but against the imperialist himself. According to Orwell, “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys,” (Orwell/Herz 2).
Perhaps Orwell’s fears of humiliation are symbolic of the imperialist fear of a loss of control; however, it must be acknowledged that his fear is on a personal level, which contributes to an identity crisis of sorts. In spite of the British air of superiority and ideas of ethnic purity, the fact remains that they simply could not force the indigenous people to like or accept them. Suddenly the question is raised – is the dehumanization of the natives always solely for the purpose of subduing and dominating? Or is it sometimes serving a somewhat more personal purpose? Perhaps individuals employ it as a means of alleviating guilt or reaffirming that what the British are doing is right. In this sense, the major purpose of the dehumanization of the natives would be as a defense mechanism for the individual colonizer with it’s secondary purpose being the maintenance of control over the colonized. In the case of Orwell, if he truly feared not living up to the expectations of the natives, dehumanizing them in his own mind would help to relieve the pressure of their expectations and affirm his own identity. One way of looking at this theory is that if an oppressor truly thinks the natives sub human then why would he care what they think in the first place? This is an interesting paradox, which lends itself to the idea of dehumanization as a personal defense mechanism. While there is no doubt about the idea of racial superiority on the part of the white oppressors, their belief that the natives are entirely subhuman may be a flimsy cover used to perpetuate the white man’s idea of his own separate superior identity and justify the exploitation of the oppressed.
In Heart of Darkness, it is certainly easy to see that Marlow slips into the habit of dehumanizing the Africans during times of uncertainty while alternately reflecting on their humanity during times when his identity is secure. At the beginning of the story he is uncomfortable with his Aunt’s cries about “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways,”(Conrad 16). Because he has yet to face any challenges to his identity, he feels uncomfortable with the idea of tampering with the identities of foreign people. He is only interested in Africa as it pertains to his own financial needs. Conversely, later on the steamship, Marlow cannot rid himself of the thought of the Africans as cannibals and occasionally fears for his life. It is as though he is purposely dehumanizing the Africans in order to justify the fact that his fellow shipmates have dumped the African’s meat. Maybe subconsciously he believes that if he fears or loathes the natives he will not be obligated to feel sympathy for them. Ironically, in a later moment of reflection, Marlow thinks, “but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity-like yours-the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar,” (Conrad 38). This alternating back and forth illustrates his continual efforts to define and maintain his own identity.
Perhaps the character of Marlow is just preparing the reader to deal with the crisis of identity endured by Kurtz. Though Kurtz never abandons his idea of racial superiority, his identity is reconstructed in terms of the natives. This leaves him torn between his ideas of reforming versus his ideas of destroying. At times he wants to forget the society from which he has come, but he cannot. At the same time, not only does he not abandon his ideas of racial superiority, he elevates himself to a god like status – one that he can never live up to. And the natives perpetuate the myth– somewhat paralleling the situation Orwell finds himself in. Kurtz’ writings, which alternately advocate the reform and destruction of ‘the brutes’, reflect his conflicted beliefs.
According to Achebe’s criticism, “An Image of Africa: -Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, “Conrad saw and condemned the evil of imperial exploitation but was strangely unaware of the racism on which it sharpened its iron tooth,” (Achebe/article 262). I am not entirely certain that Achebe is correct in his assessment. Surely, as a racist in the society of fellow racists it occurred to a man as educated as Conrad that racism played a part in the justification of imperialism. After all, is it not impossible to take imperialism to task without addressing the issue of racism, which is the foundation upon which imperialism is built? As a racist, Conrad cannot be expected to step back from his role, play the part of objective observer, and pass a moral judgment on his own racist beliefs. Nevertheless, Conrad does in fact question some of the assumptions on which his racist attitudes rest through the character of Marlow. Conrad would not have had Marlow pointing out the humanity of the natives if he did not see it himself. Of course the idea of the natives as humans was “ugly” to the imperialist, because if their ideas of racial superiority did not hold up there would be no justification for the oppression of the natives. Achebe takes things further and suggests that Heart of Darkness should no longer be read by today’s youth. The fact remains that the stories of the colonizers are valid accounts of their thoughts, beliefs, and motives. Their historical accuracy may be questionable, of course; nonetheless, the stories do not deserve to be thrown out. There is no obligation on the part of the novel to share all sides of the story. In the case of colonial literature, it is the vehicle for telling the stories of the colonizers.
Postcolonialism, on the other hand, lends its voice to the oppressed. It is a broad term coined to describe the plight of the colonized peoples during the time of oppression as well as after gaining independence from their oppressors. As a term and a literary genre, postcolonialism surfaced many years after the actual colonization of the people and replaced the use of terms such as Commonwealth and Third World, which had previously been employed to describe the literary works of Europe’s former colonies (Bahri 1). Some themes and questions of postcolonial literature include: how did the oppressor influence the culture and identity of the oppressed? What are the emergent forms of postcolonial identity? Should previously oppressed people attempt to return to a pre-colonial past?(Bahri 3).
Understanding the concept of hybridization is an integral part of understanding the formation of identity by the colonized peoples. Hybridity involves the forging of an identity from elements of the traditional culture fused with elements from the colonizing culture. According to the Post-Colonial Studies Reader, hybridity is usually considered a strength rather than a weakness. It focuses on the fact that the trade off between colonizer and colonized is not a one-way street. Hybridity focuses on the strength of the oppressed and how they adapt and integrate (Ashcroft 183). Verena Ollikkala points out that even Conrad inadvertently shows the reader a type of hybrid people in Heart of Darkness when he speaks of the “Zanzibaris”. These people “adapted to colonialism and progressed to become imitations of the colonizer as they carried out clerical jobs or soldiered for Britain and Belgium,” (Ollikkala 2). Conrad seems to have found an early example of hybridization of identity among African peoples.
Derek Walcott, who grew up on the colonized island of St. Lucia, chronicles the often conflicted nature of his hybrid identity through his poetry. In his poem “A Far Cry from Africa” he is torn between his African roots and the New World, which has opened his mind (Ollikkala 1). He writes, “ I who am poisoned with the blood of both, Where shall I turn, divided to the vein?” (Walcott 18). “ Betray them both, or give back what they give?” Much of Walcott’s poetry reflects a sense of being torn in two directions and sometimes suggests an air of longing.
Rather than utilizing a literary vehicle from their traditional culture, many postcolonial writers choose the novel as their medium of artistic expression. The use of the novel not only reflects the hybrid nature of the colonized peoples, it also allows for many voices to be heard. Chinua Achebe, a native of Nigeria, wrote the novel Things Fall Apart in response to Heart of Darkness. Because the story occurs before and at the time of colonization the voice is more traditional than hybridized. While the story gives a voice to the African people, it refrains from idealizing every aspect of their culture. For example, rather than creating a sympathetic character to carry the story, Achebe creates Okonkwo, who is a misogynistic stereotype of sorts. Throughout the story Achebe points out the strengths as well as the shortcomings of the Igbo culture and parallels them with aspects of the imperialist culture. By creating Igbo characters that question aspects of their own culture – such as Nowye and Obierka- Achebe depicts the native Africans as an intelligent, peaceful race, capable of making moral judgments. This dispels the myths perpetuated from colonial accounts which dehumanized the natives. This also foreshadows the Africans’ ability to give and take from aspects of both cultures in order to forge a new identity. Furthermore, the clan members who adopt Christianity represent the beginning of the formation of a hybridized identity.
There are other forms of identity in postcolonial literature that take issue with hybridity. Separatist ideas, which advocate a return to traditional ways, are known as essentialist. An example of such an idea would be the idea of Negritude, which advocates a return to traditional African ways and is an aggressive anti-racist attack on white supremacy (Asante-Darko 1). However, many scholars question the ability of a colonized people to return to a traditional means of survival after generations of exposure to western ways. Some assert that postcolonial literature is a blend of protest as well as imitation of the colonizing culture (Asante-Darko 1). As in the case of Negritude, Asante-Darko points out that it often imitates some of the very objectives and methods used by white supremacists (Asante-Darko 1). One example is that of myth making. To the colonial idea of African inferiority the postcolonial writer offers up the idea of African as innocent and incorruptible (Asante-Darko 5). Another example is the fact that many postcolonial writers use western literary forms such as the novel. This illustrates the difficulty of trying to extricate and separate the mingling of identities inherent to a colonized people.
What happens after postcolonialism? Does the state of postcoloniality eventually end? (Guneratne 1). According to Salman Rushdie in Guneratne’s article,”(More) Problems with the Term Postcolonial,” “…if we were to forget about “Commonwealth Literature” we might see that there is a kind of commonality about much literature…emerging from those parts of the world which one could loosely term the less powerful, or the powerless…” (Rushdie/Guneratne 2). So is the world, in a sense, breaking through the barriers inherent to human communication since primitive times? With the advent of the internet and instant communication with anyone in any part of the world complete with translation – it would stand to reason that there will emerge a new sort of human identity which transcends race, nationality, gender, and other differences previously used as a means on which to base identity. Perhaps human beings may be closer than ever to creating the sort of global consciousness that could break down traditional barriers and focus on human likenesses rather than differences. Would this global consciousness indicate the successful integration of oppressed and oppressor? Is this good or bad? Or is it simply an inevitable part of the oneness/cycle of nature?
With the advent of globalization, will the novel be strong enough to share ALL sides of the story at the same time? Or will all of the voices simply merge into one? Zadie Smith’s novel White Teeth manages to successfully bring all voices to the table. The novel describes the intermingling of the lives of the Chalfens-the modern version of the white imperialists-with the lives of families of mixed ancestry. “Every moment happens twice,” Smith offers as the fundamental conceit of White Teeth: “inside and outside, and they are two different histories.” (Smith/Weigand 2). The voices do not merge into one; rather, there are distinct, separate identities. Millat, son of a Bangladeshi living in England, represents a new type of chameleon-like identity. “To the Cockney wide-boys…he was the joker, the risk taker…To the black kids he was fellow weed-smoker…To the Asian kids, hero and spokesman…And underneath it all, there remained…the feeling of belonging nowhere that comes to people who belong everywhere.” (Smith/Weigand 6). Millat may be representative of a new identity, a step beyond hybridty. He is a refugee in a global village – alienated with no identifiable sense of belonging or not belonging. Perhaps it is possible to belong nowhere and everywhere at the same time.
But what of this sense of freedom from oppression? According to Bahri, “…former colonies are far from free of colonial influence or domination and so cannot be postcolonial in any genuine sense. In other words, the overhasty celebration of independence masks the march of neocolonialism in the guise of modernization and development in an age of increasing globalization and trans-nationalism…” (Bahri 2).
So questions arise, will a global consciousness be a positive or negative evolution of identity? Who will control the direction of a global consciousness, and what are we driven by? At present, it seems as though the United States and its western ideas of capitalism and democracy are a major controller of globalization. So what is the cost to the peoples who are being controlled? A word of caution, “There must be limits on freedom otherwise the liberty of the powerful becomes the oppression of the weak,” (Obadina/Akindele 32/3).
When examining the effects of imperialism on the human identity it may be impossible to predict where we will end up. It appears as though humans have moved from a traditional communal identity to a more individualistic identity and now may possibly end up returning to a more communalized identity with the onset of globalization. According to critic David Weigand, “The tragic joke at the core of Smith’s novel is that although contemporary life has brought at least a sociological blending of races and ethnicities, and to a lesser extent, a genetic blending as well, humans remain as sadly colonial as ever” (Weigand 7).
Within the global village, identity may be based on willingness to participate – affiliation with the controller or the controlled. Or perhaps the real question is, are we all being controlled-by greed? Religion will be continue to be a factor in the formation of identity and will almost certainly complicate the concept of global identity. Only time will tell whether human beings will be able to transcend the temptations of power and greed and create an identity that is based on mutual inclusion rather than exclusion.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Random House, 1959.
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of
Darkness”. Heart Of Darkness. Norton Critical Edition.
Robert Kimbrough,ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company,1988.
251-262.
Asante-Darko, Kwaku. “Language and Culture in African Postcolonial
Literature”.
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture.
March 2000. 7 June 2003. http://www.clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, eds. The
Post-Colonial Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 1997.
183.
Bahri, Keepika. “Introduction to Postcolonial Studies.”
Postcolonial Studies at Emory. 29 October 2002. Omnibus.7 June 2 2003. http://www.Emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri.
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton 1988.
Guneratne, Anthony R. “(More)Problems with the Term Postcolonial”.
Contemporary Post Colonial and Post Imperial Literature in English. 1997. National University of Singapore. 7 June 2003.
http://www.thecore.nus.edu/landow/post/poldiscourse.
Herz, Debbie.
“Orwell and Colonialism”. Contemporary Post Colonial
and Post Imperial Literature in English. 1990. National University University of Singapore. 7 June 2003.
http://www.thecore.nus.edu/landow/post/poldiscourse.
Ollikkala, Verena. “The New Person: Looking Past Colonialism”.
UHCL Colonial and Postcolonial Literature Website. 5 July
2001. University of Houston Clear Lake. 7 June 2003.
http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/5734.
Wiegand, David. “A Tale of Two Families: Sweeping first novel
Explores England’s Legacy of Imperialism”. San Francisco
Chronicle Book Review. 7 May 2000. 7 June 2003.
Walcott, Derek. “A Far Cry From Africa.” Collected Poems 1948-
1984. New York: The Noonday Press, 1986.