Since its introduction in the nineteenth century, the novel titled, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad has sparked many controversies by critics. Many of these critics have charged the novel with endorsing racism and supporting imperialism while subverting it. Although these charges are valid, writer Peter Edgerly Firchow argues in his essay Race, Ethnicity, Nationality, Empire that critics should take into consideration that Conrad was just a man of his time. Firchow points out that the word racism didn’t exist back then. Not to say that the phenomena didn’t exist, it did, but it means that highly intelligent thinkers, like Conrad, were thinking about race differently than what we do in the twentieth century.(234) To support his claim, Firchow analyzes the definition what racism means and why it wasn’t used; he shows that Conrad wasn’t the only writer that shared his view on race-thinking, he argues Conrad’s book is a weak version of racism compared to his counterparts, and that Conrad was supporting British imperialism while subverting it as well.
First, Firchow explains why the word racism did not exist when Conrad was writing Heart of Darkness. When Conrad was writing his book, thoughts about race were universal and considered “normal”in developed countries.(234)Using a word like racism would have suggested a negative connotation towards race, which in return was not needed.(234) The closest word with negative connotation towards race was racialism. It was defined as the,” belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may felt as a threat to one’s culture and racial integrity, or economic well being.”(234) The word is significant because the definition implicitly and explicitly accepts Jews as being a distinct race.(234) Firchow believes this encounter shows the differences between the race-thinking of Conrad’s time and our time. (235)
However, there were many other writers who shared Conrad’s idea of race-thinking. Writers such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and poet Hilaire Beloc wrote about different races, but rank them according to superiority.(236) Firchow mentions these popular literary names to point out that Conrad was not alone in thinking stereotypically about other nationalities and ethnic groups.(237) Later on his essay, Firchow will argue that Conrad’s writing about races was more tame than his writing counterparts.
Indeed, Firchow admits providing a proper definition for either race or racism can be difficult. To solve the issue, Firchow proposes that we adopt Frank Reeve’s suggestion on separating racism into three categories; weak racism, medium racism, and strong racism.(238) Weak racism is the belief that races(including ethnic and national groups) do exist and that they count for social phenomena(238) Medium racism is identical to weak racism, but it diverges because it also believes that some races are superior and others are inferior.(238) Strong racism prescribes a course of action based on racial superiority such as suppression or elimination of races.(238) By applying Reeve’s theory, Firchow concluded that Conrad’s novel is a form of weak racism because it recognizes the differences between the Europeans from the African men but does not suggest that the Europeans are superior.(238) But there are parts in the novel where medium racist attitude can be found. The British characters seem to be superior compared to the Belgians and the Russian characters.
Finally, Firchow suggests that Conrad is supporting British imperialism without using the word in his novel. Instead Conrad uses the word colonists and contrasts it with the word conquerors when he speaks about the Roman subjugation of Britain. Here the word colonists is meant to be used in a favorable tone while the word conquerors is unfavorable. It is suggested that Conrad is trying to reveal the criminal nature of imperialism but while he subverting it.(240)
Firchow concludes that critics should keep in mind that the words used by Conrad in Heart of Darkness had different meanings to him than what they do now to us.(241) For Conrad race included ethnicity and nationality, instead of what we now know that they are different identities. Firchow wants us to know that imperialism wasn’t as scary as everyone thought it was back then. It can be both good and bad, but it depends on what nation practiced it.(241)
Overall Firchow’s argument was not concise because it felt as if he had one very strong idea about his thesis while his other sub-ideas were less developed. He dedicated four pages to explain why the word racism wasn’t around during Conrad’s time while writing his novel, and how Conrad wasn’t the only writer with race-thinking on his mind while writing his work. His other points such as Conrad’s book being a weak version of racism, and how Conrad is supporting British imperialism were much weaker in development.
Firchow was also confusing when he stated that Conrad’s novel was a weak form of racism. This was confusing because after he states it was weak, he mentions the story endorses a medium racist attitude in regards to the Belgians. The British characters are considered to have superior intelligence, ability, and honestly compared to their Belgian counterparts.(238) The superiority can also be seen with the characters that associate with British people that they are superior by association,the Russian character who speaks English and reads British books and worships Kurtz.(239) If a medium racist attitude can be found within the text, then why is the text only considered weak racism? Firchow does not explain himself thoroughly here. Perhaps it’s because he made his judgement through the narrator Marlow, who sees the African men, and acknowledges that they are a different race, but does not feel like he is superior to them. Instead of claiming that the overall text was a weak form of racism, Firchow could have argued that Conrad is depicting all three levels of racism in his novel.Then he could have went into further detail by analyzing Marlow’s weak racism compared to the other characters medium and strong racism, which can be found in Kurtz, the lawyer, and the Accountant. By doing so he would have strengthened his argument.
Also critics often forget the practice of racism existed but the terminology for the actions were not developed yet. There were no negative connotations to what Europeans were doing to underdeveloped countries, and so they thought what they were doing was right. This information is important because critics automatically go on the defense to calling things racist when they forget to put themselves into the position of who they are criticizing, and take the time periods ideology into consideration. By pointing this out, Firchow serves as an important text to read along with Heart of Darkness and the other race critiques that are attached with it.
Essays
Comments are closed.
great job 🙂