22408: Paper 203: The Postcolonial Studies
A Comparative Study of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe
Table of Content :
Personal Information
Assignment Details
Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Colonialism and Power Dynamics
Language, Silence, and Identity
Individualism, Isolation, and the Self/Other Dynamic
The Ethics of Representation and Narrative Authority
Conclusion
Reference
Personal Information
Name : Khushi R. Rathod
Batch : 2023-25
Roll No : 16
Enrollment Number : 5108230039
Semester : 3
E- mail : khushirathod1863@gmail.com
Assignment Details
Paper No : 203
Paper Code : 22408
Paper Name : The Postcolonial Studies
Topic : A Comparative Study of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe
Submitted to : Smt.S.B.Gardi, Department of English,MKBU
Abstract
Comparison of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) and J.M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986), examining the works through the lenses of colonialism, identity, language, and narrative authority. While Robinson Crusoe promotes Enlightenment ideals of self-sufficiency, control, and the supposed “civilizing” mission of colonialism, Foe revisits these themes with a critical, postcolonial perspective, exposing the trauma and silencing inflicted by colonial rule. This comparative study underscores how Coetzee’s Foe subverts Defoe’s narrative, transforming it into a platform for questioning historical silences and the ethics of representation in colonial discourse.
Keywords: Colonialism, Postcolonial Critique, Silence, Language, Self-Reliance, Individualism, Narrative Authority, Representation, Identity, Enlightenment
Introduction
In the realm of colonial literature, Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe stands as a foundational text, widely regarded as a celebration of European dominance, self-reliance, and cultural imperialism. Published in 1719, it reflects the optimism and rationality of the Enlightenment era, presenting Crusoe as a resilient figure who exercises dominion over nature and people, particularly through his interactions with the native character, Friday. In contrast, J.M. Coetzee’s Foe, published in 1986, reimagines Defoe’s story to challenge the authority of colonial narratives and the silencing of colonized voices. Through the character of Friday, who is deprived of a tongue, Coetzee critiques the legacy of colonialism, exploring themes of identity, language, and the ethical challenges of storytelling. This analysis explores the key thematic elements of both works, focusing on the transition from a colonial to a postcolonial narrative, and highlights how Foe transforms Robinson Crusoe’s celebration of colonial power into a critique of historical silences and erasure.
Colonialism and Power Dynamics
Colonial Narratives in Robinson Crusoe
Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe is embedded in the colonial ideology of its time. Crusoe embodies the traits of a colonial settler: resilient, resourceful, and determined to "tame" his environment and those within it. After being shipwrecked on an uninhabited island, Crusoe’s survival skills and ingenuity symbolize the European belief in rationality and superiority over nature. His eventual encounter with Friday, a native whom he saves and converts, encapsulates the colonial “civilizing mission.” Crusoe imposes English language and customs on Friday, portraying this assimilation as an improvement on Friday's "savage" state. This relationship underscores the paternalistic and hierarchical view of colonialism, positioning Crusoe as the authority who shapes Friday’s identity according to his own cultural standards.
Crusoe’s authority and control over the island serve as a microcosm of European colonialism. He establishes himself as a ruler, referring to the island as his domain and viewing Friday as his subject. Through the mastery of space and language, Robinson Crusoe exemplifies colonial power dynamics, where the colonizer exercises both physical and ideological control. This narrative of European superiority and the “civilizing” role of the colonizer reflects the mindset of the Enlightenment, justifying colonial expansion as a moral and cultural duty. Crusoe’s actions echo the belief that colonized territories and people require guidance and transformation, thus perpetuating a Eurocentric worldview that endorses colonial domination as a noble enterprise.
Postcolonial Reassessment in Foe
In Foe, Coetzee dismantles these colonial ideals, presenting Cruso (intentionally spelled differently) as a passive, aimless character who lacks the resourcefulness and conviction of Defoe’s Crusoe. Cruso’s terraces, built with no intent to plant or cultivate, symbolize the futility of colonial efforts that impose structures without purpose. By stripping Cruso of Defoe’s idealized attributes, Coetzee portrays him as a figure disillusioned with colonial aspirations, questioning the ethical validity of the colonial project. This reimagining reflects the postcolonial critique of colonial narratives that emphasize domination without empathy, purpose, or legacy.
Friday’s character in Foe serves as a powerful symbol of colonial oppression. Unlike Defoe’s Friday, who readily adopts Crusoe’s customs, Coetzee’s Friday is voiceless, deprived of his tongue. This physical mutilation represents the silencing of colonized voices and identities, highlighting the trauma and dehumanization inflicted by colonial rule. Coetzee’s portrayal of Friday as a mute figure whose story cannot be told underscores the impact of colonial erasure, as Friday is left unable to communicate his experiences and resist his fate. Coetzee’s Foe thus critiques the colonial mindset by emphasizing the ethical implications of denying a voice to the colonized and transforming their identities without regard for their agency.
Language, Silence, and Identity
Language as a Tool of Control in Robinson Crusoe
In Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, language functions as a means of dominance and cultural assimilation. Crusoe’s insistence on teaching English to Friday represents the imposition of colonial values, effectively erasing Friday’s native identity. This forced linguistic assimilation mirrors the broader colonial objective of suppressing indigenous languages and imposing European norms. Language becomes a marker of civilization, positioning Crusoe as the “teacher” and Friday as the “pupil” in a one-sided relationship that denies the value of Friday’s culture and traditions.
Through language, Crusoe exercises control over Friday’s identity, symbolizing the colonial practice of shaping colonized subjects according to European ideals. Friday’s acceptance of English and Christian teachings is presented as a form of “progress,” reinforcing the colonial ideology that regards indigenous cultures as inferior. Defoe’s narrative suggests that colonial subjects can only achieve “civilization” by adopting European customs and values, thus perpetuating a Eurocentric view of culture and identity.
Silence and the Mute as Resistance in Foe
In Foe, Coetzee subverts the power of language by rendering Friday mute, thereby illustrating the colonial practice of silencing indigenous voices. Deprived of his tongue, Friday’s inability to speak becomes a poignant symbol of the erasure of native cultures and identities under colonial rule. Unlike Defoe’s Friday, who is easily molded into Crusoe’s ideal, Coetzee’s Friday resists being defined by others. His silence is a haunting reminder of the voices suppressed by colonial narratives, emphasizing the ethical dilemma of speaking for those who have been silenced.
The narrator, Susan Barton, attempts to tell Friday’s story but ultimately recognizes her inability to capture his experience. This narrative gap highlights the limitations of Western perspectives in representing non-Western experiences, suggesting that true understanding requires giving space to the silenced voices rather than speaking for them. Coetzee’s Friday, through his silence, embodies a form of resistance, challenging the reader to acknowledge the ethical complexities of representation and the inherent limitations of colonial narratives. This silence thus becomes an act of defiance, questioning the legitimacy of Western authorship in capturing the experiences of the colonized.
Individualism, Isolation, and the Self/Other Dynamic
Crusoe’s Idealized Self-Reliance in Robinson Crusoe
Defoe’s Crusoe is celebrated as an emblem of self-reliance, embodying Enlightenment ideals of individualism and reason. His success in transforming a deserted island into a habitable space underscores the Enlightenment belief in human mastery over nature. Crusoe’s survival and his eventual control over Friday reflect the European ideal of the rational individual who overcomes adversity through ingenuity. In this narrative, Crusoe’s solitude is depicted as a source of strength, enabling him to impose order and create a personal empire on the island.
Crusoe’s relationship with Friday further reinforces this ideal, as he assumes a paternalistic role, guiding Friday’s “progress” from “savagery” to “civilization.” This dynamic mirrors the self/other hierarchy of colonialism, positioning the European colonizer as a superior figure tasked with shaping the identity of the colonized. Defoe’s portrayal of Crusoe’s isolation and mastery over Friday serves as an endorsement of colonial power, celebrating individualism and self-reliance as the foundations of European superiority.
Alienation and the Critique of Self-Reliance in Foe
In Foe, Coetzee challenges the glorification of self-reliance by depicting Cruso as apathetic and indifferent to his surroundings. Unlike Defoe’s Crusoe, who builds and cultivates, Coetzee’s Cruso constructs terraces with no intention of planting, symbolizing the purposelessness of colonial endeavors. Cruso’s passive existence on the island undermines the myth of the heroic individual, suggesting that colonial isolation breeds disillusionment rather than empowerment.
The relationship between Cruso and Friday further subverts Defoe’s ideal of a “civilizing” partnership. In Foe, Cruso and Friday exist in a silent, disconnected cohabitation, lacking the warmth or mutual understanding seen in Robinson Crusoe. This portrayal reflects the postcolonial critique of colonial relationships as superficial and alienating, driven by domination rather than empathy or genuine connection. Coetzee emphasizes the futility and dehumanization of colonial isolation, questioning the idealization of individualism and self-reliance in colonial narratives.
The Ethics of Representation and Narrative Authority
Crusoe’s Authoritative Perspective in Robinson Crusoe
In Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe’s perspective is presented as the unquestioned truth, reflecting the colonial assumption of narrative authority. Crusoe’s interpretation of events and his control over Friday are portrayed without challenge, reinforcing the notion that the colonizer’s voice is the only valid perspective. This dominance of Crusoe’s voice reflects the broader colonial belief in the European’s right to define and reshape colonized people and lands according to their worldview.
The Problem of Storytelling in Foe
Coetzee’s Foe interrogates the ethics of storytelling by portraying Susan Barton as a narrator who struggles to capture Friday’s experience. Barton’s attempts to tell Friday’s story are ultimately unsuccessful, as she realizes that she cannot authentically speak for him. This narrative dilemma underscores the limitations of Western perspectives in representing colonized voices and emphasizes the ethical complexity of assuming authority over another’s story.
By leaving Friday’s story untold, Coetzee critiques the colonial practice of appropriating and distorting indigenous narratives. Foe questions the legitimacy of representation that excludes the voices it seeks to describe, highlighting the importance of allowing colonized people to tell their own stories. Through this self-awareness, Coetzee’s narrative challenges readers to reconsider the ethics of representation and the need for inclusive, respectful storytelling that honors the agency of the silenced.
Conclusion
Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Coetzee’s Foe represent two contrasting perspectives on colonialism, language, and identity. While Robinson Crusoe celebrates colonial ideals of self-reliance, control, and cultural superiority, Foe offers a postcolonial critique that emphasizes the silencing and dehumanization inflicted by colonialism. Through Friday’s voicelessness, Cruso’s purposeless isolation, and Susan Barton’s narrative struggles, Coetzee’s Foe dismantles the Eurocentric assumptions upheld in Robinson Crusoe, highlighting the ethical issues in colonial storytelling and the importance of giving voice to historically silenced perspectives.
This comparative analysis illustrates the shift from colonial affirmation to postcolonial critique, revealing the profound impact of colonialism on identity, language, and the ethics of representation. By reimagining Robinson Crusoe through a postmodern lens, Foe challenges readers to confront the limitations of traditional narratives and consider the responsibility of storytellers in representing diverse, often marginalized voices. This exploration serves as a reminder of literature’s power to shape and re-evaluate our understanding of history, identity, and the human experience.
Reference :
Coetzee, J. M. Foe. Penguin UK, 2010. Accessed 12 November 2024.
Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Prakash Books, 2017. Accessed 12 November 2024.
Han, Wenju. “Construction and Deconstruction of Imagined Community—A Comparative Study of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe in Light of Nationalism.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 8, no. 6, 2017, pp. 1141-1146. https://www.academypublication.com/issues2/jltr/vol08/06/15.pdf, http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0806.15. Accessed 12 November 2024.
Kraft, Elizabeth. “The Revaluation of Literary Character: The Case of Crusoe.” South Atlantic Review, vol. 72, no. 4, 2007, pp. 37–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784739. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
Image : 4
Words : 1957
Thank you for visiting....
No comments:
Post a Comment