Throughout July's People and A Passage to India a gulf in understanding between the colonisers and the colonised peoples is obvious. Demonstrate the ways in which the respective authors convey this separation through the texts.

‘I…want to belong to the new Africa as [I] never could in the

old, where our skin colour labelled us as oppressors to the

blacks and our views labelled us as traitors to the whites.’

Therefore, the lack of understanding and the destruction it causes between Maureen and July in the novel is, in effect, a mirror image of the lack of understanding within South Africa. The destruction and upset caused by the inability to forget the past is a very real product of the misunderstanding between the races and the relationship between the two characters in the book is an effective and moving way of putting this point across.

From the illustrations above, the negative conclusion that interracial relations are too difficult to be formed successfully could be reached. However, it is not until we observe other characters in the novels that we come to realise why such divisions remain. In A Passage to India Forster creates characters who epitomise the arrogance of the colonising group. Rudyard Kipling captures the arrogant attitude of such people as she highlights their belief that they are undertaking ‘the white man’s burden.’ Ronny, of course, is a perfect illustration of the condescending attitude adopted by many settlers:  

‘But Ronny had not disliked his day, for it proved that the

British were necessary to India; there would certainly have

been bloodshed without them…he was not here to be pleasant

but to keep the peace, and now that Adela had promised to be

his wife she was sure to understand.’  (110)

As can be seen through his character, it is clear that Forster sees the lack of understanding between the Indians as partly being the result of a lack of desire to understand one another and, indeed, an innate prejudice borne of ignorance.

Forster also finds his expression of such arrogance through the character of McBryde. His attitude towards the Indians is also highly condescending and indicative of why understanding between the races could not be met. McBryde’s theory demonstrates his deep-seated narrow-mindedness:

‘‘All unfortunate natives are criminals at heart, for the simple

reason that they live south of latitude 30. They are not to blame,

they have not a dog’s chance – we should be like them if we

settled here.’ Born as Karachi, he seemed to contradict his theory,

and would sometimes admit as much with a sad, quiet smile.’ (176)

In this talk, he does appear to be trying to sympathise with the Indians, but his prejudice nevertheless shines through. Such inability to view the Indians as equals underpins the lack of understanding conveyed by Forster in the novel.

From these illustrations, the reader begins to see that relationships such as that between Aziz and Fielding could work in principle. It is only the existence of such bigots and racists that prevents such partnerships from growing. Although on the surface this does sound rather bleak, it suggests that Forster in particular is pointing out hope in the novel. He does not see racism and the inability to understand the differing races as an inherent prejudice that can’t be overcome, but he sees the lack of understanding to be a product of societies attitude – something that can, of course, be changed with education.

 

In July’s People, one of the crucial factors that separates the two cultures and makes it difficult for them to relate to one another is their differing economic situations. The children, in particular Victor, suffered the effects of displacement in terms of material deprivation. After having been thrown into an alien world, where they have none of the luxuries they are accustomed to, Victor fails to appreciate the extent of the change their lifestyles have undergone. He pleads with Maureen to get his racing-car track out and, being so young, cannot grasp the idea that they have no electricity:

‘- Vic, where’s there to set it up? And there’s no electricity,

you can’t run it.-

- I want to show it. -’   (14)

His childlike perspective and confusion at such material dispossession represents the impact of the change in lifestyle on all of the family. The lack of understanding of their new economic situation parallels the lack of understanding of the lifestyle of the blacks in the community. Although the economic differences are simply one area of this lack of understanding, they indicate the many barriers that lie in-between the two ethnic groups.

On a slightly more subtle level than the obvious illustrations above is the author’s use of language to convey the separation between the races. On the surface, they use terminology to express the inability for the other native group to be able to understand. In July’s People this is particularly evident through the broken English used by the black characters. The opening line of the book captures the difficulties of understanding that grow between the races throughout the novel:

‘You like to have some cup of tea?-

July bent at the doorway and began that day for them as his kind

has always done for their kind.’

July’s English is pidgin and limited and we learn that Maureen has spent fifteen years using ‘very simple, concrete vocabulary’ (72) with him. This fundamental difference in language will inevitably cause communication problems and it is from this lack of interaction that the deficiency in understanding of one another’s culture stems.

Gordimer also incorporates Afrikaans speech in the novel:

‘ – he called up to the man on the roof in the way his people

did, teasing and encouraging, the first part of what he said

gabbled and rapid, the syllables of the last word strongly divided

and drawn out, the word itself repeated. Mi ta twa ku nandziha

ngopfu, swi famba a moyeni. Ncino wa maguva lawa,

hey-i…hey-i!’   (141)

The presence of this in the novel highlights to the reader the division between the whites and the blacks – the visual presence of this unknown language on the page drives home the communication problems present in the mixed community.

In a similar way Forster incorporates some Indian words into the text, when there is no suitable English words to describe the Indian feature. For instance, he refers to the ‘Bhil,’ which is a word used to describe a member of a Central Indian people consisting mainly of aboriginal hunting tribes and uses the term ‘Nawab,’ which is an Indian title of nobility. The fact that such words do not exist in English, or do not have a precise translation, is indicative of the gulf in cultures between the Indians and the whites and, naturally, this goes some way towards explaining the lack of understanding between the races.

Barriers in understanding created by language differences are conveyed further by Gordimer, as can be seen when she highlights the climactic point at which the separation of the two races peaks, by an argument between Maureen and July. In the midst of a heated argument July begins to talk to Maureen in his native tongue:

‘- You – he spread his knees and put an open hand on each.

Suddenly he began to talk at her in his own language, his face

flickering powerfully…She understood although she knew no

word…’   (152)

July is clearly exasperated with Maureen and only his mother tongue can express his anger adequately. This reminder of their different backgrounds, through highlighting their differing linguistic abilities effectively expresses the breakdown of interracial relations at this point. Clingman observes that:

‘There is a culminating moment of dialogue as, in this case,

July vents his anger at Maureen in his own language, a language

she cannot understand in literal terms, but the import of which

is all too clear. It is in the aftermath of this that Maureen abandons

her family and flees.’

This episode is of the utmost importance and the fact that Maureen cannot understand July’s language in the literal sense is symbolic of their overall lack of understanding of one another’s culture and origin.

A similar technique is used by Forster in A Passage to India, when we see the way in which the white people use language in order to assert superiority over their Indian counterparts. Silver refers to this racial discourse claiming that:

‘the linguistic structures practised by the English inscribe the

oppression of the Indians, both individually and as a group…

Ronny, the newcomer, enacts the linguistic and ideological

power inherent in racial discourse most explicitly, thereby

satisfying the English desire for conformity and proving the

Indians’ perception of the English correct.’ 

She goes on to illustrate his desire to form solidarity with the other whites as opposed to the Indians by drawing upon the fact that he continually uses ‘phrases and arguments that he had picked up from the older officials’ (33) to describe the Indians. He also uses speech, perhaps subconsciously, in order to totally undermine the Indians. When at the bridge party, for instance, he lightly comments:

‘no one who’s here matters; those who matter don’t come’(58-70?)

He is reducing the Indian people to nonentities and Said recognises this technique claiming such use of racial discourse ‘wipe[s] out any traces of individual[s]…with narratable life stories.’ Therefore, it can be seen that Forster is using the subtleties of the characters’ language as a means of conveying the divide between the races and, of course, the lack of understanding that emerges from that.  

Now that the various ways in which the authors convey the lack of understanding between the differing races has been explored, it is interesting to explore the reasons why these divisions are so obvious in the novels. The illustrations above indicate that the conveyance of such separation is a deliberate technique employed by the writers. The creation of characters such as Ronny for instance can only be interpreted as a means of highlighting the prejudices in colonised India. Similarly, the difficulties encountered by Maureen and Ban in July’s People are a means of highlighting the differences between the races that are so difficult to overcome under the circumstances. However, it is possible that much of the lack of understanding that prevails in the novels is actually a product of the fact that the authors are writing from the position of the colonisers. The writer’s lack of understanding of their Indian and black African subjects could therefore be showing through the texts unintentionally.

It is interesting to look at Said’s theory at this stage. He claims that when writing about different ethnic groups the writer ‘will demote the different experience of others to a lesser status.’ This does appear to apply to Gordimer’s work in particular and this has been recognised by critics, such as Horn, in the past:

‘Despite her efforts to cross the boundary between “blacks”

and “whites”, the “black” becomes the Other in Gordimer’s

writing, for whom she must speak.’

This does appear to occur in July’s People in so far as the character of Maureen is a little flawed. She is a liberal South African and yet there are still instances in which she appears unable to accept that July is her equal. She finds it difficult to be subservient to him, despite having subjected him to a degree of submission for the past fifteen years:

‘She was unsteady with something that was not anger but

a struggle: her inability to enter into a relation of subservience

with him…’   (101)

As this doesn’t appear to be concordant with the character of Maureen, it could be suggested that this is Gordimer’s authorial perspective pushing through. Perhaps in support of this is the fact that it was decided that July’s People was unsuitable material to be taught in schools in Gauteng. The education department concluded that:

‘the language that is used is not acceptable, as it does not

encourage good grammatical practices…any condemnation

of racism is difficult to discover – so the story comes across

as being deeply racist, superior and patronising.’ 

However, this attack upon the novel appears to be rather unfounded and severe. It is reasonable to say that her novel is far from being racist on any particular level. The reader empathises and relates to the character of July and this would not happen if Gordimer wished to deliberately separate us. The author’s background and way of life substantiates the fact that she is not racist, as she is renowned for having ‘fought tirelessly for freedom in South Africa [and having] chronicled the fluctuating and self-deluding progress of white South Africa’s folly and cruelty and [has] been an obedient servant of the ANC.’ 

Similarly, it is clear that a certain amount of the lack of understanding conveyed through the book is actually representative of Forster’s lack of understanding of the Indian civilisation. It could be suggested that his concentration on the friendship between Aziz and Fielding is indicative of his liberal humanist world-view. He is clearly more concerned with the individual experience, rather than the political or social experience. However, despite this liberal approach, the reader is still left with the feeling that Forster has struggled to portray the Indians adequately. If we turn again to Said’s theory in “Discrepant Experiences”, Forster’s portrayal of the Marabar Caves is suggestive of his inadvertent conveyance of the divide between the whites and the Indians. Dover acknowledges this fact:

‘Forster, from the self-confessed perspective of the enlightened

Western visitor, suggests that the Caves themselves are symbolic

of the…“otherness” of India itself: complex, ungovernable,

bewildering, enigmatic…’ 

Therefore, although Forster does see himself as being ‘enlightened’, his paranormal and mysterious portrayal of the caves suggests that he encountered difficulties in both understanding and expressing the Indian culture to his white readers. He has been successful in so far as he has captured the different cultures, but he has not necessarily done this in a non-biased way – the supernatural element of the caves point towards him seeing India and therefore its people as ‘the other’- ‘that which is unfamiliar and extraneous to a dominant subjectivity.’ 

Therefore, the effect produced by the two authors can be viewed in two distinct manners. The first is that they are deliberately portraying the separation and lack of understanding between the two cultures and, as such, are being actively reproachful of this and the second is that the lack of understanding that is conveyed in the novels is representative of their own inability to relate to the other ethnic group. Many issues underlie this question, although it could be suggested that the benefit of the doubt aught to be given to the respective authors who are striving to represent the countries effectively and fairly, despite the problems explored such as the adequacy of the English language in conveying both India and black South Africa.

In conclusion, in both of the texts the authors use many techniques in order to convey the lack of understanding between the imperialists and the colonised peoples in the respective countries. However, as both of the writers are members of that colonising group in effect, the extent to which this division was conveyed intentionally by the authors has to be questioned. Ironically, through reading the texts from a colonial perspective, it could be deemed that the apparent differences surface because of a real lack of understanding on the part of the authors themselves.

Bibliography

• Boehmer, Elleke. Colonial and Postcolonial Literature.   Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995.

• Burra, Peter. The Novels of E. M. Forster, 1934.

• Clingman, Stephen. “Surviving Murder: Oscillation and Triangulation in Nadine Gordimer’s The House Gun.”  Modern Fiction Studies 46:1 (spring 2000): 140-141.

• Forster, E. M. A Passage to India.   London: Penguin. 1989.

• Gordimer, Nadine. July’s People.   London: Penguin. 1981.

• Gordimer, Nadine. “Where do Whites Fit in?” (1959) in The Essential Gesture: Writing, Politics and Places. ed and intr. Clingman, Stephen.   London: Penguin. 1988.

• Said, Edward W. “Discrepant Experiences” in Postcolonial Discourses: An Anthology. ed. Castle, Gregory.   Oxford: Blackwell. 2001. pp. 26-37.

• Said, Edward. Orientalism.   New York: Vintage. 1979.

• Silver, Brenda R. “Periphrasis, Power and Rape in A Passage to India” in Post-Colonial Theory and English Literature. ed.Childs, Peter.   Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 1999. pp.363-77.

---