Postcolonialism: Destroying a Culture

“Postcolonial literature and its theorists investigate what happens when two cultures clash and when one of them, with its accessory ideology, empowers and deems itself superior to the other.” The aforementioned quote by the authors Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin in their The Post-Colonial Studies Reader provides a general lens for looking at Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. In his novel, Achebe’s native characters are subject to colonialism in the form of a newly introduced religion—Christianity. When the ideologies of the Christian missionaries and the standard traditions of Okonkwo’s  people clash, the colony feels the effects of the colonizing force; as some embrace the new religion and others resist it, ultimately, Achebe’s “story will certainly be sent back to the Empire, telling the imperialists the efforts of their colonization and how their Western hegemony has damaged and suppressed the ideologies of those who were conquered” (243).

In my analysis of the text, subjected to a postcolonial reading, utilization of the questions provided on page 243 of the theoretical text seems appropriate. Applying the questions to Things Fall Apart will help guide the structure and organization of the eventual essay. As I organize my essay into three main paragraphs, i.e., one describing the two cultures (what each values, what each rejects), one describing the change imposed by the missionaries and the various ways the colonized culture is silenced, and one describing the resistance by the colonists and the effects of said change; I will keep postcolonial theory in mind.

Body paragraph one will utilize this quote and idea: “The answer for many postist thinkers is that each society or culture contains within itself a dominant cultural group which determines that culture’s ideology or, using the Marxist term, its hegemony” (234). My first body paragraph will elaborate on the hegemonies of both the colonizers and the colonists.

Body paragraph two will center around this idea: “Often the colonizers justified their cruel treatment of the colonized by invoking European religious beliefs” (236). The imposition of the new religion and its impact will be explored in my second paragraph.

Body paragraph three will tie together  the body paragraphs with this idea: “As postcolonial critics point out, to be colonized is ‘to be removed from history.’ In its interaction with the conquering culture, the colonized or indigenous culture is forced to go underground or be obliterated. (238). Although not as extreme as to be removed from history, Ibo culture is undermined as a result of the missionaries’ influence, culminating with the death of the great Okonkwo.  

Technopoly: Technology as a Potentate

Spear, telescope, computer. Tool-using culture, technocracy, technopoly. Such is the evolution of technologies in society and their corresponding technological cultures as detailed by Neil Postman in his Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. In Postman’s book, the author describes the nature and characteristics of technopolies, such as exists in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Technocracies are characterized as societies “only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent.” Thus in a technocracy, both traditional customs and tradition coexist with advancing technology. The two experience some friction as shown by the statement of 19-century America: “one can hear the groans of religion in crisis, of mythologies under attack, of a politics and education in confusion, but the groans are not yet death throes.”

A technopoly, on the other hand, is “totalitarian technocracy.” As Frederick W. Taylor, originator of scientific management, believed, “society is best served when human beings are placed at the disposal of their techniques and technology.” Taylor advocated economic efficiency, regardless of the effect on humans. He believed that workers should be relieved of any responsibility to think at all.

Such is the case in Huxley’s novel. The technopoly present in Brave New World champions Taylor’s theory of scientific management in which efficiency is emphasized and human emotion subdued. In Huxley’s totalitarian technopoly, humans are created and used to serve technology. Human emotion is dealt with through careful conditioning, so the inhabitants of the brave new world believe they are happy and thus promote technological efficiency. For example, the character Lenina responds to Bernard’s desire to be happy in his own way, “I don’t know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.” As such, efficiency is emphasized in Brave New World. Technological advances are promoted and the ideals of a technopoly, exemplified.   

Human No More (9-26-11)

It has sparked the interest of many the world over. It has been called the “rapture of the geeks.” It has induced wonder, fear, and caution. It has drawn both adamant supporters and cynical skeptics. It is the Singularity.

In Lev Grossman’s article, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal,” the author discusses the Singularity and its potential. The Singularity is the transformation of the human species into something that is no longer human, something that is integrated into technology as technology advances at an exponential rate. The idea is that as computers get stronger and faster, artificial intelligence will match and even exceed human intelligence. Human consciousness is to be emulated. The leading spokesman for Singularity, entrepreneur and inventor Ray Kurzweil, has even gone to propose that one day the human species will be functionally immortal. 

According to executive director of IEEE Spectrum, Glenn Zorpette, the Singularity is simply an irrational concept and fear . He remains skeptical that the human brain can be effectively reverse-engineered. “What we do know is that the brain’s complexity dwarfs anything we’ve managed to fully understand, let alone build.”

However, despite what the future holds, Grossman holds that Kurzweil deserves merit for being correct about the present. He commends Kurzweil for taking the future seriously. He’s “taking the long view and looking at the big picture.” In fact, several notable authors such as Alfred Huxley have also looked at the big picture and conjured up a dystopian future.

In Alfred Huxley’s Brave New World, the novelist paints his readers a world in which people work for technology. Humans are bred and conditioned to be efficient parts of a well-oiled machine. Though they seemingly have what they believe is happiness, they are indeed restricted and limited in being truly human, deprived of having human emotions and complete free will. In Huxley’s novel, the character Bernard expresses a desire to be an individual, to be more on his own, “not so completely a part of something else.” He wants to be happy in his “own way...not in everybody else’s way” (91).

In Brave New World, Bernard is unlike most of the other characters. As opposed to merely accepting the status quo, he exhibits a desire to be his own individual, to be a human as humans are today. And as Kurzweil enthuses about the Singularity, Huxley—through  characters like Bernard—warns of a society in which humans are no longer human in nature. 

Christ, a True Hero (9-6-11)

             American journalist Kitty Kelley once said, “A hero is someone we can admire without apology.”  When speaking about literature, as in the aforementioned quote, an epic hero exhibits qualities that readers can admire. In Michael P. McMahon’s “Christ, The Modern Hero—As Seen in John Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost,’” the author argues that although Satan “fits the archetype of an epic hero,” he ultimately is not the true hero of the epic poem. Satan possesses power beyond measure and exhibits larger-than-life qualities; however, McMahon effectively contrasts Satan with the true hero of Milton’s poem to convey that Satan may not be someone we can admire.  Instead, he makes the case that Jesus Christ is the true hero of “Paradise Lost.” McMahon supports his claim by juxtaposing the differences between Satan and Christ and contrasting the two, highlighting exactly why he believes Satan fails and Christ is the true hero we can all admire.

            McMahon’s article generally adheres to a “standard” format one would encounter in a high school classroom, i.e., an essay with an introduction a thesis, 3 or 4 body paragraphs to support said thesis, and a conclusion to wrap up his ideas. In his article, he begins by making the claim that Satan is not the hero but rather, Christ is the true hero. He goes on to describe, in his first two body paragraphs, Satan’s flaws, furthering his assertion that Satan is not the true hero of Milton’s poem. “Satan's desires, as human as they may be, are never noble.” The author rips Satan’s motives as selfish, even citing Satan’s inability to sacrifice himself for the greater good.  McMahon follows with a third body paragraph that praises Christ’s virtues. The Son of God, although not a classic hero or a killing warrior by any means, dies honorably not for only one nation but for all of humanity. “This is what makes him a new hero, as Milton cleverly is able to justify him breaking the mold by making [Christ’s] achievements so much more valuable to all of mankind than any classic hero.”  McMahon’s fourth and final body paragraph effectively contrasts the two characters, as he juxtaposes their respective relationship with God to further demonstrate his point. “Satan rose up against his oppressor in attempt to overthrow a government he felt was unjust.” McMahon writes in the same paragraph, “In contrast to Satan's use of his free will to rise up against God, there is the Son, Jesus Christ, who chooses to be the sacrificial lamb for mankind.” The author then ends his article with a concluding paragraph, where he ties his ideas together and leaves the reader with the impression that “While not portrayed as a larger-than-life warrior, the character of Christ sacrifices himself to be a true hero, breaking all the traditions of what an epic hero is.”

            Another method that McMahon employs to convey his notion that Satan does not embody the “true” hero that Christ does is his use of comparisons to other literary heroes, e.g., Beowulf and Achilles. For example, he states, “While Satan is clearly a warrior comparable to Beowulf, God's Son is anything but.” Comparisons to other well-known literary heroes help the reader understand the point that McMahon tries to prove. Another example, “Achilles died for his country, yet the Son died for all of mankind” again helps to further his point that the Son of Man is the true hero. This demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing comparisons to other heroes of literary merit.

            Although I do not find McMahon’s article too different, if at all, from any of the essays I write now, I find it to be an effective essay that cleverly uses the rhetorical techniques of contrasting juxtaposition and literary comparisons to support a thesis; he uses formal and “proper” language that does not differ from the language I employ in my essays; however, I find that his use of prose helps me to accept his credibility as an author and the establishment of a strong ethos. McMahon’s article does not confound my expectations, as he writes in everyday vernacular, employs a standard organizational structure, and addresses a general audience.

Here's the link! :)