Racism_Conrad.pdf

7/30/2019 Racism_Conrad.pdf

1/3

Racism in Heart of darkness

Is Heart of darkness an irredemably racist novella? And, if so, does that mean itcannot be considered a work of art? Chinua Achebe believes so. I believeChinua Achebe to be wrong. Heart of darkness is a masterpiece which is as

profound as anything you are likely to read because it never settles, neverleaves the reader with easy solutions. It confronts. Certainly, it gives us a viewof the heart of darkness, but this is not the genius of the story. Its geniusresides in its approaches towards that heart of darkness, because, like life,these approaches are everywhere obscured by ambivalence. It is thisambivalence which is, to me, the true horror: realisation, after all, is alwaysworse than actualisation: it is the knowledge that wounds first and worst; theknife merely confirms it in steel and blood. We are all capable of darkness,Conrad is telling us. We are all capable of wielding the steel.

Achebe quotes Conrad's use of words such as 'inscrutable,' 'incomprehensible'

and 'unspeakable' and refers to F.R. Leavis's consideration of Conrad's'adjectival insistence upon inexpressible and incomprehensible mystery.' This,Achebe suggests, is part of a 'bombardment of emotive words and other formsof trickery.' This, I would argue, is almost sophistry, implying a layer ofemotion which simply isn't there. Moreover, he then goes on to say that Conraddoes this because it guarantees 'not to put him in conflict with thepyschological predisposition of his readers or raise the need for him to contendwith their resistance.' This is unacceptably mischievous: Achebe has no right toascribe such judgements to the hundreds of thousands of readers of this novelover the five or six generations since its publication. Racism resides in lazyjudgements.

While accepting that Conrad has a stylistic tic which leads to the overuse ofwords like 'inscrutable' and 'unspeakable,', I do not accept that this suggests aninherent racism. These words are not meant pejoratively: rather, they echo,again, the ambivalence which is at the core of this work. Conrad is not a lazyauthor and does not reward lazy readers: there are no easy answers in theunderstanding of civilization and barbarism. It is not black and white, eitherliterally or metaphorically. Good and bad do not reside on opposite poles. Thatis the point of this novella.

Achebe quotes at length the following passage:

And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was animproved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me,and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parodyof breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind legs. A few months oftraining had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam gauge andthe water gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity and he had filed histeeth, too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns,


2/3

and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have beenclapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he washard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge.

Oddly, however, having quoted at such length, Achebe barely discusses any

meaning from this passage: it is clearly self-evident in his eyes - racist to thecore. Not so. Yes, indeed, the comparison with a 'dog in a parody of breechesand a feather hat' is unpleasant, but is that passage, in its entirety(and, sinceAchebe quotes it in its entirety, let's discuss it thus) entirely negative about thefireman? No, it is not. He was 'an improved specimen.' On a scale of negativity,that might be described as merely patronising. He is a 'really fine chap.' Thatmust be construed as being on the positive scale. There follow somedescriptive passages and we are informed that he is 'hard at work' and 'full ofimproving knowledge.'

It is these latter descriptions which interest me. In Victorian through to

Edwardian times, civilisation was measured by education and learning. Indeed,it may even be traced back to Rousseau, albeit in a qualified way in his case:'education is wasted on the educated,' seems to be Rousseau's thinking attimes. But nonetheless it is this element of progress, of change, of making adifference that is important. Achebe may argue that this, too, is patronisingand racist: the 'white man' teaching the 'savage,' but, if you are arguing fromthe point of view of the text and not preconception, then this is not valid.Consider the white characters in this story: consider how much they learn, orhow much Conrad suggests they are progressing or changing or acting in someway to improve their lives? Kurtz, dying an ignominious death? The foolsshooting at shadows in the jungle? The harlequin with his completely useless,

but copiously annotated manual of seafaring? Kurtz's grieving belle back inEngland, fooling herself about her lover and his intentions? Which character isspecifically described as 'learning'? The fireman.

Achebe then goes on to describe in disparaging detail Conrad's depiction ofKurtz's Amazonian lover. She is, according to Achebe, 'in her place,' and she is a'savage counterpart to the refined, European woman with whom the story willend.' Achebe suggests that Conrad bestows 'human expression' on the whitewoman and not on the black. This is wilful misreading of the text. Consider thisdescription of the Amazon:She walked with measured steps, draped in striped and fringed cloths, treading

the earth proudly, with a slight jingle and flash of barbarous ornaments. Shecarried her head high; her hair was done in the shape of a helmet; she hadbrass leggings to the knee, brass wire gauntlets to the elbow, a crimson spot onher tawny cheek, innumerable necklaces of glass beads on her neck; bizarrethings, charms, gifts of witchmen, that hung about her, glittered and trembledat every step. She must have had the value of several elephant tusks upon her.She was savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent; there was somethingominous and stately in her deliberate progress. And in the hush that had fallen


3/3

suddenly upon the whole sorrowful land, the immense wilderness, the colossalbody of the fecund and mysterious life seemed to look at her, pensive, asthough it had been looking at the image of its own tenebrous and passionatesoul.

Does that not conjure a magnificent depiction of a proud, deeply impressivewoman? Compare it to the pathetic self-deception with which the white womanreceives Marlow's lie about her name being his last word:"I heard a light sigh and then my heart stood still, stopped dead short by anexulting and terrible cry, by the cry of inconceivable triumph and ofunspeakable pain. 'I knew it -- I was sure!' . . . She knew. She was sure. I heardher weeping; she had hidden her face in her hands. It seemed to me that thehouse would collapse before I could escape, that the heavens would fall uponmy head.Which woman is described more nobly, the black or the white? There is nocontest.

This description of Kurtz's white lover is the moment of utter genius in Heart ofDarkness. We know, of course, Kurtz's last words: 'The horror, the horror.' ButMarlow chooses to lie to the grieving woman because to do otherwise: 'wouldhave been too dark... To dark altogether.'

Achebe, in his determination to pull at Conrad's racist shirt-tails, becomesoblivious to the majestic way that Conrad toys with his theme, the way herefuses to allow anything simple or trite to interfere. Achebe reads thedescriptions of the two women in quite the wrong way; but, much worse thanthat, he completely misses the underlying message that Conrad is conveying.

Ambivalent to the end, Conrad allows us no easy conclusion. Marlow lies,leaves the grieving woman to her self-deception. In so doing, what is Marlow'spoint, and what is the result? Does this provide him with some form ofredemption, or does it lower him again to the level of duplicity of that dark,dark soul, Kurtz?

T O M C O N O B O Y

Documents

Racism_Conrad.pdf