George Orwell's novels are, to me, a nice complement to academic study. They are usually sufficiently engaging, while framing dense issues such as colonialism, political power, socialism and consumption in Orwell's characteristic accessible writing style. Burmese Days, a novel that examines the tense intersections of political ideology, gender, and racism within the colonial context of Burma circa 193? is not really an exception, however it is not really an exemplary either. The text starts out quite strong with a focused plot, drags outward parallelly and then abruptly reintegrates in the concluding few chapters, to form what I think of as a literary diamond. I suppose one could ask for little more from a text, some mystery and suspense, solid character development for the most part, fairly descriptive setting and a surprise ending to top it off. It is perhaps my straining for argumentative coherency that left me wanting a little more at the end.
Orwell treats the issue of the colonial experience from both colonizer and colonized points of view, if more heavily that of the former, and uses the medium of the novel to critique the colonial project. Throughout his text, he virulently condemns the binary segregation of 'native' and 'european', exemplified in the code of the pukka sahib. Orwell attacks the blatant racism of his historical context, (indeed at times expounding a cultural relativist position), but of course does so in a way that still appears racist to any contemporary reader. He argues, I think, above all, for a more direct and meaningful, if partially exoticized, interaction between residents within the Kyauktada district that the novel is set. Notably, he rejects nationalism and outright self-determination of the British colonies, presumably in favor of this more "humane" colonialism.
Like all Orientalists, Orwell attempts to create a narrative that is clearly more reflective of his own personal experiences - and tensions - than a sincere and thoughtful portrayal of Burma, without making it clear which point of view he is speaking from. Indeed, I think it is pretty evident that the main character, Flory, is meant to be a representation of Orwell himself [there is even a reference to 'shooting an elephant' in the text], and this ambivalent tension in Flory runs throughout the entire text.
Thus, because this text is so frought with contradictions, its reader is too. Is Burmese Days an outright rejection, a reformist tract, or a cautious apology for colonialism? Is it a rejection of racism, a half-hearted or incomplete rejection, or really just a qualitatively different way of perpetuating racism? Is it a critique of dominant European gender roles, or a patriarchal assertion of women's subordinate position? Most certainly, it is all of these, and textual references can be found to support all of these (and many more) positions which seem so contradictory. Orwell himself, as a cultural product of British Imperialism, reflects these tensions in the writing of Burmese Days. Indeed, while this book is still well-written, these tensions extend themselves out even to the writing style, making Burmese Days an interesting, if uneven, novel to read.
2 comments:
This is a really cool blog. I'm currently surfing around trying to find more current critical analysis on Burmese Days, what with the goings on there of late. While I can't use anything you've written, I think some of your questions are very interesting. I'm an MA English student writing a term paper on gender hierarchies in A Passage to India and Burmese Days and it's kind of difficult to find current writing on Burmese Days.
To answer one of your questions, my argument leans toward gendered colonialization within the European hierarchies. What I mean is, that while many have argued that the mamsahibs in Burmese Days are naturally manipulative and wrong-headed, I'm stating that it is because these women are possessions of the colonial men, thus colonializing the women as well as the natives. They aren't allowed far from home, and certainly aren't allowed to associate with either sex in the native population. Even though, in Burma there isn't purdah, what with the lack of muslims, the British women are still not permitted to go on visits or even spend enough time away from home to learn the local language. Even though Elizabeth has more choices about what she does because she's not married, she is still forced into memsahib-dom because of A: the way she was brought up, and B: because her dastardly uncle keeps trying to rape her.
Anyway, keep up the sharing. It's sort of exciting.
I like your reading of the novel: it certainly applies a much more nuanced and textured approach than the alternative argument you mention.
But I wonder if what we see in the text are the intricacies of the interactions between the colonial process and its ideologies, and dominant British gender roles at play in Burmese Days, rather than simply one or the other. I think it is safe to say that the way white colonial society is represented in the novel is not a faithful reproduction or transplantation of European gender hierarchies of the time period, but I would also caution that we can't apply the same logic of colonialism to the character of Elizabeth entirely.
There is some intermingling between the two that produces the peculiarities (and contradictions?) that one finds in the text. For example, the status distinctions between European and Asian born, between male and female gender roles, between 'us' and 'them' racial attitudes, between 'civilization' and 'barbarism' and the muddy space in between, all suggest an uneven integration of diverse ideological strands.
Interested as I am in "new historicist" approaches, I would wonder to what extent is Orwell conscious of my reading of Burmese Days, or if what I see in the text merely unconsciously reflects his own contradictory experience as a colonial functionary?
Your comments did a great job in rekindling my interest in Orwell! Thanks, and please continue to post!
Post a Comment