J M Coetzee's Foe (Th)

 

This blog is part of the task on Thinking Activity- "Home and the world". "Home and the world" topic was given by professor Miss Megha Trivedi. Certainly, here's a unique and intriguing answer so, this blog deals with some of the answers to questions.

Que: Write a blog on comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’.

Ans:

Introduction:
Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719), often regarded as one of the first English novels, reflects the ideals and values of the Enlightenment era, particularly those tied to individualism, colonial expansion, and European notions of superiority over “the other.” The novel presents a narrative of a solitary man, Crusoe, who, after being shipwrecked on a deserted island, uses his resourcefulness to survive and establish dominion over the island and its inhabitants, including the “savage” Friday. Defoe’s narrative upholds the European colonial mission and the perceived civilizing duty of the colonizers over indigenous peoples. This reflects the worldview of the 18th century, a period marked by European exploration, imperialism, and the belief in the universal applicability of European values and systems.

J.M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986), written over two centuries later, responds to and reinterprets Defoe’s tale from a postcolonial, postmodern perspective. Coetzee’s novel critiques the colonial mindset by revisiting the story of Crusoe, Friday, and the island through the voice of Susan Barton, a new character who challenges the authority of Crusoe’s narrative. By complicating the roles of power, language, and authorship, Coetzee engages with the legacies of colonialism and the silencing of marginalized voices. The novel interrogates the dynamics of power that shape narratives, urging readers to question whose stories are told and how they are framed.

The aim of this blog is to critically examine how Coetzee’s Foe subverts and critiques the narrative of Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, focusing on themes of power, authorship, voice, and colonial ideologies. By analyzing the differing representations of colonialism, the role of storytelling, and the silencing of marginalized characters in both texts, we will gain insights into how Foe deconstructs the myths upheld by Robinson Crusoe.

1. Narrative Voice and Perspective

Defoe’s use of a first-person narrative in Robinson Crusoe places readers directly within Crusoe’s subjective experience. Crusoe’s account of his survival is not merely a recounting of events but a justification of his actions and worldview. His narrative constructs an image of himself as the quintessential “self-made” man, whose triumphs over nature and savagery exemplify the Enlightenment ideals of reason, self-reliance, and European superiority. Through his own lens, Crusoe is a hero who tames the wilderness, civilizes the “savage” Friday, and proves the righteousness of European colonization.

In Foe, however, Coetzee complicates this singular narrative by introducing Susan Barton, whose voice challenges the unchallenged authority of Crusoe. Unlike Crusoe’s straightforward, confident narrative, Susan’s voice is marked by uncertainty and fragmentation, reflecting the fractured nature of identity and experience in a postcolonial world. Her narrative reflects a more complex and ambiguous relationship to authority, power, and colonialism. By showing multiple perspectives—those of Susan, Crusoe, and the silenced Friday—Coetzee invites readers to question the stability of the colonial narrative and the legitimacy of a single, dominant voice.

The choice to focus on Susan Barton, a character absent in Defoe’s original, is significant. Susan not only disrupts the singularity of Crusoe’s voice but also functions as a vehicle for exploring the silencing of women in colonial and literary contexts. She does not simply repeat the established narrative; instead, she actively engages with it, challenging the completeness of Crusoe’s story. Coetzee’s fragmented narrative reflects the postmodern understanding that truth is subjective, shaped by power structures and historical contexts.

2. Colonialism and Imperialist Ideals

Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe reflects the imperialist mindset of the 18th century, embodying the European drive to conquer and “civilize” foreign lands. Crusoe’s relationship with Friday is central to this ideology. Crusoe assumes the role of a benevolent colonizer, taking it upon himself to teach Friday European customs, language, and religion. This paternalistic view portrays colonization as a mission of cultural and moral upliftment, with the colonizers positioned as superior to the indigenous people they “civilize.”
In Foe, Coetzee critiques these imperialist ideals by giving voice to the silenced character of Friday, whose muteness represents the erased histories of colonized peoples. By silencing Friday, Coetzee strips away the colonial justification of control and “civilizing” missions. Friday’s silence in Foe is not a passive condition but a form of resistance. It resists the colonial impulse to speak for the native, suggesting that the “other” cannot be fully known or controlled through language and Western frameworks.

Friday’s silence also highlights the limitations of the colonial imagination, which fails to recognize the full humanity and complexity of indigenous people. While Crusoe’s relationship with Friday is framed as one of salvation, Coetzee’s Foe refuses to allow the colonizer’s narrative to remain unchallenged. By complicating Friday’s character and denying him the ability to speak, Coetzee points to the enduring violence of colonialism, which not only dominates physically but also subordinates the voices of the colonized.

3. The Concept of ‘The Other’

In Robinson Crusoe, Friday epitomizes the concept of “The Other”—the exotic, non-European figure who is defined in opposition to the European self. Crusoe’s act of renaming Friday, teaching him English, and shaping his identity in European terms reflects the colonial ideology that viewed non-Europeans as inferior, uncivilized, and in need of Western intervention. Friday’s position as “the other” is both racial and cultural, placing him outside the European conception of civilization.

In Foe, Coetzee reimagines Friday as a more complex figure, one whose silence and resistance challenge the conventional colonial binary of civilized/uncivilized. Friday’s muteness symbolizes the gap between the colonizer’s understanding and the lived experience of the colonized. Coetzee suggests that the “other” cannot be fully known or categorized within the confines of Western thought. By making Friday an enigmatic figure, Coetzee critiques the colonial impulse to define and control the identity of the “other,” instead allowing Friday to remain an unknowable and resistant figure. In Foe, the binary of civilized/uncivilized is destabilized, emphasizing the complexity of identity and the limits of colonial representations.

4. Authorship and the Power of Storytelling

In Robinson Crusoe, the narrative itself becomes a tool of power, with Crusoe controlling the story and positioning himself as the authoritative voice. His first-person narration is presented as an objective account of events, positioning him as the ultimate authority on his survival and his relationship with Friday. Crusoe’s mastery over the island and Friday mirrors his mastery over the narrative, reinforcing the idea that the colonizer controls not only the land but also the story of that land.

Coetzee’s Foe turns this power dynamic on its head by introducing Susan Barton as a central character whose struggle for authorship reflects the challenge of reclaiming and rewriting colonial narratives. In Foe, Susan faces the complex issue of narrative ownership. The character of Foe, who represents the colonial power structure, takes control of the story, rewriting Susan’s experiences in ways that erase her agency. The tension between Barton and Foe highlights the ways in which colonial power operates through the control of language and the manipulation of narrative. Coetzee critiques the colonial authority that seeks to dominate not only the land but also the stories of those it colonizes, asserting that storytelling is a political act that determines who is heard and whose voices are silenced.

5. Language and Silence as a Form of Resistance

In Robinson Crusoe, language is a tool of colonization. Crusoe teaches Friday English, effectively imposing European language and culture upon him. This act of linguistic control is emblematic of the broader colonial project of erasing native languages and replacing them with European ones. Language, in this context, becomes a mechanism for dominance, reinforcing the notion that the colonized must adopt the language and customs of the colonizer in order to be “civilized.”

In Foe, Coetzee radically subverts this dynamic by making Friday mute. Friday’s silence becomes a powerful form of resistance against the colonial expectation that the colonized must be understood and expressed through the colonizer’s language. Friday’s muteness resists categorization and challenges the notion that language is the only means of communication and understanding. His silence speaks volumes, offering a form of resistance that cannot be captured or controlled by the colonial gaze. This refusal to speak is an act of defiance, a way for Friday to maintain agency and withhold his own story from the dominant narrative. 

6. Gender and Marginalization

In Robinson Crusoe, the absence of women reflects the gendered dimensions of colonial and adventure narratives of the time. Crusoe’s world is entirely male-dominated, with the few women who appear relegated to secondary, passive roles. The lack of female voices highlights the exclusion of women from the colonial narrative and reinforces the notion that masculine power, both in survival and colonization, is central to the story.

In Foe, Coetzee introduces Susan Barton, a woman who is both an active participant in the story and a marginalized figure. Her struggle for a voice in a male-dominated world highlights the intersection of gender and colonial power. Barton’s frustration with Foe’s manipulation of her story parallels the historical marginalization of women in both colonial contexts and literary traditions. By centering a female character in Foe, Coetzee critiques the erasure of women’s voices in colonial narratives, challenging the gendered dynamics that shaped not only colonialism but also the way stories were told and who had the power to tell them.

Conclusion

J.M. Coetzee’s Foe offers a critical postcolonial response to Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, deconstructing the imperialist ideologies that underlie the original text. By giving voice to characters like Susan Barton and Friday, Coetzee challenges the authority of the colonial narrative and calls attention to the ways in which power, language, and silence shape the telling of history. In Foe, storytelling becomes a political act, one that critiques the dominance of the colonizer and insists on the recognition of marginalized voices. Through its subversion of Defoe’s narrative, Foe invites readers to reconsider the legacies of colonialism and the complexity of identities that have been silenced or erased in the process.

Words: 1698

Thank You.