Foe: Deconstructing Dichotomies in a Postmodern Landscape.

 Hello Readers!

This blog is a response to an assignment given by Prof. Dilip Barad where we had to choose a topic and write about it in detail and publish it in a form of blog post.

Here I have chosen a topic, Foe: Deconstructing Dichotomies in a Postmodern Landscap.

Here are my Academic Details:

Name : Rinkal Dangar

Roll No:18 

Enrollment no : 4069206420220007

Paper name: The Postcolonial Studies

Paper no: 203

Paper code: 22408

Topic: Foe: Deconstructing Dichotomies in a Postmodern Landscape.

Submitted to : Smt. S.B.Gardi, department of English M.K.B.U

Dated on: 27/11/2023

E-Mail : dangarrinkal0609@gmail.com

Introduction:

Introduction of 'Foe'

Foe is a 1986 novel by South African-born Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee. Woven around the existing plot of Robinson Crusoe, Foe is written from the perspective of Susan Barton, a castaway who landed on the same island inhabited by "Cruso" and Friday as their adventures were already underway

Introduction of 'Robinson Crusoe'

Robinson Crusoe, novel by Daniel Defoe, first published in London in 1719. Defoe’s first long work of fiction, it introduced two of the most-enduring characters in English literature: Robinson Crusoe and Friday.

"Foe: Deconstructing Dichotomies in a Postmodern Landscape"

In the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual discourse, the examination of dichotomies has taken a distinctive turn in the realm of postmodern thought. The term "foe" serves as a metaphorical battleground where traditional binary oppositions are dismantled and reexamined within the multifaceted tapestry of postmodernism.

Postmodernism, as a philosophical and cultural movement, emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the rigid structures of modernity. Characterised by scepticism towards grand narratives and an emphasis on plurality, postmodernism challenges the established dichotomies that have historically shaped human understanding. The exploration of these dichotomies within the context of a "foe" signifies a deliberate confrontation with conventional notions, setting the stage for a nuanced analysis of the complexities inherent in our conceptual frameworks.

Dichotomies in Traditional Thought

Historically, dichotomies have served as organising principles that delineate and categorise aspects of human experience. Examples include good versus evil, nature versus nurture, and order versus chaos. These dichotomies, deeply rooted in Western thought, often carry implicit assumptions about hierarchy and binary oppositions. The concept of a "foe" in this context implies a deliberate challenge to these entrenched dualities, urging a reevaluation of their inherent assumptions.

Postmodern Deconstruction

Central to postmodernism is the deconstructive process, a method introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Deconstruction involves dismantling binary oppositions by revealing their internal contradictions and hierarchical structures. In the case of our exploration, the term "foe" becomes a site for deconstructive practices, destabilising the certainties associated with traditional dichotomies.

Fluidity and Fragmentation

Within a postmodern landscape, the boundaries between opposing concepts blur, and the notion of a fixed "foe" becomes elusive. Postmodern thinkers argue for the fluidity of meaning, emphasising the contextual nature of interpretations. This fluidity challenges the rigidity of traditional dichotomies, suggesting that concepts are not mutually exclusive but interconnected and contingent upon various contextual factors.

Multiplicity of Perspectives

Postmodernism encourages the consideration of multiple perspectives and narratives. The idea of a "foe" as a deconstructive space invites the exploration of diverse viewpoints, fostering a rich tapestry of interpretations. This multiplicity undermines the singularity often associated with traditional dichotomies, highlighting the subjective nature of human experience.

Language and Representation

Language, a crucial tool for shaping and expressing concepts, is a focal point in postmodern discourse. The term "foķe" itself is a linguistic construct that carries cultural and historical connotations. Postmodern thinkers argue that language is not a transparent medium for conveying objective truths but is, instead, a dynamic system laden with power relations and biases. The deconstruction of dichotomies within a postmodern framework involves an examination of language's role in shaping and perpetuating these dualities.

Language refers to and represents a reality outside. According to postmodernists, language is not such a “mirror of nature,” as the American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty characterized the Enlightenment view. Inspired by the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, postmodernists claim that language is semantically self-contained, or self-referential: the meaning of a word is not a static thing in the world or even an idea in the mind but rather a range of contrasts and differences with the meanings of other words.

"Friday, what is your name? Can you say your name?"

By giving voice to Friday, "Foe" disrupts the traditional representation of the silent, subservient native in "Robinson Crusoe." This challenges the dichotomy between those who speak and those who are silenced

Cultural and Historical Context

The notion of a "foe" as a deconstructive space is situated within specific cultural and historical contexts. Postmodernism emerged in a world marked by globalisation, technological advancements, and a questioning of established authorities. The deconstruction of dichotomies reflects a response to the changing dynamics of society, challenging traditional power structures and inviting a reevaluation of cultural norms.

Postmodern Aesthetics

Art and aesthetics play a significant role in postmodern thought. The concept of a "foe" as a deconstructive space extends into artistic practices that challenge established norms. Postmodern art often embraces fragmentation, intertextuality, and pastiche, reflecting the rejection of fixed dichotomies in favour of a more fluid and open-ended exploration of meaning.

COETZEE’S DECONSTRUCTION OF THE IMAGINED “ENGLISHNESS” BY SUBVERTING THE CHARACTER ROBINSON CRUSOE:

“Postmodernism ultimately manages to install and reinforce as much as undermine and subvert the conventions and presuppositions it appears to challenge” (Hutcheon, 1990, p.1-2). With postmodern devices, Coetzee negated and subverted the conventions and presuppositions of Euro-centrism by rewriting Robinson Crusoe, so Cruso in 'Foe' became the antithesis of Robinson Crusoe in Robinson Crusoe. Cruso in Foe was depicted as old, impotent, foolish, superstitious, stubborn, uncertain and passive.

In Foe, Cruso is foolish and superstitious, which is a mockery of the reason for Robinson in Robinson Crusoe. In contrast to Robinson’s relying on himself and reason to solve problems, Cruso turned to some foolish superstition. “He put some few white petals and buds from the brambles that were at the time flowering on parts of the island in a little bag to make an offering to the god of the waves to cause the fish to run plentifully, or performing some other such superstitious observance” (Coetzee, 2010, p.31).

In telling his history, Cruso was inconsistent, uncertain, self-contradictory and self-undermining in his words. “The stories he told Susan were so various, and so hard to reconcile one with another, that Susan was more and more driven to conclude age and isolation had taken their toll on his memory, and he no longer knew for sure what was truth, what fancy” (Coetzee, 2010, p.12). As Susan narrated, “Thus one day he would say his father had been a wealthy merchant who's counting-house he had quit in search of adventure. But the next day he would tell me he had been a poor lad of no family who had shipped as a cabin-boy and been captured by the Moors…” (Coetzee, 2010, p.12)

He was no longer as reliable as Robinson in Robinson Crusoe, which deconstructed Robinson’s authority in narrating and colonising.

When Cruso talked about why Friday’s tongue was cut. He gave a variety of reasons. The truth could not be grasped. 

Perhaps the slavers, who are Moors, hold the tongue to be a delicacy. Or perhaps they grew weary of listening to Friday’s wails of grief that went on day and night. Perhaps they wanted to prevent him from ever telling his story: who he was, where his home lay, how it came about that he was taken. Perhaps they cut out the tongue of every cannibal they took, as a punishment. How will we ever know the truth? (Coetzee, 2010, p.23)

Different from Defoe’s fabrication of Robinson’s colonial achievements on the desert island, Coetzee disclosed the  fact that being alone too long on the desert island, Cruso became old on his island kingdom. With nobody telling him oppositional opinions, he became narrow-minded compared with those who lived in the normal world. He grew passive and stubborn out of old age, and he had no desire to be saved and escape from the desert island. Susan found “it was a waste of breath to urge Cruso to save himself” (Coetzee, 2010, p.13).

In contrast to Robinson, Cruso showed little vitality. He had a slovenly appearance and unpleasant behaviour, “his great head of tawny hair and his beard that was never cut glowed in the dying light. He ground his teeth in his sleep because his teeth had decayed and he took food in his unwashed hands and gnawed at it on the left side where it hurt him less” (Coetzee, 2010, p.18). And he showed no sexual desire for Susan, which was also a sign of weakening.

To sum up, Cruso in Foe was depicted as old, foolish, superstitious, impotent, stubborn, passive and pessimistic, who became the complete antithesis of Robinson in Robinson Crusoe, in this way, J. M. Coetzee deconstructed the image of Robinson in Robinson Crusoe, negated the national characteristics embodied by Robinson Crusoe such as reason, power, wisdom, optimism, and thus deconstructed the national characteristics of the English people, and their imagining of their nation as superior to other nations and people, and disclosed to the readers that Euro-centrism is not innate but fabricated by Europeans like Daniel Defoe. So it can’t hold water. And thus Coetzee subverted the convention and presupposition of Euro-centrism.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, "Foe: Deconstructing Dichotomies in a Postmodern Landscape" encapsulates a profound shift in how we conceptualise and engage with opposing ideas. The term "foe" serves as a symbolic arena where postmodern thought confronts, deconstructs, and reimagines traditional dichotomies. Through a lens of fluidity, multiplicity, and cultural context, this exploration challenges the very foundations of binary oppositions, inviting a more nuanced understanding of the complexities that shape our perceptions of the world. The postmodern landscape, marked by its emphasis on diversity and open-ended inquiry, offers a space for continual reflection and reevaluation, urging us to embrace the evolving nature of human thought.

References-

Coetzee, J. M. (2010). Foe. London: Penguin Books.f

Han, Wenju. “Construction and deconstruction of imagined community—a comparative study of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s foe in light of nationalism.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 8, no. 6, 2017, p. 1141, https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0806.15. 

Hutcheon, L. (1990). The Politics of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.

Thanks for Reading!