In the colonial discourse of tribal cannibalism and savagery as portrayed in Juan Jose Saer's work The Witness, Said's model of Orientalism has a significant influence. In various discourses (religious, anthropological, scientific, historical, etc.) about prehistoric societies, the post-Enlightenment European narrative of cannibalism and savagery is exhibited. The framework makes an effort to challenge this narrative. I will concentrate on the first colonial encounter between the narrator and his companions and the tribal Indians, the narrator's rescue after ten years, the subsequent annihilation of the Indians, and the narrator's plays and performances throughout Europe afterward, in the discussion of the colonial discourse as it is displayed in The Witness. I chose these scenes because they demonstrate glaring episodes of colonial discourses. The fact that the occurrences of these events in the text show cannibalism and savagery facilitates the adoption of Said’s Orientalism in the discussion.
Tribal cannibalism and savagery have been cultural lenses, through which Europeans viewed non-Europeans in various post-Enlightenment texts. As Said says, “[Cannibalism and savagery] is the idea of Europe, a collective notion identifying “us” Europeans against all “those” Non-Europeans…” (7). The text invokes a cultural attribute of “we” versus “them” for the Europeans and non-Europeans respectively, demonstrating the lens of otherness from which the West perceives the rest of the world. The emphasis that is placed on the European identity in the text creates a certain hierarchy that elevates Westerners from non-Westerners, thereby placing them on a higher authority level. This aspect creates a perceived reality for the Europeans, where they view themselves as superior and other communities, such as the tribal (primitive) societies as inferior. As a result, this comparative elevation of Europeans against non-Europeans has been continually referred to in texts that invoke incidences of cannibalism and savagery. Therefore, Europeans (especially British and French) used this propaganda to justify the colonization of primitive societies so that they could also lead civilized lives that embody Western ideals.
The narrator’s initial encounter with the tribal Indians is a confirmation of the colonial discourse much known to the Europeans. In this encounter, the narrator says, “…An arrow shot out from the undergrowth behind him and pieced his throat…. (And) apart from me everyone was lying still on the ground…” (Saer 26). The act of piercing the captain and the rest of the crew is utterly cruel, given that they had just set foot ashore and were in no position to initiate a fight. Later on in the text, the narrator describes the harrowing experiences, where the Indians feast on the deceased comrades as he watched. Literally, this encounter demonstrates the outright savagery and inhumanity among tribal societies. The ruthless murder and consequent eating of the corpses, coupled with sexual orgies and other absurd acts confirm the innate savagery and cannibalism. However, as Saer later suggests in the text, that encounter is just a parody of the way the Europeans viewed the tribal societies, and is intended to show that way to downplay such perceptions. By allowing the Indians to shoot arrows from undergrowth, and later showing scenes where they ate human flesh and related sexual absurdities, the author was playing right into the European stereotypes. Said contends that such portrayals are just “statements and authorizing views” (3) that apparently reinforce the colonial discourse about the tribal societies, since the reader is genuinely aware that the encounter is parodic, and serves to distance the author from the historical prejudices of cannibalism and savagery. Therefore, Saer detaches himself from, and questions the objectivity of the historical discourse of the tribal cannibalism and the savagery in The Witness.
In that same encounter, Saer allows a substantial time lapse to pass between the occurrences to show great strife when characters meet the unknown. There is a cinematic pause between the speech and the action when the captain says, “This is a land without…” (Saer 26). The author does not allow the captain to finish his statement because he is aware that doing so will assert the long-held Orientalism against the tribal societies. Said says, “Orientalism [is] a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in European Western experiences” (Said 1). In this case, the captain, having been familiar with the historical prejudices from the travel diaries and journals and existing literary pieces on tribal societies, was about to vocalize the Oriental relationship between the Europeans and the primitive societies when he was shot. Most likely, he wanted to say that the land was without savages, reinforcing the stereotypes and affiliating savagery to native communities. However, by allowing the arrow to pierce his throat, the author symbolically dissociates himself from the Oriental discourse by disengaging the captain’s speech apparatus. It is evident that if the Indians had shot right through the heart, the captain would have died, but would have completed his utterances affirming the colonial discourse of savagery. By “shutting the captain’s mouth”, Saer dissociates himself from Orientalism.
Said articulates Orientalism, saying that, “The relationship between an Occident and Orient is a relationship of power, of domination, [and] of varying degree of hegemony…” (Said 5). Drawing upon this relationship, The Witness demonstrates the power hierarchies and authorial dominations of the Western civilizations. As shown in the text, following the narrator’s release after 10 years, the Europeans get essential information about the Indians that they use to track them. The narrator recounts that the Europeans killed all of them, demonstrating great power and savagery on their part. The killing is one of dominion over the cultural other, thereby reinforcing the power of the Occident over the Oriental. It is also worth noting that the narrator gives a fake story to the Europeans, which they perceive to be entirely true, and watch unquestioningly, despite various hints that it was just a hoax. The narrator says, “I would deliberately garble the meaning of my own speeches…I wanted to force the audience to realize it was all a fraud…” (Saer 116). This text clearly shows that the willingness of the West to live a lie in order to recreate Orientalism, something that The Witness parodies. This way, Saer questions the objectivity and veracity of the historical colonial discourse.
Said’s model of Orientalism is crucial in the understanding of and remaking of the tribal cannibalism and savagery that is common in the colonial discourse. Parodying those discourses in the form a novella ideate the questioning of the objectivity of the historical narrative as justification for the annihilation of a whole society. By suggesting that the commonly held traditional discourses are fraudulent in The Witness, Saer detaches from the propagandist colonial discourse.
Works Cited
Said, Edward, W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1977. Print.
Saer, Juan J. The Witness. London: Serpent’s Tail, 2009. Print.
