Both Robinson Crusoe
and Gulliver’s Travels are traveller’s accounts in which the encounters the
respective protagonist has with the Other perform key narrative and thematic
functions. Defoe uses his hero’s meetings with the natives to underscore the superiority of the European civilization and
the values of the middleclass while Swift’s Gulliver’s encounters with the
none-Europeans – who in fact are caricatures of individuals and groups in Swift’s
contemporary British society – draw attention to some of the diseased aspects
of the socioeconomic institutions of Britain.
The concept of the Other pertinent
to the 18th century British society was shaped and sustained by its socio-political
affiliations. On the one hand, there were a few liberals, like Swift, who in
general did not consider themselves to be inherently superior to the Other by
virtue of their European-ness; on the other hand, there were the imperialists
and the capitalists who considered the Other as sub-human, thereby, an exploitable
commodity in their respective enterprises. As products of the 18th
century British society that fathered them, Gulliver’s Travels by Swift and
Robinson Crusoe by Defoe mirror and champion these two lines of thoughts.
Initially the protagonists of
the two works share many parallels as middleclass Englishmen. But as the
narrative progresses Crusoe’s encounters with the Other reinforce his capitalist-middleclass
socio-economic values; Gulliver, however, rejects not only the values imposed
on him by his British upbringing but also his very humanity. He embraces the
identity of the Other and attempts to go
native as a consequence of his
meetings with the Other.
Edward Said in his book Orientalism states that colonial writing
habitually show ‘natives’ as “irrational, depraved, childlike, ‘different’;
thus the European is rational, virtuous, mature, ‘normal’” (880). Defoe, the middleclass Puritan,
constructs his Other as inferior to his hero, thereby, making it ethically
acceptable for Crusoe to name, convert, and exploit the ‘native’. Hence Robinson
Crusoe is a classic example of the style of writing Said is referring to and
Defoe is clearly performing
the culture work of the British colonial enterprise through his novel.
Crusoe encounters the Other
twice on his voyages. On the first occasion, he is captured by Moorish pirates
and kept as a slave for two years. The ever-versatile Crusoe escapes with the
help of a boy called Xury whom he sells into slavery after only a token show of
reluctance. For Crusoe selling Xury into slavery is justifiable as it paves the
way for the heathen boy to gain the Kingdom of Heaven and learn the European
ways. The fact that he profits from the deal is portrayed as of secondary
importance.
Years later Crusoe becomes
shipwrecked again, this time on a voyage to obtain slaves from Africa. As the
sole survivor of the wreck, Crusoe reaches an uninhabited island and lives
there on his own for nearly three decades. This traumatic experience compels Crusoe
to makes every effort to maintain his middleclass Englishness in his habits and
attire even in isolation. Moreover, he learns to be enterprising and self-sufficient,
too. The only grievance he has against his Eden-without-Eve on the island is
the lack of human companionship. Crusoe’s second encounter with the Other is
with two tribes of cannibalistic Caribs.
One might find it ironic that Crusoe should shudder at the very thought of
cannibalism while supporting slavery which is equally or more reprehensive. It
is a point of interest that Gananath Obeysekere in his landmark work Cannibal
Talk states that cannibalism
“is a colonial projection justifying colonialism … and sometimes the very
extermination of native peoples” (1).
His subsequent close encounter
with the Caribs plants the idea of acquiring some servants in Crusoe’s mind.
Later he rescues a native who incidentally “had all the sweetness and softness
of an European in his countenance” from his cannibalistic brethren (Defoe 173).
The success of Crusoe’s micro-colonization depended on how far the native was
willing to be assimilated into the enlightened European culture. The native at
once accepts Crusoe as his master and makes signs of “subjugation, servitude,
and submission” (Defoe173); Crusoe confirms his status by telling the native to call him Master. As the second step the Carib
is given a name – Friday – and claimed
as the sovereign property of his Great White Father. Friday being the model
colonized man does not show any resistance to this act of aggressive
colonization. During their discussions, Crusoe learns that Friday worshipped a
god called “Benamuckee, who liv’d beyond all” to “all things do say O” (182);
once again this fact is brushed aside and Friday is made a Christian. Friday
proves to be quite intelligent. At times the master is unable to provide
answers to Friday’s queries such as why God does not destroy the devil. Despite
this Friday never becomes anything other than a servant to his master. Moreover,
Crusoe makes no effort to access the knowledge Friday possessed as a native. The
reason for Crusoe’s conduct towards Friday lies in the fact that this encounter
is meant to showcase the extent of the reformation of Defoe’s hero and his role
as the torchbearer of the British culture and Protestant values to the benighted
native. This aim necessarily precludes any exchange
of knowledge. Hence, Friday is made
to collaborate with Defoe’s by making him states that he wanted his people to
receive Christianity. Thus, the relationship between Robinson Crusoe and his
Man Friday stands as a classic example of cultural imperialism practiced by the
European colonial enterprises.
It is noteworthy that
Crusoe’s two encounters with the Other do not include the female of the species.
As a narrative device, it is not realistic to make Crusoe come across females in
the first encounter as the natives being Moors would have kept their women out
of sight. On the second occasion, thematically as well as plot-wise, the
presence of a native Eve in Crusoe’s garden would have presented an impossible situation.
On the one hand, had Crusoe ignored the woman or decided to have a platonic
relationship with her that would have cast aspirations on Crusoe’s masculinity;
on the other hand, a sexual relationship with a native woman would clearly be
an acknowledgement of her humanity. Such an acknowledgement of the possibility
of anatomical compatibility between an Englishman and a native woman would not
only have challenged everything Crusoe stood for but also defeated a key aim of
the text - justification of the colonial enterprise which is based on the idea
of the superiority of the European in every possible way in comparison to the
beast-like native.
The voyages of Lemuel Gulliver,
in comparison, are indisputably unconscious quests for a utopia. Like Crusoe, Gulliver,
too, embarks on his voyages secure in his Englishness. However, he, unlike
Crusoe, encounters highly institutionalized societies which have much in common
with those in Europe. According to Ricardo
Quintana Gulliver is depicted as “stationed on the isthmus of his middle state
but permitted to catch a glimpse …of the created forms that filled the
universe” (161). Gulliver’s studies of the Other reveal an incongruity between
appearance and reality leading to a comedy of discontinuity. The nations he
visits on the three initial voyages appear on the onset as potential utopias,
but upon a closer inspection they eventually reveal something wanting in their
socio-political institutions, viz. lack of integrity and justice in Lilliput. Gulliver
finds his ideal state in the land of the Houyhnhnms. And in the end, it is
Gulliver, not the Other, who becomes ‘colonized’. Hence, Gulliver’s Travels
uses the meetings with the Other to reveal the fallacy of the concept of English/European
supremacy.
Gulliver’s first encounter
with the Other is with the Lilliputians. It offers a telescopic view of the British
society. The Kingdom of Lilliput used to have a tradition of egalitarian institutions
which have become crooked by the time of Gulliver’s arrival. The existing
institutions demand their officials to partake in stick jumping and rope
dancing in order to maintain/promote their positions. Gulliver’s studies of
Lilliput reveal the danger of excessive pride and partisan politics. Most of
their flaws, Gulliver says, must have been invisible to him due to their minuteness.
Quintana states that Gulliver’s “acquaintance with the Lilliputians revealed themselves
to be… thoroughly contemptible;” thus, his self-esteem remains intact (160).
The ensuing meeting with
Brobdingnagians is an unsettling microscopic examination of the mankind. In Brobdingnag,
everything is enlarged twelve times, thereby made nobler or fouler. Gulliver
notes that both sexes have equal access to a system of education that is
practical. The Brobdingnagians also prefer their language and the legal system
to be simple in order to prevent any misconception. Thematically speaking, one
might say that the writer approves of similar practices associated with English
socio-political institutions.
However, these all-too-human
giants have had civil wars and they too exploit the weak. The roads of
Brobdingnag are littered with the poor and the diseased implying improper
division of wealth. Throughout his stay in
Brobdingnag Gulliver is treated as a pet, an oddity, or a morsel of food – in a
nutshell, he is the quintessential Other. At times he becomes invisible to the
women who strip naked, urinate, and defecate in front of him with little regard
for his feelings. According to Quintana, “The sense of security which
[Gulliver] has in the presence of this admirable race is mixed with a feeling
of nausea caused by the sights and smells which he must endure” (164). Gulliver’s revulsion is expressly pointed at
women with their body odours, moles, and cancerous udders.
With nobleness and sordidness
existing side by side in his own kingdom, it is fitting that the King of
Brobdingnag should be the first to detect the chinks in Gulliver’s vaunted Englishness.
However, it would take three more voyages for Gulliver himself to realize that.
Hence, when the King, after listening to a description of the European
socio-political institutions and the use of gunpowder, concludes that the bulk
of the English race consisted of “little
odious vermin,” Gulliver decides that his noble host is suffering from
“narrowness” of thought due to lack of exposure (Swift 2403).
However, Swift takes the choice of staying on
in or leaving the land of giants off his hero’s hands by making a giant bird
pick Gulliver up and dropping him in the ocean to be rescued by a passing ship.
The reason for this unsolicited rescue could be that the purpose of placing
Gulliver in Brobdingnag has by then been served; he has experienced what it is
to be the powerless and he has seen both the nobleness and the grossness of the
powerful from the point of view of the powerless. All the subsequent meetings
Gulliver has with the Other continue to teach him valuable lessons which
broadened his horizons.
On his third voyage Gulliver
encounters the Laputans who represent abstract knowledge and tyranny. These
scientists of the flying island endeavour to extract sunbeams from cucumber;
however, they are unable to build proper houses or maintain an unaided
conversation. Meanwhile, the neglected wives of the absentminded Laputians are
routinely unfaithful to them with other men. The tyrannical tendencies of the
Laputan king emerge in the tribute system imposed on the terrestrial Balnibarbi
and the methods he has used to crush the rebellion in the capital: withholding
sunlight and rain, and thereafter dropping stones on its citizens. The land of
Laputans with their maningless scientific experiments and tyrannical ways might
be a satirized representation of the British Royal Academy. The Luggnagg
encounter, too, stresses the sordidness of tyranny. The megalomaniac king of
Luggnagg makes his visitors lick the ground in front of him which is often
sprinkled with poison.
His meeting with the dead in
Glubbdubdrib teaches Gulliver that history is often a construct. He also learns
that reality is kept from the public by historians who are on the payrolls of corrupt
rulers. This encounter also proves that society is in “perpetual danger of
corruption” (Quintana 153). The meeting with the Struldbrugs, immortals who
lose everything and everyone as a result of their ‘gift’, is a critique on
man’s insatiable nature and their ultimate aim to live forever.
At each meeting with the
‘other,’ Gulliver identifies their weaknesses and returns to England which
he still believes to be superior. Hence, thematically, the first three voyages
can be considered as preparatory work for the voyage to Houyhnhnm. All the
‘others’ Gulliver has met so far have been human. Houyhnhnms, in contrast, are
a race of horses. The land of Houyhnhnms - a demilitarized Sparta – is governed
by rationality and moderation; the citizens of this land refrain from over indulgence
and are not overly moved by either death or love. Their language is simple and
they do not have laws. The fact that the Houyhnhnms do not have names points to
a highly evolved sense of communal identity. This communal identity is in
direct contrast to the emerging idea of individualism as a result of humanism,
Protestantism and capitalism in Europe.
The Yahoos of Houyhnhnm are assumed
to be the descendants of a shipwrecked couple. In a similar situation, sustained
by his faith and values, Defoe’s Crusoe remained superhumanly faithful to his
identity as a WASP[y1] for nearly three decades and
showed every sign of being able to continue indefinitely in that vein. In
contrast, Yahoos allow their innate brutishness to emerge within a generation,
thereby, pointing to the shallowness of the notion ‘civilization’ according to
Swift. Gulliver implies that at first he has been uncertain of the identity of
the Yahoos as humans. This is undeniably an instinctive denial of a truth too
horrible to be acknowledged – the possibility of his own humanness descending
into that beast-like state with the passage of time as a result of being cut
off from the civilizing influence of
European socioeconomic institutions. Nevertheless, Houyhnhnms find the rational Europeans to be more offensive
than the beast-like Yahoos. W. D. Taylor states that the last voyage portrays the
“natural man as below the beast, and civilized man as fiend” (228). Thus, Swift
seems to disagree with not only Jean Jacques Rousseau but also Plato on the
issue of nobility of man.
Theme-wise, Houyhnhnms can be
seen as a representation of the height of rationality or as a satire on the
pursuit of reason at all cost. The Houyhnhnm society is rigidly hierarchical
and the relationships between individuals are almost devoid of emotions. Gulliver
overlooks these problematic aspects in his ideals/idols and yearns to be a part
of the Houyhnhnm community. Anxious for acceptance, he even tries to hide his
Yahooness behind his clothes only for it to be thrust upon him by a female
Yahoo who leaps on him driven by lust. In the end he is made to leave.
The traditional colonial
encounter assigns sub-human status to the native, but in Swift it is Gulliver
who readjusts his sense of personhood with each of his encounters with the
Other. It is striking that, unlike Crusoe who calls himself master, Gulliver addresses the Other thus. Back in England,
the disillusioned Gulliver rejects his family and the English society in favour
of two degenerated Houyhnhnms. Gulliver’s Travels, thus, ends as “only half
a Christian sermon [by the Dean with] no salvation in it” (Taylor 219). Gulliver’s
meetings with the Other in Gulliver’s Travels satirize the activities of
“every boasted institution of European life” and “suggest that reason that
distinguishes man from the brute may be a kind of a false mirror” (Taylor 228).
The Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos represent extremes of the social spectrum; thus, Gulliver
must learn to walk the middle path in order to find true contentment.
In conclusion, the meetings
with the Other in Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver’s Travels are acid
tests for the norms and values of their protagonists. In Defoe, the hero’s meetings
with the Other, to a large extent, confirm Crusoe’s own superiority as a
middleclass Puritan Englishman; whereas, in Swift’s, as intended, they do the
exact reverse.
Works Cited
Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe.
London: David
Campbell, 1992.
Lipking, Lawrence,
ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature – The Restoration And The
Eighteenth Century.7th ed. New
York: Norton, 2000.
Obeysekere, Gananath.
Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South
Seas. Berkley: California UP, 2005.
Quintana, Ricardo. Swift – An
Introduction. London: Oxford UP, 1955.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael
Ryan. Cornwall:
Blackwell, 1998.
Taylor, W. D. Jonathan Swift – A
Critical Essay. London:
Peter Davies, 1933.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment