About Kurtz

Kurtz used to be a civilized and educated European as well as a capable and outstanding manager of the Company. Like the other young men, he enters into the heart of the African continent, the forest, his heart filled with a burning desire. However, his greed gets the best of him, and corrupts his soul. He makes himself the king of the forest by taking advantage of the native’s ignorance. He wanted to conquer the darkness – a ‘unknown’ continent full of chances and adventures, but was consumed by the darkness. Deep in his soul, the western culture he belongs to and black savagery he is exposed to pulls each other apart, pushing himself to embody ‘schizophrenia’. On the outside, he uses ferocity and cruelty to cover his mental fragility, but such action just perfectly shows his misery of struggling to survive.

I saw the thin arm extended commandingly, the lower jaw moving, the eyes of that apparition shining darkly far in its bony head that nodded with grotesque jerks. Kurtz – Kurtz – that means short in German – don’t it? Well, the same was as true as everything else in his life – and death… His covering had fallen off, and his body emerged from it pitiful and appalling as from a winding-sheet. I could see the cage of his ribs all astir, the bones of his arm waving,. It was as though an animated image of death carved out of old ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a a motionless crowd of men made of dark and glittering bronze. (Joseph Conrad 136)

“he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath – The horror! The horror!” His last words is with rich discussion and reflection. As a typical symbolic figure, Kurtz represents the people who intend to escape from the shackles and limitations of civilization, and fulfill himself in a savage world. But as many others did, Kurtz failed. His failure reflects European’s disillusionment of self-deception as well as human beings’ descent into the deep sea of desires and lies.

My-intended, my station, my career, my career, my ideas—these were the subjects for he occasional utterances of elevated sentiments. The shade of the original Kurtz frequented the bedside of the hollow sham, whose fate it was to be buried presently in the mould of primeval earth. but both the diabolic love and the mearthly hate of the mysteries it had penetrated fought for the possession of that soul satiated with primitive emotions, avid of lying fame, of sham distinction, of all the appearances of success and power. (147)

In the middle of nowhere, where one can’t even hear a advice from one’s neighbor, self-fulfillment is not showing one’s motivated soul, but the darkness of one’s soul.

 

some thoughts upon “category”

In The History of Sexuality, Foucault focuses his discussion in the beginning chapters on the specification of individuals. This is interesting to me because Foucault makes it clear that individuals are brought and placed into categories and these categories become a part of their identity.

In the book, Foucault gives an example and says “the nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood (pg.43)”. This shows that homosexual had their entire lives interpreted under this category which includes their past beginning from their childhood. Also, in the same passage, Foucault says that homosexual became “a type of life, a life form, and a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology (pg. 43)”. Therefore, homosexual became not only a category such as a social category, but a biological category also. This shows that homosexual were trapped in such a category, as if they were another race different from a normal human being.

 I think this is why Foucault says “the homosexual was now species”. If we think of animals, they are put under species because they are biologically different from humans. We can see that if homosexual were designated as a species, then they were considered fundamentally different from humans in general.

In the same way, homosexuality became “less a habitual sin than as a singular nature (pg. 43)”. This means that homosexual were expected to act a certain way because they were considered to be fundamentally different. I find this very unfair. Even if, as people, homosexuals are essentially the same as others, because of persecution were forcefully said to be different and inferior.

 However, we can also see the situation improving lately as more countries consider the legalization of same-sex marriage. After all, we could know ourselves better through categorizing or even make good use of it, “sexuality is something that we ourselves create—it is our own creation, and much more than the discovery of a secret side of our desire. We have to understand that with our desires, through our desires, go new forms of relationships, new forms of love, new forms of creation. Sex is not a fatality: it’s a possibility for a creative life” (ibid.,382)

The following might be out of scope, but I think it would be funfunfun to have a discussion about them.

 More thoughts came to my mind during Monday’s lecture when I heard all these complicated categories; voyeuristic, frotteuristic, asdistic, masochistic, fetishistic, pedophilic, transvestic disorders……

Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality

Androphilia, gynephilia(or gynecophilia)

Pansexuality/omnisexuality

polyamory

Asexuality/nonsexuality

Why do people in general love categorize themselves?

 Is it because one could get a sense of security or superiority when one categorizes himself into the majority and excludes other “special” people?

 Is it because if they are the majority, then they would be assumed to be “good” without question? That is to say, they must be “good” simply because they are part of the majority?

 Can being part of the majority really give you a sense of security?

 Judging by years of worldwide homosexual persecution, why is it that the majority are still “scared” of the minority when they already have a superior number of people? What kind of insecurity is it, a fear of assimilation?

 Does the minority really do as much harm to the majority as the majority assumes?

 What if the majority have already become “zombies”–I mean one might categorize himself into the majority only because this is majority, without knowing what category it is, without the awareness of what he is doing.

In this way, is the majority still “good”?

If the minority is struggling and suffering, that is because they know what they want and they are fighting for it. Do the majority know what they want? If not, what should be done about it? And who should be doing what?

 BTW, If you haven’t watched V for Vendetta, you’d better watch it. Now……!