Literary Theories at Work in Heart of Darkness

New historicism compliments critical race theory.  For example, in order to make sense of Heart of Darkness and Conrad’s use of derogatory descriptions of the native people of the Congo, a historical context is necessary.  Cedric Watts states in his essay, Achebe’s View of Conrad, that “the historical sense which was so keen in {Achebe’s} novels appears to have been forgotten (197).”  The implication being that the perspective of the author is crucial to interpreting the text.  Consistent with New Historicism, Watts states that “Conrad [was] influenced by the climate of prejudice of [his] times (208).”  The argument might be, therefore, that the prejudicial language that is part of Heart of Darkness exists because of the time period and the culture that Conrad was a part of.

Heart of Darkness was written at the height of the imperialistic fervor that had taken hold of England.  Queen Victoria ruled the country and the common view was that African lands were to be conquered, her resources acquired, and her people tamed.  To have an opposing view, which Conrad arguably did, was to be commended.

     If we consider the concept of differential racialization within the critical race theory, we would view the characterizations found in Heart of Darkness through the lens of that particular time period.  The descriptions that Conrad offers are consistent with the needs of white Europeans during the late 1800s.  What exactly were these needs?  How were the African people racialized?  These Africans were considered inferior by most of England, and Europe, for that matter.  They were in need of ‘civilizing.’  The native people were thought to be savages in need of taming.  They needed education and direction from whites.  They had no use for, or did not know how to use, ivory and other resources.  These were ideas that, according to most, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness opposed.
 

Deconstructive criticism and critical race theory can also be looked at together to gather meaning from a text.  Consider the way binary oppositions can be deconstructed to show not only the differences, but the commonalities within a text, between seemingly different characters, between apparently different texts.  Watts mentions the contrast between Western civilization and the African civilization (203) in Heart of Darkness.  Arguably, Western civilization is shown to be just as savage and base as they believe the Africans to be.  Their abuse of the native people, the implication that Kurtz participated in native ceremonies involving cannibalism, the attitudes of the people back home all show a lack of civility and immorality.

Another set of binary oppositions can be seen in Kurtz’s African mistress and his fiance back home.  Watts draws attention to this pair in his article entitled Achebe’s View of Conrad.  He contrasts them by describing the mistress as “the seductive darkness of the jungle” and the fiance as a “statuesque representative of noble idealism (200).”  Despite the physical contrasts, the similarities are solid.  Both stretch forth their arms in memory of Kurtz.  “Both are loyal” to Kurtz and “have charms…which have proved impotent (200).” Both of these women are shown grieving and are also described as tragic.  These similarities reveal how inaccurate it would be to categorize these women as true opposites, highlighting the fact that the common ground between the two cultures is greater than the disparity.

Work Cited
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Watts, Cedric. "'A Bloody Racist': About Achebe's View of Conrad." The Yearbook of English Studies 13 
                 (1983): 196. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
Achebe, Chinua. "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'" Massachusetts Review.     
                 18. 1977. Rpt. in Heart of Darkness, An Authoritative Text, background and Sources Criticism.   
                 1961. 3rd ed. Ed. Robert Kimbrough, London: W. W Norton and Co., 1988, pp. 251-261.