This thesis examines J. M. Coetzee's Foe, focusing on his reflective writing. Unlike many other postcolonial white writers under Apartheid (a system of racial segregation in South Africa), who pay their main attention to realistic representations of s...
This thesis examines J. M. Coetzee's Foe, focusing on his reflective writing. Unlike many other postcolonial white writers under Apartheid (a system of racial segregation in South Africa), who pay their main attention to realistic representations of social injustice, Coetzee is known to develop a unique literary aesthetics which combines self-conscious, self-reflective approaches with social criticisms of the contemporary world. Especially, through Foe, his fifth novel woven around the existing plot of Robinson Crusoe, he not only deconstructs the imperialistic ideas implied in its original plot, but proclaims the limits of the language use and the writer's authority.
This thesis investigates Foe by focusing on Coetzee's two-side criticism derived from his self-reflective writing: one on the dominant ideology resulting in racism (as of the exterior part) and the other on the writer's authority and language use (as of the writer's self). The detailed discussion on this main theme will proceed through three chapters, and these chapters will be categorized by three literary factors of the novel which are considered relevant to his self-reflective writing: ambivalence of main characters, functions of metafiction as a genre, and connotative meanings of Friday's speechlessness.
The first chapter of the body presents an analysis of ambivalent aspects of each main character of Foe, Susan, Cruso, Friday and Foe. Foe has a frame story where Susan Barton, a castaway who landed on the same island inhabited by Cruso and Friday, attempts to convince the writer Daniel Foe to help transform her tale into popular fiction. Each of these characters doesn't have any consistent line of characteristics and thus retains an ambivalence in their character. It is this ambivalence of each character that causes Susan to go through the identical disorder from her relationship with each of other male characters. This ambivalence might be said to derive from the notion of blurred binaries articulated by deconstruction thinkers. From that point, this thesis argues that Coetzee regards the binary scheme of the existing metaphysical philosophy as the major cause for all types of segregation including race and gender. In an analysis of each relationship between Susan and each male character, Susan's ambivalent social position as a white woman is drawn critical attention to as well, because her ambivalence due to her sex and race leads her to remain as a semi-margin who is both dominant racially and subordinate sexually. In terms of the semi-margin as a social position, Susan has a resemblance to Coetzee, since he is a white man who has the vested rights in a society where the most of its population consists of blacks, but he still tries to serve as one of a few whites who oppose to the existing racial segregation.
The second chapter of the body explores two types of criticisms carried out by the genre of Foe, metafiction: one over imperialistic ideas in Robinson Crusoe and the other over the writer's inconsiderate trial of representing others. When Foe was released in South Africa in 1986, it was regarded as irrelevant to African political realities. Contrary to these criticisms on Foe, it is argued in this thesis that Foe does perform its political functions by disclosing the misbelief included in its original work that it's appropriate to civilize or represent others when they are regarded as inferiors. Coetzee points out in Foe the possible discordance between the signifier and the signified, thus making it clear that any attempts to represent others are impossible tasks to achieve. The recognition of the inappropriateness of representing others leads to Coetzee's prudence in displaying an authoritative voice for others in literary forms.
The third chapter of the body focuses on an analysis of connotative meanings of Friday's speechlessness. It is argued in this chapter that Friday's cut off tongue signifies an impossible communication between white masters and black slaves and the racially abusive rules of whites over blacks in South Africa. By presenting Friday's speechlessness, that is, Coetzee turns out to attach a great importance not only to the nonverbal communication transcending limits of language but to the ethical attitude of listening to others rather than speaking for them when forming a relationship with different races. This thesis also attends to Coetzee's emphasis on the necessity of whites' having a new perspective on other races; that is, whites need to acknowledge and accept any kind of existing differences between whites and blacks rather than attempt to bring them into their own seemingly superior culture.