Mark Lachniet A22034364
New Historicism as it pertains to Conrad's Heart of
Darkness
"Fiction is history, human history, or it is nothing. But it is also more than that; it stands on firmer ground, being based on the reality of forms and the observation of social phenomena, whereas history is based on documents, and the reading of print and handwriting - on second-hand impression. Thus fiction is nearer to truth. But let that pass. A historian may be an artist too, and a novelist is a historian, the preserver, the keeper, the expounder, of human experience"
-Joseph Conrad, Notes on Life and Letters
The new historicist view of literature maintains that all
writing is a kind of historical document. As such, all
writing (including fiction) is in one way or another
anthropologically relevant. Any piece of writing, be it
fiction or fact contains hints of the historical situation in
which it was born. In a sense, fiction can give us a better
view of history than second hand accounts of it. While
historians typically look at history from a second-hand
point of view, contemporaneous writing (including
fiction) can offer a first-person perspective that may elude
even the best historians. It is the belief that any literary
work must be understood in a historical context that
drives the new historicist. It is the belief that only by
understanding the situations and beliefs of the period in
which it was born can we understand the true meaning of
any literary work.
Even this is a bit of a stretch, because the new historicist
approach eludes a "summary description." It is, instead, a
"fuzzy" art because it is truly impossible to understand the
original context. Unless we have personally experienced
the period in question, it is very difficult to get at the real
feeling of the era. Even if we were physically present, for
example in England around the time of Heart of
Darkness's release, we might not have had the same
experiences and influences that Conrad himself had. In
this sense, the new historicist approach is rather
imprecise. It is, however, essential to consider when
trying to make meaning out of literary works. Jerome
McGann states that we need to make sociohistorical
subjects and methods central to literary studies. In fact,
this seems to be every much what we are doing in this
English class when we relate colonial writings to the
history of Empire. The approach gives us a starting place
for understanding the work, and hopefully the author's
intent. It also gives us a better understanding of the
historical period. Unfortunately, although the new
historicist is interested in facts, he must also wonder if the
truth can ever be purely and objectively known. For
example, history may have been misrepresented, or it's
meanings may have changed so subtly as to change the
significance of a work without us knowing it.
One element that is central to using the new historicist
approach is the recognition of change. New historicism
hinges upon the fact that change occurs constantly, and
that truth and life aren't static. At one time, this was not
the case. Consider the not-so-distant past, in which our
ancestors were schooled in a rigidly "classical" education.
It was then the perception that life was but an extension of
the old ways - that knowledge had been created and that
we must relate to the past as a constant and permanent
truth. It was thought that the morals and lessons of old
stood as examples of some inherent truth about humanity.
Through time, however, we have come to believe that the
morals and lessons of old were products of their time, and
cannot be judged anachronistically in our own time
period. Now, we look at change, and realize that it is a
localized series of events that lead to a constant
development of human history. This allows us to look at
literature in the context of a changing world and draw
meaning from it in this way. Indeed, "[new historicists]
have also struggled to see history from a decentered
perspective, both by recognizing that their own cultural
and historical position may not afford the very best
understanding of other cultures, and times, and by
realizing that events seldom have any single central
cause."
In looking at Heart of Darkness, we see a story told from
a "multiple narrator" point of view, which is inherently
mired in a variety of historical contexts. For example, we
are given the viewpoint of the sailor/narrator, who is in
turn relating a story told from the viewpoint of Marlow,
who is in actuality relating a story written from the point
of view of Conrad. With this in mind, it seems impossible
to consider Heart of Darkness without thinking about how
these perspectives affect and lend meaning to the story.
As Brook Thomas, the author of the new historicist
criticism in our book, notes, the meat of a story is not
"inside" a kernel, but rather outside, existing within a
social context.
Brook notes that there are several difficulties about
judging the past. Among them is the fact that people have
a natural tendancy to judge things based upon the current
standards of society. For example, we now have an
understanding of gender issues that was hardly in
existence at the time of it's writing. Thus, it is impossible
and unfair to judge the author (or his characters) by
today's understanding of gender relations. In addition, the
problem of language adds another element of confusion.
Words and language change through time, and so does
their meaning. A critic interested in Conrad's treatment of
race might correctly point out the use of the socially
charged word Nigger within his work. However, when
viewed from a historical perspective, this use may have
had a very different meaning. These are some of the
issues that we must keep in mind when looking at literary
works of the past if we can have any hope of interpreting
the author's intent.
Lastly, Brook also brings up the idea of a "counter
memory" which serves to disrupt the official history. In
the case of Heart of Darkness this is found in Marlow's
story. His story of the savagery inherent in man serves as
a counterpoint to the grand ideal of imperialistic
civilization. To Brook, the official memory is the "light"
of empire which brings it's civilization and education with
it to it's many colonies. On the contrary, the "darkness" of
Conrad's story is the "horror" of the underlying truth of
humanities savagery. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad
doesn't describe to us the truth about empire, but rather
shows us the lie (or counter-memory). When this lie is
related to us by a person presumably living within this
period, we become able to draw meaning from Conrad's
work.
To me, this idea of the "lie" of civilization is very
important. It is possible to look at all of history as a series
of lies, or rather a "chronology of assumptions" which
mold and shape our understanding of reality. Consider the
following premises in Heart of Darkness. First of all, there
is the assumption that the empire is just, and that it is
inherently good in character. The second assumption is
that the English are better than the savages. Thirdly, there
is the assumption that the English are different from the
savages due to their civilization. Next, the assumption that
western civilization is inherently good. Lastly, that
western civilization is better than the "savage" state of
living.
Now, think about Heart of Darkness from the point of
view of a person in some small "savage" tribe who has
never been exposed to western civilization. If his idea of a
just society is simply to hunt, survive, and care for his
family, he will have a great deal of difficulty
understanding the story because he hasn't bought into the
inherent assumptions necessary to make meaning out of
it. We, as critics of literature, are in a similar situation,
though not quite so pronounced. We can somewhat
identify with the context that Conrad operates from if we
attempt a historical reading of the piece. However, the
attempt is ultimately flawed because it is impossible to
capture all the influences that Conrad had in writing the
book.
In all, the historicist approach is a powerful tool in
understanding literary works. It is particularly important
when looking at the works of Conrad, himself a professed
historian. Conrad paints his picture of the Heart of
Darkness within the context of larger cultural and societal
issues. He forces us to consider where we have been as a
people, and where we are going. He asks us to reconsider
our assumptions, and to recognize some qualities of
humanity that persist throughout history. All of these
things are impossible to consider without taking into
consideration the "big picture" of human experience. In
writing Heart of Darkness, Conrad allows us to see a
glimpse of his time period, but more importantly makes
us take a look at our perception of human history in it's
entirety. Sometimes, this forces us to realize that there
does in fact still linger the counter-memory of our savage
origins, despite our professed civilization. To me, this is
Conrad's message, and one which we should all take to
heart.