Structuralism and Semiotics

For my literary lense, I was assigned Structuralism and Semiotics. Structuralists try to find the thought processes behind the written work, by examining the language itself that is used within the text. Structuralists believe language permeates all facets of modern society and culture and they try to break it down and see what knowledge base is necessary to understand the text.
In the previous night's reading, probably the most fascinating thing to look at through this lense is Adah. Adah's writing is sometimes quite literally backwards: "Emulp Der Eno" (185)., "Nevaeh Ni Seilf Fo Foorp Wen .Rehctacylf Esidarap" (137). Sometimes her writing isn't backwards with letters but just with words: "Walk to Learn. I and Path. Long one is Congo" (135). Adah loves all things symetrical with writing. She does not speak out loud, so writing is her voice and she loves symmetry and poetry in her writing. She even calls herself Ada because it is a proper palindrome. The perspective of this text is certainly one of a mind, inhibited by a rare disease.
      Another interesting part of the reading from last night through this lens is Nathan Price's actions. He himself claims to do the work of God, but on multiple occassions, he strikes his own family. To understand his actions, we must understand the mind of a white southern baptist as well as the stress of being in a foreign country with failures in conversion piling up. Nathan continues to be self-righteous and fraud, and appears one major crisis away from insanity. His stubborness goes against some of the Christian teachings as certainly does his lower view of the African people.

Heart of Darkness v. Apocalypse Now

One of the most striking things I noticed in Apocalypse Now was the way the natives were portrayed. They seem to function as one mindless organism, like bees with Kurtz as their queen.
When the gunboat arrives at Kurtz's dock there are dozens of small fishing boats between the dock and the water that the gunboat is currently occupying. As the gunboat approaches, the natives all give the boat the same blank stare and slowly part just long enough for the boat to get through; after the boat proceeds, the natives slowly reassume their original position, thus swallowing the boat.
When Willard exits after assassinating Kurtz, the natives again act in unison, this time bowing down to the one who has destroyed their queen. As he walks back to the boat the natives part slightly with ominous stares and swallow him up in the same manner as earlier.
This decision by the director is quite curious considering in Heart of Darkness the natives were described by parts: arms, legs, eyes. But never as a single organism, always as individuals. One theory suggests that the natives in Apocalypse Now are a symbol for the communist society of Vietnam. I must admit, there is some merit in this theory. The natives always act in unison, they are purely equal and there is a hidden authority who pulls the strings on them. Communism itself can be seen as similar to a bee hive or an ant hill. There is a central authority and eqial workers and together the unit provides for everyone.
This decision was clearly a deliberate one, and on film it is quite powerful visually.

Group Difficulties HOD

Why does a sailor tell Marlow to "try to be civil" on page 106? I understand that the interruption is to draw attention to the fact that Conrad is behind two narrators, but in the context of the conversation I don't think anything Marlow says is particularly vulgar especially when compared to the other things he has said earlier in the book.

Heart of Darkness Quote

"For there is nothing mysterious to the seaman unless it be the sea itself, which is the mistress of his existence and as inscrutable as Destiny" (68).
I found this quote to be quite interesting. It is very ironic that the sailors, who spend much time around the sea, see the sea as the one true mystery. The author also shows how familiar things can still be mysterious, with his comparison of destiny. Everyone is familiar with the idea of destiny, but who really understands it completely. All the different faiths still leave questions unanswered. Also the reference to the sea being the "mistress" of  a sailor's existence is quite apt. For sailor's spend months out on the waters gazing out upon the sea. This paradox of familiarity juxtaposed with the unknown is very interesting and well-written. It is safe to assume we will be presented with many more paradoxes and perhaps different settings for the one above.

The Very Tardy Chapter One Analysis Post

      This chapter is primarily focused on the early life of Lord Stanley and also the motives for early European imperialism. The start of the chapter focuses on Lord Stanley's upbringing and establishes Hochschild's pattern of psychohistory, which we see much of in the later book. Hochschild notes that Lord Stanley was a bastard by the name of John Rowlands. He went from family to family until finally he ended up in a workhouse. It was here that he developed the fear of intimacy that would follow him for the duration of his life.
      When Stanley grew up he traveled and gained experience on boats. After briefly being involved in the American Civil War he become a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald. Afterwards he became an African explorer. A common theme in Stanley's life is lies. Time and time again he fabricated events to make himself appear more heroic than he actually was. In all of his books there are preposterous exaggerations, even of his early childhood. He claimed he escaped from the workhouse by leading a revolt, but there is no record of such events. Clearly something in Stanley yearned to be remembered in a positive light and it can most likely be traced to his childhood where time and time again he was abandoned and most likely told he was worth nothing.
     The next section of the chapter talks about the drive for imperialism. Hochschild talks about a few specific factors that led to imperialism and the justifications used. A huge factor for imperialism was the hope of raw materials, to feed the growing industrial empires of Europe. To justify this Europeans used Christianity, claims of bringing civilization and claims that they were fighting off Arab slave traders.
      The final section details Stanley's 1871 trip to Africa. Stanley took 190 people into Africa and after 8 months found Dr. Livingstone. During his trip he overworked many of his men horrifically and laid the foundation for future expeditions.

Discussion Questions
1. Why does Hochschild use the psychohistory format? Do only messed-up people commit horrendous crimes? Does early childhood trauma explain the actions of villains?
2. Stanley called Africa "unpeopled country" what led him and other Europeans to reach this conclusion?
3.Why did Stanley lie so much about his accomplishments?
4. How do you think Stanley's earlier experiences in America, the workhouse and as a correspondent helped him to become an African explorer of great esteem at the time?
5. Why did people revere Stanley at the Time?

Quiz Questions
1. What is the significance of the title "I shall not give up the chase"?
2. Name two or more justifications for imperialism during this time frame.
3. Why did Stanley have a fear of intimacy?
4. What was the purpose of Stanley's first expedition into Africa?
5. How did Stanley get ahead of his competition?

Psychohistory (KLG)

      It is not surprising that King Leopold was an insane megalomaniac. In order to oversee the atrocities that he did and not bat an eye, it takes a truly twisted and damaged person. The thing that is really terrifying is the ordinary people who went to Africa and commit these terrible acts. It really is similar in its own way to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Reading about ordinary people made me think, would I have been able to be different and protest the atrocities in Africa had I been sent there. The answer to that question lies in education. The purpose, I believe, of an education is to teach people to think for themselves. If I have learned enough in school about my personal humanitarian beliefs and have learned to defend those beliefs than I have received a proper education and I will not engage in actions that conflict with my morals.
Another interesting topic that came to mind when faced with this question is how much of what our government does today would we be not okay with when it was out in the open? We generally like to believe the best in our government because the actions happening are so far away from us actually making the decisions or seeing the people affected by the decisions. I believe something similar happened with the Belgian people. When faced with a horrifying truth that was so far away, it was easier to believe in the stuff right in front of them in Belgium.

On Conquest and Brutality

Why is brutality a necessary part of conquest? Brutality and conquest seemingly go hand in hand when one looks back on the civilizations of old. The definition of conquering listed by Merriam-Webster is "to gain or acquire by force of arms" They go hand in hand so much that sources rarely talk about the why. In Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others by David Day the only discussion I found about brutality revolved around how societies justify brutality, not why they engage in it in the first place. Then again doesn't justification provide some instance for why the acts were committed? Either way Day listed several ways of justification: Religious, (spreading the faith) moral (our society is the best and we need to show the barbarians how to behave) and Hitler famously said the only justification he needed was the blood of his enemies (Day 94).
      These reasons provide a bit of insight into the psyche of why brutality is a part of conquest. Most every conqueror didn't have a problem with brutality. and from the justifications given, it is fair to say that most conquerors thought of their opponents as lesser in some way. This condescending attitude I believe is the root of brutality. When you consider the american slave experience such as in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison, the prevailing attitude among the Whites committing acts of brutality is that these people are worth less than their own lives; they do not view them as equals. Once that mental barrier is down humans are capable of horrific brutality. But just because someone is capable of brutality doesn't mean they will commit it, so why is brutality committed in conquering?
       From the dawn of time, wars have always been ugly, and one could argue that war has evolved to favor the brutal.  In early primitive wars, wouldn't a society that was more brutal and willing to destroy the will of the enemy be much more likely to survive? If we look at the history of American Wars as well we find that the further along we go, the more brutal warfare becomes. For example in the American Revolution, the US army engaged in guerilla warfare and broke many of the established rules of war such as firing upon officers, attacking the day after Christmas. This willingness to temporary suspend morals definitely contributed to the American victory. Move forward 4 score and seven years and in the civil war and Union General William Sherman is leading his infamous march to the sea. Sherman burned down farms in the south and stole food from civilians. Sherman argued that the war was against the people supporting the enemy as well. Now skip ahead to World War 2 where the allies bombed Hamburg, Germany and killed at the very least 40,000 civilians. Lest we forget the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forever are shrouded in controversy. Then we move forward in time and still we haven't changed dropping napalm on Vietnamese innocents and ordering drone strikes in the Middle East which hit civilians.
       The societies that are around and about, are those who have succeeded in warfare and the current world we live in dictates that to win a war you must be brutal. That is why conquest and brutality go hand in hand, because people value victory at all costs; even their own morals.