Robinson Crusoe: Tabula Rasa
The text of Robinson Crusoe proves popular quite likely for its ability to be reinterpreted. This does not mean simply in terms of modernization (though certainly, Crusoe has brushed up into modern life). Rather, it is within its universality that it holds popularity: everyone can see something of their own theory within the text.
The ancient Greeks had a belief that the pursuit of happiness was inseparable from the pursuit of virtue. Kantian belief held that people could not help but recognize their own self-worth in terms of reality, should they choose to be introspective. Both of these beliefs can be seen within the text of Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe becomes an emblem (or is supposed to be, at least) of morality in his pursuit of what is deemed as necessities for happiness. His fort that separates him from the savages allows him to only interact in a destructive way if necessary, where had he been unprepared-- as he himself reflects-- he would have been forced to attack the natives in such a way as to destroy both their peace and his own, with a high price of lives. In the Kantian philosophy, Crusoe reflections on Providence-- littered throughout the text-- pose as a potential voice for Kantian philosophy.
Indeed, the critics over the years have used Robinson Crusoe as a way to sharpen their literary-theory-claws. Like Winnie the Pooh, Robinson Crusoe has been portrayed as an emblem of many different literary theories and philosophies. Crusoe has been a voice for deconstruction, colonialism, determism, fatalism, and a host of other -isms within the literary (and philosophy, psychology... et alia) worlds. Virginia Woolf read Crusoe's reflections as destroying the meaning of the nature around him, and indeed destroying the meaning of Death itself.
The medium with which Defoe is writing lends itself a great universality. Within the realm of scientific revolutions, philosopher-scientists such as Popper , believe that the more falsifiable a theory, the better its generality. What better, then, than humanity put up on a pedestal, with the spotlight directed at its front? By placing Crusoe on the island by himself, Defoe allows an examination of what is the purest human instinct. Many critics have argued that his portrayal of a man trapped on an island is irrealistic, but nevertheless, it allows for discussion of humanity as a whole by placing it in solitude, with no interaction to influence its movements; it is the perfect case study of human nature in this regard, untainted by social theory and practice, untainted by corruption of outside power (although Crusoe himself is arguably a corruption of power himself). Defoe's purpose was not only to create an emblem of morality, thus allowing arguments that his text proves didactic, but he also allows Robinson to "do as you will, make it the whole of your law"-- the base philosophy of the poet Alesteir Crowley. By allowing him to do as he willed, Defoe allowed an examination of man filled with temptation and emptied of social punishment. Any punishment that Robinson Crusoe suffers is a direct product of the material (and thus unavoidable) world. However, unlike the reading Virginia Woolf gave to the text (of a decidedly deconstructionist vein), in this way Robinson recreates social conventions to point out the oft-forgotten fact that certain social conventions have a specific purpose. For instance, Crusoe gives natural purposes for clothes, shelter, guns (arguable whether this has real necessity), agriculture, patience, forgiveness, et alia.
In this way, Robinson proved the necessity for social conventions, and arguably (for within the text, the social "Other" is still made slave) for humanitarian egality-- egality in the respect that Friday is not treated as a savage but as a friend and not necessarily as a slave but as a friend in need.
The ancient Greeks had a belief that the pursuit of happiness was inseparable from the pursuit of virtue. Kantian belief held that people could not help but recognize their own self-worth in terms of reality, should they choose to be introspective. Both of these beliefs can be seen within the text of Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe becomes an emblem (or is supposed to be, at least) of morality in his pursuit of what is deemed as necessities for happiness. His fort that separates him from the savages allows him to only interact in a destructive way if necessary, where had he been unprepared-- as he himself reflects-- he would have been forced to attack the natives in such a way as to destroy both their peace and his own, with a high price of lives. In the Kantian philosophy, Crusoe reflections on Providence-- littered throughout the text-- pose as a potential voice for Kantian philosophy.
Indeed, the critics over the years have used Robinson Crusoe as a way to sharpen their literary-theory-claws. Like Winnie the Pooh, Robinson Crusoe has been portrayed as an emblem of many different literary theories and philosophies. Crusoe has been a voice for deconstruction, colonialism, determism, fatalism, and a host of other -isms within the literary (and philosophy, psychology... et alia) worlds. Virginia Woolf read Crusoe's reflections as destroying the meaning of the nature around him, and indeed destroying the meaning of Death itself.
The medium with which Defoe is writing lends itself a great universality. Within the realm of scientific revolutions, philosopher-scientists such as Popper , believe that the more falsifiable a theory, the better its generality. What better, then, than humanity put up on a pedestal, with the spotlight directed at its front? By placing Crusoe on the island by himself, Defoe allows an examination of what is the purest human instinct. Many critics have argued that his portrayal of a man trapped on an island is irrealistic, but nevertheless, it allows for discussion of humanity as a whole by placing it in solitude, with no interaction to influence its movements; it is the perfect case study of human nature in this regard, untainted by social theory and practice, untainted by corruption of outside power (although Crusoe himself is arguably a corruption of power himself). Defoe's purpose was not only to create an emblem of morality, thus allowing arguments that his text proves didactic, but he also allows Robinson to "do as you will, make it the whole of your law"-- the base philosophy of the poet Alesteir Crowley. By allowing him to do as he willed, Defoe allowed an examination of man filled with temptation and emptied of social punishment. Any punishment that Robinson Crusoe suffers is a direct product of the material (and thus unavoidable) world. However, unlike the reading Virginia Woolf gave to the text (of a decidedly deconstructionist vein), in this way Robinson recreates social conventions to point out the oft-forgotten fact that certain social conventions have a specific purpose. For instance, Crusoe gives natural purposes for clothes, shelter, guns (arguable whether this has real necessity), agriculture, patience, forgiveness, et alia.
In this way, Robinson proved the necessity for social conventions, and arguably (for within the text, the social "Other" is still made slave) for humanitarian egality-- egality in the respect that Friday is not treated as a savage but as a friend and not necessarily as a slave but as a friend in need.
posted by Shannon | 11:35 AM
1 Comments:
Shannon, What would Defoe himself think of your analysis here, and the thinkers to whom you refer? Your fourth paragraph: would Defoe recognize these ideas? Is Crusoe some sort of "Everyman"?
I like what you say in that same paragraph about the pragmatic, material nature of the novel.
But I would question your final paragraph, if I am reading it correctly. Certainly Crusoe is not cruel to Friday, but does he really consider him an equal? No doubt we will discuss Defoe's treatment of Friday when we discuss Coetzee's novel and his Friday.
Dr. J.
Post a Comment
<< Home