Dusklands | Ambiguous boundaries between 'barbarism' and 'reason'

Dusklands | J. M. Coetzee | Ambiguous boundaries between 'barbarism' and 'reason'

Nobel Prize Winner J. M. Coetzee's 『Dusklands』 is composed of two stories from different regions and different times.

The first story, [The Vietnam Project] is a story of a military expert, Eugene, who was working on the Vietnam War project at the Kennedy Institute. He is not a soldier in the war, but he is vulnerable to indirect violence through war-related documents and photographs while studying the Vietnam War. On the downside, he suffers from stress as he struggles with his boss and his wife. In the end, he shows nervous breakdown, his son is knife-scarred, and is hospitalized in a mental hospital.

The second story [The Narrative of Jacobus Coetzee] takes place in colonial South Africa in the 18th century. Coetzee, the same name as the author 's (imaginary) distant ancestor, is a Dutch - born hunter. He leaves the elephant hunting to the north of the Cape, led by a servant carrying loads of servants and cattle. During the trip, Coetzee falls off with severe diarrhea. He is forced to stay in the village in favor of the native tribes living nearby. While Coetzee is feeling well, his servants assimilate to the tribes, betraying Coetzee, and looting Kuci's luggage. Only the older, faithful servant Claverman keeps the Coetzee side to the end. Coetzee and his servants are kicked out of tribal villages as a minor fight between Coetzee and tribal children becomes a seed. They barely get some food and clothing and head southwards with their houses and cities. This time, Clever is sick, not Coetzee. Coetzee tells Clabber he'll be back again. Then he leaves a faithful servant in the middle of a desolate land and returns home alone. The following year Coetzee takes many hunters back to the village. Coetzee takes vengeful revenge on servants and natives who betray him.

This is a rough plot, but these two stories are different from ordinary novels and proceed from the perpetrator. The [Vietnam project] is the point of Eugene, who breaks his son with a nervous breakdown, and the view of colonialist Coetzee in [The Narrative of Jacobus Coetzee]. So, the two stories that represent the perpetrators are sometimes disgusting. Both perpetrators are self-centered and recognize their surroundings and defend their actions. Eugene stabs his son with a knife and that's because of the stress. So I think he is innocent. Coetzee responds sensitively to tribal children's play, bites the child's ear, but finds no fault of his own. For them, violence is just a daily routine rather than a self-defensive action. So where did their violence come from?

Eugene was a submissive and orderly man who did not have the courage to react to the boss or the surrounding complaints until he took on the project. Did he change as he studied the Vietnam War? Eugene explains the Vietnam War research data and shows some pictures. The first photo is a picture of a US soldier having sex with a Vietnamese woman who looks like a little girl. Eugene gives the photo a bizarre title 'The Father Who plays happily with the children'. The second photo is a picture of a special unit sergeant with a clipped head of the enemy. The third photo is of the Vietcong locked in the cage of the camp's tiger. Eugene may be the result of violence, just as emotional problems occur to children who are constantly exposed to high-level violence. However, Eugene is brutally exercising the power of reason to justify violence somehow.

It is because of those people that I do not do it! Why did not they accept us? We could have loved them. Our hatred for them came from frustrated hope. - Eugene.

Eugene is a symbol of American supremacy that turns war into Vietnam's fault. They show off their ideology or non-existent cultural superiority. They are so excited that they force them into another country. If they are not accepted, they cause war on the grounds of eliminating barbarians and establishing civilization. Their hatred came not from the 'frustrated hope' that Eugene mentioned, but from 'frustrated profits'. They only cause wars for profit, but they pass on the responsibility of war to their opponents. When they feel guilty, they somehow wield the sword of reason to establish the cause of war. This brutal figure of the United States is expressed through Eugene. Eugene suggested how to end the war, which was indiscriminate bombardment to erase the map coordinates. What an American solution?

The story of Eugene showed that war gave birth to war and violence gave birth to violence. Coetzee, on the other hand, is a symbol of violence created by colonial ideology. So what is colonialism? For the sake of national interests, it is not necessary to pay attention to the rights of other countries or human rights of other people. Sometimes you can trample them as much as you like. In other words, it is a kind of national egoism that was created by the addition of reason to Western rationalism.

Because of this sturdy shield, Coetzee is not guilty of the violence he exercises. If he is a psychotic who enjoys hedonistic violence like a sadist, it is fine. However, he is not easily excited even in violent situations. He does not cope emotionally with violence like ordinary people. He acts in a clerical manner as if a civil servant were handling the paperwork bluntly. Violence against him is a routine and a form of life. He shoots a tribal girl carrying a jar as a gun as if a boy is holding a sparrow with his slingshot. He sees the little girl being raped as if it were nothing special. It was time to execute a slave who betrayed himself. The slave poured his blood and panted, but did not die easily. Then he shows off his mischievous compassion and shed disgusting tears.

I am not enjoying killing more than any other man. But I did my part in pulling the trigger, and by doing this sacrificial act for myself and my compatriots, I carried out murder against the black people that we all wanted. - Coetzee.

Coetzee rationalizes his violence as 'we all want'.

The only thing that proves colonialism and war that has been done in the name of reason is the 'barbarism of reason'. The author reveals it through two stories. In addition, the author warns that there is no reason to believe that human reason is a characteristic of human beings, but rather that the reason may cause human destruction by stimulating and rationalizing violence. In addition, the author suggests that 'barbarism of reason', which promotes violence by using his sex in the second story, is a universal problem of mankind that can never escape. It is easy to twist and criticize others' faults, but the courage to openly criticize oneself beyond conscious awareness of their own faults is rarely enough to receive praise. This is so empathic because of the modesty of accepting the problem seriously and self-critically.

Other apes also use violence. However, they control the water level by appropriately violating the time and place. There is no violence to enjoy violence against apes. Violence against them is only occasionally necessary to cover the sequence, group, breed or survival of the individual. Of course, it is very rare for someone to die because of violence even in the competition for sequencing.

But humans rationalize the brutal war and repressive colonial policies in the name of reason. Reason for mankind is not a device to control and control violence, but a catalyst to encourage violence and to develop and maximize various weapons of mass destruction. There is a story like this. If the politicians around the world were women, at least the war would not happen. In the minds of emotional and compassionate women, it is said that they will try to avoid the wars that come with sickening slaughter. In fact, Queen Elizabeth I of England said that when dealing with international issues, she was trying to avoid war as much as possible and to solve it as peacefully as possible diplomatically.

The intricate inner side of Eugene and Coetzee, who represent violence in colonialism, are exposed to violence as well as sentences. Their thoughts are as vague, intractable and severely bent as their tendencies are unusual. The subject of the work, though, is not a lightly readable book. However, his work, which received the Nobel Prize for his praise of writing a novel that "will be read and discussed for a long time and become a legacy of human culture," reminds us of the vague boundaries of reason and savagery that have been forgotten. Also, his outstanding ability to write freely according to the nature of the characters is amazing.

View original