One of the things that struck me about Disgrace was the extent to which Petrus and other black characters come to fill roles traditionally associated with imperialist archetypes, varying between pillaging marauders and the land-grabbing plantation owner. While the overall purpose of this reversal seems elusive, identifying it as one of the novel's central paradigms allows one to make other interesting connections between moments in the text. Specifically, I thought Petrus' treatment of the two sheep he slaughters for his party stood as a kind of inversion of David's developing attitude towards animals. David at first feels like a hypocrite in being kind to the animals he's about to help put down, but in the instance of the sheep he is somehow dissatisfied enough with Petrus' actions (or lack thereof) towards them that he takes it upon himself to let them graze at least. Petrus on the other hand seems mutely obstinate about keeping the sheep where he put them, as David finds them right back where they were after that, without a word from Petrus as to why he insists on leaving them there in particular.
This directly clashes with the reader's experience of David, as much of the novel consists of his attempts to explain (to himself and thus to the reader) his reasoning in treating the animals with compassion. The fact that this contrast is so obviously present in this moment, and that Petrus' behavior in many ways resembles the cultural practices of imperialism, seems to complicate the traditional master/slave paradigm at its core. It appears that Coetzee is suggesting that one does not merely inherit these roles out of a combination of culture and history, but rather that they are defined by (and in turn define) one's attitude towards internal experience, particularly regarding the unconscious (represented by the animals). Where David comes to at least attempt explanations of his behavior out of a will to reconcile himself, all the while changing the way he behaves (even if unconsciously), Petrus seems to be completely apathetic and almost mechanical about his impulse to keep the sheep away from the grass. Ultimately this establishes introspection as the prevailing value, because although it is uncertain whether self-reflection can actually bring about some kind of transcendent truth, it at least seems certain that to deny introspection is to doom oneself to reinforce historically accepted cultural institutions.
Zach, your point about the blacks resembling the imperialist archetypes I think really emphasizes the issues that many South Africans may have had with Disgrace. By removing the white authoritative figure - David - from his position of power and replacing him with Petrus - the new black land owner - Coetzee has pushed his readers into the uncomfortable position of 'seeing' what changes actually have to happen in order for true change to happen. I guess the question then becomes: Is David, through introspection, recognizing that change, even though he can't explain it? Or, Is David, through introspection, trying to take the sheep [his unconscious, as you call it] and place them where he thinks they need to be instead of recognizing that the sheep are not his, and, therefore, trying to hold onto his traditional role as master and avoid embracing the new land owners' desired placement of the sheep? Very intriguing argument you have presented.
ReplyDeleteZach, your ideas about power and introspection are very engaging. I was really interested in your thoughts on Petrus/David. I too, felt a deep seated sense of apathy exuded by Petrus toward the sheep and especially toward the rape and the confrontation between him and David in regards to his relation to Pollux. For me, this apathy, was more attributable to a sense of correction/justice that is not immedialty recognizable through a western lens. In fact the measures that Petrus spells out to David have a self assuredness that resist simplicity or indifference. Instead they seem to have a thread of establishment within them. The recourses of guardianship and marriage, though abrasive, do appear to be within the context of the area and its inhabitants. Though, I would assert, they may not be wholly logical they are attached to a tradition that makes us the foreign element and as a reader/native spawned from Western European models they come across as callous and barbaric.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the sheep you use and the conflict it causes David seems to touch upon this sense of transgression that has disparate meanings. It is one of many that Coetzee uses to illustrate the immensely difficult task of co-existence when culture and history are involved. David's reaction to the treatment of the sheep and his ultimate action of letting them graze is guided exclusively by what he sees as right/humane without ever considering the custom(s) that may predicate Petrus's handling of the animals. David acts in a very ethnocentric manner, not in his concern toward the animals, which is to some degree just, but in his decision-making that incorporates only his considerations and rationals. There is a despotic temperament, that I see, being changed by that inward glance you mentioned. Though to me David is beyond the reach of its renewal.
For me the most challenging and interesting part of the book were the repercussions that resulted from the assault. The means which each character sought as a rectification manifested the immense gulf that comes to divide people and cultures and that the deep and complex measures we undertake to forge forgiveness and understanding may never fully bridge that distance. Thank you Zach for such an interesting perspective that forced me to re-examine my own ideas about the text.
-Daniel Linton
Zach - I don't think I've thought very much about the reversal between David and Petrus, and so I found your post very interesting. It made me consider the party scene and the things Lucy said about it in the days leading to it in a new light. She keeps telling David that they need to go because it's an important day for Petrus. They dress up. They go bearing gifts. It seems to be the day when the new order is acknowledged. Petrus is now not only his own master, but his mastery extends even unto being acknowledged by the white people. Of course, he wants more - he wants Lucy's land, and with Lucy's land eventually comes even more than that.
ReplyDeleteI too have trouble parsing out all the implications of this reversal, but it is a significant moment in David's displacement. And it seems significant as well that in the midst of all this is this very moving scene about the sheep, which he chooses finally to eat at Petrus's party.
- Nina Ahn