書寫失語主體:柯慈《敵人》中的賤斥與他者 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)Advisor. Chin-yuan Hu. Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic. Name. Chun-wei Peng. 102. 1. 28 January 2013.

(2) Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic. A Master Thesis Presented to Department of English,. National Chengchi University. In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. by Chun-wei Peng 28 January 2013.

(3) To My Mother. iii.

(4) Acknowledgement My heartfelt gratitude goes out to: Professor Chin-yuan Hu Professor Chien-chi Liu Professor Te-hsuan Yeh Professor Wen-lin Su My family and friends and My significant other, ichang. Thank you for your unfailing support.. iv.

(5) Table of Contents. Acknowledgements................................................................................................. iv Chinese Abstract..................................................................................................... vii English Abstract................................................................................................... .. Chapter One. ix. The Unfathomable Foe................................................................ 1 1. Introduction.................................................................. ... 1 Foe and Literature Review......................................... 3. 政治大. Contribution of the Thesis.......................................... 8. 立. 2. Theoretical Approaches.................................................. 11. ‧ 國. 學. Lacan: the Self and the Other..................................... 13. ‧. y. Kristeva: the Abject and the Semiotic........................ 14 3. Organization…………………………………………… 15. sit. Nat. n. al. er. The Aphasic Subjects…………………………………………... 19. io. Chapter Two. Bakhtin: Language Appropriation............................. 12. i n U. v. 1. Mapping Aphasia………………………………………. 20. Ch. engchi. 2. Aphasics in Foe………………………………………… 23 3. The Silent Slave and Bakhtin………………………….. 25 4. Friday’s Performances………………………………… 27 Chapter Three. Epistles and the Other.…………………………………………. 35 1. The Lacanian Subject………………………………….. 37 2. The Other as Language………………………………… 38 3. The Other as Desire/ Object a……………………......... 45. Chapter Four. In the Face of the Abject……………………………………….. 53. v.

(6) 1. Identifying the Abject…………………………………. 55 2. The Semiotic and the Symbolic……………………….. 59 3. The Two-sided Foe………………………………......... 61 Chapter Five. Subject and its Discontents…………………………………….. 69 1. From Section One to Section Three………………........ 70. 2. Section Four…………………………………………… 72 3. The Coetzeean Motifs…………………………………. 72 4. Epilogue……………………………………………….. 74 Works Cited............................................................................................................ 77. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. vi. i n U. v.

(7) 政治大 (J. M. Coetzee) (Foe 1987) 立. ‧ 國. 學. (Susan Barton). (Daniel Defoe). (Robinson Crusoe 1719). ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. (Aphasic Subjects). i n U. v. (Mikhail Bakhtin). (appropriation). (Friday) (Jacque Lacan). (the barred Subject). (the Other). (Epistles and the Other) (In the Face vii.

(8) of the Abject). (Julia Kristeva). (abjection). (the Semiotic). (semiotic disposition). 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. viii. i n U. v.

(9) Abstract The present thesis takes a close look at J. M. Coetzee’s novel Foe, a metafictional retelling of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Given the critical interests already attributed to the intertextuality of the two works, the current project seeks not to reinforce the relationship between the two, but to focus on Coetzee’s creation alone. The thesis, entitled “Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and. 政治大. the Symbolic,” addresses issues that concern the writing of the protagonist Susan. 立. Barton, together with the encounters throughout her literary journey. While the. ‧ 國. 學. “aphasia” ascribed to all characters functions as a metaphor that unifies all types of speech impediments, the term “foe” refers to whoever stands counter to Susan on her. ‧. way to deliverance.. y. Nat. sit. The organization of the thesis follows a series of theoretical approaches. n. al. er. io. centering on the relationship between language and subjectivity. Bakhtinian theory. i n U. v. introduced in the second chapter concerns a subject and its language appropriation,. Ch. engchi. providing an interpretation to Friday’s unusual performances. Meanwhile, Lacanian treatise given in Chapter Three discusses a subject essentially split in its dealings with the language of the Other, proposing a reading to the transformation in Susan’s narrative style and her unrelenting pursuit of the writer Mr. Foe. The fourth chapter then identifies Susan as a Kristevan deject, who finds her existence threatened in the face of Friday’s abject existence. The subject-abject dyad in turn helps determine the symbiosis between the symbolic language and the semiotic disposition in the final two sections of Foe.. ix.

(10) !. CHAPTER ONE THE UNFATHOMABLE FOE “Perhaps it is so that all languages are . . . foreign languages, alien to our animal being. But in a way that is, precisely, inarticulate, inarticulable.” Coetzee, Diary of a Bad Year 197. 立. 治政 Introduction 大. With a self-reflexiveness characteristic of every metafictional creation, J. M.. ‧ 國. 學. Coetzee’s Foe exudes richness in both thematic establishment and metaphysical. ‧. reflection. The involvement of two additional characters, Susan Barton and Mr. Foe, in the reimagination of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe displaces the master-slave. y. Nat. io. sit. dyad that dominates Defoe’s work, thereby transcending what “a large earthenware. er. pot”1 denotes and turning it into a highly self-conscious narrative. The thematic. al. n. v i n Cishwell summarized by inclination that pervades Foe the image shared between the engchi U opening and the concluding scenes, in which the narrator submerges into the sea:. “With a sigh, making barely a splash, I slipped overboard” (5, 155). For the narratorprotagonist Susan Barton, the dive is to mark the beginning of her journey that sends her adrift to an island, where she meets Cruso and Friday, the two characters prototypical of the master and the slave in Defoe’s work. Meanwhile, the unnamed. 1. According to Virginia Woolf, the earthen pot is the only theme in Robinson Crusoe, and it symbolizes the imperial and materialist stance of Defoe’s tale.. 1.

(11) ! narrator, whose act replicates Susan’s, appears in the last section2 and comes across something ungraspable for all the characters in their secular pursuits. Such an image, displayed at the junctures where each section unfurls, foreshadows the exploration for something other and unknown. The emphasis of such gesture would in part reflect the characters’ later expeditions. Foe’s philosophical preoccupation with language and representation finds manifestations in its subjects’ linguistic behavior, as each is faced with a complication that either obstructs or limits his/her command of sign and language. In fact, characters in Foe all suffer from a varying degree of aphasic symptoms3. While. 政治大. Friday’s mysterious performances indicate the signifying system that underpins his. 立. outward muteness, Susan’s central narrative simulates a philosophical quest for an. ‧ 國. 學. answer to the characters’ wretched situation. At the same time, Susan’s fixation on the unresponsive addressee Mr. Foe and the mute slave Friday manifests the. ‧. fundamental prerequisites for her position as a desiring subject. As a result, Foe calls. y. Nat. sit. for a reading that focuses on not merely the dynamics between the characters, but also. al. n. question.. er. io. the extent to which the narrative style reflects and corresponds to the subjects in. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. The present thesis focuses on two problematics crucial to the reading of J. M. Coetzee’s Foe, one being the aphasic manifestations seen respectively from Friday and Susan, while the other being the esoteric Section Four that serves as the end of the novel. Friday’s muteness and the progression of his series of performances would be most fittingly accounted for by Mikhail Bakhtin’s discourse on language appropriation. Whereas Jacques Lacan’s theorization on the Other as language and 2. In order to better distinguish the four segments that constitute Coetzee’s Foe from the five chapters that build up this thesis, the former are referred here as sections (i.e., Section One to Four), whereas the latter remain to be addressed as chapters.. 3. For a more detailed definition of aphasia, see Chapter Two: The Aphasic Subjects. 2.

(12) ! object a would not only elucidate Susan’s epistolary journey, but also indicate the last two sections as a double and alternative endings to Coetzee’s Foe. Meanwhile, to what is irreducible to the self-other dyad that permeates through the tale, Julia Kristeva’s assertion on the abject and the semiotic would eventually support a reading that would make sense of Susan’s paradoxical relation with Friday. Ultimately, the subject-abject relation between the protagonist and her slave is to serve as a parallel to the last two sections, whose symbiosis designates the mutuality between the symbolic and the semiotic.. Foe and Literature Review. 立. 政治大. Composed of four sections, with each following a different form of narration. ‧ 國. 學. from the narrator-protagonist, Foe tells the story of Susan Barton, who in her writing summons the writer Mr. Foe to be the remedy for her lack in the authorial voice.4 The. ‧. story begins at a point where Susan finds herself abandoned on a boat as a result of a. y. Nat. sit. ship mutiny shortly after the failed attempt to locate her missing daughter. Out of. n. al. er. io. exhaustion and desperation, she takes a leap for life and is washed up onto an island. i n U. v. that is uninhabited, except for her rescuers Friday and his master Cruso. Much unlike. Ch. engchi. their more literary counterparts, Coetzee’s Friday is dumb due to tongue mutilation, while Cruso is reluctant to keep a journal. Eager to have her story on the island documented, Susan assumes the role of an author. However, her way to deliverance is deterred by her fear of lacking in the writer’s art. Susan’s only hope, therefore, lies in 4. Each of the four major characters in Coetzee’s Foe faces a different issue that either impedes or denies his/her ability to express him/herself. Friday is deprived of the ability of speech because of his tongue mutilation; Susan cannot properly represent herself owing to a lack of belief in her own account; meanwhile, Cruso’s refusal to document his experiences and his absorption in physical labor keeps him silent most of the time, and Foe’s absence on the scene in the early half of the tale greatly diminishes his authorial influences in the greater part of the novel. As the story later demonstrates, for characters like Friday and Susan, this lack is to propel them to perform deeds that further disclose the workings of language and representation.. 3.

(13) ! the writer Mr. Foe, whom she regards as capable of polishing her story. As the first two sections introduce the cumulation of Susan’s writings to the writer, the narrative style gradually develops and takes on different forms.5 Composed of a series of notes intended for the eyes of the writer Foe, Section One documents the three characters’ interactions on the island, where Susan witnesses curious acts performed by Friday. The first section concludes with their rescue and Cruso’s death en route to England. In the following section, while Susan and Friday wait at Mr. Foe’s adobe for the writer’s return, the narrative form gradually moves from journal entries to letters. Meanwhile, Friday exhibits another self-absorbing act, during which. 政治大. he dances and plays the flute while dressed in Mr. Foe’s robe. The series of. 立. performances from the otherwise dumb character arouse in Susan a curiosity for. ‧ 國. 學. further exploration; in no time, Friday’s secrecy becomes the one mystery she seeks to solve. When the protagonist finally meets Mr. Foe in Section Three, her writing. ‧. assumes a narrative style similar to a novel. The discussion over writing and. y. Nat. sit. storytelling between Susan and Mr. Foe makes the section a contemplation upon. n. al. er. io. language and representation; meanwhile, it adds to the narrative a hitherto unseen. i n U. v. self-reflexivity that helps examine the symbolic acts thus performed by such aphasic. Ch. engchi. subjects as Friday and Susan. Section Three ends with Susan and Foe’s joint consent to teach Friday how to write, in the hope of extracting stories from him. The final section sets itself apart from previous sections with the advance of an unknown narrator. In order to hear from Friday, the mystic narrator first explores the writer Foe’s house, which is now in ruins, and hears from Friday the sound of the island. Then, with a plunge into the sea, the narrator again finds Friday in the wreckage of a sunken boat, and from his mouth flows out a stream, washing over the island and then 5. The significance of Susan’s transforming narrative, changing from notes (Section One) to diary entries, to epistles (Section Two) and finally to realistic narrative (Section Three), will be further discussed in Chapter Three: Epistles and the Other. 4.

(14) ! the earth. Sharing the same opening line, the last two sections offer alternative endings to Coetzee’s Foe. Insomuch as they suggest a double choice between one and the other, the two sections might as well be treated as a collective unit that draws attention to the linguistic phenomenon between the symbolic and the semiotic. Rich in style and complex in thematic exploration, Coetzee’s Foe continues to evoke discussions over readings that range from historical, (post)colonial, poststructural to feminist perspectives. Normally the most commonly debated issue about Coetzee is whether the work is a direct comment on South Africa or an allegory for the more general human conditions. However, Foe evokes little historical reading as it. 政治大. is short of direct reference to South Africa. In fact, safe for the colonial feature. 立. bequeathed by Defoe’s literary model, Foe contains few elements that are. ‧ 國. 學. translucently African. Therefore, in the attempt to reduce Foe to “an allegory of contemporary Africa” (Post 145), the critic’s only strategy is to read every relation. ‧. within the novel as a metaphor for a colonial binary, forcing through argumentation. Nat. sit. y. and consequently making the essay unconvincing.6 Between representational means. n. al. er. io. and truth lies an unbridgeable gap that makes every rendition arbitrary7; thus, any. i n U. v. discourse that declares itself to be true is problematic. On the other hand, as a work. Ch. engchi. 6. Naturally, the most obvious literary evidence proposed by Robert M. Post in his reading is to take Cruso as the oppressor, and Friday the oppressed. However, when he goes so far as to take Susan as “Mother Africa”(145) and Cruso’s fever as the symbol for “the diseased South African government” (146), it becomes obvious that his opinion over South African Politics is greater than his interest in Coetzee’s work, and that he means only to impose his political insight on the work, regardless of what the text might be otherwise. On the other hand, according to Marni Gauthier’s contention, Coetzee’s tale exposes “the ironic complexity of the relationship between history, fiction, and language on the one hand, and truth on the other” (4). As a result, the attempt to contain Foe within political reading without acknowledging the openness of the text sets itself onto a position that Coetzee’s text fundamentally challenges. Post’s case thus points out the potential problematic of all historical and allegorical readings. 7. In an essay entitled “Foes: Plato, Derrida, and Coetzee: Rereading J. M. Coetzee's Foe,” Frank England explores the ways in which Foe “resounds with two philosophical precursors” (5). By referring to Derrida’s essay “La dissemination de Platon,” the author identifies a discursive lineage that all three thinkers share in the discussion between speech, language and the gap between representation and the represented.. 5.

(15) ! preoccupied with the writing of a female castaway, Foe calls for readings that closely follow the concept of écriture feminine.8 Meanwhile, Coetzee’s work is read as “feminist revisionism, a critique of the male appropriation of women’s writing” (Wright 21), an “explicit vampirisation of the white woman’s story and body by male appropriating forces” (22). In “Against Allegory,” Derek Attridge warns against the fallacy that an allegorical reading might impart. According to him, such reading puts limit to Coetzee’s deliberate polyphonic construction and subjects the text to the manipulation of a given hegemonic discourse. Instead of forcing one’s opinion on Coetzee’s work, one should instead show the utmost respect for the possibilities. 政治大. opened up by the text. What this thesis intends to do, therefore, is to propose a. 立. reading palpable under juxtaposition with certain theoretical frameworks, and a larger. ‧ 國. 學. part of this thesis aims to stress the openness that Coetzee’s work displays.9 Characters in Foe respond differently to Susan’s aspirations to write a story,. ‧. and the way each reacts not only characterizes the attributes of the role’s aphasic. y. Nat. sit. symptoms but also potentially discloses the mechanism underlying the subject’s. n. al. er. io. application of language and representation. Susan’s sole objective in her literary. i n U. v. journey is to find a means to tell the truth, but her desire is not, or cannot be, properly. Ch. engchi. shared by all the other characters. In the blank spot other than Susan’s writings and (non-)verbal acts, there lies a silence that permeates through the entire tale. The 8. Peter E. Morgan, in an essay that parallels Hélène Cixous’s work to Coetzee’s, contends that both writers, in a gesture he terms “decolonization,” aim to “free the territory of female consciousness from male authority” (82). For him, postcolonial mission and écriture feminine share the same objective, i.e., “the need for a similarly dramatic revision of history” (83). Morgan contends that Foe is written just under such a premise, and as Coetzee picks on one of the most conservative tales in its moral, political, and religious sense, he adds in that “elided female in Defoe’s society”(84), making her “strong enough not only to assault the patriarchy but to overturn its corpus” (85). 9. It turns out that Coetzee himself is not drawn to the binary reading that so many critics find interesting. In an interview conducted by Richard Begam, Coetzee states that he finds the type of readings that confine his work within race and gender stereotypes to be “meaningless” (424). According to him, to fall so easily into the division between male and female, white and black means to surrender to the anthropological discourse based on Western cognition.. 6.

(16) ! silences, regarded as aphasic symptoms throughout the present thesis, are prescribed with various meanings that help interpret each character’s position as symbolic subjects. To Friday’s mutilation that makes him mute and unable to be understood through language, some critics attribute colonial violence,10 while to Mr. Foe’s insistence on changing the story for better public appeals, others regard as the intruding hegemony of phallocentrism.11 Meanwhile, Cruso’s unresponsiveness and his bouts of fever might have to do with what Harold Bloom describes as “a melancholy creeping out of psycho-literary frustration as the hegemony that engenders and maintains the [young man] is exposed” (qtd. by Morgan 88). On the. 政治大. other hand, from the existentialist perspective, Coetzee’s Cruso “harbors no illusions. 立. about the overarching structures constituting the faith of his predecessor” (Dragunoiu. ‧ 國. 學. 312). The faithless man is certain that “there is no salvation, no ‘promised land’” (314), and his silence “suggests a bid for authenticity and self-determination by. ‧. means of a . . . rejection of language” (317). Both readings propose that Cruso’s. y. Nat. sit. disbelief in representation is what essentially holds him from committing to a written. n. al. er. io. account of his own story. Contrarily, instead of seeing Coetzee’s utilization of silence. i n U. v. as a motif that accentuates his point, Parry suggests that “the potential critique of. Ch. engchi. political oppression is diverted by the conjuring and endorsing of a non-verbal signifying system” (153). To signify what is originally cast out and jettisoned is in fact to submit it to renarrativization, which eventually reduces the critical strength of the text. As Coetzee does not provide enough textual evidences to support a solid theorization, the attempt to identify the unnamed narrator who appears in the last 10. Dana Dragunoiu maintains that “silence is usually taken to signify the oppression and objectification of the silent individual” (317); contrarily, Friday’s silence could also indicate “his deliberate absence from the I-Thou, I-It objectifying process of language” (318). 11. See both Wright’s and Morgan’s essays. 7.

(17) ! section can only be made through extrapolations. Section Four, when singled out and put into juxtaposition with the previous sections, serves either as a comment on, or as a supplement to, Susan’s literary journey. For those who treat the voice of the text as Susan’s, the narrator could be the same Susan who persists in “seeking a means to use Friday as an informant in order to fill the hole in her narrative” (Parry 157). Or, it is an embodiment of “[t]he flowering consciousness of Susan” (Morgan 93), a sexuality no longer tyrannized now that it is outside signification. Still, some other critics find it unnecessary to identify the unnamed narrator, as the narrator “dissolves all previously established authorities” (Macaskill and Colleran 451) with his/her entry into the text;. 政治大. as a result, what is found in the place not intended for words is an “unpresentable. 立. presence of the text’s historical moment” (454). Meanwhile, the “wordless story” that. ‧ 國. 學. comes out of Friday’s mouth “emerges and devours the other narratives by displacing Susan/ Coetzee’s quest for meaning” (Wright 23), so that Friday’s body is left behind,. ‧. demanding to be read in “its own right” (24). Beyond the world of language and. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. its materiality.. sit. signification, the narrator, now free, submerges into a place where everything retains. Contribution of the Thesis. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Even while the theme on language and representation is self-evident in the novel Foe, there remain other motifs that are obscure and demand critical readings. The objective of the present thesis is then to look into two of the relatively untouched issues, including the signifying behaviors seen respectively from Friday and Susan, and the last two sections’ function as double and alternative endings to Foe. Through examining the aphasic characters’ utilization of the signifying system, together with the way language is deployed in different styles and forms throughout the narrative,. 8.

(18) ! this thesis seeks to disclose the rather obscure parts of Coetzee’s tale. To better systemize the discussion, the present thesis designates the characters’ signifying impediments as aphasic symptoms characteristic of the linguistic subjects in Foe. However, rather than its pathological sense, the adoption of aphasia in the thesis is approached through a phenomenological/ metaphorical angle. Characters’ loss in full linguistic commitment manifests itself in various forms throughout Coetzee’s tale; as a result, the dumb slave Friday, the silent master Cruso, the dubious protagonist Susan and the absent writer Foe are all viewed as aphasic subjects. Through a closer examination of the characters’ aphasic expressions, the. 政治大. thesis gives a major part of the discussion to the excavation of the significance latent. 立. in the subjects’ common lack.. ‧ 國. 學. Despite all the critical attention given to the mutilated slave Friday and the narrator-protagonist Susan Barton, critics’ attempt to rationalize the two characters’. ‧. silences as well as what ensues the complication have often fallen short. In fact,. y. Nat. sit. Friday’s performances and Susan’s literary excursion follow a similar path of. n. al. er. io. maturation that demands critical attention, one that surpasses what has already been. i n U. v. given.12 Certainly, there are more to Friday’s mutilation and puzzling acts than his. Ch. engchi. being a symbol for the silenced and the oppressed. While the progressive modification of Susan’s writing, seen together with the last section, has been noted as Coetzee’s design in delineating the development of Western literature13, little is said about how the alteration in narrative style reflects Susan as a subject. As the thesis demonstrates, the performative acts showcased by Friday on the island prove that he. 12. This thesis intends to focus on two of the most enigmatic characters in Foe, i.e. Friday and Susan Barton. For an elaborate discussion of Cruso, see Morgan’s and Dragunoiu’s essays.. 13. Dick Penner, in the essay “J. M. Coetzee’s Foe: The Muse, the Abused, and the Colonial Dilemma,” contends that the section arrangement in Foe resembles the development of Western literature, one that begins with epic, moving on to epistolary novels, followed by realism and finally arrives at surrealism. 9.

(19) ! has been under the influence of a signifying system prior to his arrival on the island. Meanwhile, his gradual incorporation of Western methods in later performances uncovers the ways through which language and ideology are assimilated. Friday’s expressions through mediums of Western signification divulge that any type of representation is infiltrated with the others’ words. Also, his case foretells Susan’s futile attempt at giving a true account of her story, for as each individual must express through the others’ medium, it is unlikely that anyone should possesses a voice exclusively self-oriented. By way of following Susan’s epistolary journey, the thesis argues that her transformative narrative emulates the signifying process of a sign. 政治大. system; moreover, her writing reveals the subject’s multifaceted relation with the. 立. Other as language and desire. In fact, the subject’s fundamental relation with the. ‧ 國. 學. Other will not only elucidate the advance of her aphasic symptom, but also demystify the desire structure that propels her frenzy pursuit in the one-way epistolary journey.. ‧. Rather than treating the last section as an immediate comment on, or a. y. Nat. sit. rethinking of, the previous three segments, the thesis proposes a reading that takes the. n. al. er. io. last two sections as a double that supplies Susan’s literary endeavor with alternative. i n U. v. endings. In fact, the final section can very well be seen as what is “Other” to Susan’s. Ch. engchi. writing in previous sections. As Susan’s appeal to tell a truthful story dwindles by the end of Section Three, the ensuing section can only be told through the narrative of someone “Other.” 14 More importantly, whereas Section Three inscribes Susan’s words and Friday’s performances onto the symbolic level, the last section stages the opposite by introducing an unspecified narrator onto the scene that is “not a place for words” (157), where poetic languages abound and things are referred to by their 14. Paralleled with Susan’s self-Other relation previously mentioned, the relation between Section Three and Section Four is here conceived as one and the Other. The juxtaposition of the two, as a result, illustrates the alterity of language. This reading will be further developed in Chapter Four: In the Face of the Abject. 10.

(20) ! materiality. Ultimately, through outlining the advance of a linguistic subject, Coetzee presents in Foe a tale that meditates on the essential correlation between the self, the Other, and the abject, while layering it with subjectivity, the symbolic, and the semiotic.. Theoretical Approaches The theoretical adoption in the present thesis intends to approach the issue of language and representation at the core of Coetzee’s metafictional work. The discourses from Mikhail Bakhtin, Jacques Lacan, and Julia Kristeva are incorporated. 政治大. in the hope of shedding lights on the more obscure parts in the novel. While each. 立. theorist provides a different perspective in his/her teachings, jointly, their discourses. ‧ 國. 學. concern language and its effects upon subjectivity. As a unifying topic that connects the theories and the novel, the discussion of language is therefore crucial in the. ‧. organization of this thesis. The chapter arrangement thus follows the theoretical. y. Nat. sit. trajectory that well illustrates the advancement of a language subject. Starting from. n. al. er. io. Bakhtinian development of language appropriation in Chapter Two to Lacanian. i n U. v. concept of the divided subject in Chapter Three, and then to Kristevan treatise on. Ch. engchi. language and the semiotic in Chapter Four, the order accounts for the development of a linguistic subject in the reverse form, so that each discourse lays bare the language effect that commences the emergence of a language subject. The examination of Bakhtin’s proposition on language acquisition would provide a preliminary understanding of an individual’s acquisition and utilization of language and signifying system. Meanwhile, Lacan’s discourse on the Other as language and object a would extend beyond the utilitarian aspect of language and reveal its dividing and propelling effects upon the symbolic subject. The concepts of. 11.

(21) ! the abject and the semiotic provided by Kristeva, on the other hand, would address what is jettisoned by the self-other dyad in Lacanian thinking and ascribe significance to the unfathomable. From the characterization of language usage to the analysis of one’s symbolic acquisition, and finally to the development on the semiotic, the discourses from Bakhtin, Lacan and Kristeva exposes the workings that underpin the construction of a language subject. By layering the theoretical discourses with the problematics of Coetzee’s Foe, this thesis seeks to come up with a coherent reading to some of the more perplexing aspects in Foe.. Bakhtin: Language Appropriation. 立. 政治大. At a first glance, Friday’s muteness seems bewildering and his performances. ‧ 國. 學. incidental, and little can be said about how his silences and curious acts are characteristic of him as a subject. However, by referencing Bakhtin’s treatise on. ‧. language appropriation15, the earlier part of the thesis aims to examine his. y. Nat. sit. performances as signifying expressions that point to his signifying influences.. n. al. er. io. In “Discourse in the Novel,” Bakhtin contends that language “lies on the. i n U. v. borderline between oneself and the other”(293), and it “becomes ‘one’s own’ only. Ch. engchi. when the speaker populates it with his own intention, . . . adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention.” According to Bakhtin, language does not come in neutral forms, and is always inevitably overflowed with others’ intentions. To expropriate others’ language for one’s usage equals “forcing it to submit to one’s own intentions and accents” (293), and is therefore a difficult and complicated process. Similarly, an individual’s “ideological becoming” relies largely on the assimilation of 15. The Bakhtinian subject who appropriates others’ language in his/her own ideological becoming does not retain the agency that belongs to the Cartesian subject. Instead, based on Bakhtin’s characterization of such language subject, the “I” functions more like an empty signifier, which is to be filled with other’s language and ideology. He/She does not retain anything authentically his/hers, everything he/she “is” is indebted to the other’s influences. 12.

(22) ! others’ discourses, and the attachment of one’s speech on the others’ discourse is illustrated by the distinction between “internally persuasive discourse” and “externally authoritative discourse” (345). By reading Friday’s behaviors in the first three sections as a symbolic representation of the Bakhtinian language appropriation, this thesis seeks to uncover the rationale behind Friday’s puzzling behaviors. Chapter One thus proves that due to his muteness, the silent slave is able to denote through physical acts a symbolic subject’s acquisition and utilization of the signifying system.. Lacan: the Self and the Other. 政治大. While Susan’s expressions in Foe, compared to Friday’s, are more explicit. 立. and even self-explanatory, her ever-changing narrative style and her one-way fervor. ‧ 國. 學. for the addressee remain indecipherable. With the adoption of Lacanian theory on the Other as language and object a, the present thesis seeks to address each specific issue. ‧. in a systematic manner. In fact, Lacan’s extensive discourse over the self and the. y. Nat. sit. Other would provide a perspective to Susan’s primordial relation with language and. n. al. er. io. the structure of desire.. i n U. v. Lacan first defines the subject as “essentially a positioning in relation to the 16. Ch. engchi. Other” (Fink, xii) in the 1950s. The Other, or the more aptly phrased big Other, is attributed to language and law, “hence [it] is inscribed in the order of the symbolic.” Since Foe features largely Susan’s dealings with language, and her objectives being the attainment of a legitimate account, a parallel between her writing and the Lacanian Other as language will be drawn to unveil the significance of the protagonist’s writing excursion. As a result, Susan’s transformative writing divulges not only the ossification of her narrative, but also her position as a split subject. 16. Fink’s summary of Lacanian thinking is only quoted here to provide a general outlook towards Lacan’s more convoluted discourse and its possible implications. The application of Lacanian theory in later chapters, however, will be quoted directly from the translation of his various seminars. 13.

(23) ! Meanwhile, the subject’s submission to the Other as language is followed by a second operation called “separation,” when the early mother-child relation is disrupted by the interference of the Name-of-the-Father. The intervention of this paternal metaphor “bars the child’s easy access to pleasurable contact with its mother, requiring it to pursue pleasure avenues more acceptable to the father figure and/or mOther” (Fink, 56). As a consequence, the mOther’s desire becomes fundamentally indecipherable to the child, and is ascribed the name “object a.” Like a trigger, object a evokes the subject’s desire. The adoption of the Other as object a will not only explain Susan’s unfailing desire in her one-way epistolary journey, but account for its abrupt end in. 政治大. Section Three. Explicit in her one-way epistolary journey, the narrator’s unfailing. 立. desire towards Mr. Foe replicates the formula of a subject’s endless pursuit for the. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. desired object.. Kristeva: the Abject and the Semiotic. Nat. sit. y. While Susan and Friday share a relationship surpassing the self-other dyad17,. n. al. er. io. the juxtaposition of the two end sections cannot be easily dismissed as mere. i n U. v. alternatives. The introduction of Julia Kristeva’s theory on the abject and the semiotic. Ch. engchi. in the thesis would grant access to what the discussion over the symbolic does not cover. Julia Kristeva, in Powers of Horror, describes the abject as “the jettisoned object . . . radically excluded and draws me toward the place where meaning collapses” (2). It lies between the self and the other, and it “disturbs identity, system, order” (4). The abject evokes repulsion, forcing one to turn away. Certainly, the mute 17. Susan and Friday’s relationship surpasses one that is normally ascribed to the self-other correlation. While Susan regards Friday as part of her self which she cannot do away with, in more than one passage, she also acknowledges an undeniable distaste for his existence. A greater part of Chapter Four is then devoted to the reading of this curious connection between the protagonist and the silent slave. 14.

(24) ! Friday in Foe reminds of the Kristevan abject. The repulsion Susan experiences after learning about Friday’s tongue mutilation, combined with her attachment to him, makes Friday an abject in the Kristevan sense. According to Kristeva, abjection in its nascent stage refers to the child’s rejection of the mother prior to the entry into the symbolic. The repressed maternal that underlies the advancement of language threatens the authority of the symbolic, causing horror. Abject language, manifests through rhythm and music, is “[a]t the same time instinctual and maternal” (136); it challenges the authoritative position of language and its subject. Kristeva terms it the semiotic, as opposed to the symbolic, designating it with “heterogeneous[ness] to. 政治大. signification” (139). By analogy, Friday’s semiotic gestures, manifest in the rhythmic. 立. twirls and his six-note tune, are found in opposition to the ongoing symbolization of. ‧ 國. 學. Susan’s narrative. Besides, the symbolic and semiotic dyad is also applicable to the unraveling of the symbiosis between the third section’s symbolization and the poetic. ‧. imagination that overflows in Section Four.. n. er. io. al. sit. y. Nat. Organization. i n U. v. This thesis embarks on an expedition that looks into Coetzee’s metafictional. Ch. engchi. creation. Like the unknown narrator who, in each of the two stages, extracts from Friday’s mouth accounts that are ever truer to his “voice,” this thesis seeks to demystify the symbolic significance and the structural meaning that underlies Foe’s literary design. The organization of the five chapters thus follows a trajectory that simulates the narrator’s dive and offers in each section a different aspect of language and representation.. 15.

(25) ! Chapter One: The Unfathomable Foe Chapter one begins with a portrayal of the imagery central to J. M. Coetzee’s Foe, followed by a sketch of critical responses so far attributed to this metafictional work. Of all the historical, (post)colonial, post-structural and even feminist readings reviewed in this chapter, little is said about the metamorphosis that the narrative form undergoes and how this change is reflective of the narrator’s literary pursuit and her position as a linguistic subject. Also, the interpretations given to the end section often fall short of specifying its relation with Section Three, as the final two sections jointly provides a two-fold ending to Coetzee’s literary arrangements. With brief. 政治大. introductory notes on Bakhtin’s, Lacan’s, and Kristeva’s theories of language and. 立. subjectivity, Chapter One sets up the discursive framework for the present thesis.. ‧ 國. 學. Chapter Two: The Aphasic Subjects. ‧. Following a joint reading with Bakhtinian discourse on language acquisition,. y. Nat. sit. the second chapter of the thesis features an examination of the characters’ command. n. al. er. io. of language and signifying system, with specific emphasis on Friday and his later. i n U. v. performances. An overall inspection of the characters and their operations of language. Ch. engchi. identifies the symptoms of aphasia shared by all. Among all the aphasic subjects identified in this chapter, Friday most obviously stands out for his distinguishing (non-)feature. In fact, unlike Defoe’s Friday, who quickly acquires the language of the West, the muteness prescribed to the slave in Coetzee’s adaptation not only deters but also helps accentuate the process of expressing oneself through media that are new and other. The second chapter of this thesis therefore incorporates Bakhtin’s theory on the individual’s appropriation of language and ideological becoming, in the attempt to further systemize how, in Friday’s case, signifying system is appropriated. 16.

(26) ! and how, through its workings, he assimilates ideology. Ultimately, Friday’s mutilation, as well as other characters’ aphasia, foregrounds the position of subject in relation to language, providing Foe a central theme largely eluded in Robinson Crusoe.. Chapter Three: Epistles and the Other Joined with Lacanian treatise on the Other, chapter three centers on a delineation of Susan’s narrative transformation, with specific emphasis on its form and one-way fervor. Following the discussion of language, the earlier part of this. 政治大. chapter draws a parallel between Lacan’s theory of language as the Other and the. 立. transition of Susan’s writings. As the entry into the symbolic order fundamentally. ‧ 國. 學. splits the subject from his/her own self, the shift in Susan’s narrative style also distances her work from her early objective.18 The second part of chapter three,. ‧. meanwhile, attempts to divulge Susan’s obsessive urge to write, even when she never. y. Nat. sit. receives any response from the addressee. Her untoward desire might be best. n. al. er. io. characterized by Lacan’s theory of the subject’s tireless pursuit of object a, another. i n U. v. side to the multifaceted Other. As the Lacanian perspective would help argue, by the. Ch. engchi. end of her narrative, Susan is further removed from the goal of her original design than ever before.. Chapter Four: In the Face of the Abject To expound on the correlation between Susan and Friday, as well as the esoteric ending provided in Foe, the fourth chapter of this thesis goes beyond the self18. Chapter Three argues that, from the passage in quotation marks (Section One-Two) to the prose-like narrative (Section Three), Susan’s writing simulates an individual’s entry into the symbolic order. As a result, the symbolization of her narration in the third section forever denies the attainment of her objective, i.e., to tell the truth about her story. 17.

(27) ! Other dyad and introduces the abject and the semiotic conceived by Kristeva. Decidedly, Susan’s relation with Friday cannot be subjected to a mere dialogic bond between the self and the Other, not only because of their resemblances in one another’s plight as symbolic subjects, but also for their ambivalent relationship. As it turns out, through reading Friday as an abject, Cruso’s ex-slave becomes a reminder of what is at stake in Susan’s own symbolic existence. By juxtaposition, the fourth section of Foe offers an account that largely echoes with the material presented in Section Three. The resemblance, presumably, makes the two sections each other’s double. Therefore, when the two are seen as a representation of the Kristevan. 政治大. dialogue between the symbolic and the semiotic, their combined result furnishes. 立. Coetzee’s tale with another dimension in its exploration of language and. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. representation.. Chapter Five: Subject and its Discontents. y. Nat. sit. The concluding chapter of this thesis sums up the main theme that underlies. n. al. er. io. its reading of J. M. Coetzee’s Foe. What fundamentally drives the discussion between. i n U. v. signification and (re)presentation, as well as the correspondence among subject,. Ch. engchi. abject and object, is the lack that first and foremost defines individuality. Coetzee’s creation, unlike Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, is not about Crusoe the man, but rather an ensemble of all the characters, individuals who only find their positions in the world through cross-referencing each other. Ultimately, whoever contributes to the advancement of the “I” must occupy the place of “an enemy or opponent.” Such is the role of foes in Foe.. 18.

(28) !. CHAPTER TWO THE APHASIC SUBJECT “In every story there is a silence.” Foe 141. In a realist fiction such as Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, subject matters. 政治大 it represents. What J. M. Coetzee does with the Crusoe theme in the metafictional Foe 立. are portrayed by one authoritative voice, and the narratives a synthesis of the ideology. ‧ 國. 學. is finding the means to lay bare the complexities obscured by the text’s rigid monotone. Thus, out of a work that propagates the transplantation of Western. ‧. ideology, Coetzee develops a metafictional tale that “explore[s] the relationship. sit. y. Nat. between [the] arbitrary linguistic system and the world to which it apparently refers”. al. er. io. (Waugh 3). In Foe, the theme commonly seen in metafiction, that “of frame-break, . . .. v. n. of construction and deconstruction of illusion” (Waugh 14), is raised and developed. Ch. engchi. i n U. by the silence that penetrates through the entire tale. It further manifests through the protagonist Susan Barton’s concern with language and representation. One of the most significant features that make Foe stand apart from Defoe’s vision is the extent to which the characters self-consciously conduct themselves in terms of linguistic expression. In addition to the master-slave duo in Defoe’s work, Coetzee brings in two new characters, the female narrator Susan Barton and the writer Foe. However, unlike Defoe’s Crusoe, who ever so readily recounts his experience, Coetzee’s characters all face issues that keep them from properly relating their stories. For not only do Cruso and Friday have newfound difficulties registering their own 19.

(29) ! experiences, Susan and Foe, in the meanwhile, also face issues that hinder their capacities in recounting theirs. As a result, by replacing the eloquent narrator of Defoe’s novel with the unassertive speaker in Foe, Coetzee tactically brings down the authoritative voice that so dominates Robinson Crusoe. Short of a confidant narrative voice, Foe is told through a mixture of different methods by its various characters, making it a tale of heteroglossia. Taking notice of the lack of full linguistic command commonly shared by all characters in Foe, Chapter Two is dedicated to the analysis of the linguistic symptoms that overshadows Coetzee’s metafictional creation, with specific focus on the mute. 政治大. slave Friday. To each of the condition or complex that deters the characters from. 立. expressing properly, the present chapter aims to label symptoms of aphasia. As the. ‧ 國. 學. thesis goes on to prove, the language disorder serves as a mechanism that propels characters to actions that further reveal their position as linguistic subjects. Among all. ‧. the aphasic symptoms, Friday’s muteness most tellingly embodies the silence that. y. Nat. sit. permeates the entire tale. Because of this, the dumb slave and his performances are to. n. al. er. io. serve as the main focus of Chapter Two. By incorporating Bakhtinian discourse, this. i n U. v. chapter seeks to demonstrate that while Friday’s tongue mutilation hinders the. Ch. engchi. immediate effect of colonization, it precipitates performances that further showcase his gradual assimilation of Western language system. On the other hand, Friday’s adoption of Western means as a way of expression also makes Susan’s pursuit of his “true” account an unrequited wish from the start.. Mapping Aphasia While scholars’ attempts to demystify linguistic disorders such as aphasia do not necessarily meet with a satisfying result, many manage to develop readings that. 20.

(30) ! find meanings in the clutter of linguistic presentations. For instance, despite futile attempts to find the cause of aphasia, the study of aphasiology helps theorists and linguists alike to become aware of the structure of language system. Early in his career, Freud begins the study of aphasia on the premise of the localization model made famous by Broca and Wernicke. In Freud and His Aphasia Book, Freud contributes most of the discussions to the problematization Wernicke’s prototype. Even though the book eventually does not provide a solution, during this project, the young physician for the first time in his career acknowledges the gap between language and the external object. In his study of aphasia, “object” designates a neutral. 政治大. word, which is used to “elicit meaning, or the production of a noun” (166); however,. 立. when the word later reappears in his discourse, it takes on the meaning of “the object. ‧ 國. 學. of desire or fear that simulates cries” (166). From this Freud moves on to the treatise of the development of language. As Freud infers from the study of aphasia ideas that. ‧. would later contribute to his discourse in psychoanalysis, in another case Deleuze also. y. Nat. sit. locates in his study of stuttering linguistic aspects that could potentially challenge the. n. al. er. io. language system. In the article “He Stuttered,” Deleuze asserts the effect brought. i n U. v. about by a language that stutters. For him, the new forms of language that come from. Ch. engchi. stuttering lodge in somewhere that is “the outside of language, but … not outside it” (112). In other words, “[w]hen a language is so strained that it starts to stutter, or to murmur or stammer. . . then language in its entirety reaches the limit that marks its outside and makes it confront silence” (Italics original 113). Accordingly, when language is forced to confront its limit, “[s]tyle becomes non-style, and one’s language lets an unknown foreign language escape from it” (113). As it turns out, these foreign compositions made from unexpected linguistic occurrences are endowed with the capacities that potentially confront and challenge the legitimacy of language. 21.

(31) ! system. The shift in the study of language disorder entails a school of reading that focuses on the figurative meaning of silence. From the study of linguistic symptoms, Freud and Deleuze direct their interest at the issue of language that the symptoms help manifest. In fact, each concludes his discourse not so much by proposing a solution to the symptoms as by shifting the focus onto the impact brought to the language system. From there, the center issue concerning language impediments switches from locating the cause to speculating its symbolic significance in the larger linguistic context. The fracture in language, made explicit through the symptoms of aphasia and stuttering,. 政治大. displaces the negligence often attributed to silence in literary studies and demands a. 立. reading that further discloses the operation of language system. For critic like Patricia. ‧ 國. 學. Ondek Laurence, who devotes an entire book on the reading of silence in Virginia Woolf’s oeuvre, the importance in the “‘narrative’ of silence” cannot be overstressed.. ‧. According to Laurence, Woolf’s adoption of silences could be taken as what Barbara. y. Nat. sit. Johnson describes “a strategic rigorous decentering of the structure, . . . not by. n. al. er. io. abandoning that structure but by multiplying the forces at work in the field of which. i n U. v. that structure is a part” (qtd. in Laurence 16). In other words, silence reemphasized. Ch. engchi. not only reveals the structure of language, but also unsettles language as the proper way of expression. The discursive clarity Laurence showcases here gives meaning to what used to be ineffable, and silence in this case is taken to serve the same selfreferential function as the linguistic symptoms outlined by both Freud and Deleuze. Branching out from Freudian study of aphasia and supplementing with Deleuzian take on fractured language, Chapter Two treats the characters’ silences in Foe as aphasic symptoms that could further disclose their position as linguistic subjects. As a consequence, this chapter does not seek to explicate the exact cause of the characters’. 22.

(32) ! aphasia; instead, a larger part is given to the interpretation of the characters’ linguistic symptoms and the significance they impart.. Aphasics in Foe Even while characters in Foe all exhibits conditions typical of aphasics, each suffers symptom that greatly differs from the other. Cruso in Coetzee’s adaptation bares little resemblance to the more famous prototype, whose frenzy in documenting the story finds no representation in Foe. Shortly after coming to the island, Susan notices that Cruso “[keeps] no journal,” for he “[lacks] the inclination to keep one”. 政治大. (16). She later finds out that he “[has] no stories to tell” (34). At one point she. 立. remarks that he acts “as if language were one of the banes of life” (33). In fact, Cruso. ‧ 國. 學. devotes most of his time to physical labor and occasionally “[loses] himself in the contemplation” (38). Thus silenced, the former colonizer is provided with an aphasic. ‧. appeal formerly unseen, leaving the narrative to the hands of others. Meanwhile, in. y. Nat. sit. opposition to the obedient slave in Robinson Crusoe, who so eagerly parroting the. n. al. er. io. language of his master, Friday reincarnated in Foe is kept from verbal expression for. i n U. v. he “has no tongue” (22, 23). The tongue mutilation, done probably by a former 19. Ch. engchi. slaver , robs him of “the only tongue that can tell [his] story” (67) and turns him into an irrecoverable aphasic forever denied of speech. Friday’s unparalleled muteness, which helps bring along his unique expressions throughout the course of the tale, makes him the greatest mystery in Coetzee’s Foe. On the other hand, the narratorprotagonist Susan Barton’s seemingly eloquence is betrayed by the quotation marks that subtly hint at her actual lack of the writer’s authority. Her writings, encased in quotation marks in the first two sections of Foe, are a compilation of notes and letters 19. As Friday cannot by himself account for his past, there’s no answer to the cause of his atrocious mutilation. 23.

(33) ! addressed specially to the writer, whom she judges to be qualified for retelling her story. In fact, she confesses that “[s]ome people are born storytellers; I, it would seem, am not” (81). The distrust in her own ability to write compels Susan to ask for the writer Foe’s assistance, thus a greater part of her writing is done while “wait[ing] for [the writer] to appear, or for the book to be written” (66). Her unassertiveness despite apparent eloquence makes her an aphasic subject. For the most part of her narrative, Susan expresses her wish to meet the writer Foe, who remains absent half way through the tale, and the transformation of style in her writings marks her evergrowing eagerness for the writer’s presence20. The writer’s absence gets to a point. 政治大. where his house becomes Susan’s temporary shelter, and his writer’s guild turns into. 立. Friday’s outlet for expression. When Foe finally shows up in the third section, the. ‧ 國. 學. famed writer does not bring with him the full command of language; instead, his authority is constantly challenged by the protagonist during their heated debate in. ‧. matters concerning language and representation. For one, Susan refuses Foe’s. y. Nat. sit. proposition to “supply a middle [to her tale] by inventing cannibals and pirates” (121);. n. al. er. io. she also rejected his idea to retell her intended story by “reducing the island to an. i n U. v. episode in the history of a woman in search of a lost daughter” (121). As an author. Ch. engchi. dethroned from his writer’s position and questioned for his authority, Foe is therefore aphasic21.. 20. The issue concerning the trajectory of Susan’s writings would be more carefully dealt with in Chapter Three: Epistolary and the Other.. !As the title character, the writer Foe seems to demand a reading of his own. Calling to mind the writer “Defoe,” Mr. Foe is stripped of his original title and turned against his own self in Coetzee’s recreation. The metafictional aspects of Foe in every way challenge the story’s rigid prototype, and the author, now dethroned from his position, finds himself questioned by his character (Susan). In fact, Mr. Foe’s wretched situation, which is reflective of the author’s crumbling position, is synonymous with the “Death of the Author” hailed by Roland Barthes. However, as much as the portrayal of the writer Foe is characteristic and representative of a notion so keenly acknowledged in contemporary literary criticism, for the coherence of the thesis, the discussion of Mr. Foe should serve only as great material for future projects.. 21. 24.

(34) ! The Silent Slave and Bakhtin The ensuing part of this chapter intends to focus on the delineation of Friday’s aphasia and the metaphoric significance of the performances incurred by such linguistic impediment. To Friday’s dumbness that shadows his story with an impenetrable silence, the writer Foe maintains that “[in] every story there is a silence, some sight concealed, some word unspoken, . . . Till we have spoken the unspoken we have not come to the heart of the story” (141). Indeed, Friday’s dumbness, represented as the most severe aphasic symptom among all, not only provokes curiosity from the protagonist, but also further epitomizes the silence that dominates. 政治大. the whole tale. Eventually, the protagonist’s quest for Friday’s untold story serves as. 立. a motif that help reflect on the tale’s theme of language and representation.. ‧ 國. 學. Friday’s utilizations of different external means during his moments of revelations are reminiscent of Bakhtinian treatise on language and the formation of. ‧. ideological being. Saturated with a preordained dumbness, Friday’s expressions are. y. Nat. sit. given in ways other than the verbal kind. Bakhtin’s discourse on language would help. n. al. er. io. elucidate Friday’s acquisition and application of various signs following the. i n U. v. development of Foe. According to Bakhtin, language “lies on the borderline between. Ch. engchi. oneself and the other,” and is “overpopulated . . . with the intentions of others.” It “becomes ‘one’s own’ only when the speaker populates it with his own intention” in a process called “appropriation” (Discourse in the Novel 293). Consequently, an individual’s “ideological becoming” relies largely on the assimilation of others’ discourses. The distinction between the “externally authoritative discourse” and the “internally persuasive discourse” is thus founded on the entanglement between others’ discourse and one’s speech. Friday’s position as a linguistic subject in Foe, it would seem, allows him to demonstrate the mechanism expounded by Bakhtin.. 25.

(35) ! The newfound attribute assigned to Friday adds complexities to the formerly one-dimensional character, who accepts his role as a colonized model almost too willingly; as a matter of fact, the latter Friday’s seemingly inferior position as a colonized helps resist the dominance of the prevailing Western colonization. In Foe, Coetzee not only situates Friday among the racial minorities, but also exposes him to bodily mutilations that are unheard of by his early counterpart. The differences in race and language capacity thus set the two Fridays apart. Defoe’s Friday, as noted in Robinson Crusoe, “ha[s] all the Sweetness and Softness of an European in his Countenance. . . . His Hair [i]s long and black, not curl’d like Wool”, and “[t]he. 政治大. Colour of his Skin [i]s not quite black, but very tawny, . . . a dun olive Colour”. 立. (Robinson Crusoe 205). On the other hand, Susan describes Friday as “[b]lack: a. ‧ 國. 學. Negro with a head of fuzzy wool, naked save for a pair of rough drawers” (Foe 5-6). Seen as social stereotypes, whereas Defoe’s portrayal of Friday gives off. ‧. characteristics of a cultured man, the slave presented by Coetzee comes across as. y. Nat. sit. rather savage and uncultured. With the change in ethnicity, Coetzee subjects his. n. al. er. io. Friday to a position more commonly shared by the colonized majority, namely “the. i n U. v. black” and “the savage.” Meanwhile, under Crusoe’s instruction, Friday in Defoe’s. Ch. engchi. tale begins “to talk pretty well, and understand the Names of almost every Thing . . . and talk’d a great deal” (213), yet the one in Foe knows only “as many [English words] as he needs” (21), for “[h]e has no tongue”, and therefore “does not speak” (23). As a speaking subject, Defoe’s character is ready at any moment to enact what Bakhtin terms the “appropriation” (Discourse 293) of language, through which the subject engages in his “ideological becoming” by experiencing “the process of selectively assimilating the words of others” (Discourse 341). The same process, however, is all the more difficult for Coetzee’s Friday, since he is deprived of the. 26.

(36) ! ability to speak and consequently alienated from having immediate and direct contact with the language system. As a result, Friday’s limited appropriation of Western languages, documented in the first three sections of Foe, showcase how the Western symbolic system gradually seeps in and affects him as a linguistic subject.. Friday’s Performances Friday introduced at the beginning of Foe characterizes a subject denied of an access to proper linguistic utterance, but as the story develops, he gradually acquires different means of expressions. Supposedly, Friday’s physical damage marks a break. 政治大. from whichever signifying chain he previously belongs, and he is further removed. 立. from his cultural habitat when trapped on the island. Therefore, the aphasia seen in. ‧ 國. 學. the slave consists not only in the tongue mutilation that keeps him from verbal expressions, but also in the incongruent culture backgrounds that limit. ‧. communication between him and other English speakers. As a consequence, under the. y. Nat. sit. influence of his old semiotic system and a possibly new one, Friday’s expressions in. n. al. er. io. Foe remain largely obscure and incomprehensible. In the clash between the slave’s. i n U. v. old “internal persuasive discourse”(Discourse 342) and the “authoritative discourse”. Ch. engchi. at hand, “[t]he authoritative word demands that [one] acknowledge[s] it . . . and make[s] it [one’s] own” (342-43). Through Susan’s observation, Friday’s premature attempts at adopting the Western means therefore testify to a subject’s assimilation of an external, authoritative discourse. Subjected to restricted means of expression, Friday’s behaviors on the island remain only as mysterious segments in Section One. After Cruso’s bidding, Friday’s first expression consists of a song “hum[med] in a low voice” (22), which Susan can “make out no tune.” As it turns out, throughout the course of the tale, the protagonist. 27.

(37) ! will continue to have difficulty in comprehending Friday. When Cruso suffers a cold fever relapse a few days later, Susan witnesses the first gesture stemming from Friday’s own will, as he “play[s] over and over again in his little reed flute a tune of six notes” (27-8). But when the repetitive tune grows increasingly irritating to her ears, Susan “dash[es] the flute from his hands.” The two incidents considering Friday’s earliest expressions demonstrate that, as a slave of the two western superiors, his expressions are sanctioned and controlled by his masters. Another move from Friday that so perplexes Susan takes place when she sees him paddle out to the sea in the log-boat “some hundred yards from the shelf into the thickest of the sea weed, . . .. 政治大. [reach] into a bag . . . and [bring] out handfuls of white flakes which he [begin] to. 立. scatter over the water” (31). For Susan, this discovery marks “the first sign that a. ‧ 國. 學. spirit or soul . . . stir[s] beneath that dull and unpleasing exterior [of Friday]” (32). Prior to this event, Susan finds Friday’s mutilation hauntingly horrifying and tries. ‧. hard to avoid having contact with him22. In fact, the ritual-like gesture proves not so. y. Nat. sit. much Friday’s possession of a soul as his being a symbolic subject, for the repeated. n. al. er. io. tune of six notes and the scattering of flower petals are proofs of cultural influences. i n U. v. and residues of a prior symbolic system, one that remains with him from the unknown. Ch. engchi. past. It is no wonder Susan feels bewildered by them, for the actions, stemming from Friday’s prior self-contained signification chain, retains its meaning only within that specific domain. With a change of the surrounding, Section Two anticipates different manners that would further reveal Friday as a symbolic subject. Following their rescue and Cruso’s death en route, Susan and Friday come to the United Kingdom. From a no man’s island to a metropolis, Friday moves from a secluded place in which contact 22. Susan’s fear towards Friday’s mutilation should be further treated in Chapter Four: In the Face of the Abject, where it is treated as a subject’s response towards an abject, 28.

(38) ! with other sign systems is scarce to a city exploding with all types of symbols and signs. During their stay at the writer’s adobe, Friday finds Mr. Foe’s robe and wig, which Susan suspects to be “the robes of a guild-master”(92) from the society of authors. In no time, the discovery leads Friday to his most significant performance throughout the course of the novel: ‘The robes have set him dancing, which I had never seen him do before. In the mornings he dances in the kitchen, where the windows face east. If the sun is shining he does his dance in a patch of sunlight, holding out his arms and spinning in a circle, his eyes shut, hour after. 政治大. hour, never growing fatigued or dizzy. (92). 立. Never in the prior disclosures has Friday conducted his behavior through any mode. ‧ 國. 學. other than his own, and the dance marks his first attempt at incorporating Western means. During this moment, Friday’s internal discourse obviously encounters the. ‧. infiltration of an other’s discourse. For the first time, the old sign system that he so. y. Nat. sit. relies on seems insufficient, and the lack of expressive means instigates him to seek. n. al. er. io. solution from other semiotic system. The robes and wigs put an end to his previous. i n U. v. slumber state and provide a channel for physical expressions. Even so, this Bakhtinian. Ch. 23. engchi. “moment of appropriation” (Discourse 293), like all of the slave’s preceding expressions, is not by any standard communicative: In the grip of the dancing he is not himself. He is beyond human reach. I called his name and am ignored, I put out a hand and am brushed aside. All the while he dances he makes a humming voice in his throat, deeper than his usual voice; sometimes he seems to be singing. (92) Surrounded by English symbolic system, Friday gradually comes under the influence 23. The moment of appropriation designates the occasion in which the individual “appropriates the word [of others], adapting it to his semantic and expressive intention” (294) 29.

(39) ! of its cultural imperative with the progression of Section Two. Here, his newfound expression is bestowed upon the writer’s guild, which serves as a supplement to his language deficiency. Nevertheless, as esteemed by Bakhtin, “not all words for just anyone submit equally easily to this appropriation. . . . many words resist, others remain alien, sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appropriated them” (Discourse 294). With the variables inhabit in other’s language, “[e]xpropriating it, forcing it to submit to one’s own intension and accents, is a difficult and complicated process.” Obviously, Friday’s expropriation of the writer’s outfit demonstrates an appropriation that falls short, and Susan’s bewilderment towards his act only further attests to it.. 立. 政治大. The dance is soon followed by the return of the six-note tune, which Susan. ‧ 國. 學. ventures to play along; however, Friday’s unresponsiveness leaves her scheme to communicate with him unsuccessful. When Susan discovers a case of bass recorders. ‧. in Foe’s drawer, she leaves it where Friday can easily find, intending to see what he. y. Nat. sit. would make of it. On the next day, she finds him “spin[ning] slowly around with the. n. al. er. io. flute to his lips and his eyes shut” (95). In fact, he “[has] so far mastered it as to play. i n U. v. the tune of six notes.” To interact with Friday, Susan takes the bass flute and tries to. Ch. engchi. play in unison, but “[t]here [is] a subtle discord all the time, though [they seem] to play the same notes” (96). Still, Susan decides that “[a]s long as [she shares] music with Friday, perhaps [they] need no language” (97). However, her speculation is quickly overthrown when she attempts to make changes to the tune, hoping that he would follow, only to discover that he “persists in the old tune” (ibid.). Susan’s failed attempt exemplifies the discordant nature between different bodies of semiotic system. Certainly, Friday’s performances incorporate signifiers taken from the symbolic system that Susan is no stranger to, but since even people under the same semiotic. 30.

(40) ! system cannot always agree on all significations, what the signifiers signify vary according to each subject’s own understanding and command of the language. While the signifiers taken up by Friday designates specific signifieds to Susan’s language system, as a result of an unsuccessful appropriation, the signs adopted in the slave’s expressions are in fact emptied of their original meanings and filled in with different purposes. It gives reason to the lack of understanding between the two characters, as the protagonist’s comprehension is founded on the Western semiotic system that is “other” to Friday. The transition in the third section forecasts Friday’s later dealings with the. 政治大. Western semiotic system; meanwhile, it is at this juncture that Susan wrongly. 立. supposes the slave’s acquisition of Western language could assist him in telling his. ‧ 國. 學. true story. Not long after the incident, Susan realizes that Friday “does not understand that [she is] leading him to freedom,” and to him, “freedom is a word, less than a. ‧. word, a noise, one of the multitudes of noises [she] make[s]” (100). What dawns on. y. Nat. sit. the protagonist is the uneven concepts that one signifier could be taken to signify, and. n. al. er. io. so the same applies to the decoding of Friday’s mystery. Susan thus goes on in. i n U. v. Section Three to hypothesize that “[t]he true story [of Friday] will not be heard till by. Ch. engchi. art we have found a means of giving voice to Friday” (118), for up to this point, “Friday has no command of words and therefore no defense against being re-shaped day by day in conformity with the desires of others” (121). Only through the acquisition of Western language, Susan believes, can Friday properly account for his past with the utmost authenticity and precision. However, form Bakhtinian perspective, even if Friday does acquire the ability to command Western language in its written form, he still cannot express through method that is authentically his. After being torn away from his earlier signification chain and having encountered the. 31.