Day two of a new discipline is always very hard. I was going to say “the hardest” but that seemed hyperbolic and, more importantly, ran against the realization that every day of a difficult discipline is ‘the hardest’. Lest this exercise turn into a narcissistic admiration of my difficulties, let me turn my attention to two observations made during today’s reading.
First is Robinson Crusoe, which has lovely introduction by J. Donald Crowley in my Oxford World’s Classics edition. Among the many things Crowley’s introduction provides is a nice review of the criticism to date, as it should. Notable among these is Ian Watt’s reading of Defoe’s protagonist as “Economic Man,” the details of which deserve more thought than I have time for at the moment. Watt’s term, however, rose to the surface because some friends and I had been discussing “use value” in relation to both Crusoe and aesthetics more generally. Today’s reading included Crusoe reflecting on his condition, especially his wants.
The section runs for few pages and is encased in a larger discourse on his relationship to Providence, previous “wicked” ways and current repentance. The Island is thus part great punishment, for his past sins, and great fortune, because it brings him closer to God. (Crowley provides a brief history of this paradox, termed “the fortunate fall” by theologians). Amidst these reflections, Crusoe says, “all the good Things of this World, are no farther good to us, than they are for our Use” (129). There are two conclusions to be drawn from this statement. First, given the larger religious context and the diatribe on “Covetousness” that follows, Crusoe suggests that we acquire only what we need and nothing more. Second, there are “good Things” in the world that are potentially “good to us” and these two ‘goods’ are linked by “Use” (129). Things and morality are joined together as “goods” when they are joined in goods that are of Use. This is why Crusoe can remark, without irony or self-awareness, that he is “Lord of the whole Mannor,” “King, or Emperor over the whole country which I had Possession of,” a short paragraph before his discourse against “Covetousness” (128).
Here, then, is a short primer on the “rationale” behind British Imperialism. Crusoe’s anti-covetousness stand is cancelled out by the potential of good Things to be good to him. That is, the world must be explored for good Things, which must then be tested to see if they can be potentially good to us. The natives, of course, are not aware of all the uses of their local stuff and so must be pushed aside for their own good. Even more, they are not using their lives for the ultimate good that is worshipping and serving the Christian Go(o)d; thus, they too can be put to good use. If I become “King, or Emperor over the whole country,” it is not because I am covetous, but because Providence is blessing me for doing Good (with goods); I am simply putting all the good things in the world that can be good to us to good Use.
-––––––––––––
Unedited:
None of this was what I was originally thinking about, but hopefully it has done me some good.
