The class discussion
yesterday, was uncomfortable for me. It was not because of the topic, although
the discussion of slavery and inequality is
inherently uncomfortable because it is so fundamentally wrong, but because the
criteria felt fuzzy. My problem was and continues to be in the subjective
nature of the terms “civilized” and “savage”, and perhaps that was the
point.(?) Even the interweb is conflicted:
A
lack of scary masks determine civilization?
Or
is it simply the ability to manipulate?
We felt like before we
could begin to categorize the characters of “Oroonoko” by level of civility,
our group had to establish criteria for what exactly constituted each and what
we arrived at was a level of organization and technological prowess –the more
developed a country was, the more civilized its society. And while our
definition worked, in a way, it prevented us from making the sliding scale of
douchebaggery that we really wanted to. If we had categorized in terms of
civility toward fellow humans, then I feel the native “Indians” and Britons
would have swapped sides on the scale with the “Indians” taking the place for
most civil and the Britons at the opposite end of the spectrum. But to minimize
this, the author subtly suggests that the only reason the natives are so kind
is because of their collective naiveté – they just don’t know any better or
they would be just like “us”. This assertion is unsettling as it insinuates
that the natural state of a civilized human is dishonest and cruel, and I’m
just not buying it. Perhaps this was a ploy to soften the indignities presented
to the reader by what would have been their own nationality, but it feels an
awful lot like rationalization to me.
Yeah,
there’s just no rationalizing this.
I don’t think even after class that I’m any closer to reconciling
my feelings on this and it bugs me – and I think that it should. Rereading the
last few pages, and keeping in mind Jordan’s comments about how O’ is really
the only character that evolves during the piece, I wonder if he isn’t meant to
be the example of civilized man. Behn gives him dignity in death that is
usually reserved for Stoic Philosophers who were portrayed as the perfection of
humanity. Should the ability to recognize injustice and wrongs and to change
because of it be the mark of civility?
Post 4 of 5
I see where you're coming from and while I can't say I totally relate, you made a great point towards the end of your post. You mentioned that Oroonoko is the only character that really evolves, this had me confused as well. I don't see how Behn can write a story such as this, where so many characters have the possibility to grow and evolve but in the end only pick to focus on one. If that was the intention all along, then why incorporate so many characters? I just don't get it!
ReplyDeleteMaybe Behn is trying to say that Oroonoko is the example of how Europe can civilize these "savage" societies in general. That was a big movement during this time period especially when it came to North Africa, so maybe Behn is trying to show that this is what they need to do with Sub-Saharan Africa as well.
ReplyDelete