"For the sick!"

Kayerts and Carlier are perfect examples of the power socialization has over humans. Everything that makes up their personality, morals, attitudes and tastes are directed by British society. When separated and isolated from everything they are, they lose their humanity. They have seeming little control over the camp that they oversee, this task being the last remnant of the civilization that they so desperately need. When they lose their men and the power they think they have over Makola their slow descent into madness makes them shells of people. Their horribly uncultured diet of sugarless coffee and saltless rice are a physical marker of their fall and their discussions of fictitious heroes are a mental one. The last hope of progress and civilization and the virtue that comes with the steamer seems to fade as they spend more time in the foreign land where their culture is not valued. It was not madness that killed these men but the diminishing sense of personhood that is only fed with the uncaring hand of socialization.

Conrad's "An Outpost of Progress" has Kayerts and Carlier coming from an English society that repressed any freedoms they might have. Coming from a society that banned "all independent though, all initiative, all depature from routine," the two men suddenly found themselves in the Congo jungle where no such rules or limits existed. The madness that takes over the two men only reflects the society they are meant to represent, and show how such oppressive societal structures are harmful. Neither have expansive imaginations or sense of individualism, a result from the narrow structure of society that only allowed them to be courageous within a crowd. Void of any values individually, the two men slowly start to deteriorate without the rigidity of society to prop them up.

This is a statement attesting to how dangerous such societies can be. An indidivual may be obliviously content in the structured world, but once thrown into the wild, the consequences of previously living in a narrow society become evident, such as with Kayerts and Carlier. Their failures are a reflection of the "progressive" society they are meant to represent, presenting a true face of consequences that resulted once the veil of society had been undone. Kayerts realizes this at the end, refusing to return and crucifying himself in defiance.

Case in Point.

On Monday, we discussed the structure of the short novel, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. My group specifically discussed the choice to name the novel "The Strange CASE" in the context of a British mystery novel. The idea that it is set up as a case-study invites readers into a suspension of reality. It makes the novel seem more realistic within a time period where industrialism and reality were so pervasive in society. During the Victorian era it seems as though there were two types of novels- ones based in reality and ones based in a fairy world (i.e. Importance of Being Ernest vs. Alice in Wonderland). Within The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson brings these two worlds together. By having an outside narrator, readers view the novel through a lens of unknowing. There is "evidence" such as letters throughout the book, but readers are kept in the dark for the most part throughout the novel.

I feel as though the novel also comments on the Victorian era itself. Dr. Jekyll is absorbed in separating these two halves of himself.  He is so concerned with becoming a perfect version of himself that he creates Mr. Hyde as a cover for his own imperfections. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are separate individuals, despite being literally the same person. Within the Victorian era, Industrialization was prominent. The idea that there were new, bigger, better ways of doing things was prominent. However, ideals and values can become disturbed by this quest for power. In the same way, Dr. Jekyll's ultimate demise was trying to create a "better" version of himself by fully separating himself from Mr. Hyde.

An Outpost Lacking in Morality

I feel as if An Outpost of Progress represents the mentality most people in Britain who were agents of Imperialism have about British Imperialism in Africa as well as Slavery in general.  After having their workers sold into slavery, the remaining three at the outpost sat that "slavery is a horrible thing."  They take a hollow moral stance against it, even though it was one of them who sold their workers in the first place.  It is as if as long as it is not happening by their hand, it can just be overlooked.  It does not matter that they have trampled on the lives of their fellow man.  What matters in the end is that the company has prospered.  In the story, the company gains the quality ivory in exchange for their workers.  Although the three who remain claim that slavery is wrong, they do nothing about it aside from sit around and be angry about it.  Their inaction does not make them any less guilty, even if action would be futile.

I think this sort of "say one thing and do another" attitude represents British Imperialism fairly well.  They are supposedly spreading civilization as well as claiming new territory for the empire.  However, they consistently neglect to care about the peoples they trample over and established civilizations they have to crush to achieve this goal.  They may take a false high ground and speak out against slavery and other atrocities, but at the same time, what they're doing isn't really better. 

Joseph Conrad and Imperialism

For this post I wanted to go into detail on how I feel that Joseph Conrad wrote “An Outpost of Progress” as a way to call out the British government on what he saw as the mishandling of their colonies. I think that the two white characters represent the British agents and how more often than not they were clueless about running and managing far flung colonies. Conrad in his younger years was a sailor for both the French and British Merchant navies and in both instances traveled to the far east and when he was in the British Merchant Navy he spent some time working on a river boat in Africa.

                I think that Conrad also used Kayerts and Carlier to show how tenuous the connection between ruler and the ruled really were. The white men wielded all of the “power” for two reasons, the first being the supplies coming from other parts of the empire and the second was the fact that the natives believed them to be powerful. I think that Conrad made this connection thin to display how on the outside things may seem to be in order but when the rulers are far from home and have a support system nearly wholly dependent on the ruled it would not take very much to completely upend everything and have the whole endeavor end in disaster.

Your other side comes out when there is no control.

The theory has been presented of Hyde being the person that Dr. Jeckyll wants to be, and while analyizing the story the idea becomes relatable. Dr. Jeckyll has no control over his actions once he loses control and Mr. Hyde takes over. A situation many can relate to would be the nights we attend "epic parties" and have a little to much to drink. Usually the result is committing actions we would not normally do, causing a sense of embarrassment.  Although they are at times embarrassing to us, but individuals may not see them as embarrassing because they are normal actions they do. We only see them embarrassing because we do not normally act in that manner, another side of us-- typically a side we want to be more like-- comes out when we have no control. Some times the side is a negative side and this usually happens with pint up anger, which may have been the case for Mr. Hyde, yes we know he was not drunk but this could be seen as the same type of side affect. Maybe Mr. Hyde was too nice causing frustration that had negative actions when control was lost.

Hidden Hyde

I must admit that when I first read "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," I interpreted the text in the most obvious ways I could. I just thought that the personalities were simply representing mental illness such as bipolarism or disassociate identity disorder, creating the archetype that would go on to inspire several famous characters such as the Hulk, Harvey Two-Face, and the alleged case of Sybil. While this is the true case about the archetype, our class discussion on Monday made me look a little deeper into the themes. Jekyll is clearly repressed and needs to escape from his repressed Victorian lifestyle of propriety and etiquette. He turns to a potion that makes him feel younger, energetic, and yet cruel and without remorse or thought of consequence. To me, this seemed like a metaphor for alcoholism. An addiction that someone disappears into to lower inhibitions and forget about their life and eventually they become consumed by the power of it and suffer horrible withdrawal without it. I never would have ever looked at this text and assumed it was about sexual politics, but now I guess I can point out the constant struggle between the id (Hyde) and Jekyll (the ego) as they battle with their desires and need to be apart of society.

The Laws of the Sea

Joseph Conrad is a fascinating writer because he personally spent a decade of his life at sea. He worked a variety of positions on board ships for both the French and the British merchant navy, eventually being promoted to captain late in his career. All of his novels and short stories deal with the sea in one way or another with Conrad writing from experience and elaborating on situations and individuals he met during his time aboard ships. Typically in Conrad novels, the narrator is a cabin-boy or a sailor who holds a minimal position aboard the ship. What is interesting about The Secret Sharer is that it is narrated by a captain. However, this captain has not yet earned the respect of his crew, which means that he is unsure of their moral standings and must be careful of his decisions so that he earns their trust and, most importantly, respect.
When Leggatt comes aboard and the captain stows him away in his own cabin, the narrator is taking a tremendous risk. From what Leggatt tells him, the stowaway is a murderer and a criminal. I find it interesting that the captain sympathizes with Leggatt and aids in his escape. The narrator is just as much a stranger as Leggatt and that is why he feels it is his duty to protect him and see that he makes it to land alive. Maritime laws and customs differ between each ship and crew and the captain chooses to blindly trust this stranger because he himself desires the blind trust of his crew.

Fee Fi Fo Jekyll and Hyde.

In reading Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, there is quite obviously a resounding question: what lies in the core of man, good or evil? The novella's prominent theme of dichotomy seems to answer this question in more ways than one and said answer is a long winded and deeply penetrating one: both. Since Hyde's animalistic nature comes from the very core of Jekyll himself, it could be said that one cannot survive without the other. Hyde would render himself vulnerable by not allowing Jekyll to cover his tracks, while Jekyll is seemingly trapped in his addiction to the potion and Hyde's unhinged and carnal tendencies. What popped out to me that we didn't really point out in the class is the designation of the character's names. Stevenson evokes the connection between Jekyll and Hyde by naming them each for what they don't stand for and yet what resides in the center of them both. Jekyll, alarmingly close to the word jackal is a glimpse into the animalistic core of the doctor, the one that he cannot escape and yet everything that he tries not to be when he is in control of himself. Hyde on the other hand is phonetically the same as the word hide, which is something that Hyde's character can never do, as well as what Jekyll tries to do with him. These names seem to be no accident and serve to strengthen the ties between the two parts of the same man, rendering them as a physical manifestation of the Yin Yang concept. Jekyll's character has always had that little piece of Hyde in the depths of his persona, while Hyde cannot survive without Jekyll's careful maneuvering in regards to economics and law.

Strange Case of Kayerts and Carlier

Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Conrad’s An Outpost of Progress both seem to have themes of personal deterioration. Not only does health and morality deteriorate in these stories, but as good things fail and shrink, evil and disease grow in response. Dr. Jekyll’s health fails as Mr. Hyde’s wickedness begins to take over his body. This slow descent into death is spurred on by Hyde’s complete lack of morality and adherence to carnal desires regardless of consequences. In a similar way, Kayerts and Carlier become plagued by diseases as their trades in Africa become greedier and more corrupt. Their cooperation in the slave trade draws them down into their eventual madness and doom at their own hands. Before Kayerts kills Carlier, both men become as violent and wild as Hyde is described. I found it interesting that both Stevenson and Conrad link moral degradation with mental and physical degeneration in surprisingly similar ways.

Conrad, Progress, and Irony

"An Outpost of Progress" by Joseph Conrad is by far the most ironic story of the semester. The main characters Kayerts and Carlier are sent to Africa from a "civilized" society in order to bring progress to the countries trading business. And yet as the story goes on, they become less and less civilized in the face of fear. As they eventually end up having to ration their food, it seems like all of the mental structures that made them civilized slowly disappear into a more primitive state of mind. The irony lies in the fact that these two men were suppose to be progressing, but instead they succumb to the savagery that they looked down upon the entire story. This undoubtedly has connections to the British Imperialism of the Victorian age, but more importantly I think Conrad in suggesting that no matter how civilized we become, we are all essentially primitive and no better than anyone else.