How Achebe Included the African People in the Story of Imperialism - A Comparison of Things Fall Apart and Heart of Darkness Mia Söllwander ENGK01 Literary Seminar Autumn 2012 English Studies Centre of Language and Literature Lund University Supervisor: Birgitta Berglund Table of Contents Introduction..............................................................................................................1 From Colonialism to Postcolonialism......................................................................3 How the Novels Respond to the History of Imperialism.........................................6 The ‘other’...............................................................................................................10 Asking the Question: Can the Subaltern Speak?.....................................................14 Conclusion...............................................................................................................17 Works Cited.............................................................................................................19 Introduction Heart of Darkness (1902) by Joseph Conrad was written at the turn of the 19th century when the atrocities of Belgian colonialism under the rule of Leopold II had begun to be revealed to the world. In his novel, Conrad describes the journey of his main character Marlow who travels along the Congo River at the end of the 19th century. The novel has been greatly commended and is likely to be the most reprinted short novel in English (Hochschild 142). One reason for its popularity is, as Adam Hochschild expresses it, because it “remains the greatest portrait in fiction of Europeans in the scramble of Africa” (147). According to Watts, another reason for its popularity is because it has been said to be ahead of its time in the sense that it anticipates many 20th century preoccupations (45). Heart of Darkness is today part of the British literary canon. Despite the accolades, one problem with Heart of Darkness is that it expresses implicit racist views of Africa and its people (“An Image of Africa”), which were rather common at the time when the novel was written (Hochschild 147). After the independence of the African colonies, voices from countries around the continent started to be heard. Works like Conrad’s Heart of Darkness began to become reinterpreted. In the novel, colonialism is portrayed from a European perspective. The significance of this perspective and the racist elements it implies became of interest within the theory of postcolonialism. As a response and critique of Heart of Darkness, Chinua Achebe published his debut novel Things Fall Apart in 1958. Achebe was one of the first Africans to publish a novel receiving international acclaim that looks at Africa from an African person’s perspective. With the novel he also contributed to the literary sphere of postcolonial literature. With the increasing interest in postcolonial theory, many critics have analysed Conrad’s novel from a postcolonial perspective, for instance Abdelrahman, Abiaziem Okafor, Mwikisa and Maier- Katkin. Achebe uses postcolonial theory to criticise the novel in his lecture “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’.” “An Image of Africa” is one of the most famous critiques of Heart of Darkness, where Achebe goes as far as to condemn Conrad as a “bloody racist.” Achebe comments further on Heart of Darkness in an interview and tells the listener that it was when he studied the novel at university level that he realised its racist nature because he was one of the savages in Conrad’s novel jumping up and down on the beach, an image that he as an African could not relate to (Achebe, youtube.com). In the first section of this essay, I will give a short introduction to colonialism. I will also give a short introduction to the theory of postcolonialism where I will present the terms 1 that I will use in the analysis of the works. The analysis consists of three different sections. In the first section I will look at how the novels’ attitudes towards colonialism are portrayed. In the second section I will analyse how the concept of ‘othering’ can be used to develop an understanding of the novels. Finally, I will investigate the difference between the native characters’ ability to speak in Heart of Darkness and in Things Fall Apart. In each section, I will first provide an analysis of Heart of Darkness and then show how Things Fall Apart responds to Heart of Darkness by portraying Africa and its people differently. By doing so, I will be able to answer the question of how Achebe, through his novel, included the African people in the story of imperialism. Moreover, Things Fall Apart will be contrasted to Heart of Darkness which denies the African characters to play a significant role in the same story. 2 From Colonialism to Postcolonialism Both Heart of Darkness and Things Fall Apart deal with the theme of imperialism. In this chapter, the period from the start of colonialism on the African continent to the rise of postcolonial theory will be reviewed. It will be discussed how the colonial project was considered in the beginning of the 20th century and the change in thinking that took place with the development of postcolonial theory. The most important part of the development is how the focus was moved from the colonial agents to the native population, which has an impact on how imperialism is viewed. Heart of Darkness takes place during the period of imperialism when Europe competed for power in Africa. At the end of the 19th century, both Europe and the USA found that it was possible to make a profit from the raw materials that could be found in Africa (Hochschild 27). Hence followed the period called the ‘Scramble for Africa’, which lasted from about 1880 until 1914, when western countries claimed pieces of the continent (Brantlinger 262). The vast interest in Africa prepared ground for conflicts. Therefore, the Berlin Conference was held as an attempt to play down these conflicts by diplomatically dividing Africa between the powers of Europe. King Leopold II of Belgium managed to seize the Congo by outplaying Britain against France (Hochschild 86). King Leopold was a ruler “much admired throughout Europe as a philanthropic monarch” (Hochschild 1). It was assumed that Leopold II was to act out of humanitarianism as he had previously stated that, “[t]o open to civilisation the only part of the globe where it has yet to penetrate…It is, I dare to say, a crusade worthy of this century of progress…I was in no way motivated by selfish designs (qtd. in Hochschild 44). However, it turned out that he was going to be the main figure in one of the largest international atrocity scandals of all time (Hochschild 4). It became widely accepted to protest against the atrocities in the Congo (Hochschild 4) and people in Britain were shocked by what had begun to become revealed there. For instance, “[i]n London, one letter of protest to the Times on the Congo would be signed by eleven peers, nineteen bishops, seventy-six members of Parliament, the Presidents of seven Chambers of Commerce, thirteen editors of major newspapers and every lord or mayor in the country” (Hochschild 2). To organise the protests, The Congo Reform association was formed by, among others, E.D. Morel who had been involved in the discovery of the atrocities (Hochschild 180). Famous writers, including Conrad, also supported the Congo Reform Association (Zins 58). Interestingly, Conrad did not protest against Britain's colonialism equivalently to 3 Belgium's colonialism. When Conrad later wrote Heart of Darkness it became “one of the most scathing indictments of imperialism in all literature” (Hochschild 146), nonetheless, Conrad curiously supported England's imperialism (Hochschild 146). It is true that Leopold had treated the Congo like it was “a piece of uninhabited real estate” (Hochschild 101) but that was not different to how other European countries treated Africa who “talked about Africa as it were without Africans” (Hochschild 101). Therefore, it is noteworthy that Conrad did not protest against British imperialism. Yet, Conrad's lack of protest against British imperialism could be explained by the fact that the Europeans saw themselves as being at the top of civilisation (White 186). Similarly, all colonising states promoted the necessity of the civilising mission. The concept of the civilising mission is based on a progressive worldview that has been termed the meta- narrative of enlightenment1. As a result of this way of looking at the world, it was commonly thought that the African people were less developed than the Europeans (Brantlinger 173- 174). Further, as the Europeans saw themselves as being at the top of the civilisation ladder, many considered it to be their vocation to spread civilisation to other places perceived as primitive in relation to the European way of living. Britain was one of the countries committed to the civilising mission. In other words, they supposedly “brought civilisation to the barbarian, enlightenment to the heathen, prosperity to the impoverished [as well as] law and social order to the brutish primitive” (Christ and Hurley). Hence, Britain’s presence in colonies was often seen as something positive since it was widely believed that due to Britain’s national, racial and cultural superiority it was well suited for carrying out the civilising mission (Christ and Hurley). Thus, it is clear that, by most people, it was not seen as a brutal act in itself to travel to Africa and decide how those living there should live their lives. Because, “[t]o see Africa […] as a continent of coherent societies, each with its own culture and history took a leap of empathy, a leap that few, if any European or American visitors to the Congo were able to make” (Hochschild 101). Therefore, it did not seem to occur to the European imperialists that the people of the African countries had something to say about their experience of colonisation even though they were the main victims of it (Hochschild 53). It was not until much later that the stories of imperialism began to be told by African people. By the middle of the 1960s, almost all countries on the African continent had become independent. The people living in the former colonies started to express their subordinate role 1The meta-narratives were founded by the French philosopher and sociologist Jean-François Lyotard. He implied that there is a difference between scientific knowledge and narrative knowledge. Scientific knowledge always needs to be valued in terms of legitimacy. On the other hand, narrative knowledge is to a large extent based on knowledge that has been passed around people that not necessarily have to have any scientific foundation (Woodward). 4 in relation to the colonisers, their growing consciousness made the basis for postcolonial theory. From the beginning, postcolonial theory was a reaction against the way history was written from an elite perspective since the way ordinary people experienced history was not taken into consideration in written form. Postcolonialists developed a way of thinking that focuses on the subaltern, which became one of the concepts within the theory of postcolonialism (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 186). The subaltern is a term coined by Antonio Gramsci literarily meaning ‘of inferior rank’. The subalterns are those of society who are inferior to the ruling hegemony and could form any group which is denied access to society (Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin Postcolonial Studies 209). In an essay called “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak discusses how the elite does not listen to what the subaltern has to say about its culture and instead judges the culture of the subaltern from its own perspective. Spivak concludes that the subaltern cannot speak. In the relationship of coloniser and colonised, it is always the colonised who is the subaltern and it is its story that comes to light with postcolonial theory (Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin Postcolonial Studies 210). Another concept in postcolonial theory is the term ‘othering’. In the context of postcolonialism, a case of ‘othering’ involves an attitude expressing that the colonised can only exist in relation to the coloniser. The term also relates to how postcolonial countries are seen and judged from a Western perspective. Therefore, postcolonial countries become characterised as primitive only because they are compared to Western countries, which are perceived as civilised. Additionally, ‘othering’ deals with the idea that the Western world needs the image of the primitive ‘other’ in order to claim itself to be civilised. Moreover, the way of thinking that puts colonisers and the colonised people on opposite poles helped to create the myth about Africa as the ‘Dark Continent’ and the antithesis of Europe (Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin Postcolonial Studies 167). The term ‘other’ also involves a binary relationship that exists between imperial Europe and the African colonies. What constitutes the binary relationship between the coloniser and the colonised has further been defined as being the centre and the margin, with the centre being the colonisers and the margin being the colonised (Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin Postcolonial Studies 36). In the process of writing back, colonial texts are re-written in various ways in order to kill the myths and alter the stereotyped roles that colonial literature conveys. As a way to redeem themselves from the way history and culture of the colonies were described in literature during the colonial era, postcolonial authors, like Achebe, have used the technique of writing back. In Things Fall Apart, Achebe writes back to Heart of Darkness. The concept of writing back will be present in each of the following chapters when showing how Things 5 Fall Apart is opposed to Heart of Darkness. Most importantly, Things Fall Apart puts the focus on African culture and history by using the technique of writing back. Concepts such as the ‘other’ or the subaltern were not considered when the European powers quarrelled about the African continent. As Hochschild points out, the African continent was mostly regarded as uninhabited land that was free to claim because of its uncivilised population (101). The postcolonial consciousness was created when people such as Achebe raised his voice about his past. When looking at texts like Things Fall Apart that writes back to the centre, in other words a colonising state, it is fair to suggest that there has been a shift concerning the way the colonial project is perceived. It is the postcolonial consciousness that is the most prominent difference between Heart of Darkness and Things Fall Apart. In the next chapter, the colonial and the postcolonial perspectives will be discussed more in-depth when analysing the two novels' attitudes towards imperialism and the civilising mission. How the Novels Respond to the History of Imperialism In this section it will be discussed if and how the colonial project is condemned in the two novels. It will also be investigated how Heart of Darkness portrays imperialism from a European perspective while Things Fall Apart exposes what consequences imperialism has on the African characters. These two perspectives are essential since they mirror the difference between a colonial and a postcolonial way of thinking. Starting with Heart of Darkness, the novel lets its main European character Marlow define what imperialism is, namely: “The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves” (4), in other words, the conquering of land. Moreover, Marlow considers the conquering of land not to be “a pretty thing” (4). Hence, it can be assumed that he condemns colonialism. However, the conquering of land is just a minor part of the colonial project which actually is comprised of more aspects, aspects which Heart of Darkness does not take into consideration. On the other hand, when Marlow talks about different colonising states, it is clear that he sees some differences. In the beginning of the novel Marlow says, “[t]here was a vast amount of red [British territory] (Luscombe) – good to see at any time, because one knows that some real work is done in there.” He compares it to the yellow Belgian territory (Luscombe) by saying that “I was going into the yellow. Dead in the centre (7). The extract 6 mostly helps to defend British colonialism. The most interesting part though is why and on what grounds British territory is “good to see at any time” (7) and why British colonialism can be judged differently. Hawkins discusses the reason why Marlow judges British colonialism differently. He notices that Marlow makes a similar comparison between Roman and British imperialism as Marlow exclaims: “what saves us [the British] is efficiency” (4). It is fair to argue that when making both of these comparisons Marlow opposes himself to, as Hawkins expresses it, “wasteful and selfish imperialism” while he seems to support British imperialism mainly because of its efficiency (286). Hawkins concludes that Marlow condemns the actions of Belgium and not imperialism as a project conducted by all major states of Western Europe. Hawkins also suggests that the criteria of efficiency was, “well suited to condemning the type of imperialism practiced in the Congo” (288). Achebe argues similarly in the following extract: Marlow comes through to us not only as a witness of truth, but one holding those advanced and humane views appropriate to the English liberal tradition which required all Englishmen of decency to be deeply shocked by atrocities in [...] the Congo of King Leopold of the Belgians or wherever. (“An Image of Africa”) Marlow's view of imperialism confirms the idealism held during the beginning of the 20th century in England discussed in the previous chapter. Nonetheless, his idealism is destroyed when he travels to Africa and witnesses Belgium's actions in the Congo and above all when he meets Kurtz (Spegele 327). It is on the criteria of efficiency as a definition of good imperialistic work that Marlow seems to judge Kurtz. Kurtz came to Africa in order to civilise its people but instead he turned native and adapted to the, as perceived by Marlow, primitive customs of the Africans (Hawkins 295). Because of that, in the eyes of Marlow, Kurtz is an inefficient, decadent coloniser who has abandoned the very idea of why he came to Africa (Raskin 127). Be that as it may, it is important to remember that Kurtz is judged through the eyes of Marlow whose interpretation of Kurtz, to a great extent, mirrors his view of colonialism. Because, what if the roles were reversed and Kurtz were the hero of the story as somebody who crosses cultural boundaries by accepting and understanding other cultures as Mwikisa argues? The alternative interpretation of Kurtz suggests that the author had the possibility to focus on other aspects of imperialism. The focus on Kurtz's decadency and primitive behaviour takes away focus from more serious matters. For instance, the crimes against humanity could have become more central to the story if the focus was shifted (Maier-Katkin 602). 7 Many literary critics have judged Heart of Darkness to be anti-imperialistic (Hawkins 286). Judging the novel’s view of imperialism by simply looking at how Belgian imperialism is condemned or how colonialists like Kurtz acts inefficiently only takes few aspects of colonialism into consideration. Often people see imperialism as a phenomenon that is similar everywhere when in fact there could be a great difference depending on “imperial aims, systems of administration, degrees of exploitation, and even types of exploitation” (Hawkins 288). Therefore, it is possible that Marlow might not even see Britain's actions as imperialism at all. Further, the fact that Marlow gives Belgian imperialism a harsh judgment does not say anything about his judgment of the imperialistic project in general or the civilising mission as a crime against humanity (Hawkins 288). Along these lines, although Heart of Darkness is considered anti-imperialistic, all aspects of the imperial project are never questioned. The devastating effects of the civilising mission are acknowledged to a great extent in Things Fall Apart. Achebe shows how the European ideal of society undermines the customs and beliefs of Igbo society just to replace it with European culture which they, the Europeans, believe is better because it is according to them, a more civilised way of living. Hence, by showing how the European power destroys an already well-functioning society, Achebe criticises the civilising mission and conveys to the reader that a violation does not necessarily have to be violent. The culture of the Igbo characters in Things Fall Apart holds Igbo society together and therefore the civilising mission becomes devastating for the Igbos. As Champion states, “through its rituals, ceremonies, and communal drama, the author reveals those qualities which merged the individual and his community into a vibrant and cohesive living texture [which] give[s] the reader an insight into the tribal law and custom which bind the people together” (275). The culture connects the Igbo characters to each other which also makes them vulnerable to anything that could destroy this bond. However, when the European characters of Things Fall Apart come to the village of Umuofia they do not only challenge the culture of the Igbos but slowly manage to gain more and more Igbo characters to their side. First, they introduce their religion and in the process of recruiting new members to the church, they are very accepting to all the outcasts. All of those from Igbo society who have been rejected for unfair reasons, for instance Nneka who has been forced to kill her new-born babies, are welcome to join the church. This is an example of how a non-violent action becomes devastating for Igbo society. The introduction of the European religion means that the clan is split up in two different beliefs. Not united through their religion anymore, oppositions are created between the Igbo characters who have joined the church and those who still practice the Igbo beliefs. As one of 8