Udeze 1

Echezona Udeze
Brian Finney
English 696
5/14/12
Vindication by Means of Going Against the Grain: A Justification of Postcolonial Theoretical
Application To The Tempest
My counselor and I sit down and talk about both our views on philosophy, current events,
and every once in a while psychology. He tells me he believes all our actions are dictated by
psychobiology, which is molded through our actions with the outside world. His method for
treatment is called cognitive behavior therapy which centers around unlearning or training
yourself to think positive thoughts and while I wish my mind adorned with peaceful and happy
thoughts I know that there is little on earth to smile about. This is probably a perspective shared
by Caliban with the contrary being portrayed by Ariel from The Tempest whose positions in
society are logical grounding for a postcolonial interpretation of the The Tempest are the focus of
this essay. With a brief comment on the wide scope of contemporary criticism and then looking
at the writings of major postcolonial theorist one clearly can see that The Tempest, while not
being written with postcolonial theory in mind, proves their texts application to The Tempest a
logically sound theoretical reasoning.
The opening line of an essay titled, Discourse and the Individual: The Case of
Colonialism in The Tempest,is: for many years idealist readings of The Tempest presented
Prospero as an exemplar of timeless human values and while the arguments in the essay seem to
shed an honest light on Prosepros actions, a significant amount of time is spent discerning
exactly where Caliban has originated from, justifying the actions of Prospero, citing Caliban as a
childish rapist, and placing Ariel as the right inheritor of the island. This essay, used as an
example though it is more covertly extreme, is more of a justification of colonialism through

Udeze 2
reversing the assignment of blame than an intelligent and honest response to postcolonial
theoretical practices.
In fact, most of the essays I found focused on whether or not postcolonial interpretation
or the correct application of postcolonial interpretation in terms of The tempest is plausible when
dealing with this play and while their arguments foundation is logically and soundly reasoned,
looking at the focus of postcolonial literary or a large amount of contemporary literary
interpretation, makes their arguments seem a bit of a trifle and blind toward subjectivity.
Contemporary literary theorys focus is biased towards what I believe is a radical
pluralism and an excellent example of this pluralism is Roland Barthes essay Death of The
Author which displaces the role of the author as central in analyzing the text and centers the
solitary reader as sole interpreter. The essay is written with hyperbole in mind, but putting
Barthes stylistic means aside he states a very valid point when he writes that writing is that
neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is
lost, starting with the very identity of the body of writing (Barthes). While an author being the
creator of the work is made obvious by the title of Barthes essay, texts contain the potential
towards plurality and blending in terms of application of theories that transcend time periods,
authorial intent, or biographical information, and even the words of the texts themselves. This is
why the essays I found dealing with postcolonial theory and The Tempest to be superfluous and
blind towards freedom or limited with vision of wider scope in terms of interpretation.
At the same time Spivak in A Critique of Postcolonial Reason references
Barthes essay and writes on being concerned with representation being used
as a means to an ends. Postcolonial theory is not concerned with authorial
intent but with fact especially when dealing with representation.
Postcolonial theory to Spivak should be the means towards the end of

Udeze 3
exposing, uncovering, and reestablishing what is being misrepresented as
factual.
Postcolonial theory as well naturally finds equilibrium through hybridity.
Postcolonial theory is a mix of theories that run through Structuralism and
Post-structuralism. The Situation calls for use of a wide selection of ideas
since postcolonial literary theory is not grounded in literature but
representation.
Edward Said in Orientalism wrote on The Orient as an extensively constructed faade
that occupied three overlapping domains that all originated in the western world. Said attributes
the western world with the birth of the creation of The Orient as a means to produce an ends
and the faade incorporates not a civilizing and saving mission but the creation of the other to
the extent that you are unable to place the other and others that share the same culture as
equals when comparing them with your own society.
The focus of this essay is the third overlapping domain that compromises the western
construct The Orient as the representation of The Orient throughout Colonial discourse.
Representation of the other is only a part of the faade, the identity designed and manufactured
for mass production that Said in Culture and Imperialism wrote require contrapuntal readings.
Texts to Said, while open to a wide range of theoretical interpretation are bound to reality and
Said believed contemporary criticism cut connections between the actual world and the texts.
Representation logically becomes the image of the other that is ready made in the minds
of the colonizer, who cuts the connections between the text and reality, in order to justify the
actions of their country. Therefore, postcolonial theoretical literary analysis, which according to
Said must be against the grain, requires contrapuntal readings in order to, as Said writes in
Narrative and Social Space, voice what is silent or marginally represented. Or, that there is
a covert message and purpose that is passed over when things are analyzed solely from a

Udeze 4
perspective that believes that a text possesses no life outside of what can be found intrinsically
within the intended meaning of the work of art.
And while the essays I found state factual reasons using logical proofs, one being that
texts The Tempest derives from have nothing to do with colonial India but the Americas, but the
essayist fail to see that their critiquing of The Tempest is basing their interpretations often on
factual evidence not in terms of the factual misrepresentation of the colonial subject throughout
the literature of the western world.
Prosperos opening lines in The Tempest are, No harm! I have done nothing but in care of
thee, of thee, my dear one (Vaughn 150), while the actions he carries out while caring for
nothing but his dear one have destroyed a ship. Prosperos actions throughout the play indicate
a lack of adherence to or nonexistence of ethical standards, while his slave, Caliban is described
and defined in a radically different light. The images and stereotypes used, or the application of
the third overlapping domain to The Tempest give birth to logical arguments of misrepresentation
or what Said termed being marginally represented.
Calibans misrepresentation is notable as the other whether American Indian or
originating from The Orient. His physical representation and character conveyed through
language in The Tempest are a vivid and horrifying example of when stereotyping reaches
excesses of imagination and signifies a lack of realism and compassion from those who have
placed themselves in the position of superior.
Examples of Caliban being misrepresented are found in character, imagery, and naming
throughout the play to describe both his physical and spiritual appearance. Prospero his master
calls him, the son she did litter here, a freckled whelp hag-bornnot honored with a
human shape (Shakespeare 169), and Thou most lying slave, whom stripes may move, not
kindness (Shakespeare 174). Miranda is maybe taking cues from her father, when she calls

Udeze 5
Caliban, Abhorred slave (Shakespeare 175) and continues to belittle him through telling him
he should be grateful for the good they have brought him, specifically their language.
Caliban expresses the animosity born of undeserved embarrassment many colonized
experience through this same language when he orates on the gripes which brought him to be
summoned by Prospero as, Thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself/ Upon thy wicked
dam; come forth! (Shakepspeare 172). Caliban continues on, When thou camst first/Thou
strokst me and made much of me: wouldst give me/ Water with berries in t, and teach me how/
To name the bigger light and how the less (Shakespeare 173-174). But the kindness vanished
to Caliban when he, loved thee/ And showed all the qualities othisle (Shakepseare 174),
showing the motivation behind Calibans swift sharp tongue. There is logical reasoning behind
every barb he thinks to throw at them though many would instantaneously recognize Caliban as
the antagonist since he is resentfully bitter.
The most vivid example of Calibans spiritual misrepresentation as the imagined colonial
other takes place, (ironically), in the scene where he decides to have a drink. Two obvious
fools, Stephano and Trinculo, address Caliban constantly as monster which according to the
Arden annotated edition is, An imaginary animal having a form either partly brute and partly
human or compounded of elements from two or more animal forms (Shakespeare 211). While
they address Caliban as monster they pour liquor in his mouth or his mouths, (he is said to have
two by these classic Shakespearean yokels), and Caliban becomes as much a fool as Stephano
and Trinculo and cajoles the yokels into attempting to murder Prospero.
Give a fool a drink and that fool will give you the keys to his car!
Prosperos actions are justified by both himself and his daughter in a few sentences by
themselves, Thou most lying slave,Whom stripes may move, not kindness; I have used thee/
(Filth as thou art) with human care and lodged thee/ in mine own cell, till thou didst seek to
violate/the honour of my child (Shakespeare 174). Caliban does not choose to deny accusations

Udeze 6
of the attempted rape of Miranda but comments on the ends he plans on achieving. Calibans
desperation due to the conditions he has been forced into led him to attempt leaving his seed in
order to take back the island. While Calibans physical appearance and spiritual demeanor are
belittled, berated, and heartbreaking, his claim as the islands true inheritor is ignored though
Prospero murdered his mother.
While Caliban is justifiably resentful and an acrid sort of bitter, the other slave, Ariel, is
quick to obey his commands. In Black Skin/White Masks Franz Fanon writes, In every country
of the world there are climbers, the ones who forget who they are (Fanon37), and Ariel seems
the slave who has forgotten that they are not equals but that Ariel is property. Fanon writes on
language and how the colonizers utilize hybridization to create an inferiority complex through
the hybrid dialect that arises through the example of those subjects who have the chance to spend
time in the colonizing country. The colonized returns a learned man of the world who attempts to
shed the appearance and dialect of the other.
Ariel is granted kindness from Prospero and the opportunity to earn what should be
intrinsically his, freedom. While freedom is withheld, Ariel is forced to earn the right to rights,
and pleads with Prospero throughout their encounters. One instance caught my attention. After
Ariel has caused the storm that sets the play in motion and appears before Propero recounting
doing his bidding he demands his liberty and is told to wait: Before the time be out? no more!
(Shakespeare 166), and Ariel tells him of his perfect following of his orders in detail, the
conversations continues and leads into Prospero manipulating Ariel through reminding him that
Prospero himself freed him from the prison Calibans mother, Sycorax, confined him in.
The small thing about representation in this play is that Propero sets all pieces, especially
those that set the play in motion, in motion. While Ariel and Caliban are written in as opposites,
or given a character polarity, the colonizer, Prospero, is an insidious, lying, murdering,
manipulator. While Caliban is described as a monster and Ariel is an obedient and reliable

Udeze 7
servant who earns his freedom, Prospero is never justly attacked by a single character other than
Caliban himself while he hoodwinks every character towards the ends he himself desires.
Prosperos goal is to regain his status, which he does, but after manipulating everyone the
final farewell or the ending monologue where he states that his ending is despair unless he prays
and that Mercy frees all faults (Shakespeare 286) and that the audiences indulgence should
set him free (Shakespeare 286). And while Caliban is misrepresented as ugly, maliciously
insidious, and undeservedly rude, Prosperos actions end with an alls well that ends well
goodbye where his mercy towards Ariel, (who he briefly earlier set free), is reason enough for
mercy to be granted for his actions through prayer.
While Shakespeares critical eye does not chastise Prospero despite his actions, Caliban is
a groveling, angry, bitter, reluctant, rude, and disfigured servant. Since the hegemonys critical
eye cannot step into the light and see what is expressed covertly, theorist must strive to discover
differences that denote that people are being purposely misrepresented and postcolonial theorys
purpose is to enact reading that discerns not only author intended meanings but the question of
what is seen by the hegemonic faction of society as the other, instead of the other as
themselves.
In a novel I am currently working on a character based on myself named Bob Barnes
writes in his journal on the western worlds focus on individualism being at the heart of evil since
reason would lead anyone to know that once you separate and denote difference you have
defined something as the other. And Bob Barnes, like myself, was ridiculed by his high school
and in the end takes a gun to the school he left since the ridicule eats away at him and shoots a
character named Juice in the head. The line where he shoots him runs: Two Shots. In Head. Point
Blank. Dead.
Another essay I wrote, which received a lowly grade (or a D) from Frederick Wegener
deals with the work of Norman Mailer. In both Mailers essay The White Negro and his novel

Udeze 8
Why We Are In Vietnam mailer attempts to place the white hipster in the same place as the black
American. The juxtaposing of the words white and negro in a description of anything are
immediate cause for suspicion from black people, an automatic alarm that patronizing is ready
and set to take place, while the ones who place the two terms together for self definition are
usually searching for a vantage point in terms of status.
But, while not guilty of the same crime against humanity, I am guilty and I must admit, I
find too much of myself in Caliban. Like Caliban, I feel cheated out of who I could have been
and what I can never be and I feel bitter resentment on this pinpoint fact, but, Gayatari Spivak in
A Critique of Post Colonial Reason references a writer who assigned the title intellectual to
both Caliban and Ariel and states that she herself does not believe Caliban to be an inescapable
model and criticizes claims of mirroring Caliban as opening the door to the creation of the
psyche believing individualism should exist and that is exactly what creates discrimination or the
belief that there is denotative difference between human beings that characterizes one as
superior.
Still I feel that something has been stolen . . .
The effects Colonialism have had on me have left me bipolar and schizophrenic, seeming
like a study worthy of Fanon to be placed in The Wretched of the Earth, an angry misanthrope
who believes himself the loser in his own life story, but it has granted me a keen critical eye
when judging texts such as the ones mentioned in this article.
So I sit, I write, I wait.

Udeze 9
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. (translated by S. Heath). The Death of the Author. Image, Music,
Text. 1977. pp.142-148. South Hampton Solent University.
Fanon, Franz. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1967.
Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993.
---. Orientalism. London: Routledge, 1978.
Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. A Readers Guide to
Contemporary Literary Theory. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Higher Education,
2005. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Ed. Virginia Mason Vaughan. London: The Arden
Shakespeare. 1994. Print.
Skura, Meredith Anne. Discourse and The Indiviudal: The Case of Colonialism in The Tempest.
Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 42-69. Project Muse. Web. Date
Unknown.
Spivak, Gayatari Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1999.