Jin's stories feature situations that cause the reader to question not just Communism or Capitalism, but authority in general. However, he does this in a non-obvious way that ends in the characters continuing to rely on Communism or rejecting Capitalist ideas. No one in the stories explicitly question the authority, responsibility, or response of the state. Jin presents these stories in such a way that someone indoctrinated in the Maoist ideology could think, "Well yeah, he was a bad citizen," "I'm glad to see that the Party helped that poor man," or "I hate that Capitalist!" While a fair percentage of the population may reach conclusions like those I just noted, another sizeable group is going to reach another conclusion that may have a destabilizing effect.
"Saboteur" is blatant in its condemnation of the Party's behavior. In his description of the events that led to Chiu's arrest, Jin clearly shows how unfair and arbitrary the behavior of the police is. He also demonstrates the unwillingness to acknowledge reason and that the Party ultimately creates dissension where none existed before. However, I can totally see the story going over the heads of certain readers rather than getting Jin's point across. Now, I could be 100% wrong here, but I have always been under the impression that the self-criticism letter that Mr. Chiu had to sign was a standard part of Communist re-education or rehabilitation. Due to this, it was a widely understood thing in pre- and post-cultural revolution China (and U.S.S.R.). I never really asked anybody about this while I was in China, but I thought that the personal stories of going into a re-education or rehabilitation facility for counter-revolutionary behavior (less than complete obedience), which is what Mr. Chiu was essentially accused of, was part of the machine that kept everyone in line. If that's the case, I can see how someone would read this as a story detailing the fate of a counter-revolutionary and why the authority of the Party (police) should be respected. It can readily be argued that Chiu's intentional infection of the town represents the Party's failure, but there's a chance that this section could reinforce an interpretation that Mr. Chiu was an anti-social element who was and should be condemned to die from the diseases ravaging his counter-revolutionary innards - That subversive dog!
In "Alive" we see a man who was presumed dead, but eventually returned to his former life. While the state did assist Guhan's family in his absence, the restitution for his death, which came in the process of performing his job for the state run cannery, was rather insignificant. The cannery and state didn't really spend anything to compensate his family for the loss of life and income. They simply shifted resources around by hiring his into a position that provided a smaller income than he originally had. Upon his return they were unwilling to send away the man they imported to fill the vice director position he was set to fill, they refused to demote the man who filled his original position, and they were unwilling to create a new position for him. He indirectly gave his life for the survival of the cannery, but the cannery management and employees, who all seemed to respect him greatly, continued to live as if he never existed. In addition, the director of the cannery may have misled Guhan about the financial state of the cannery. Guhan reappeared around the New Year, yet the cannery seemed to be running just fine without him or the money he was sent to collect. Considering the total destruction of Taifu, I find it hard to believe that the cannery received the money it was owed. I suppose the government could have paid the debt after Taifu's destruction, but who knows. Whether we consider that the cannery director was lying or not, the cannery still had a hand in Guhan's "death." Based upon the Party's promoted ethos, it was more than reasonable to assume he would be re-incorporated into the organization, but the Party simply tossed him aside with a pension, which he should have received eventually anyway, and Guhan accepted this as a reasonable solution to his predicament. Clearly, a story like this could rattle one's faith in their dear leader's party.
I was going to have a longer paragraph about "After Cowboy Chicken Came to Town" right here, but this is getting a tad too long. However, I concluded that this was ultimately a story exposing the faults of both political systems (Communism and Capitalism), but one holds a greater promise of prosperity. While there's an imbalance in Capitalism, as demonstrated in Peter's power and wealth, there is opportunity in the system. As expressed through the narrator's mother and father, Communism can provide stability, but what good is stability if it's outweighed by misery and disappointment? And segue into Conrad talk.
I'm not incredibly familiar with Eastern European history, but I know that the Bolshevik Revolution took place in the early 1920s. So, the late 1800s and early 1900s would have been a time of anti-czarist/anti-imperialist activity and changes in modern political thought (Communism) or revolution. Considering the incredible change sweeping throughout the Russian Empire and nearby areas, I think Heart of Darkness would have been lost in the torrent of competing ideas at the time. There's a slight chance that HoD would have been seized by the anti-Imperialists and used to highlight the errors of imperialism and colonialism. However, there are various comments in Heart of Darkness that would weaken its use as an effective piece of propaganda, which further reduces its appeal in that regard. This isn't to say that changes weren't occurring in England, but there was certainly more stability that would allow for more careful consideration of the text. When examining these factors, it's clear that postcolonial literature would be significantly different because Conrad's voice would be totally absent from the conversation.
Showing posts with label Conrad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conrad. Show all posts
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Read Or Bury Our Traditional Stories?
Is the title nonsense? Yeah. I just wanted my title to create the acronym ROBOTS. I previously had a line rationalizing the title, but it seemed pointless. This doesn't seem any more fruitful. So...
I think avoiding controversial texts, like “Heart of Darkness,” does nothing to serve individual growth or growth as a society/community. Without reading a book like “Heart of Darkness” and considering, internal and external, reactions to it we risk a reaching a point where we continue to operate in the same ideological framework and don’t move past certain ideas. Now, I suppose one could argue that teaching the same text each generation can lead to the same sort of stagnation, but I’d say that risk is almost negligible because the context in which HoD is read and the way it is read change over the years. As a result, HoD continues to inform people, but brings them to different conclusions. For example, HoD was read for 50+ years before an opinion like Achebe’s was developed and published. Achebe rails against the text and Conrad for the evils he observed, but without reading HoD Achebe might not have been compelled to respond when and how he did and we may not be considering the question of Hillis Miller’s essay “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”
As can be deduced from my comments above, I agree with Hillis Miller’s general opinion that “’Heart of Darkness’ should be read, ought to be read” (HoD 474). However, I kind of disagree with Hillis Miller's opinion that it should only be read a certain way. HoD is a work of fiction, so to assume everything in the book is completely accurate isn’t very reasonable. However, I think there’s value in HoD, or most any book, regardless of how it’s read. Is reading “Heart of Darkness” without some sort of discourse, introspection, etc. dangerous? I think dangerous is overstating things, but yes I suppose it could skew or reinforce a reader’s opinions. However, things are open to interpretation and if someone goes into “Heart of Darkness” looking to find examples to reinforce their negative opinions of another race, culture, gender, and so on, that's what they'll likely find. If they don’t read “Heart of Darkness,” they’ll likely find it in another text they come across. I don’t think that the discourse that can come out of reading “Heart of Darkness” should be sacrificed to avoid the risk of causing harm. We shouldn’t avoid things just because they might be taken one way or another, because they present potentially disquieting concepts, or because we can get similar ideas from another text. A set of ideas presented in a specific way will elicit very specific opinions that may not be conceived otherwise.
Furthermore, we, as members of society in general, should also read classic books like HoD because those who came before read them. We shouldn’t read them out of obligation or to maintain the status quo, but to understand what shaped our forebears’ thought processes, how society has or hasn’t changed, and how we can individually interpret the world in which we live.
I think avoiding controversial texts, like “Heart of Darkness,” does nothing to serve individual growth or growth as a society/community. Without reading a book like “Heart of Darkness” and considering, internal and external, reactions to it we risk a reaching a point where we continue to operate in the same ideological framework and don’t move past certain ideas. Now, I suppose one could argue that teaching the same text each generation can lead to the same sort of stagnation, but I’d say that risk is almost negligible because the context in which HoD is read and the way it is read change over the years. As a result, HoD continues to inform people, but brings them to different conclusions. For example, HoD was read for 50+ years before an opinion like Achebe’s was developed and published. Achebe rails against the text and Conrad for the evils he observed, but without reading HoD Achebe might not have been compelled to respond when and how he did and we may not be considering the question of Hillis Miller’s essay “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?”
As can be deduced from my comments above, I agree with Hillis Miller’s general opinion that “’Heart of Darkness’ should be read, ought to be read” (HoD 474). However, I kind of disagree with Hillis Miller's opinion that it should only be read a certain way. HoD is a work of fiction, so to assume everything in the book is completely accurate isn’t very reasonable. However, I think there’s value in HoD, or most any book, regardless of how it’s read. Is reading “Heart of Darkness” without some sort of discourse, introspection, etc. dangerous? I think dangerous is overstating things, but yes I suppose it could skew or reinforce a reader’s opinions. However, things are open to interpretation and if someone goes into “Heart of Darkness” looking to find examples to reinforce their negative opinions of another race, culture, gender, and so on, that's what they'll likely find. If they don’t read “Heart of Darkness,” they’ll likely find it in another text they come across. I don’t think that the discourse that can come out of reading “Heart of Darkness” should be sacrificed to avoid the risk of causing harm. We shouldn’t avoid things just because they might be taken one way or another, because they present potentially disquieting concepts, or because we can get similar ideas from another text. A set of ideas presented in a specific way will elicit very specific opinions that may not be conceived otherwise.
Furthermore, we, as members of society in general, should also read classic books like HoD because those who came before read them. We shouldn’t read them out of obligation or to maintain the status quo, but to understand what shaped our forebears’ thought processes, how society has or hasn’t changed, and how we can individually interpret the world in which we live.
Friday, September 4, 2009
I'm Not Sure About This Kidd.
In “Social Progress and the Rivalry of the Races” Benjamin Kidd uses the idea of Social Darwinism to apply Darwin’s theory of evolution to the progression of or competition between races, as the title implies. Kidd asserts that one race will dominate the races that it comes in contact with because certain core attributes (work ethic, altruism, ethical behavior, etc.) of the dominant race are inherently better or more progressive than those of the dominated race. Kidd explains that conflict and ultimately domination appear to be unavoidable forces, but they aren’t always expressed through “fierce and cruel wars of extermination” (230).
I’m sure that our class discussion (09/03/09) was more broad than I recall, but for some reason I came away with the impression that there was a considerable focus on violent domination as opposed to the “silent and painless” (232) domination that Kidd brings up several times. As a result, I’ve decided to try to look at how “Heart of Darkness” may reflect some of Kidd’s ideas, specifically the idea that inherent racial/cultural qualities invariably motivate one race to dominate another and how that domination may subtly occur.
One of the most obvious things in “Heart of Darkness” that demonstrates how thoroughly Africa has been dominated by the west is the map Marlow examines in the trading company’s office. Marlow describes a map of Africa that has been divided into colored sections with each representing a different foreign concern that had control over territory in Africa (10). While Conrad writes that the “map is marked with all the colours of a rainbow” (10) and proceeds to mention how European countries are represented by these colors, there isn’t any mention of unclaimed land. This implies that none of the land actually belongs to the natives; there is no “Africa.” All we see is a group of territories belonging to the westerners who put their flags there first and the African people happen to be there. Obviously this example doesn’t go toward establishing how or why these cultures so thoroughly spread throughout Africa, but it does show a situation where one race has completely pushed the other toward extinction (apparently without a drastic war-like action).
Maybe I’m not recalling a portion of “Heart of Darkness,” but I can’t think of an example from the text that blatantly demonstrates Kidd’s belief regarding the superiority of one race’s attributes over another’s. However, if Kurtz is used as an analog for a dominant race and the natives he ultimately lived with are an analog for a dominated race, I think I can see some of the conflict and "progress" Kidd talks about.
Conrad writes, “Kurtz had been disapproved by her people. He wasn’t rich enough … It was his impatience of comparative poverty that drove him out there“ (75). I think Marlow’s reflection on Kurtz’s situation with his fiancé mirrors what Kidd was conveying about core cultural/racial qualities that lead to competition between races. In this example Conrad reveals a “restless” (233) disposition and an industrious spirit, which are some ideas Kidd associated with the dominant race of the time, the Anglo-Saxons. Once in Africa, Kurtz finds himself stranded without a guarantee of rescue and surrounded by peril. For some reason, aside from Conrad’s need to tell a story, the local indigenous Africans who greatly outnumber Kurtz don’t attack and kill him at the first opportunity. It also doesn’t seem like they attempted to adopt Kurtz and assimilate him into their society. This hesitation may be explained by curiosity, fear, indifference, morality, etc. Whatever the reason, Kurtz exploited what could be considered a display of weakness and was able to subordinate this group of natives with what seemed to be a limited show of force. It appears that Kurtz eventually began introducing and enforcing his own rules and whatnot upon the local native. Soon Kurtz's way became accepted by the local natives and he was able to integrate with, but also dominate that group. Again, this seems to have some parallels with the Anglo-Saxons. Westerners were exploring in an attempt to find additional resources. They found themselves in a mysterious land, but were able to control much of Africa through the application of attributes and concepts favored by their culture/race.
I’m sure that our class discussion (09/03/09) was more broad than I recall, but for some reason I came away with the impression that there was a considerable focus on violent domination as opposed to the “silent and painless” (232) domination that Kidd brings up several times. As a result, I’ve decided to try to look at how “Heart of Darkness” may reflect some of Kidd’s ideas, specifically the idea that inherent racial/cultural qualities invariably motivate one race to dominate another and how that domination may subtly occur.
One of the most obvious things in “Heart of Darkness” that demonstrates how thoroughly Africa has been dominated by the west is the map Marlow examines in the trading company’s office. Marlow describes a map of Africa that has been divided into colored sections with each representing a different foreign concern that had control over territory in Africa (10). While Conrad writes that the “map is marked with all the colours of a rainbow” (10) and proceeds to mention how European countries are represented by these colors, there isn’t any mention of unclaimed land. This implies that none of the land actually belongs to the natives; there is no “Africa.” All we see is a group of territories belonging to the westerners who put their flags there first and the African people happen to be there. Obviously this example doesn’t go toward establishing how or why these cultures so thoroughly spread throughout Africa, but it does show a situation where one race has completely pushed the other toward extinction (apparently without a drastic war-like action).
Maybe I’m not recalling a portion of “Heart of Darkness,” but I can’t think of an example from the text that blatantly demonstrates Kidd’s belief regarding the superiority of one race’s attributes over another’s. However, if Kurtz is used as an analog for a dominant race and the natives he ultimately lived with are an analog for a dominated race, I think I can see some of the conflict and "progress" Kidd talks about.
Conrad writes, “Kurtz had been disapproved by her people. He wasn’t rich enough … It was his impatience of comparative poverty that drove him out there“ (75). I think Marlow’s reflection on Kurtz’s situation with his fiancé mirrors what Kidd was conveying about core cultural/racial qualities that lead to competition between races. In this example Conrad reveals a “restless” (233) disposition and an industrious spirit, which are some ideas Kidd associated with the dominant race of the time, the Anglo-Saxons. Once in Africa, Kurtz finds himself stranded without a guarantee of rescue and surrounded by peril. For some reason, aside from Conrad’s need to tell a story, the local indigenous Africans who greatly outnumber Kurtz don’t attack and kill him at the first opportunity. It also doesn’t seem like they attempted to adopt Kurtz and assimilate him into their society. This hesitation may be explained by curiosity, fear, indifference, morality, etc. Whatever the reason, Kurtz exploited what could be considered a display of weakness and was able to subordinate this group of natives with what seemed to be a limited show of force. It appears that Kurtz eventually began introducing and enforcing his own rules and whatnot upon the local native. Soon Kurtz's way became accepted by the local natives and he was able to integrate with, but also dominate that group. Again, this seems to have some parallels with the Anglo-Saxons. Westerners were exploring in an attempt to find additional resources. They found themselves in a mysterious land, but were able to control much of Africa through the application of attributes and concepts favored by their culture/race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)