Social freedom within the novel creates many divisions within all sections of freedom. The militant foreigners (westerners mostly) seem to be the domineering factor and overall controllers of the section of Vietnam which we follow, although we are aware of other forces such as the Russians, we are not sure or made aware of how they operate there sections of Vietnam. This control the west allies have over Vietnam has become so apparent that Vietnam is now dependent on them as a presence to keep the country running correctly such as the economy. Greene portrays the Vietnamese culture as autocratic and militant, a notion that can be interpreted is the Vietnamese see every day life is about war and control, and they know nothing different. This is not often seen in the dialogue as we hear little dialogue of the Vietnamese but more implied through the stories centralisation around the “third force” and its harsh autocratically ruled leader general tai who is described by Fowler as an “ego maniac”. From the interview Fowler had with the general it was explicit what type of person ruled this force. The support for this from the Vietnamese for this “third force” is highlighted and therefore leads us to be left with it is how the Vietnamese generally feel. The bloody murder at the end combines to support this culture. The government before was no different being a totalitarian leadership style. The Vietnamese are the only who could have pursued such a grim defensive fight for so long without a deep underlying yearning for freedom because of there previous government. Fowler and Phuong symbolise the western and Vietnamese relationship as Fowler is demanding or at least controlling at times over Phuong as she initially plays a stereotypical Vietnamese partner. She bowls down to this domineering way of Fowler as she is feeble Vietnamese girlfriend. This oppression that exists But we later find out, she’s not as feeble as she seems when she leaves Fowler and we see Fowlers independence and pride dented and broken as he is now reliant on Phuong emotionally and physically. Phuong’s independence and expression of sexual, social and personal freedom she was previously restricted to with Fowler can also be compared to how socially the Vietnamese want to abandon western control to adopt a more traditional culture run by the Vietnamese them selves instead of foreign influence.
The obvious personal freedom which dominates the novel is that of Fowler. This has been criticised because all the other characters receive little depth and explanation, John Lehman of the New Republic newspaper (1955), an original reviewer of the book when it was published described the characters as plain to the reader as “two dimensional cardboard”. He went on to state that their purpose in the novel was of “little or no reality outside their function in the narrative”. Greene’s representation of personal freedom of Fowler relates to his religion. Surprisingly religion doesn’t play such a large part in this novel as it has plagued previous novels of Greene’s such as The end of the affair and The heart of the matte. The explicit tone of religion is not apparent in The Quiet American as it previously was in Greene’s novels but this superficial exterior still contains the moral religious aspects and dilemma’s that “Greene’s previous works tortured over”. The end of the novel provides us with the aspect of religion as the final words when Fowler complains “How I wish there existed someone to whom I could say I was sorry”. Fowler’s Roman Catholic marriage binds him to his wife for what seems to be inevitable. We soon find out that his wedlock is the bane of his life. This tie is what locks him away from commitment with his girlfriend Phuong and prohibits his personal freedom to marry his love. Fowler is has been quoted as a character having “neither faith nor hope, yet he has charity but contains selfishness as a dominating force”. His personal freedom is sometimes hinted to not only his marriage restrictions, but his selfish internal president to restrict himself and become self contained in a foreign land. Selfishness graces all the characters in Greene’s novel but most explicitly Fowler as he is the narrative speaker. He states “I know my selfishness” and “I know the depths of my selfishness” which provides the notion of his self contain and restriction. He forsakes others to provide him self with a cocooned environment of restriction of his freedom and experience. However it is a complex selfishness. He reduces himself to become cocooned in a selfish way for his own gain to provide piece of mind.
“I am sacrificing a small good for a far greater good – a piece of mind – when I need only think of myself”
This tends to lead to naivety as we see, his naivety which is part of his job as he mentions “I take no action, I don’t get involved” so he can report independently extends to his lifestyle and causes him to be contained. His dismissal of Pyle is almost immediate as his prejudice views because of Pyle’s age and supposed status take a form of self contain to block Pyle out and not accept him for what he can really provide Fowler. He can provide Fowler friendship as Pyle suggests friendship after the conflict over Phuong “does this mean we can still be friends…”. Friendship is what Fowler desperately lacks. This is just one way in which his selfish nature conflicts with his personal and social freedom. In conflict to this point Pyle takes Phuong from him, this later provides sufficient motive for such boundaries and emotional walls that Fowler places between himself and Pyle. For example after Pyle saves Fowlers life and visits him, Fowler is quick to dismiss him bye implying he leave “thank you for coming…”.
To conclude the freedoms within this novel are categorised as sexual, personal and social for the purposes of this essay. Sexual freedom is initially seen to be the exploitation of women, as Fowler exploits Phuong and the women in the brothel representing females bring down the tone and status of females in the novel. Women are demeaned in the novel by the central protagonists Fowler and Pyle. This is later reversed as we see Fowler break down and rely on Phuong for independence and to continue, without her he lacks his previous masculine independence, we then see his vulnerable side. Social freedom is again evident through the character of Phuong as Fowler’s character is dominating and controlling of Phuong, mainly because of his fear of loosing her. The social freedom of the general population is limited from the totalitarian leadership that existed from government them by the military forces in place of government followed a similar style of leadership. This fuelled the Vietnamese people, to rebel from the oppression that existed to obtain freedom eventually. Personal freedom is most evidently expressed in the case of Fowler’s personal freedom. This is where we most see the underlying parable of religions Vices and moral. His Roman Catholic wife is not allowing him to divorce. The domino effect of this is that he has no freedom to re-marry and Phuong wishes him to marry her so she feels more secure in a world of insecurity and little hope. So this reduces his relationship chances and possibilities. His personal freedom is not only due to this marriage problem but his own internal battle for perhaps more freedom from his naivety and personality. He self contains and doesn’t get involved which restricts his freedom. Nothing is more effective in Greene’s bid to express his dark nature than when Fowler casually comments on the film he sees just before Pyle’s murder: “it was what they call a film for boys, but the sight of Oedipus emerging with his bleeding eyeballs from the palace at Thebes would surely give better training for life today”
