Emna Karray

The extract under examination is taken from the second section in J. M.

Coetzees novel Foe. Susan Barton takes Friday to England, in hopes of meeting Mr.
Foe and having her story written. At this level of the narrative, she displays
enthusiasm and determination to bring Friday back to the world of words. She ends
up, later, questioning the very motives of her desire to help him. The excerpt lays
bare the deceptive nature of the language that constructs the colonial discourse. It
also seeks to cast doubt on the legitimacy and credibility of storytelling. The latter
feeds upon the writers capacity to fictionalize both events and characters. When
Susan Barton comes to encounter Mr. Foe, she becomes no longer the owner of her
story for it is he now who has better knowledge of language. The aim of my essay is
twofold: first to bring to light the power of language in constructing an ambiguous
colonial discourse and then to unveil its role in storytelling by focusing on some
metafictional instances in the text.

Much of the intricacy of the colonial discourse lies in the subtle and
manipulative nature of the language that constructs it. Earlier in the novel Susan
Barton wonders about Crusos choice to teach Friday only few words. She asks him
What benefit is there in a life of silence ? but her question remains unanswered
throughout the whole novel. Barton may succeed at the beginning in deceiving the
reader into believing that she is truly concerned about Fridays muteness. Upon
second thought, however, one comes to the realization that hers are false
pretensions. In her attempt to help Friday return to the world of words, she ends up
reproducing the same master/servant paradigm that used to characterize Crusos
relationship with Friday. In the previous section of the book, Susan informs us that
Watch and Do are the two only words that Friday needs to know. It is no surprise
that these very words are ones that establish a hierarchical relation between herself
and Friday, one that relegates him to the position of the subservient slave and
bestows upon her the capacity to assume full authority over him. Susan forces
Friday, in a manner that is reminiscent of Crusos behavior, into a life of servitude and
arduous tasks which she deems as useful to him. One can only be skeptical about
her claim that she only means to educate him out of darkness and silence, even


before she herself starts questioning her real motives. Susan endorses the colonial
discourse that tends to betray its complicity in the same moment as it endeavors to
justify its aims and present them as noble and innocent ones. This is what Mary
Louise Pratt terms anti-conquest, a concept that is pretty well illustrated in Defoes
Robinson Crusoe and challenged in Coetzees Foe. This tendency to soften or
romanticize the colonial encounter is central to our understanding of Susans
seemingly ambivalent attitude towards Friday. By pretending to be concerned about
Fridays well-being, Susan seeks to promote an image of herself as the benevolent
Englishwoman who yearns to give voice to the voiceless. Her relationship with
Friday, which this very extract reveals as predicated basically upon instructions and
commands, open our eyes to the colonial impulse that lurks beneath her words and
acts. Her behavior stems from a deep-seated belief in the superiority of the white
man whose job is to enlighten the benighted and bring civilization to them. Susan
Bartons apparent oscillation between sympathy for Friday and her exploitation of him
uncovers her adherence to the so-called White Mans Burden. The latter is heavily
contingent on the manipulation of language, one that can go so far as to make a
whole colonial project seem like a noble endeavor to succor those who need help.
The passage under study works to unveil the ambiguity that characterizes the
language of colonial discourse.

Susans attempt to teach Friday language, which may be taken at a surface
level as an expression of her desire to give voice to the voiceless, bespeaks her
intention to appropriate Fridays voice and merge it with hers. In a subsequent
section, Susan tells Foe that Friday has no command of words and therefore no
defence against being re-shaped day by day in conformity with the desires of others
what he is to the world is what I make of him. Friday, here, is reduced to a mere
construct, a product of Susans capacity to create and recreate. Coetzee makes a
point of showing how Friday, who is but an example in a whole gallery of colonial
subjects, ends up being usurped of his identity by those who feign concern about him
and try to speak on his behalf. In fact, the idea of speaking for the other as opposed
to speaking for oneself is one of the major issues that the novel explores. Susan
hopes to have her story told truthfully. Her desire, however, is never fulfilled as Foe is
intent on reshaping her narrative. The threat of having her own story transformed by


Foe puts her on an equal footing with Friday whom, she wants to acquiesce to her.
There are times when benevolence deserts me and I use words only as the shortest
way to subject him to my will. Both Susan and Friday share this inability to tell their
own stories. Being a victim of Foes oppression, Susan cherishes a wish to bring
Friday back to the world of words. This emanates from her awareness that it is
Fridays muteness and lack of language that perpetuate his slavery. This awareness
comes to the surface when she says, addressing Friday, Mr Foe has not met you,
but he knows of you, from what I have told him, using words. That is part of the magic
of words. Through the medium of words I have given Mr Foe the particulars of you
and Mr Crusoe and of my year on the island and the years you and Mr Crusoe spent
alone, as far as I can supply them; and all these particulars Mr Foe is weaving into a
story Susans statement establishes a hierarchy of authorial autonomy whereby
Foe, the God-like author, occupies the highest position, Susan Barton is situated in
the middle, and Friday is relegated to the lowest position due to his speechlessness.
It is this very idea of stratification, or hierarchy of discourses, to use Catherine
Belseys words, that the novel brings to light and challenges. Coetzees Foe not only
draws attention to the silences and gaps in stories, Daniel Defoes Robinson Crusoe
in particular, but also posits the condition for the filling of those gaps which is letting
all the Fridays of the world speak for themselves instead of speaking for them, since
the only tongue that can tell Fridays secret is the tongue he has lost !

To sum up, I have attempted in my essay to elaborate on the relationship
between language and authority. My aim is to show how power and control are
achieved through language and how any form of authority feeds on the manipulation
of this language, that is purposefully made ambiguous and misleading. The colonial
discourse strikingly illustrates the capacity of language to conceal and even alter the
nature of the very message it delivers. Likewise, what we take as an incontestable
reality in the so-called realistic novels is but the outcome of a series of
transformations done by the author, in the process of writing his/her book. Bottom
line, power is inextricably linked to the manipulation of language. Those who have
more knowledge of language and display a better ability to (ab)use it are the ones
who are likely to hold authority and make the Other yield to their will.