A Racist Critique of European Imperialism
in Heart of Darkness

Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, published originally in 1899, marked the tail-end of the Victorian era and the height of the Age of Empire in Europe. Conrad himself was a product of empire, being born under Russian imperial rule, and witness to the dynamics of European control around the world. He wrote this novella as an awakening to the horrors and hypocrisy of imperialism. The novella itself however caters to an audience sympathetic towards European colonisation, therefore maintaining certain tenets of European superiority even within his critique. This paper will first discuss how Conrad uses irony and repositioning the European perspective to critique European imperialism by emphasising its profit-driven intentions and how England themselves were at one point colonized by the Romans. Secondly, an investigation will be done into the hidden racism and superiority present within Conrad’s irony and story-telling with support from Chinua Achebe’s article “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” This paper will argue that although Conrad clearly establishes a moral dilemma about the intention, value, and process of colonialism, he does so with a perspective that is Eurocentric and maintains the treatment of Africa as an ‘other’ entity. In other words, his critique of colonialism is based on how it concerns Europeans rather than humanising and valuing Africa in and of itself.

Conrad identifies the distinct difference between the frame narrator, and the main narrator, Marlow, in their opinions about colonialism; the former representing the general European sentiment and the latter the evolving sentiment during the turn of the century. The frame narrator considers the men that sail out into the void of the unknown to spread civilization and increase the power of their respective empires as “knights-errant of the sea” (Conrad 4).  These men spread the “germs of empires” to every place they visit, a comment about both metaphorically the contagiousness of the colonial desires in the minds of the European public and powers, and literally in the spread of diseases across Africa that took place after European settler-colonists arrived (4). Immediately afterwards, Marlow reflects by stating that just as the frame narrator previously described the colonies as “dark places” which the knights braved into, England also was once such a place. He explains the arrival of the Romans and what they must have witnessed upon entering a “land in a swamp,” having to “march through the woods” only to feel “ the utter savagery” and “awful climate” (6-7). How they too shared the experience of living “in the midst of the incomprehensible, which is also detestable” just like the so-called knights of the sea (7). 

The shift in perspective here is Conrad’s beginning attempts to introduce his critique of the European mentality around their superiority and progress as a population. The mainstream and common perception about Africa and other colonies was that they were quite a few steps behind in human and social evolution, that civilisation itself is not a concept that exists in these places. By arguing that the colonial European sentiment is possibly the same sentiment that the Romans had on them serves as a reality check on the superiority Europeans feign. A revelation that they too once were in the same position that the colonies currently are in, suggesting that these places also have the potential to be as advanced as Europe. This is done especially by using the same terminology used for the Africans, such as “savages,” the hatred for the incompatible weather and environment, and a general detestation of settling and exploring unknown regions. The only difference between the Romans and them is that the English are efficient, there is an entire administrative system to execute their ideology and mission (7). It is unclear, however, whether the distinction of England’s efficacy is something prideful or criticised; this description describes the vastness of the empire and the systems in place to ensure its endurance, but whether or not this system is a good or bad thing, for both the empire and the colonies, is ambiguous. 

Such an instance of ambiguity is only one instance in many throughout the novella that includes subtle racism and White superiority in the critique of colonisation. First of all, by repositioning the European perspective on colonialism as mentioned before, placing English people as the “savages” for the Romans, is already a move that centres England, and foreshadows the continued focus on colonialism concerning England and Europe rather than the colonized nations. This supposed ‘critique’ already influences the reader to view the colonized nations as “savage” and uncivilized, rather than places with individual cultures and customs. It is important to note that while Marlow is criticising imperial enterprises, he himself is willingly going to Congo with the Company. Regardless of whether it is to satisfy his curiosities or his deeper belief that he needs to go to continue the imperial mission, at the end of the day he is contributing to the continuation of imperialism.  This is another moment of ambiguity, where Marlow, through Conrad, is establishing his position in opposition to colonisation, explicitly criticising it, but offering no solutions, alternatives, or perspectives of the actual colonised people. Rather, Marlow suggests that sending young men on misguided missions for enlightenment can tempt violent behaviour and that it is hopeless since these places are too savage. This was a missed opportunity for Conrad to include an explanation of how African regions have their own established civilizations and do not need enlightenment.  It is clear here that the critique for colonisation is based on the negative effects it has on Europeans, focusing on their misfortune rather than of those colonised. 

Furthermore, Marlow expresses an explicit distaste of kinship with Africans, which is another demonstration of Conrad’s perspective seeping in subtly. Achebe writes that the true meaning of the novella is the “fascination it holds over the Western mind: ‘What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity - like yours… Ugly’” referencing Marlow’s description of encountering the people of Congo (Achebe 17). The “ugly” that is referenced is in Marlow’s opinion about “[Englishpeople’s] remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar,” i.e. the Africans (Conrad 105-6). Marlow’s desire to travel stems from his curiosity, which is a leisure and privilege affordable only by the colonizers. The notion that the African people would have a humanity that is the same as the Europeans is thrilling is particularly significant because it highlights the complete disregard of understanding the regions colonised in common European knowledge. It suggests that seeing their humanity and understanding and improving their lives was never the focus, they were only ever seen as objects to possess and control in a way that profits the colonizer. 

Achebe discusses further about Conrad’s racism by investigating the dehumanisation of Africans throughout the novella. On top of noticing Conrad’s preference for people remaining in places they originate from, Achebe notices the difference in Conrad’s descriptions of an African woman and a European woman. The African woman is described in a highly animalistic way, “wild-eyed… like the wilderness itself” whereas the European woman had “a mature capacity” and was refined (65, 80). The dehumanisation, Achebe notes, is emphasised especially by the almost complete lack of dialogue or speech from the Africans, noticing noises as their communication that are similar to animals. Achebe notices only two instances where speech is awarded to the Africans, one involving cannibalism, and the other involving death, both in situations where the activity overwhelms the individual (Achebe 19). Both these instances are moments where a certain activity that is “savage” and overwhelming taking over the African person are choices that reduce African people to just the activities they perform or events that can happen to them, deeming them as objects suited for certain functions. Moreover, speech is a way to establish agency in a person, by denying speech throughout the book is denying the African population agency and authority over their own bodies and existence. Once again, Conrad is removing the individuality and value of the African people by assigning gruesome situations to them that suit the monstrous and savage outlook the typical European had of them. The lack of acknowledging any cultural, moral, or humane qualities of Congo aside from the occasional “thrill” and fascination is a clear demonstration of the superficial and Eurocentric critique of imperialism. A critique that focuses on the same subject that the very colonial intentions it is critiquing do, the benefit of Europeans only. 

It is undeniable that Conrad is a product of imperialism, and his approach in this novella is clearly a product of his time as well, and that it is a step in the right direction to end colonisation. His criticisms, no matter the point of privilege it comes from, was still an evolving concept and an embodiment of the cultural and political changes happening at the time. That being said, this text is also a revelation about the racism and superiority that persisted even within those critical of colonisation, that perhaps the move towards decolonisation was never about the benefit of the colonized, but rather how it still would profit the colonizers.

Disclaimer: This work is original and the property of Aroni Sarkar. It is not authorised for any use, copies or dissemination.

Works Cited 

Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” The Massachusetts Review, vol. 57, no. 1, 2016, pp 14-27. 

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. London, Penguin, 2007.