Heart of Darkness Criticism, Essay Example

Joseph Conrad’s novel, “Heart of Darkness,” is a commentary on Imperialism set against the backdrop of the Congo in 1890. His novel examines Imperialism and suggests that in itself it is “criminality of inefficiency and pure selfishness” (Hawkins 286). This paper will examine how Imperialism is not only subtext in Conrad’s work, but the view Conrad had about Imperialism (as critics have varying views on it) as well as how his criticism relates to contemporary society.

One of the first real instances of Conrad examining Imperialism in his work is during the “knights-errant” passage. Here, the narrator gives Conrad’s insight into Imperialism away through his adjectives and other word enhancers; take note that the knights-errant sailed down the River Thames with “a spark from the sacred fire…the seed of commonwealths, the germs of empire” (Conrad 6-7).Marlow, at the beginning of the story supports this view through his narrative; “There was a vast amount of red—good to see at any time, because one knows that some real work is done in there” (10). The red on the map Marlow is looking at, represents British colonization (the map is marked up with other colonization as well such as purple for Germany). In fact, Marlow (who is thought of as representing Conrad’s own opinions on the subject of Imperialism) suggests that at its bottom line, Imperialism, at least British Imperialism, represents efficiency (Marlow also compares such efficiency and Imperialism to ancient Rome).

Although Conrad seems to support Imperialism, he does so under strict terms. In Marlow’s speech about ancient Rome’s Imperialism, he degrades their selfishness, the way in which they took the land and the culture from others. Conrad, through Marlow, insists that “What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before and offer a sacrifice to…” (Conrad 6-7). Thus, Conrad differentiates between “wasteful and selfish” (Hawkins 286)Imperialism, and supports British Imperialism because it’s neither of those things. Some critics (Raskin) argue that Conrad through Marlow, was forever changed by his experience through the Conga that he was against Imperialism by the end of the book. Eloise Knapp Hay argues that Marlow does not have Conrad’s proxy when he speaks about Imperialism. Avrom Fleishman argues that Conrad “approved a certain form of Imperialism” (Hawkins 287) and that such approval can be seen between the differentiation Conrad took with conquerors and colonists. Fleishman goes on to state that Conrad himself “condemned exploitative conquerors…but approved of colonists …[stating that] the latter follows the idea …” (Hawkins 287). The “idea” in the above statement is “[colonist’s] commitment to the role, to the place, and to the men among whom he lives” (Hawkins 287). Thus, Conrad is judging Imperialism through two scopes: the idea and efficiency.

Since Conrad is judging Imperialism through both of these factors, it can be discerned that these two values were held by common British opinion on the subject of Imperialism –not Conrad’s judgment at all as Hawkins states, “Conrad was not necessarily trying to ingratiate himself with the British to, ‘disguise that foreign look’. Rather, in the political aspect of the story, he was making an appeal to the values of his audience so that they might censure the atrocities in the Congo, a colony materially different from Britain’s territories. In the subtext of Heart of Darkness Conrad suggests a further judgment is made according to entirely different criteria and remains implicit” (Hawkins 288). This British value was upheld in Britain mainly because of social Darwinians (although, this quickly escalated from a fight of the fittest between individuals for sexual reasons to a fight of the fittest between races—which it has been argued, was not the original purpose of the argument).

What truly supported Imperialism was Benjamin Kidd’s external social Darwinism, which “justified Imperialism because it was for the quality of social efficiency that nations and peoples are continually, and for the most part unconsciously, pitted against each other in the complex rivalry for life” (Hawkins 288); however, in the course of “Heart of Darkness,” Conrad doesn’t define the “value” of his idea, he merely alludes to it, therefore it’s difficult to discern his own opinion on Imperialism. This idea is argued about and referenced mainly between Marlow and Kurtz, and the initial awe that Marlow has about Kurtz since he was a man “who had come out equipped with moral ideas of some sort” (Conrad 31). An argument can be made that Marlow and Kurtz have the same idea; that is, to not conquer the natives, but to improve them (certainly Imperialistic). It is still not clear however if Marlow is a loudspeaker for Conrad, or merely a way in which the author utilized a voice and opinion British were familiar with in order to relate to his audience and then to shine a light on the glaring Imperialism they were a part of in their colonization of the Congo, despite the differences in definition of conqueror and colonists.

Throughout Conrad’s novel there is blatant evidence of characters supporting Imperialism and their use of it for their own gains. Even in subtext this theme runs true; the question as to whether or not Conrad supported Imperialism is still debated. Of the four main critics on Conrad’s work (some of whom were mentioned in this paper) there is still discord over main passages in Conrad’s novel. This discord, among academics, are varying; some believe that Conrad was commenting on Imperialism through his characters, while others believed Marlow was Conrad’s voice through the novel, while still others disagreed about the dichotomy of colonists and conquerors, or at least, Conrad’s definition of them as they applied to Britain.

It seems at second look that Conrad’s work, while far from ambiguous, does not assert his own stance on Imperialism. Although it is clear that there is rampant evidence of his characters expressing their thoughts on it (such as Marlow looking at the red on the map and being please and reassured with its presence) this is not a direct commentary on Conrad’s belief. The argument established by Hawkins (and in this paper) is that while Imperialism is present in Conrad’s work, it is merely present because of social Darwinism and the fact that Conrad was relating to his audience (British) in order to showcase Imperialism, not to advocate it. People are not their characters, nor are they the ideas they have their characters talk about. The ample evidence that critics cite as proof of Conrad’s Imperialism are merely quotes from his characters. In personal correspondence with his editor, Conrad admitted no such bigotry, nor flourished in such ideas or values as he himself defined through his characters. Thus, although Conrad’s work is ripe with examples of Imperialism, the work is historically placed during a time when Imperialism, and British opinion about Imperialism were part of the culture, not, as some critics argue, part of the author’s mindset.

Works Cited

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: Dover, 1982. Print.

Hawkins, Hunt. “Conrad’s Critique of Imperialism in Heart of Darkness.” PMLA, 94(2). (March 1979), pp.286-299. Print.