Heart Of Darkness Research Paper
"What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea."
"Those who read me know my conviction that the world, the tempered world rests, notably, on the idea of Fidelity."
This is a running theme through most Conrad's books. As a sailor he learned that to survive, every crewman did the job he was assigned, and that the survival of the ship, and therefore the community, depended on each man doing his duty.
The heart of darkness can be read as a political critique of western imperialism as exercised by the Belgians, who more or less raped the Congo of its resources while brutalizing the country's people and making them slaves of unbridled political avarice.
At the time Heart of Darkness …show more content…
was written, the British Empire was at its peak, and Britain controlled colonies and dependencies all over the planet. The popular saying that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" was literally true. The main topic of Heart of Darkness is imperialism, a nation's policy of exerting influence over other areas through military, political, and economic coercion. The first narrator expresses the mainstream belief that imperialism is a glorious and worthy enterprise. Indeed, in Conrad's time, "empire" was one of the central values of British subjects, the fundamental term through which Britain defined its identity and sense of purpose.
From the moment Marlow opens his mouth, he sets himself apart from his fellow passengers by conjuring up a past in which Britain was not the heart of civilization but the savage "end of the world." Marlow continues to talk of olden times when the Romans arrived and brought light, which even now is constantly flickering. He says those people were not colonists but conquerors, taking everything by brute force. This "taking of the earth is not a pretty thing" when examined too closely; it is the idea behind it which people find redeeming. The bitterness of Marlow's recollection demonstrates Conrad's own strong bias against colonialism, which he wants to impart to the reader
According to Marlow, such barbarism cannot be justified on any grounds; however it can be compensated for by a legitimate and just cause behind it. Colonialism to him was
"Just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale"
It was not an exchange of resources, but a cruel and unjust domination and usurpation of the resources of the weaker party by the stronger, in this case the usurpation of the natives' ivory by the pilgrims.
The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much"
The Europeans were a so-called cultured and sophisticated race whose professed aim was the betterment of the African lot. The resources at their disposal, their culture, their food, and their finances, none of these were transferred to the Africans in order to improve their living standard; instead all concentration was focused on getting as much wealth out of the land as possible, even at the cost of the lives of the natives. Had the purpose behind this unjust domination been something worthwhile, the sins of the pilgrims might have been atoned for. But there is no such purpose; no moral betterment, spiritual uplifting, or cultural enhancement of the natives is intended. All that is aimed at is the ivory.
"They wandered here and there with their absurd long staves in their hands, like a lot of faithless pilgrims bewitched inside a rotten fence.
The word "ivory" rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it"
The word "ivory" has taken on a life of its own for the men who work for the Company. To them, it is far more than the tusk of an elephant; it represents economic freedom, social advancement and an escape from a life of being an employee. The word has lost all connection to any physical reality and has itself become an object of worship. Marlow's reference to a decaying corpse is both literal and figurative: elephants and native Africans both die as a result of the white man's pursuit of ivory, and the entire enterprise is rotten at the core. Bewitched by a new country and the material prospects, they are incapable of using their power and authority to some useful end.
The ultimate aim of the Europeans was the extraction of wealth, ivory, etc and not the salvation of the Africans. Their aim sprang out of their passion for wealth and not any humanitarian impulse. Thus their conquest did not merit any redemption. It was a sin with no recompense.
They might pretend to be
"Something like a emissary of light, something like a lower sort of
apostle", who were there for the purpose of
"Weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways".
But what they were really there for can be summed up in the words of Marlow's white companion who exclaimed:
"To make money, of course. What do u think?"
The Romans had indeed subjugated the British to their rule, but at the same time had succeeded in bringing about an elevation in their living standards. Thus, the right idea behind an enterprise might be relied upon to make amends for whatever methods have been employed in the realization of that idea. As far as the Europeans were concerned, their entire aim was corrupt; but to add insult to injury, they were inept at carrying it out. Not only were they robbers and barbarians, undertaking large-scale loot and plunder, they were inefficient robbers and barbarians. Marlow says
"What saves us is the efficiency the devotion to efficiency."
Even a bad things has to be done wholeheartedly, else it better be left undone. All the havoc they were wreaking was a disorganized, unimpressive useless havoc.
"We came upon a man-of war anchored off the coast. There wasn't even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush There she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent"
The actions and motives of the Europeans were as unfathomable and futile as the purposeless shelling of the man-of war. Conrad has sprinkled several manifestations of this futility throughout the novel which endow it with an aura of deliberate wastefulness. The presence of the Europeans was as objectless as the man-of-war both cannot be justified. There is neither the good intention, nor the efficiency, that could present itself forward as the redeeming factor. The pointlessness of the entire exercise is evident in the various instances we come across, such as the artificial hole on the slope of the hill, the purpose of which was "impossible to divine".
"It might have been connected with the philanthropic desire of giving the criminals something to do"
The entire atmosphere is one of waste and senselessness, e.g., a man was employed for the job of making bricks,
"But there wasn't a fragment of a brick anywhere in the station"
The raw material was unavailable, yet a man had been assigned the duty of producing bricks! Such was the scheme of things. They had no clear-cut objective in their minds other than the extraction of wealth and they were lost as to how to go about it.
"It was reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage
They had no spirit, no sense of dedication to their duty. They were all talk, and their talk did not translate into action. Even their words were empty, devoid of all practicality. Their intrigues were as vacant as their endeavor.
There are no high moral ideals that the Europeans could use as an excuse or a justification to make amends for their cruelties. Their journey can be interpreted as an updating of the quest for the Grail; their grail, however, is the ivory! Knights were extremely chivalrous people, devoted to their country and their religion, involved in a serious significant task; so Conrad satirizes the Europeans involved in a mean task. In the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, whoever found the Holy Grail would be illumined. Here it's something material that will be gained, i.e. the ivory.
"To tear treasures out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it then there is in burglars breaking into a safe."
They are thieves and common criminals posing to be prophets and harbingers of enlightenment. A moral purpose would have redeemed them, but they don't have even that to bank on.
For Marlow, the end justified the means. He does not condemn the cannibals, because they were devoted to their work.
"They were men one could work with, and I'm grateful to them"
The Europeans, however, were not dedicated, thus falling to a level lower than that of even cannibals. These faithless pilgrims could hope for no salvation. What they wanted was an idea, and a deliberate belief:
"An unselfish belief in the idea something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to "
"Those who read me know my conviction that the world, the tempered world rests, notably, on the idea of Fidelity."
This is a running theme through most Conrad's books. As a sailor he learned that to survive, every crewman did the job he was assigned, and that the survival of the ship, and therefore the community, depended on each man doing his duty.
The heart of darkness can be read as a political critique of western imperialism as exercised by the Belgians, who more or less raped the Congo of its resources while brutalizing the country's people and making them slaves of unbridled political avarice.
At the time Heart of Darkness …show more content…
was written, the British Empire was at its peak, and Britain controlled colonies and dependencies all over the planet. The popular saying that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" was literally true. The main topic of Heart of Darkness is imperialism, a nation's policy of exerting influence over other areas through military, political, and economic coercion. The first narrator expresses the mainstream belief that imperialism is a glorious and worthy enterprise. Indeed, in Conrad's time, "empire" was one of the central values of British subjects, the fundamental term through which Britain defined its identity and sense of purpose.
From the moment Marlow opens his mouth, he sets himself apart from his fellow passengers by conjuring up a past in which Britain was not the heart of civilization but the savage "end of the world." Marlow continues to talk of olden times when the Romans arrived and brought light, which even now is constantly flickering. He says those people were not colonists but conquerors, taking everything by brute force. This "taking of the earth is not a pretty thing" when examined too closely; it is the idea behind it which people find redeeming. The bitterness of Marlow's recollection demonstrates Conrad's own strong bias against colonialism, which he wants to impart to the reader
According to Marlow, such barbarism cannot be justified on any grounds; however it can be compensated for by a legitimate and just cause behind it. Colonialism to him was
"Just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale"
It was not an exchange of resources, but a cruel and unjust domination and usurpation of the resources of the weaker party by the stronger, in this case the usurpation of the natives' ivory by the pilgrims.
The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much"
The Europeans were a so-called cultured and sophisticated race whose professed aim was the betterment of the African lot. The resources at their disposal, their culture, their food, and their finances, none of these were transferred to the Africans in order to improve their living standard; instead all concentration was focused on getting as much wealth out of the land as possible, even at the cost of the lives of the natives. Had the purpose behind this unjust domination been something worthwhile, the sins of the pilgrims might have been atoned for. But there is no such purpose; no moral betterment, spiritual uplifting, or cultural enhancement of the natives is intended. All that is aimed at is the ivory.
"They wandered here and there with their absurd long staves in their hands, like a lot of faithless pilgrims bewitched inside a rotten fence.
The word "ivory" rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it"
The word "ivory" has taken on a life of its own for the men who work for the Company. To them, it is far more than the tusk of an elephant; it represents economic freedom, social advancement and an escape from a life of being an employee. The word has lost all connection to any physical reality and has itself become an object of worship. Marlow's reference to a decaying corpse is both literal and figurative: elephants and native Africans both die as a result of the white man's pursuit of ivory, and the entire enterprise is rotten at the core. Bewitched by a new country and the material prospects, they are incapable of using their power and authority to some useful end.
The ultimate aim of the Europeans was the extraction of wealth, ivory, etc and not the salvation of the Africans. Their aim sprang out of their passion for wealth and not any humanitarian impulse. Thus their conquest did not merit any redemption. It was a sin with no recompense.
They might pretend to be
"Something like a emissary of light, something like a lower sort of
apostle", who were there for the purpose of
"Weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways".
But what they were really there for can be summed up in the words of Marlow's white companion who exclaimed:
"To make money, of course. What do u think?"
The Romans had indeed subjugated the British to their rule, but at the same time had succeeded in bringing about an elevation in their living standards. Thus, the right idea behind an enterprise might be relied upon to make amends for whatever methods have been employed in the realization of that idea. As far as the Europeans were concerned, their entire aim was corrupt; but to add insult to injury, they were inept at carrying it out. Not only were they robbers and barbarians, undertaking large-scale loot and plunder, they were inefficient robbers and barbarians. Marlow says
"What saves us is the efficiency the devotion to efficiency."
Even a bad things has to be done wholeheartedly, else it better be left undone. All the havoc they were wreaking was a disorganized, unimpressive useless havoc.
"We came upon a man-of war anchored off the coast. There wasn't even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush There she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent"
The actions and motives of the Europeans were as unfathomable and futile as the purposeless shelling of the man-of war. Conrad has sprinkled several manifestations of this futility throughout the novel which endow it with an aura of deliberate wastefulness. The presence of the Europeans was as objectless as the man-of-war both cannot be justified. There is neither the good intention, nor the efficiency, that could present itself forward as the redeeming factor. The pointlessness of the entire exercise is evident in the various instances we come across, such as the artificial hole on the slope of the hill, the purpose of which was "impossible to divine".
"It might have been connected with the philanthropic desire of giving the criminals something to do"
The entire atmosphere is one of waste and senselessness, e.g., a man was employed for the job of making bricks,
"But there wasn't a fragment of a brick anywhere in the station"
The raw material was unavailable, yet a man had been assigned the duty of producing bricks! Such was the scheme of things. They had no clear-cut objective in their minds other than the extraction of wealth and they were lost as to how to go about it.
"It was reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage
They had no spirit, no sense of dedication to their duty. They were all talk, and their talk did not translate into action. Even their words were empty, devoid of all practicality. Their intrigues were as vacant as their endeavor.
There are no high moral ideals that the Europeans could use as an excuse or a justification to make amends for their cruelties. Their journey can be interpreted as an updating of the quest for the Grail; their grail, however, is the ivory! Knights were extremely chivalrous people, devoted to their country and their religion, involved in a serious significant task; so Conrad satirizes the Europeans involved in a mean task. In the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, whoever found the Holy Grail would be illumined. Here it's something material that will be gained, i.e. the ivory.
"To tear treasures out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it then there is in burglars breaking into a safe."
They are thieves and common criminals posing to be prophets and harbingers of enlightenment. A moral purpose would have redeemed them, but they don't have even that to bank on.
For Marlow, the end justified the means. He does not condemn the cannibals, because they were devoted to their work.
"They were men one could work with, and I'm grateful to them"
The Europeans, however, were not dedicated, thus falling to a level lower than that of even cannibals. These faithless pilgrims could hope for no salvation. What they wanted was an idea, and a deliberate belief:
"An unselfish belief in the idea something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to "