LITR 5734: Colonial & Postcolonial Literature

Sample Student Midterm 2005

Jennifer Fregia

The Voice of ‘The Other’

Much has been said in the course about how Conrad has denied the natives a voice. Achebe, in contrast, writes extensively about the importance of language in the lives of the Ibo people. This has been used to show Conrad’s dehumanizing of the Africans. But I think it is important to compare the speech of Africans and Europeans within the individual works, not just between the two. There is also the problem of how the two groups of people interact, and how the authors view them in relation to each other.

That Conrad’s treatment of the language of the Africans is critical is obvious. All of the Africans together are given only a few lines of dialogue, and the words they are allowed only serve to articulate their savagery. “Catch ‘im. Give ‘im to us,” (74) proves the cannibalism of the natives and “Mistah Kurtz – he dead,” (112) is the only phrase written in dialect. Compare this with the fact that the speech of the Russian harlequin, who must have, like Conrad himself, spoken with a think accent, is recorded in perfect English.

But the European speech is also subject to criticism. In at least two instances Conrad reduces it almost to gibberish “‘Make rain and fine weather – one man – the Council – by the nose” – bits of absurd sentences that got the better of my drowsiness,” (63)

“’Brother sailor...l.honour…pleasure…delight…introduce myself…Russian…son of an arch-priest…Government of Tambov…What? Tobacco! English tobacco; the excellent English tobacco! Now, that’s brotherly. Smoke? Where’s a sailor that does not smoke?’ The pipe soothed him, and gradually I made out he had run away from school…” (91)

In the first example, Marlow as much as admits that it is his own state of mind that prevents him from finding meaning, and in the second the ellipses show that Marlow has left out part of the Russians speech. Despite these explanations, the effect remains. The first speech is “absurd”, and the second must have its meaning “made out” as though it were an auditory puzzle rather than directly understood from the words themselves.

Not all European speech matches this mold, and there are much more lucid passages of European dialogue. The same cannot be said for the Africans. So while Conrad may have a tendency towards a breaking apart of language, he does favor the European linguistically over the Africans.

Achebe deals head on with the issue of the natives’ use of language. His novel, ‘Things Fall Apart,’ is full of dialogue, most of it spoken by the natives. Only five pages into the text, he asserts “Among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly.” (7) His Africans speak as Conrad’s Europeans do, in perfect English. While these words are obviously a translation, it is not so much the facts of the language that matter as the emotional and intellectual impression left on the audience. Achebe’s Africans converse in a polished prose worthy of the most educated Europeans.

Near the end of the novel, Europeans are introduced and given a voice. “Whenever Mr. Brown went to that village he spent long hours with Akunna in his obi talking through an interpreter about religion.” (179) Part of this conversation is recorded in the novel. That a European and an African could speak about such an abstract concept dignifies both their languages.

It is interesting that in the few places where language is used to subordinate individuals, it is between the Africans, specifically the interpreters. When the first missionaries come to Mbanta, the translator is open to the ridicule of the people. “His dialect was different and harsh…many people laughed at his dialect and the way he used words strangely.” (144) Later it is the people who are ridiculed by the interpreters, who change the messages to suit their own needs. This indicates that Achebe sees the issue as much less clear than an us versus them type of mentality.

We must also examine how each of these authors sees these groups in relation to each other. Conrad, through Marlow, finds a kind of hypocrisy in European society. He cringes at his aunt’s typically European view of what he will be doing in Africa, and sees Belgium as a “whited sepulture.” The city may be beautiful, but the people who inhabit it are rotted and dead. He says that there is nothing he hates more than a lie, and finds in the dance of the Africans “truth – truth stripped of its cloak of time.” (69) “Who’s that grunting? You wonder I didn’t go ashore for a howl and a dance?…Fine sentiments, be hanged!” (69) The apprehension Conrad paints here is of a man who is afraid to admit that maybe he is not so racist, after all. In order to maintain his position in this group, he must keep his opinions in the confines of what European society allows. That Marlow must participate in this hypocrisy in order to maintain his position in society shows just how deeply it is rooted. The imagery of light and dark is often pointed out to show Conrad’s inherent racism. These things taken together show that Conrad is torn as to how one should respond to the problem of colonization and racism.

This tension is also seen, though to a lesser degree, in Achebe’s work, “Things Fall Apart.” In the last section, two missionaries are portrayed. Initially, the first is seen as the emissary of Europe, and while those familiar with Achebe’s essay against the racism of Conrad and colonialism in general may immediately vilify this missionary, reading further draws this into question. After encountering the second missionary, one’s view of the first changes. The reader is forced to rethink the idea of European as villain. While Achebe shows us the absurdity of forcing new, different laws on a people who already have an orderly society, we see that it is Africans as well as Europeans that take advantage of the people subjected to these laws. He shows the reader that not all missionaries took the existing culture away from the natives, but that some, like Mr. Smith were able to respect other’s beliefs and coexist with the existing religion.

Rather than drawing lines in the sand, both of these works tend to show the multi-dimensional aspects of this problem and ask more questions than they answer. The difficulty of choosing sides apparent in both Conrad and Achebe is a main theme in the poetry of Walcott. Having a mixed heritage gives him the benefit, if you wish to call it that, of seeing all sides of the issue. Walcott himself, however, does not seem to enjoy his particular vantage point. “how choose / Between this Africa and the English tongue I love? / Betray them both, or give back what they give?” (18) Walcott feels as though he must privilege one culture over the other. And perhaps he is right. Perhaps it is impossible for two such different peoples to coexist in harmony. But I for one hope that it is not. His poem brings up (at least) one important point. It is not England, but the English tongue that he loves. Indeed his poetry and Achebe’s novels are available to us only because they chose to write in the language of the colonizers. More radical post-colonial writers, such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, have refused to do so.

I think this changing worldview has more to do with the time period than with the individual. Something like sixty years had passed between Conrad and Achebe. While the end that I think Conrad and Achebe were searching for has been found, the means to that end are still in doubt, as seen in Walcott’s tortured lines, where hybridization has made him “poisoned with the blood of both,…divided to the vein”. (18)

What I have learned, or rather learned to think about in this class has raised more questions for me than answers. If we, as humanity, are to speak with one voice, will all other voices have to be silenced? Assimilation has always carried negative connotations, and sounds too much like assassination of culture for my liking. If there is to be a cacophony of voices, how will peace and harmony exist between them? Humans are tribal animals, and not known for accepting other tribes who are different than them. How can we maintain our individual heritages, and yet become one world civilization? I think that society has yet to find an answer to these questions. Somehow, we must learn to embrace this paradox if humanity is to continue in our Manifest Destiny.