Edward Said, "Two visions in Heart of Darkness", Culture and Imperialism

Edward Said analyses two issues  of “culture” and “imperialism” and their interrelation affecting each other in his article named “Two visions in Heart of Darkness, Culture and Imperialism”. In relation with Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness”, I am planning to underscore the several important points in Edward Said’s article and the novel itself “Heart of Darkness” in this essay.

Edward Said begins his essay with an outstanding paradox in the ways Marlowe behave while narrating his voyage to the heart of Africa. Depicting their heartbreaking situation;  their being hungry as a wolf, their being thin and weak , he objectively gives  account of what he sees  with these native inhabitants, saying that “They were dying slowly, it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation…”.  However, he also mentions the enormous power of Mr. Kurtz throughout the novel up to his death. He seems as if to be fascinated by his authority to oppress the native peoples. This is also the point which draws my attention at first sight. Because it is controversial, it can be interpreted from both sides. I can clearly say that this dilemma makes me think of an alternative narrative method used by Joseph Conrad to encourage the reader to philosophize over the “facts” deeply. This “enormous” power of Mr. Kurtz may  symbolise the deeper meaning beneath the word; Europeans’ imperial acts to colonize more and more non-Western, non-Christian people.  Because, in another passage, we understand that all European point of view is the same with Kurtz’s. "All Europe  conributed to making of him.” Joseph Conrad, then, by using this power relationship throughout the novel seems to imply that this “work” will never end as long as  human nature and his characteristics continue to exist such as greed and underestimation of others, unless there is a radical change.

In another point, in relation with the previous paragraph, I do not agree with Edward Said’s comment about Marlow who “misstates” the situation in the land. We talked in our sessions, too, that they fire “into a continent” meaninglessly, but not to a specific person or people. We see Marlow’s friendly attitude towards natives from the beginning of the novel. For instance, he shares the biscuit in his pocket with the native man and feels sorry for him. In another passage, he directly says that: " It was unearthly, and the men were- No, they were not inhuman. What thrills you is just the thought of their humanity, just like yours." Thus,  I think Marlow remains  objective and realistic in his narration of natives, because he self-consciously  does not draw an “imaginary”, non-existent land   in contrast to Edward Said’s view.

In Edward Said’s article, another interesting passage including the other “part”: Iranian intellectuals and their interpretation of colonialism in the  statement “ The West is an enemy, a disease, an evil.” strikes my mind. In return, just as Marlow or Mr. Kurtz does in “ The Heart of Darkness” , they depict  a “black” man who journeys to a white ragion. In order to compare or contrast, this narrative voice should also be analysed in a different manner.   

Edward Said concludes his essay by adding the view of  most post-colonial writers about the past, their seeing it as a scar which certainly have effects on their future. He comes to conclude that- and I sincerely agree with-  those people have been misrepresented throughout the ages and their intellectual powers or capacities to write and read have been underestimated, with several examples of Rushdie, Derek Walcott or Aime Cesaire etc.