The Idea and the Reality of Efficiency
So Marlow says “What saves us is efficiency – devotion to efficiency.” Unlike the Romans who conquered weaker societies, Europeans colonize them. This, of course, is more acceptable. He explains by saying, “The conquest of the earth…is not a pretty thing. What redeems it is the idea only…something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer sacrifice to.”
In reality, the Company is a model of inefficiency conveyed through descriptions of the employees of the Company, and their work and the conditions at the stations. Inefficiency is suggested by Marlow’s first encounters with company employees as he’s inquiring about a job.
“The men said ‘My dear fellow’ and did nothing.”
Later, he describes his visit to the Company offices for an interview. As he enters the office he is greeted by “Two women, one fat and the other slim, sat on straw-bottomed chairs, knitting black wool.”
Upon his arrival at the Central Station, Marlow observes the meaningless activity of the workers. “A heavy dull detonation shook the ground, a puff of smoke came out of the cliff, and that was all. No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was not in the way or anything; but this objectless blasting was all the work that was going on.”
Continuing toward the Managers office, Marlow states, “I avoided a vast artificial hole somebody had been digging on the slope, the purpose of which I found impossible to divine…. Then I nearly fell into a narrow ravine, almost no more than a scar in the hillside. I discovered that a lot of imported drainage pipe for the settlement had been tumbled in there. There wasn’t one that was not broken…Everything in the station was a muddle, - heads, things, buildings.”
Regarding the station manager, Marlow says, “He had no genius for organizing, initiative, or for order even. That was evident in such things as the deplorable state of the station.”
After being stranded at the station for some time, Marlow says, “I lived in a hut in the yard, but to get out of the chaos, I would sometimes get into the accountants officer.”
In addition, according to Marlow, his steamer was sunk as a result of poor preparation and general incompetence. “The steamer was sunk. They had started two days before in a sudden hurry up river, with the manager on board in charge of some volunteer captain and before they had been out for three hours they tore the bottom out of her on stones, and she sank near the south bank.”
And finally, there is Marlow’s problem with acquiring the rivets necessary to repair the ship. “Rivets I wanted. There were down at the coast – cases – piled up – burst split…. And there wasn’t one rivet where it was wanted.” Numerous individuals go to the coast some two hundred miles away, expeditions pass through the Station, but somehow no one can provide Marlow with the minimum materials he needs to repair the boat.
This hardly seems like the perfect implementation of an Idea so noble that it justifies incredible human suffering and the exploitation of a country for its material resources.
The question I have is, does Conrad level this indictment at all European nations colonizing Africa or just the Belgian. The operations conducted in the story are conducted by a Belgian trading company which, I think, is a symbol for the Belgian government. Apparently Belgian practices in Africa were particularly harsh.
Yet Marlow describes the absurd behavior of other nations. He travels down the coast of Africa on a French sailing ship. French transportation is far from efficient as well
“We pounded along, stopped, landed soldiers, went on landed custom house clerks to levy toll in what looked like a God-forsaken wilderness, with a tin shed and a flag-pole lost in it; landed more soldiers – to take care of the custom-house clerks, presumably. Some I heard got drowned in the surf; but whether they did or not, nobody seemed particularly to care.” During the voyage down the coast, they encounter a French war ship. Marlow reports, “In the emptiness of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent.”
The English are given passing credit for their work in Africa. When looking at the color-coded map of Africa in the officer of the Company. Marlow notes, “There was a vast amount of red – good to see at anytime, because one knows some real work is done in there.” Colonies established by the British in Africa were generally colored red.
According to the Endnotes in my edition, “maps during this era often represented imperial territories according to a color-coded system. Red for British, blue for French, green for Italian, orange for Portuguese, purple for German, and yellow for Belgian.”
So is Conrad condemning all European colonialism in Africa or just Belgian colonialism? He generally portrays the British in a good light and the Introduction to my edition says he intentionally excludes the British from his indictment of Imperialism. Is he serious or is he just being a polite guest?
In reality, the Company is a model of inefficiency conveyed through descriptions of the employees of the Company, and their work and the conditions at the stations. Inefficiency is suggested by Marlow’s first encounters with company employees as he’s inquiring about a job.
“The men said ‘My dear fellow’ and did nothing.”
Later, he describes his visit to the Company offices for an interview. As he enters the office he is greeted by “Two women, one fat and the other slim, sat on straw-bottomed chairs, knitting black wool.”
Upon his arrival at the Central Station, Marlow observes the meaningless activity of the workers. “A heavy dull detonation shook the ground, a puff of smoke came out of the cliff, and that was all. No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was not in the way or anything; but this objectless blasting was all the work that was going on.”
Continuing toward the Managers office, Marlow states, “I avoided a vast artificial hole somebody had been digging on the slope, the purpose of which I found impossible to divine…. Then I nearly fell into a narrow ravine, almost no more than a scar in the hillside. I discovered that a lot of imported drainage pipe for the settlement had been tumbled in there. There wasn’t one that was not broken…Everything in the station was a muddle, - heads, things, buildings.”
Regarding the station manager, Marlow says, “He had no genius for organizing, initiative, or for order even. That was evident in such things as the deplorable state of the station.”
After being stranded at the station for some time, Marlow says, “I lived in a hut in the yard, but to get out of the chaos, I would sometimes get into the accountants officer.”
In addition, according to Marlow, his steamer was sunk as a result of poor preparation and general incompetence. “The steamer was sunk. They had started two days before in a sudden hurry up river, with the manager on board in charge of some volunteer captain and before they had been out for three hours they tore the bottom out of her on stones, and she sank near the south bank.”
And finally, there is Marlow’s problem with acquiring the rivets necessary to repair the ship. “Rivets I wanted. There were down at the coast – cases – piled up – burst split…. And there wasn’t one rivet where it was wanted.” Numerous individuals go to the coast some two hundred miles away, expeditions pass through the Station, but somehow no one can provide Marlow with the minimum materials he needs to repair the boat.
This hardly seems like the perfect implementation of an Idea so noble that it justifies incredible human suffering and the exploitation of a country for its material resources.
The question I have is, does Conrad level this indictment at all European nations colonizing Africa or just the Belgian. The operations conducted in the story are conducted by a Belgian trading company which, I think, is a symbol for the Belgian government. Apparently Belgian practices in Africa were particularly harsh.
Yet Marlow describes the absurd behavior of other nations. He travels down the coast of Africa on a French sailing ship. French transportation is far from efficient as well
“We pounded along, stopped, landed soldiers, went on landed custom house clerks to levy toll in what looked like a God-forsaken wilderness, with a tin shed and a flag-pole lost in it; landed more soldiers – to take care of the custom-house clerks, presumably. Some I heard got drowned in the surf; but whether they did or not, nobody seemed particularly to care.” During the voyage down the coast, they encounter a French war ship. Marlow reports, “In the emptiness of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent.”
The English are given passing credit for their work in Africa. When looking at the color-coded map of Africa in the officer of the Company. Marlow notes, “There was a vast amount of red – good to see at anytime, because one knows some real work is done in there.” Colonies established by the British in Africa were generally colored red.
According to the Endnotes in my edition, “maps during this era often represented imperial territories according to a color-coded system. Red for British, blue for French, green for Italian, orange for Portuguese, purple for German, and yellow for Belgian.”
So is Conrad condemning all European colonialism in Africa or just Belgian colonialism? He generally portrays the British in a good light and the Introduction to my edition says he intentionally excludes the British from his indictment of Imperialism. Is he serious or is he just being a polite guest?
posted by KHalla at
4:30 PM
3 Comments:
Is Marlow being a polite guest? I think from everything we have seen so far that this would not be the first example of Marlow saying one thing and really meaning another.
His audience on the boat is English, I believe, and so it would be perfectly logical that he appease his audience.
There is, however, this example from earlier in the novel which was came to my mind although I can’t fully say for sure what Conrad is getting at by including it, “’I don’t want to bother you much with what happened to me personally,’ he began, *showing in this remark the weakness of many tellers of tales who seem so often unaware of what their audience would best like to hear*…” (Page 8 to 9 of my edition.) It seems to me to mean that Marlow has no regard for the feelings and opinions of his audience.
This may also be reinforced many pages later after Marlow talks about the loss of the Eldorado Expedition and begins describing going up the river. (Page 47)There is a brief interruption in his storytelling on the boat on the Thames when Marlow offends one of the performers listening to his story. He says that the tight rope walkers are essentially doing their life’s trade for pennies. He insults them because he is not thinking of the effect of his words but does quickly apologize.
This is as far as I have gotten on my second reading but both of these examples would lead the reader to believe that what Marlow says is straight from his heart and not for the approval of those listening but then, I would say, this may just be Conrad setting diversions for his own audience.
Would it be necessary that *Conrad* would need to be a polite guest? I don’t know the politics of the time but would there be punishment in early 1900’s England for disparaging comments against the government?
Well, as I have admittedly been reading secondary sources, two things are now clear to me. First, Marlow is not simply being a "polite guest." He, assuming he speaks for Conrad, actually believes there is a difference between the noble colonization conducted by the English and the reprehensible exploitation of Africans committed by the Dutch. Secondly, Kurtz doesn’t “flourish in the jungle.” As a matter of fact, he dies there.
To the first point, it’s critical to understand the global context in which the story takes place. England is at the height of the Victorian period and its power in the world. Belgium under the reign of King Leopold II is the scourge of Europe. According to the Introduction to the Matin text, “English readership had recently been steeped in the self-congratulatory excess of Queen Victoria’s 1897 Diamond Jubilee, which primarily took the form of an ostentatious celebration of Britain’s imperial might. Britain is indeed out to civilize the savages of Africa for their own good and the betterment of humanity at large. Through Marlow’s brief history of England, Conrad puts a bit of a damper on this attitude, but he nonetheless, according to Matin, willingly joins the celebration. It also needs to be kept in mind that Conrad is an Englishman by choice, not chance meaning he's with the program and, as I recall, the Heart of Darkness was first published in a politically conservative literary journal. God Save the Queen. Leopold II of Belgium, on the other hand, was steadily becoming known throughout Europe, and eventually even in Belgium, as self-serving, amoral, and hypocritical shyster. Disguised by noble rhetoric and political machinations, he amassed a fortune for himself and his heirs through his ventures in Africa. Eventually, his actions were condemmed by European governments and international tribunals. The Congo under Leopold’s rule was the humanitarian equivalent of Darfur or as one guy put it, Vietnam.
To the second point, Kurtz doesn’t "flourish in the jungle." He dies there. This goes to the point of whether Kurtz is a hero or a villain. Either way he ends up dead and his well-respected reputation must be kept intact through lies. Is Kurtz truly noble or is he just playing the game to get ahead? When writing his enlightened report to “The International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs” (gotta meet those guys) is he just telling them what they want to hear to raise his own standing with “The Company?” Does he become a victim of his own hubris by letting himself be revered as a “god” by the natives while he exploits them? And how’d all those heads get there anyway?
“Kurtz doesn’t ‘flourish in the jungle.’ As a matter of fact, he dies there.” What exactly killed Kurtz? Was it the jungle itself, the natives, his own drive to succeed, his colonist greed? I think this would say a lot about whether Kurtz flourished in the jungle or not but I’m not clear as to what it was.
Is he a hero or a villain? It is pretty clear that everyone in the novel behaves in a similar manner to Kurtz, although not to such extremes as Kurtz does. They all have ambition to be as successful as he is. They do whatever it takes to make a profit. They are willing to kill. To succeed in the jungle you have to play by the jungles rules. If Kurtz is a villain for his behavior then so is everyone else. The heart of man is dark.
As to Conrad’s view of British colonialism specifically… I’ll stick to the idea that he is negatively critical of colonization as a whole, England’s version included. I believe his statements in the “color coded map” section of the novel are only to appease his intended audience, the politically conservative, maybe even dupe them into spreading his word even though they are the intended target. Just as we are not sure if he is completely critical of England so too would be the Victorian reader. His small references of exclusion of England are safety moves, an out if confronted. These small references are not enough to make me believe that he truly means what he has written. They are simply one of Conrad’s diversionary methods of storytelling, everything having a deeper or double meaning. With the entire novel being so negative and dark toward colonialism, only a few references to Belgium and a couple of sentences that praise England’s colonial technique I am not tricked into believing that Conrad has anything but disdain for colonialism as a whole.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home