Monday, October 26, 2009

Conrad, Casement, and the "Horror" of Congo

OK. It is time to get ourselves back to work on the blogsite. We will soon be viewing the American retelling of the Heart of Darkness narrative as presented by Francis Ford Coppola in his dramatic meditation on the misadventure that was the Vietnam War ("Apocalypse Now Redux"). This will give us another way of exploring the problem of the other as that other is found to lie within ourselves. But, before we get too far into this exploration, I wish to share a few comments about Sir Roger Casement (1864-1916) and his report on the savagery of the rubber trade in the Putumayo. While the record of these facts was published in 1913, it offers a window on the mistreatment of indigenous peoples very much like what we have read about already in Heart of Darkness. In the early 1890s, Casement and Conrad were together in the Congo ("The Congo Diary," 13th June, 1890--"Made the acquaintance of Mr. Roger Casement, which I should consider as a great pleasure under any circumstances and now it becomes a positive piece of luck.") and what they observed there would be explicit again in the Putumayo. Intriguing for us in this respect is Conrad's reflection on this time and the manner in which his description of Casement suggests the portrait of Kurtz from Heart of Darkness. Here is Conrad in a letter :

"Before the Congo I was just a mere animal."

Then, inflating prose on Casement, he reports,

"He was a good companion, but already in Africa I judged that he was a man, properly speaking, of no mind at all. I don't mean stupid. I mean he was all emotion. By emotional force (Congo report, Putumayo--etc) he made his way, and sheer emotionalism has undone him. A creature of sheer temperament--a truly tragic personality: all but the greatness of which he had not a trace. Only vanity. But in the Congo it was not visible yet."

Writing about his experience in the Putumayo, where he was dispatched as a British Consul to report on the treatment of "British Colonial Subjects, and Native Indians" by the government, Casement reveals nothing of this tragic quality. Indeed, quite the opposite. Here, in a letter to a close friend he casts light on the circumstances of his task to represent the outrage in the region:

"I knew the Foreign Office would not understand the thing [meaning his report], for I realized that I was looking at this tragedy with the eyes of another race of people once hinted themselves, whose hearts were based on affection as the root principle of contact with their fellow men, and whose estimate of life was not something to be appraised at its market price." (Casement Report on the Administration of the Congo Free State, 1904. http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob73.html)

Another reason why the British might have had difficulty grasping Casement's account was that its facts were appalling to the Victorian conscience, the very conscience against which Conrad strains in telling his narrative of Kurtz at the far inner reaches of the Congo:

"The number of Indians killed by either starvation--often purposely brought about by the destruction of crops over whole districts or inflicted as a form of death penalty on individuals who failed to bring in their quota of rubber--or by deliberate murder by bullet, fire, beheading, of flogging to death, and accompanied by a variety of atrocious tortures, during the course of these 12 years, in order to extort these 4,000 tons of rubber, cannot have been less than 30,000, and possibly came to many more."

And yet, with the scope of this meditated slaughter, as with the irrational violence of the rubber extraction in the Congo, Conrad's portrait of this pitiable terror in the Heart of Darkness "attempted to penetrate the veil [of the deceptions of the civilizing project] and was anxious to retain its hallucinatory quality." The real and the imagined, then, were perpetually intertwined.

This week as we move deeper into the jungle of the Congo and the "epistemic murk" of the colonial rationalization of economic exploitation, let us consider how the history lived and told by Conrad differs from the terror wrought by the Conquistadores. Consider these questions from Michael Taussig's Shamanism, Colonialism and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing: "Is there not a distinct desire in Heart of Darkness for Kurtz's greatness, horrible as it is? Is not horror made beautiful and primitivism exoticized throughout this book, which Ian Watt calls the enduring and most powerful literary indictment of imperialism."

OK, let's get to work!!

22 comments:

  1. In reading Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, I could not help but become extremely fascinated with the character of Kurtz. From the very first time that Marlow mentions Kurtz, I was anxious to learn more about the mysterious and seemingly great person. And, in fact, the first 60 pages of the novel thus far have been directed straight towards the mission of finding Kurtz. I can relate with Marlow as I am reading this novel because, just as he is anxious to reach Kurtz on his journey down the river, so too have I been anxious to reach Kurtz. Yet, for as major of a character that Kurtz is in this novel, it strikes me that he has yet to actually be in the novel. However Conrad, through Marlow, does an immense amount of foreshadowing. In a way, this brings my thoughts back to the Bali article in which the narrator made several references about the horrible, barbaric sacrifice of the women, when in fact these sacrifices did not take place until the very end of the passage. Using this parallel, it seems to me that Conrad, like the narrator of the Bali article, is not merely writing to give the reader the most accurate and historical account possible. Rather, there is a key motive of trying to draw the reader in and to be a piece of entertainment. Perhaps this, then, is why the glorified, seemingly heroic image of Kurtz, thus far at least, is not consistent with the cruelty which Kurtz was actually responsible for. And at the same time, this could also explain why Marlow tends to ignore the natives, except for when they are being “savages” such as when they are expressing their cannibal instincts, which one might be inclined to see as the most “entertaining” features of the natives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (...continued)
    As we hear about Kurtz through different managers whom Marlow encounters along his journey, he is presented as a great moral authority and someone who truly cares about the natives. He is, in a way, present as an almost perfect contrast to the greed and cruelty which are usually associated with the Europeans’ trading affairs in Africa. However, it is Kurtz’s report for the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs which finally gives us our first direct contact with a piece of Kurtz himself. In this report, Marlow emphasizes the great eloquence of Kurtz’s language, which Marlow describes as “burning noble words” and which further paint Kurtz as a magnificent being. In this report Kurtz also expresses his great desire to help the natives through civilizing them, saying that they “can exert a power of good practically unbounded”. It is through this means that Kurtz justifies his actions and, although in hindsight we, as well as Marlow, can recognize his faulty logic, this still portrays Kurtz as having the right intentions. One of the most striking things which Marlow says in his reflection on Kurtz’s report is that it gave him “the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence”. With such a characterization, Conrad, through Marlow, once again gives a picture of Kurtz as being a sort of super-being coming close to the ranks of a god. However, it is the very end of Kurtz’s report, in the post-script, in which we see a much darker side of Kurtz when he proclaims “Exterminate all the brutes!” This is not at all consistent with the previous image of a benevolent character. Although Marlow tries to brush this part off, this line still shows the true motive behind the imperialism, even for the great Kurtz. Despite the fact that Kurtz is displayed as a supreme character of utmost moral integrity, this one exclamation not only casts this into doubt, but brings about the question of how the reader could have become so enthralled with Kurtz in the first place and, perhaps even more remarkably, how the reader still is engaged in wanting to find Kurtz so that they can discover what he is really like. Even in this horrible statement by Kurtz, there is still a very romanticized image of him in which one, like Marlow, is able to push aside these harsh comments of Kurtz because they want to hold on to their previous notion of this perfect character. In my reading of this novel thus far, my feelings about Kurtz have gone from somewhat positive to very negative, yet all the while I can’t help but be in awe of him. The one thing that this novel has reinforced to me, however, as how completely hypocritical this imperialism really was.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In reading the Heart of Darkness, there is no doubt that the imperialistic views of Joseph Conrad are leaking through the lines of the book. Conrad lived from 1857 to 1924, many of the years in which imperialism existed in the British Empire. It was the conventional mindset of the time for the British to see themselves as liberating the rest of the world and having a duty to colonize uncivilized regions of the globe. No problem existed in the British minds that they were exploiting the natives for their ivory. The native Africans weren’t going to use the ivory in the first place, so why not just take it from them?

    This is the attitude throughout the fictional work of Heart of Darkness. In the novella, Kurtz is the imperialist running the awful ivory trade in Africa. He used to be an idealist, but the power and prospect of money got to his mind. He now owns the entire company and has more power than ever. But to the British and especially Marlow, this greed stricken man is basically seen as a God. It is almost impossible not to notice the mysterious aura that the description of Kurtz offers despite the horror that he inflicts upon the natives. Marlow even goes as far to say about meeting Kurtz, “Talking with…I flung one shoe overboard, and became aware that that was exactly what I had been looking forward to – a talk with Kurtz.” At one point, Marlow does consider Kurtz’s violent side as he says, “Hadn’t I been told in all the tones of jealousy and admiration that he had collected, bartered, swindled, or stolen more ivory than all the other agents together?” Despite this, he is caught up in the excitement and goes back to say, “That was not the point.” It is almost too comical to handle at this point in the novel. Marlow has the common sense to notice that Kurtz is really not a good guy, but just throws it aside in his sudden happiness. He feels that the “good” things that Kurtz does for his nation perhaps counteracts the things he does to the natives.

    It’s kind of ironic how such a terrible person can be hyped up so much by the people as such a great person. However, this contradiction can only be seen by looking at the book in the modern day with a more worldly opinion. It is quite obvious from an outsider’s perspective to see the absurdity in the thoughts and actions of Marlow in Africa. But if placed in the heart of imperialism in the late nineteenth century, one would think that Kurtz is a great person. The British do not mind that the African natives are suffering because they are in the hands of the British Empire, which is much better than their previous situation. These African natives are now introduced into the “correct” system of a currency based economy and should not be worrying about their massive debt from their low wages. It is not only a benefit to both of the countries; it is the duty of the white man to take over and control the Congo. Overall, the general excitement of Marlow towards meeting Kurtz can be traced to the catchy atmosphere of imperialism back in the late 1800s. Michael Taussig's statement is correct in saying that there is “a distinct desire in Heart of Darkness for Kurtz's greatness, horrible as it is.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. In his novella, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad tries to maintain an objective position on imperialism by using a frame narrative. This allows him to introduce both views on imperialism. The unnamed narrator calls the explorers, who set out from Britain, “knights errant”, indicating that he believes imperialism is the means to enlighten the planet. His opinions, however, are in sharp contrast with the views of Marlow, the man whose story the narrator is retelling. Marlow’s begins his story by pointing out that Britain was, at one point, considered a savage land and compares ancient Britain to modern Congo. This ambivalence on the author’s part comes into play throughout the entire story.

    For every character who thought highly of Kurtz, there was a character who would speak against him. This causes the reader to share in this ambivalence, wondering who Kurtz truly is. Kurtz does not appear in the story until over two thirds of the way through the novella. As the reader hears about Kurtz throughout the novella, he develops a larger than life persona. Kurtz represents the best that imperialism has to offer, he is “universal genius” according to Marlow. Yet, he joins with the native groups and loses his ideals. The pamphlet on the “Suppression of Savage Customs”, written by Kurtz, is an eloquent essay on enlightening the savages, but by the end of his time in the Congo, Kurtz writes “exterminate all the brutes”. According to Conrad, this represents what occurs when imperialism meets savagery.

    As modern readers of this novella, we must consider the present day implication of such a claim. The quest to spread enlightenment to the savage world is rather similar to the American ideal of spreading democracy. The breakdown of this system can be found in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not to say that the people of these areas are savages or that democracy is the same as imperialism, rather the means of spreading a view by conquest and force does not work. The story about the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison who tortured and abused prisoners has some similarities with the story in the heart of darkness. The soldiers entered Iraq in the hope of spreading democracy, but they ended up causing harm to those they were supposed to protect. The Heart of Darkness stands the test of time because the story is about just as much about the human reaction to foreignness as it is about imperialism meeting savagery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nevin Peeples

    “I thought you said we were going to build a place where only the things you want to happen would happen…I thought you were going to cure the sadness and make everyone happier, but you didn’t. You are no king.” ~Carol from the movie adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are

    The recent movie adaptation of the popular children’s book Where the Wild Things Are, written by Maurice Sendak, can be used to compare the lies of imperialism and the glorification of Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. In Where the Wild Things Are, the main character Max finds himself in a world completely new and strange to him after he flees from his own due to struggles with his parents and his sister. While he is just a small white boy, he finds himself surrounded by massive furry creatures wrecking up their civilization due to internal conflicts. Max assumes the role of the other in this strange world. Amidst deep internal struggles regarding his love, the disorder of his civilization, and his view as the outsider, one of the creatures, Carol, finds hope in the sudden appear of Max. Max’s human figure is mysterious to Carol and the entire civilization. They view him as some sort of god with mysterious powers and hope they he will be able to bring them the happiness they all desire. Max plays along with their perception of him and tells the creatures that he really is a king and if they all bow down to him he will cure all of their sadness. Max becomes king and teaches the creatures how to avoid their problems by playing games and having fun. However as time passes on, their problems catch up with them and Max ends up making things worse than they were before, despite the initial encouragement he gave. Max admits that he is no king and leaves back for his own world, leaving the creatures even more depressed than they were before.

    Where the Wild Things Are and Heart of Darkness share the same themes of lies and unsupported glorification of the other. Heart of Darkness is centered on British imperialism and the profitable ivory trade. Just as Max left his own world for another, the British leave their world to reside in the Congo where they can benefit from gathering ivory from the natives. The British come with the lie that they can make everything better, or more specifically, “Exterminate all the brutes” and teach the “savages” how to be more “civilized.” However, their primary interest is profiting off of the ivory trade. Because of their mysterious appearance and the good word they bring, the natives accept the authority of the British. Just like Max, they figuratively make the British their king, under the impression that everything will be better than it was before with them around. However as time goes on the natives are mistreated and it becomes evident that things are much worse than they were before. Just like Max, the British leave Africa in much worse of a condition than it was before they arrived.

    The false glorification of Kurtz in the novel comes from this same theme. Like Max and the British, Kurtz is also full of lies. While in his report to the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs he implies that he is going to make the African culture even better than it was before, he actually ends up destroying it. While he is viewed as a highly idealistic and moral character, he is actually a selfish, pretentious exploiter who in no way deserves all of the fame he gets. His fame stems from the fairytale glorification of the other, which is rooted in the unsupported hope mysterious beings seem to unconsciously engrain in people’s minds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kurtz’s description and characterization throughout Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness” has been interpreted in many ways throughout the book’s relatively short history. For example, in Adam Hochschild’s “King Leopold’s Ghost,” Hochschild seems to find Kurtz’s character disgusting and the epitome of the most morally corrupt person imaginable. However, often people seem to almost romanticize Kurtz’s adapted savagery. He becomes a king of the uncivilized; a great return to primitive human nature. It is easy to see how this would happen, as Kurtz seems to have absolute control. He is in a distant, almost surreal world that is completely foreign to almost all readers, which can often seem desirable. There is a concept called the “Noble Savage” that my American Literature class discussed often in high school. This is the idea of the primitive man being romanticized as not having to deal with the stresses of civilization and living off the land naturally and free. Reading through “The Heart of Darkness” often reminds me of this idea as the people there are the “savages” not having to deal with civilization, and Kurtz seems to come in and be able to almost fit in with his neglecting of the moral norms of society, his brute force, and his total control. It seems that he appeals to the morbid curiosity human’s often have, and for some reason mixed in with the surreal setting and colorful description, his character almost becomes desirable.
    What I find the most interesting though, is not how a man who surrounds himself with human heads on stakes might appear beautiful and exoticized, but rather why this is only the case for some people, and others like Hochschild find Kurtz so appalling. I believe the difference comes in the fact that many of the readers that find Kurtz so romanticized are much more distant from the topic than others like Hochschild are. Hochschild researched this time period of the Congo so much that he even came up with many well supported ideas for who Kurtz could be based on. He actually knew of a man that did surround his house with heads on stakes, and read the personal accounts of others who personally interacted with that man. Suddenly, he is much more personally connected to how cruel a real life Kurtz can be and he becomes not beautifully primitive, but morally corrupt. Everyone has a bit of morbid curiosity, until it is hurting someone close to them. Why else would people indulge in scary movies, or murder mysteries? So, I believe that the distance created by Kurtz being fictional and even so, in a very distant land physically and in its organization and culture, leads to the ability for people to see his cruelty as beautiful and exotic. Also, by his being such a morally upright man before he gets there, it is also natural for people to want to keep liking him as a character, and to try and rationalize his actions by his surroundings. Kurtz’s character is, upon closer inspection, extremely disturbing, however, Conrad has managed to create him in such a way that he is seen as primitive, desirable, and outside of any connectable way of life to the readers’ own.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The desire to meet Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, I believe, is explained by his great success. In the beginning of the novella, Marlow is told how talented Kurtz is, not only in finding ivory but in his relations with the natives. Marlow’s mission to drive steamers up and down the river does not require him to search for ivory, but he is still fascinated with Kurtz’s success. I think it is a natural reaction of people to be interested in the success of another human, especially if that success is in an area of interest. Marlow’s company is in the ivory trade. The more ivory they bring in, the richer the company. It is of no surprise that Marlow would want to meet Kurtz and determine what is making him so successful. Kurtz’s success with the natives is also of importance to Marlow because natives outnumber the Europeans on the boat.
    After reading the report, Marlow seems to be slightly offput with the idea of Kurtz because his idea of a great humanitarian who is working so well with the natives is turned upside down. When Marlow sees that Kurtz has no feelings for the natives, calling them “brutes” that should be killed, it causes him to question what he knows. Marlow is working for the imperialists in an effort to take over the products of the African jungle. They are able to rationalize this robbery by telling themselves the natives will be better off after the “right” economy is in place. Marlow, in working for the imperialists, must buy into the idea of the “right” economy so he can attempt to rationalize Kurtz’s report.
    While Marlow originally wants to meet Kurtz to learn the best ways to succeed in the company and work with the natives, after the report his desire to find Kurtz is centered on a figment of his imagination that Kurtz will be able to rationalize for Marlow the harsh killing of the natives. Marlow believes Kurtz will say how necessary it is for some of the natives to die so the economy can be established and future generations will be well off. Marlow’s initial view of Kurtz is so ingrained as a great man, he is willing to manipulate and stretch the wording of the report to maintain the larger than life, everything is for the betterment of future generations, humanitarian Kurtz in Marlow’s mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As Marlow ventures further and further into the interior of the Congo, he is overtaken by a feverish desire to meet Kurtz. In Kurtz, Marlow hopes to find an answer to all of the questions that have arisen in his mind after witnessing countless acts of violence against the helpless natives. The reader cannot help but be entranced by the figure of Kurtz and the promise of truth that he brings.
    The traditional European view of imperialism was shattered the minute Marlow first saw the mining station in the first part of the Heart of Darkness. How could this be a mutually beneficial “civilizing mission” if the natives were being turned into “nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation” while the white quickly got rich? It was obvious that the people who perpetrated these atrocities were living a lie. In the midst of all this uncertainty and deception, Marlow hears about the brilliant and principled Kurtz. From all that Marlow hears about Kurtz, he believes that Kurtz alone has found the truth behind the exploitation of the Congo.
    This situation mirrors Roger Casement and Joseph Conrad’s meeting in the Congo. Conrad had a very similar experience to Marlow when he first traveled to the Congo. He was so shocked and appalled by what he saw that he couldn’t quite process what was going on. When he met Casement, he finally understood the meaning of what he was witnessing. The truth was that the Congo was not an isolated bad situation that was allowed to get out of hand. It was representative of the colonizing missions throughout the world. Europe was reaching out to Africa, Asia, and North America not to improve the lives of its natives. Rather, its main goal was to exploit the natives and extract all of their valuable resources as quickly as possible.
    Kurtz found a deeper and darker reason behind the atrocities in the Congo. Although economic gain was a factor in the exploitation of the natives, Kurtz believed that the greater reason behind the brutal treatment of the natives was mankind’s deep seated desire to dominate and ultimately eliminate the “other.” Kurtz’s message to “exterminate the brutes” was the real goal of the Europeans even though they lied to themselves that they had noble intentions. Kurtz saw these lies for what they were and he couldn’t deceive himself anymore. He abandoned himself to his deepest desires. Although it’s unclear what he actually did, we can guess that he raped and killed many natives. The “horror” that Kurtz’s speaks of at the end of his life is that at the core of the colonizing mission was the goal of gaining complete power over anyone who remotely differed from the Europeans. Casement and Kurtz failed in their attempts to bring this truth back to society. Conrad took up where Casement left off and wrote Heart of Darkness in the hope of getting Europe to finally abandon the idea of the “white man’s burden.”

    ReplyDelete
  9. Throughout the beginning section of Heart of Darkness, there has been dramatic contrast between the excitement Marlow expresses for talking with Kurtz and the dismal, miserable conditions the people of the Congo have to suffer through due to imperialism. At times, Marlow tries to explain the horrors of the Congo, but he doesn’t necessarily seem to take them into account or be affected by them. On one page Marlow says, “his brother phantom rested its forehead, as if overcome with a great weariness; and all about others were scattered in every pose of contorted collapse, as in some picture of a massacre or a pestilence.” After this morbid description of the African workers one would think that he would reflect upon this experience or comment on the complete lack of disregard for human life. However, this is not the case; he goes right into the next description. In the following paragraph, he begins to describe a white man, the company’s chief accountant in an almost angelic way and seems to reflect on this “miracle” of a single white man looking pristine significantly more than the combined state of all dying, essentially enslaved people of Congo. This incident along with countless others involving Kurtz epitomize the view of imperialism people of this time had. Though they might seem to realize that imperialism can be bad, especially in the opening comparison between the Thames and the Congo, in action they continue along the same flawed lines of spreading their beliefs through force, degradation, and coercion.

    Because of this lack of interest in the conditions of the Africans, people like Marlow can instead focus their attentions on the supposed greatness of other foreigners in the area. Although up to this point, Kurtz has not actually been encountered in the novel, his persona has been dramatically idealized. Everywhere Marlow goes he seems to hear stories of Kurtz’s greatest which elevates his image to an almost god-like status. Some of the anecdotes such as the ones about Kurtz exporting large amounts of ivory idealize the imperialism prominent in that time period. During this area, it was possible to exhibit large amounts of greatness by degrading people and ruining a way of life. People got so caught up in the ideas of wealth and position that they failed to realize the impact of their actions on humanity. This “blindness” towards the people of the Congo is the basis for the seemingly mythical desire for Kurtz greatness.

    Even though for a good portion of the novel Marlow seems to be addicted to finding Kurtz and to not care about the natives, at a few instances, he does reflect occasionally on the kinship he shares with the blacks. At one point in his dialogue Marlow says, “what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar.” Realizations such as these seem to indicate a slightly morphing ideology Marlow has about imperialism and his quest to meet Kurtz. So although there is definitely a desire to find Kurtz due to the extreme hype created around his greatness, Marlow seems to occasionally question this sentiment; however instead of actually changing his beliefs when he discovers problems with imperialism/connections with the “savages”, he might just shares these thought with the listeners of his story to explain the environment he was in. It is difficult to determine Marlow’s stance on imperialism and his journey through the Congo with the events that have happened in the story so far, though foreshadowing has given us some hints to the nature of his thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In his novella, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad presents a strange juxtaposition between the naïve idealism that imperialism was partly based on with the cold cynicism of someone who has seen imperialism first-hand. The narrator of the book, detached as he is from the process of colonization and imperialism, imagines the workers of imperialism as “knights-errant” carrying forth the bright flame of civilization to the peoples of the world. Marlow, who has seen the many horrors of imperialism with his own eyes, reminds us that Great Britain, arguably the primary mover and shaker of the imperialism of the era, was once seen as a barbaric and backwards place just as Africa is currently viewed. However, despite the horrors of imperialism, the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly,” that Marlow refers to (84), Marlow still has a great deal of reverence for Kurtz, arguably the living embodiment of imperialism, showing that even the cynical can appreciate some fascinating powers.
    Marlow holds Kurtz’s eloquence and charisma in very high esteem. He remarks, almost enviously, on Kurtz’s eloquent report on the native customs. Although we have not really encountered Kurtz the man yet, I know from a previous reading of the novel that Kurtz manages to make himself a sort of God among the people of the Congo. Marlow marvels at this and also notes the profound effect Kurtz’s presence seems to have on the native woman who bemoans his leaving. Unfortunately, Kurtz the idealist who sought only to bring good things such as justice and peaceful society to the natives at the outset is long gone. Now all that is left is Kurtz the savage, who writes “Exterminate the brutes” in a postscript to the eloquent and benevolent report he initially wrote on the natives. Kurtz’s transformation parallels and embodies the transformation of Imperialism, which, although it may have had good intentions at the start, succumbed to its own heart of darkness and resorted to violent repression and exploitation of the natives. In showing this profound transformation in Kurtz and in imperialism as a whole, Conrad shows a terrible reverence for the awesome power of the savage and horrifying to completely remake a person. Although this may seem solely to revere horror and savagery at the surface, it also serves as a subtle indictment of imperialism as a moral idea. If Kurtz, seemingly one of the most noble souls at the outset of his imperialist days, cannot withstand the powerful allure of leaving the moral high ground, how could anyone expect imperialism as a whole, no matter what lofty ideals it may hold at the start, possibly hope to come out of a savage land unscathed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please ignore my earlier post, the paragraph breaks didn't show up. Here it is with paragraph breaks added:

    In his novella, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad presents a strange juxtaposition between the naïve idealism that imperialism was partly based on with the cold cynicism of someone who has seen imperialism first-hand. The narrator of the book, detached as he is from the process of colonization and imperialism, imagines the workers of imperialism as “knights-errant” carrying forth the bright flame of civilization to the peoples of the world. Marlow, who has seen the many horrors of imperialism with his own eyes, reminds us that Great Britain, arguably the primary mover and shaker of the imperialism of the era, was once seen as a barbaric and backwards place just as Africa is currently viewed. However, despite the horrors of imperialism, the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly,” that Marlow refers to (84), Marlow still has a great deal of reverence for Kurtz, arguably the living embodiment of imperialism, showing that even the cynical can appreciate some fascinating powers.

    Marlow holds Kurtz’s eloquence and charisma in very high esteem. He remarks, almost enviously, on Kurtz’s eloquent report on the native customs. Although we have not really encountered Kurtz the man yet, I know from a previous reading of the novel that Kurtz manages to make himself a sort of God among the people of the Congo. Marlow marvels at this and also notes the profound effect Kurtz’s presence seems to have on the native woman who bemoans his leaving. Unfortunately, Kurtz the idealist who sought only to bring good things such as justice and peaceful society to the natives at the outset is long gone. Now all that is left is Kurtz the savage, who writes “Exterminate the brutes” in a postscript to the eloquent and benevolent report he initially wrote on the natives. Kurtz’s transformation parallels and embodies the transformation of Imperialism, which, although it may have had good intentions at the start, succumbed to its own heart of darkness and resorted to violent repression and exploitation of the natives. In showing this profound transformation in Kurtz and in imperialism as a whole, Conrad shows a terrible reverence for the awesome power of the savage and horrifying to completely remake a person. Although this may seem solely to revere horror and savagery at the surface, it also serves as a subtle indictment of imperialism as a moral idea. If Kurtz, seemingly one of the most noble souls at the outset of his imperialist days, cannot withstand the powerful allure of leaving the moral high ground, how could anyone expect imperialism as a whole, no matter what lofty ideals it may hold at the start, possibly hope to come out of a savage land unscathed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Throughout The Heart of Darkness, Kurtz appears as a mythical figure both to Marlow and to the natives. For Marlow and all other "civilized" people, Kurtz represents the noble imperialistic attempts to civilize the natives. When he is commissioned to work in the Congo, he departs as a man of high moral character with a desire to civilize the "savages." Just like the conquistadors and other explorers, Kurtz hopes that he can show the natives civility; he enters with an egotism that his culture possesses superior characteristics to the native culture, and thus, his labor is guided toward teaching the natives "proper" culture. He even goes as far as writing a recommendation to handle the natives. In part because of his identifiable behavior, many people in modern society view Kurtz, as Taussig says, with a "distinct desire… for [his] success." No matter how horribly egotistical the idea of eliminating a culture in favor of one's own is, people still identify with Kurtz because of his common "civilized" background and hope that he can overcome the inferior culture of the natives; the shared egotism creates a want for other inferior cultures to become adequate. However, the identifiable behavior quickly ends, and Kurtz succumbs to the native culture.
    Kurtz' original mission sustains him only for a short time. Once among the natives, Kurtz immediately ascends to power. Analogous to some of the cultures from Sahlins' Islands of History , the natives of the Congo adopt this foreigner and place him in power. The people who were once "savages" become his people. When this occurs, Kurtz encounters a situation dissimilar to that of many encountering cultures. He guides the people, and though he is their new deity-leader, he still wrangles to stay "civilized." However, his fight adversely affects him until he surmises, "Exterminate all the brutes," in his report. At this point, the barbarity and beauty of Kurtz' situation simultaneously arise. For all people in a "civilized" society, understanding Kurtz' situation becomes impossible because of his immersion in native culture; the idea of adopting "uncivilized" culture seems abhorrent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (Continued...)
    Yet, his situation inspires awe and differentiates him from the average egotistical, Eurocentric conqueror. Kurtz manages to ascend to this god-king position among the natives and counteract the imperialistic ideas of the trading company; he adopts the culture instead of conquering it. By the end of his work, his actions completely counteract those of imperialistic conquerors, and his ascension to power inspires awe and wonder. However, he possesses the abhorrent title of imperialist as he controls the natives and gradually destroys his only civility. By civilizing the natives, Kurtz barbarizes himself. At this point, readers cannot help but admire the, as Taussig says, "horror made beautiful and primitivism exoticized."
    Overall, Kurtz provides a strong derogation toward imperialism. While the Europeans sought to conquer and command just as the conquistadors, the reality reversed for Kurtz. Once amongst the people, the egotism of the conquering culture could no longer sustain its efforts. The native culture instead overpowered the urge to conquer and engulfed Kurtz. The idea of cultural superiority is identifiable. Who does not want to believe that he or she lives in a superior culture? The upbringing of youth in every society fosters this desire to be the best. Because of the shocking results of Kurtz' efforts, the novel is scary yet wondrous. It shows that a new culture can lose its inferiority once a person is immersed in it, as Kurtz was. The power of ruling the natives and living among them "reversed" his civility to bring Kurtz into the culture of the natives. However, did Kurtz really digress culturally, or is the egotism of a culture overriding the ability to accept another? By the end, any reader cannot help but think that egotism created Kurtz, and the novel provides a strong incentive to further analyze the "superiority" of one's own culture. The superiority of one's culture becomes a matter of perspective

    ReplyDelete
  14. The imperialism of both the conquistadors and the Europeans in Africa had very similar foundations as both entered foreign lands and exploited and enslaved the native masses for their own goods, be it ivory or gold. Both imperializing forces showed little regard for these natives when forcing them into labor, which resulted in near genocide of these populations. There is also the point of comparison that leaders, such as Cortez and Kurtz, were viewed as gods by the indigenous peoples; however, a line must be dawn to differentiate such characters. This line comes clearly from the fact that Kurtz is the victim of his isolation, while the conquistadors exhibited little change in their imperialistic travels.
    One of Kurtz’s qualifying traits is that he is a straightforward and honest character. Nothing evidences this more than that he is completely open about the atrocities that he is committing in the jungle. Kurtz, though flawed in his “white man’s burden” superiority complex, goes into his journey with a motive greater than personal advancement and reputation. This is not to say that he did not originally desire success for himself, as his ambition clearly leads him into immoral measures, but that he did maintain motives of serving a good that he viewed as greater than himself. Similar arguments could be made on behalf of conquistadors looking to spread religion but who were also looking to gain favor in their countries’ courts. The question then becomes what causes Kurtz, a man of even greater moral purpose, to maintain the honesty of his actions, even with respect to the most disgusting of actions, while similar imperialists do not. While character difference may be argued, it is far more reasonable to explore the differences in environment between Kurtz and the conquistadors. The conquistadors, despite being an ocean away, were never truly isolated from their motherlands. They always had men under them, and with these numbers they were able to maintain the atmosphere of their own culture during their travels. Thus, while they may have picked up some new traits from the natives, they were never fully submerged in a different culture. Kurtz, on the other hand, is isolated from his peers when in the jungle. Although he encounters them every once in a while to trade ivory with, he is more or less alone with the natives, with the closedness of the jungle acting to further thrust him into a new culture. By the very process described by Sahlins, he is taken by the natives to be the “stranger-king” and is worshipped as a god, much like Cortez. Yet because of Kurtz’s isolation, he is pulled towards the natives much in the same way that the natives are pulled to him, and thus he transfers from one culture to another. While Cortez may have pretended to be a god for the Aztecs, he was still very much a follower of the European culture and system, and his ties to it provided a negating force to the centripetal pull towards the native culture. Thus, his motives were solely centered on his image in the eyes of European rulers, which gave him reason to hide his heinous crimes. On the other hand, Kurtz’s isolation removed any outward pull of his former culture, and thus, the inward pull of power successfully caught hold of him, causing him to become a follower of an entirely new culture. Thus, he is able to fully embody his role of a God with nothing to hide to European officials, for their opinion no longer has any influence over him, as shown when he tells the manager, “You with your peddling notices – you are interfering with me” (159). He loses his ties with European culture, and instead adopts the role of ruler that the natives pull him towards, which then becomes his own reality, a reality in which he has no one to report to and hide the truth from.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The process of Kurtz change of culture is what allows the Conrad to depict a sort of greatness for him in the novella. The greatness does not lie in his morals, for clearly he uses absolute force and fear to exploit coerce a population into serving him. His greatness lies in his conceived demigod aura. When looking at a conquistador such as Cortez, it is clear that his actions only support his attempt to rise the ranks of European power; they are self-interested facades and thus lose their greatness. Nevertheless, Kurtz has already reached the peak of power in his new culture, which means his motives serve some purpose other than self-advancement. He continues to collect masses of ivory, but not to gain favor, rather instead to serve an ambiguous purpose, for which he says, “I had immense plans” (165). His motives may be twisted, as they are meant to affirm his god-like status, but this only adds to the intriguing nature of his power. Much like the Joker in The Dark Knight or Attila the Hun, one must accredit him some dark, distant greatness for his power and status, even if his actions are reprehensible. Because Kurtz is straightforward about his actions, he does hold a position of “horror made beautiful” in his ambiguous motives, unlike many of the conquistadors.

    ReplyDelete
  16. While the idea of an inherent “human nature” is problematic because everybody grows up with a different set of experiences and values, it is not unfair to say that there are a few traits that seem to be universal. Included in this is a certain curiosity with regards to certain horrible things, something that Marlow describes as the “fascination of the abomination”. This is the same instinct that drives people to slow down while driving by car wrecks and brings droves of people to see horror movies like Saw.
    This fascination is depicted extremely well in Heart of Darkness through both Marlow and Kurtz. Marlow seems to have an affinity for the man with the “unsound methods,” and the more he finds out about how far Kurtz has gone off the edge, the more fanaticized he seems to become. The big mystery that Marlow wants to figure out seems to be how a man of such seemingly high morals could fall into doing the horrible things he did to the natives. Kurtz becomes the only thing that Marlow can think about and, despite knowing what darkness Kurtz has descended into, he seems to admire him even more and more. Marlow is fascinated by the abomination of what Kurtz has become and the power of the “dark continent,” disgusted by the atrocities that have gone on and unadmittedly in awe of the sublime power that Kurtz holds.
    The slow revelation of the facts of Kurtz’s command at the inner station draws the reader in too. As horrible as Kurtz has become, I read on anxiously, excited to meet the man who had gone so far away from what we consider civilized. As I made my way through Conrad’s thick writing(which fits very well metaphorically with going through the unexplored jungle), I imagined what specific horrible things Kurtz had done, and I began to wonder how I would have handled the same situation. I would love to be able to say that I wouldn’t have turned my back on society, that I would have been completely humanitarian in the whole affair, but in all honestly, I don’t know if I can commit wholeheartedly either way to what I would have done. This isn’t to say that I consider myself a bad person, but having all civilization disappear and suddenly becoming a god is such a foreign situation that there is nothing in my past that to which I can compare it, and my actions would probably be unpredictable. This is the same problem that Marlow comes to. I would imagine many people run into this question at some point when reading this book. It’d be nice to say that we wouldn’t do it because we have morals and such, but Kurtz was such a good man, and he still turned so evil, that it seems that the evil that consumes him came not from any human experience, but from deep inside the person, naturally there and waiting for the chance to fulfill its pleasures.
    Being that the best answer that we can give to this question of “what would you do” is simply “I don’t know,” we feel guilty for not being able to definitively state our goodness and we become curious and want to see Kurtz to find out why he changed, and what that change has made him, partly to see how sublime his power over the people is, partly to find evidence that Kurtz was a special case and that it wouldn’t happen to us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As we continue to explore the effects and outcomes of colonization, we begin to see that it is far more horrible than we’ve ever been taught in our educational past. Colonization was justified through various descriptions where the argument always was that the native’s quality of life was being improved. Oftentimes this would be under the veil of missionary work or bringing new forms of government to a land where these changes were entirely unsuccessful. This belief was entirely unfounded though because settlers did anything but advance the society of African societies. As we continue to study colonization, we see that it was purely for the purpose of exploiting other lands and people for monetary gains while ignoring all humanitarian concerns. As we learned in Wolf, long before European colonization, Africa had sophisticated trading systems and economic models which disproves the false belief that African civilization needed to be saved. Despite Europe’s naivety that their actions in Africa were appropriate, individuals such as Roger Casement brought the atrocities to the attention of all of Europe, thereby allowing Europe to correct some of their errors such as King Leopold’s control of the Congo.
    Although many individuals supported and were enchanted by the European action in Africa, I don’t believe that Joseph Conrad was one of these people. Those who disagree with me would point to Marlow’s fascination with Kurtz power and personality, and his inherent desire to be just as great as Kurtz. I believe that this is Conrad revealing man’s natural mental weakness to want to dominate other things and be violent. Humans are inherently violent, but most people resist these urges and live a civilized life. As Marlow goes into the heart of darkness, he loses himself and becomes enchanted with Kurtz. Conrad displays his distaste of European colonization through Marlow’s thoughts such as “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much” (69). This quotation is one of Conrad’s core theses for Heart of Darkness because the more the reader sees of Belgian Congo, the more he is disgusted by the atrocities. Conrad sees the settling of the Congo by Europeans like a virus. Even when great upstanding men such as Kurtz and Marlow go into the Congo, they are affected and begin to be entranced by power and a need to dominate the natives. The change is best demonstrated by the different viewpoints held by Marlow (before entering the jungle) and Kurtz (after living for a long time as colonizer). Marlow reasons that the cannibals are rational, good men through his encounters with them on the steamer while Kurtz goes so far as to say “Exterminate all the brutes!” Through Heart of Darkness, Conrad shows that Marlow’s attraction to Kurtz is due to his own human weakness rather than the fact that Kurtz’s greatness is romanticized.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In class recently, we have been talking and reading a lot about power; specifically, about how a foreign individual or group can come into a native tribe and easily assume power. The reason for their being able to do so with such little opposition lies in the coercive nature of power. As Sahlins explains in Islands of History, “Power reveals and defines itself as the rupture of the people’s own moral order” (79). Imperialism relies on its proponents being able to do just that– rupture their own moral order, and commit crimes against the human dignity of the native peoples they are conquering. As horrible and obviously immoral as imperialist actions may have been, however, many refused to see them as such. These men were revered and well respected in society. There is no better example of this than the mysterious Mr. Kurtz in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.

    From the moment that Marlow learns of Kurtz’s existence, he hears nothing but praise for him. Kurtz is one of the company’s top agents; he sends in as much ivory as all the others put together. He is called “remarkable” (88), “exceptional” (94), a “prodigy” (99), and “an emissary of pity and science and progress” (99). Marlow does not even know the man, but yet he feels a strange anxiety and weariness upon learning that Kurtz is ill. Why does Marlow have such a strong desire to meet this man? He has heard only great things about him. However, it is clear that Marlow is not a supporter of imperialism; it is because of the views presented through Marlow that the novella is thought of as the “most powerful literary indictment of imperialism.” So why would he be so anxious to meet this man, who embodies something that he is obviously against? This seems very strange to me. At this point in our reading, we have not yet encountered Kurtz, and we do not know his full story. However, it is pretty safe to assume that whatever he did to gain control of a native tribe, it was not without some sort of coercion or violence. But yet we are shown many signs that Kurtz is esteemed and revered among his “savages”, such as when Marlow’s boat is attacked by a group of natives. The Russian trader tells Marlow that the reason for this attack is because the natives don’t want Kurtz to leave. This might signify that Kurtz is not as horrible as we may infer.

    Taking all of this into account, I am not sure exactly what to think of Kurtz. We still have another part of the story to read in which, presumably, we will find out more about him. So is Kurtz as horrible a character as critics say, and if so, why is he so glorified in the novella? For me, at least, the question remains.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greatness. Most strive for it, and few achieve it. What, though, is greatness? It is a relative concept, holding different meaning for each individual person. Some strive to be great lawyers, doctors, or politicians, bringing positive change to the world and all people they interact with. A great doctor, for example, could measure his success by the number of lives he saves versus the number of people for whom he can do nothing. He wants this ratio to favor the number of lives saved, of course. But where is the line drawn between a “great” career and an unsuccessful one?

    In much the same way as the hypothetical doctor in this situation, in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, the meaning of the “greatness” that Kurtz strives for is unclear. Marlow feels that Kurtz is a great man, as demonstrated by his acute fascination with everything about him and his keen desire to meet him. However, as the novel progresses, the extent to which Kurtz is “great” in a positive way becomes more and more questionable. This has been alluded to since the beginning of the novel. A first example occurs when the Chief Accountant, who possesses rather questionable morals (demonstrated when he complains about how the dying groans of the sick African man detract from his productivity) praises Kurtz highly. Although Marlow respects the Chief Accountant for being able to keep up his lifestyle in the middle of the Congo, there is no doubt that he possesses little to no sympathy for the plight of the natives at the hands of the European. Therefore, by listening to the praises sung by this unsympathetic, unfeeling man, Marlow believes a description of Kurtz’s greatness which has been produced by the bias of the Accountant’s admiration for Kurtz. It is unknown, however, exactly what Kurtz has done to gain the Accountant’s favor other than Kurtz’ ability to do his job, that is, collect ivory from the natives, exceptionally well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. (continued)

    Hearing this praise for Kurtz starts Marlow down the long road of obsession with Kurtz. He expects to find “greatness” within this man. However, he never actually states what his understanding of this concept is with regards to Kurtz. The more he hears about Kurtz, the more he adds to his mental image of the man. Unfortunately, though, this image is not the true Kurtz. No one seems to know the true Kurtz, and this air of mystery shrouding him only adds to Marlow’s fascination, until he eventually elevates him to a godlike status. Whether Kurtz actually is great or not, Marlow makes him that way within his mind and, because he is the “narrator” (one of them) in this novella, the reader is tempted to share this view of Kurtz as great.

    In much the same way, the natives, unsure of who or what Kurtz is, see him as “great.” This could be because he is “Other,” and therefore is mysterious to them. Like the ocean, the unknown depths of Kurtz’s character hold the attention of the natives, who then feel compelled to stay by him and serve him in his quest to accrue ivory. Kurtz also wishes to lessen the ravages of imperialism on the natives, which is why he goes out of contact with the other stations. However, by doing so, he leaves the other Europeans to their own devices and only protects the natives living near him as he adopts their ways. As he does so, he loses himself within the lures of “savagery” and becomes unrecognizable to Europeans such as Marlow, who was appalled and wary upon seeing the human skulls on stakes outside of Kurtz’s jungle residence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Throughout the early portion of Heart of Darkness, the character of Kurtz is shrouded in mystery. He takes on a near-mythical status of ultimate success—not only prospering personally but more importantly aiding in the prosperity of the colonial conquest of the Congo. Simply put, Kurtz was the image of conquest and exploitation. Nevertheless, Conrad demonstrates throughout the novella that Kurtz’s success comes at the expense of the native people.

    Conrad makes it sufficiently evident that Kurtz is not in any way a character to be admired. The reader witnesses the devastation that has plagued the native people to fund Kurtz’s success. Natives are beaten, flogged, or even killed for failing to fulfill the ivory quota put in place by the Europeans. Thus, Kurtz’s success comes only at the expense of others’ livelihood and well-being.

    Interestingly, though, the reader gets a sense that regardless of the detrimental effects of Kurtz’s exploitation, he is still admired by the Europeans working in the Congo. The ultimate goal of these workers seems to be that of attaining the status and respect that Kurtz commands. This theme is evident in the case of Marlow’s encounter with the accountant. Marlow initially witnessed the atrocities inflicted upon the native people and the suffering they were enduring. When Marlow finally made the acquaintance of the accountant, though, that vision seemed insignificant. More than anything, Marlow was impressed with the accountant’s regality rather than appalled at the treatment of the natives. Though this does not necessarily show the admiration of Kurtz, the principle issue is the same. Conrad also demonstrates the persistent disregard for the native people through the symbolic darkness that appears whenever the mistreatments are mentioned. It seems that the Europeans are unwilling to truly recognize and witness the magnitude of the oppression. In times where this oppression should be apparent, the scene seems to fade to darkness.

    It is evident, though, that the Europeans did recognize the oppression. The attempt to appease their collective conscience by providing compensation to the African workers seems to be a futile attempt at justifying the established imperialistic system. However, this can also be viewed as a means to ensure continued dominance of the native people in that the natives must then buy European goods and further stimulate the European conquest.

    Conrad is demonstrating what he personally witnessed throughout his experience in the Congo. The Europeans essentially sold their souls to the devil, in that they sacrificed moral standards for the attainment of power and success. As Sahlins states in Islands of History, power is “typically founded on an act of barbarism” (Sahlins 79), and “Power reveals and defines itself as the rupture of the people’s own moral order” (Sahlins 79). Thus, it appears that it is not only the European imposition of power in Africa, but every case of power throughout the world was at some point created as a result of barbarian conquest and the absence of moral code. This idea permeates modern American society in that the widespread view of politicians considers them willing to sacrifice any moral standards to achieve their goals, namely reelection. I believe this cynicism of those in power is in no small part due to Conrad and others like him who brought the atrocities of imperialism to a world perspective and allowed the general public to recognize the necessity of prioritizing worldly success and moral standards.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The most horrifying reality this novel faces is the human prospensity for complacency and self-deception. It is a problem that pervades humanity, likely based off of how we learn; the mind takes existing ideas and fits the new concepts into a similar schema, building upon that framework. When the British citizenry hears of the horrors in the Congo, they dismiss it much like Marlow dismisses Kurtz’s footnote, due to a pre-existing concept built by the ideas of “promoting capitalism” and “civilizing” the “savages”; to challenge that framework is to challenge their subjective reality. To overcome this barrier, a truly powerful experience of the true nature is necessary.

    Joseph Conrad had experienced such a powerful challenge when he wrote, “Before the Congo I was just a mere animal.” He realized just how mistaken his previous conception of the Congo was, how mislead his childhood dream of visiting Africa.

    The interest Marlow and the reader have in Kurtz is a powerful curiosity, one mingled with fear, fear of a challenge to their reality. They dread the revelation, yet are drawn to it.
    Without that revelation, less impacting reports will be deflected through self-deflection, dismissed and countered with good accounts, such as the assumption of fair trades being made for the ivory, that brass wire, valuable to the British, if worthless to the natives. This is further compounded by the many degrees of separation between reality and the populace; just as Conrad’s narrator Kurtz through Marlow and the company managers. By being so separated from the natives and so convinced that the Empire is being just and moral in its dealings, the citizens deceive themselves, as we all do in such conditions until we can throw away our previous assumptions and directly experience the truth.

    ReplyDelete