Introduction
Waiting for the Barbarian is a novel written by J.M. Coetzee about the recount of the rebellion of the magistrate of an empire against the torture inflicted on the imperial administration that arrested the barbarians. The novel features a scene in which J.M. Coetzee personalizes the magistrate above all the rebellious activities because the magistrate was allowed to witness the working of conscience. The novel’s storyline revolves around operation, torture, which brings about injustice (Dibavar, Abbasi and Pirnajmuddin, 2020, p.95). Those treated unjustly are the barbarians who later decide to stand against the law. Generally, the novel talks about torture in the life of a man of conscience. Sociology in this novel applies every study of group interaction, society, and cultural interaction where the formal interaction of characters in “Waiting for the Barbarians” reveals several scenes. The rebellious groups arise from small personal groups to large groups, intensifying the rebellion against injustice. This paper aims at assessing if the novel “Waiting for the Barbarian” is a fatalistic text by relating it to the sociological impact that the key players, the magistrate, and the colonel’s interaction caused.
Main Body
Oppression is witnessed in the novel as the first proof of fatalistic text as the imperial government arrested the barbarians and passed them through inhuman treatment and torture. This torture continues, and the barbarians decide to rebel against that oppression. The oppression was filled with unfair treatment like lock-ups of slaves, intense physical activities, and physical torture. The barbarians are first taken as prisoners without justice (Pandey, 2020). This is witnessed as the colonel first converses with the magistrates and tells him that the prisoners had already been judged and found guilty. The theory of Foucault and knowledge for sociology talk about the two major elements of socialization: power and knowledge. In theory, for power to be constituted, knowledge is needed; therefore, a power without knowledge will lead to unsocial acts that will interfere with the normal operation and interaction between members of the society (Wade et al., 1994, p. 191). The theory also defines knowledge as a factor in people’s interaction growth. It entails the ability to identify a good idea that will positively impact society and bad factors that could negatively lead to failure of social interaction.
The colonel represents a leader without knowledge of the importance of which is witnessed as he arrests the Barbarians and imprisons them without presenting them for judgment. Foucault’s theory discusses the three main powers: sovereign power, disciplinary power, and biopower. All these powers affect social interactions among people in society. Therefore, the Foucault theory develops an interest in power that leads to social change (Laue, 2018). In the novel “Waiting for the Barbarian,” power is featured as influencing social change from the story’s major theme. The rebellious Barbarians decide to form a group to claim to be innocent with knowledge of their rights. This leads them to claim justice against the mistreatment by the colonel. The Foucault theory becomes primarily advantageous at this point, as it addresses how power and knowledge can be used to form social control through the societal institution.
The sovereign power, a leading factor in Foucault’s theory, is the social right to take life or let live. Sovereignty often manifests itself as the right for someone to kill when the sovereign state is in danger. In this case, punishment and oppression is an act of war applied to defend the sovereignty of a state. The barbarians are led under sovereign power. Their lives are highly venerable because the sovereign government led by the emperor does not care about the singular lives of the barbarians (Hancock, 2018, p. 440). The sovereign society often denies people below the law, especially slaves and prisoners, the right to make demands or perform any task other the recommended by the sovereign leaders. The existence of dominant power over the Barbarians leads to injustice and mistreatment by the authority led by the colonel. They lack an efficient correctional arm that would unjustified the colonel’s acts on the barbarians due to their sovereignty. At the beginning of the novel, even the magistrate himself fails to administer justice to the Barbarians because the colonel feels much more above the law. Sovereignty also entails the application of anatomy in which the sovereign society feels much more powerful than the other existent ones.
The knowledge of justice by the barbarians led to the rise of leaders among them who formed power to lead them against the oppression prosed on them. Barbarians then decide to wage rebellion to fight for their rights as human beings. However, the sovereign society created by the colonel does not fully adopt and accept the barbarian’s rebellious demand, as this leads to their severe interrogation. In the novel, sovereignty is linked to sociology as it states how power can be used for once to manipulate the members of the society by abandoning their rights and providing unfair treatments. On the other hand, it can be used to fight for freedom and uphold human rights (Moghadam, Rafieian and Fosi, 2019, p. 1592065). Power in the society brings unity which enables control through the threat of force. The barbarians, in this case, use power to force their control over the rebellious act of the colonel’s team. The control of sovereignty comes through monitoring the population and its relative surveillance. This enables the leaders to identify the potential of their group and its ability to stand against rebellion; therefore, Foucault’s theory traces the path to which development for civilization in society begins and how it ends. When a society is civilized, knowledge is impacted; hence, society cannot easily be manipulated without the cry for their needs in the form of rebellion, as witnessed in the novel.
The sociological interaction between the barbarians and the imperial government’s colonel formed a society of hatred and miscommunication as the rights of the barbarians were not formally recognized. If they were, the understanding was quite minimal to the imperial government. Their light judgment on the barbarian guilt made by the colonel despite the magistrate’s presence reveals the lack of social interaction. In the novel “Waiting for the Barbarian,” the second part of the story after oppression talks about the conscience of human beings, which, as discussed above, is referred to as the knowledge of their rights and freedom in developing a conscience and effective social interaction, a proper understanding of justice suite necessary (Sumitro, 2020). In this case, for the barbarians the did notice their rights and freedom, there had to be an effective social interaction between them and the relevant authorities to help them with their freedom and justice for their oppression.
The magistrate, who is then a man of conscience, identifies the oppression of the Barbarians and decides to help fight for their innocence. According to faculty theory, disciplinary power in society is characterized by how relations between inequality and oppression are firmly practiced. In most cases, the inequalities and oppressions are often placed as acts of punishment to the inferior members of the society or those presumed to be unlawful without justice (Ladkin and Probert, 2021, p. 101310). Disciplinary power, therefore, is characterized by the type of power in which subjects exercise oppression over their persons. The aim of disciplinary power is always to inflict the rule of conduct and appropriate behavior on subjects who are noticed not to be of good conduct. The barbarian prisoners are arrested and kept subject to disciplinary power as they are punished in the form of oppression to correct their unlawful deeds. Surveillance which the colonel and his team conduct, also form part of the disciplinary power.
The Barbarians, during the rebellion, are under a disciplinary government in which they feel their wrongdoings are to be punished but not be oppressed. The magistrate under the imperial army of the colonel sees the empire’s acts of failing to acknowledge the personhood of the Barbarians to be an unlawful act. According to abstract law, Hegel argues that personhood in society involves giving individuals a legal dimension of thoughts and personal interaction in society (Maze, 2018, p. 135). This, in simple terms, could aid in the adjustment of sociological interaction amongst the Barbarians and imperial government that would lead to their freedom and through the understanding of justice. Hegel’s idea of a person and relation to the barbarian’s situation reasons that a person is subject to rights and obligations in the moral, legal order. For this case, the Barbarians were demanding the addition of their rights in the law in their rebellion.
The disciplinary leadership of the imperial government did not provide for personal responsibility and recognition, as most disciplinary acts were done through vile decision-making by the imperial colonel. The chief function of the disciplinary power and authority that will enable fairness in society is to train (Martin and Waring, 2018, p. 1299). In this case, the power links force together hence developing a strong social force that could be useful. Disciplinary power, therefore, creates an individual unity from a mass of adversely separated bodies. This unit helps in the creation of a mechanism for effective control. The unity between the Barbarians and the imperial government undermined the disciplinary power.
The instruments that characterize disciplinary power and are recognized in imperial leadership are hierarchical observation, nominative judgment, and observation. The hierarchical observation represents the leadership structure from the most superior to inferior and how power is channeled (Martin and Waring, 2018, p. 1299). The empire in the hierarchical observation of the imperial government was the most superior and highly recognized; hence he formed a disciplinary power. The normalization of judgment which is the centralization of thoughts to enhance fairness in the society was also witnessed as the Barbarians decided to think amongst them and form a rebellious society that would ensure their needs were met. The observation and guess help improve disciplinary power. This is because it creates a formalized government in which monitoring of power exercising is quite an essential factor.
The Foucault theory of biopower represents an administration and regulation of human life at the population and individual body level. In this case, the power mainly targets the population. Furthermore, biopower is often applied in population regulation, as witnessed in the barbarian’s rebellion against the imperial government. The knowledge of rights of the population, their desire, and the affliction is catered for by biopower as it creates a political environment in which a leader arises intending to provide an effective population society (Masquelier, 2019, p.140). The barbarians were united under a society in which they built their own politics that waged a rebellion against the mistreatment of the imperial government. The growth of conscience, for the magistrate, was described as a step to becoming a person. Therefore, for a society to be sociological, people’s personalities should be well witnessed and understood. Each person in society should be equally considered as a person as described by the Magistrate and Hegel. The magistrate reasons with the colonel that there is no need for the barbarians to be lied to when they are in the process of protesting for their innocence.
The personhood which enhances sociology is witnessed on the magistrates when he pleads for the innocence of the barbarians and continues to persuade himself that he has not heard the screams of pain coming from the room where the colonel inhumanly tortures the Barbarians. The ability to socially interact between the barbarisms and the colonel is highly destroyed as the colonel does not view the barbarians as human beings who ought to enjoy their rights and freedom freely. The interdependence between the magistrates and the people due to their understanding of personhood and the importance of upholding innocence enables the creation of a favorable environment in which social interaction between them creates power. Therefore, as portrayed by the character traits of the magistrate, conscience is an important factor to sociological development in the society in which the magistrate shows in his deep struggle for the freedom of the barbarians and the upholding of their deem innocence. However, the colonel who portrays a sovereign government does not show any desire to uphold conscience; hence, he undermines the sociological development in the imperial government society.
The Foucault’s theory, the rules for the formation of subjects are highly portrayed. In the novel “Waiting for the Barbarians,” a sociological environment is created through the conscience of personality and not the identification of subject rule as was portrayed by the colonel who dangerously tortured the innocent barbarians (Hamilton, 2018, p. 380). To understand the concept of social development, power is mostly considered as it is the primary element. The theory of discourse, which refers to how the members of the society constitute the knowledge they possess together with the social practice, often forms the major elements of subjectivity and power relations. This theory enables the community to enhance proper communication and relation between the society members. The factor of the subjectivity of persons often undermines human social interaction. According to the discourse theory under Foucault’s theory, the knowledge of personality is essential for social relations. The principle of discourse is often more related to the way people think and how properly they produce meaning.
The colonel never portrayed the discourse theory as his reasoning was not conscience. His thought that the barbarian never deserved justice and that all their doings were not innocent was a factor that highly undermined social practice. His failure to listen to the plea of the magistrate over the innocence of the barbarians showed that he had no proper understanding of personality, which is a major factor in enhancing social practice. Therefore, his practice of constantly torturing the barbarians undermined the social knowledge of the interaction.
The theme of independence is portrayed in the novel when the barbarians decide to fight for their freedom against the wrongful leadership of the imperial empire, who do decide to impose a brutal sovereign leadership that denies them the opportunity to enjoy their personhood. The clear disconnection between the law and justice in the imperial leadership is because of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the personhood and the proper conscience needed to provide effective leadership (Masquelier, 2019, p.140). Sociology is the understanding of human interaction and how they communicate, which is not properly practiced in the novel. The interaction between the magistrate and the colonel first becomes like an opposition as the colonel does contradict the magistrate’s activity of ensuring that justice is quite practiced and human conscience is highly upheld. However, the colonel undermines this, who tortures the innocent as a law act. He portrays the greater theme in the novel, which is the contradiction between justice and personal morality.
The conflicts reflect the major happening s in the society in which power is used to afflict the innocent who cannot personally fight for themselves. The theory of Foucault, which highly emphasizes the importance of communication and understanding, is not quite revealed in this context as the colonel fails to uphold the understanding of the importance of understanding the innocent (Martin and Waring, 2018, p. 1299). The colonel lacks the knowledge of the importance of justice in society. A society that highly lacks justice is often faced with several social challenges, including the lack of proper understanding, which might lead to the radical interaction between society members. The civil guard of the colonel gave him the power which he wrongfully used to mistreat the barbarians. The power made him feel like he was the final security authority and that no one could ever question his duty and how he did handle its daily activities.
The magistrate, who was a proper representation of justice, showed how soft justice is to injustice. This is because he did witness the colonel’s action but could not do anything but ask softly for the innocence of the barbarians to be highly considered. He later could not withstand the barbarians’ constant affliction, which led him to walk away and block his ear not to listen to the interrogation of the barbarians by the colonel. The conflict that rises between the colonel is a real definition of the conflict that often takes over the society of power and knowledge. The belief that the people often wield power is challenged in the novel as the imperial government’s power is quite a forced leadership power, but not that the common people are allowed to appropriate their choice of power.
Conclusion
Waiting for the Barbarian is a fatalistic text as it stresses the subjugation of all the events in the context and related to the fate of the social interaction in the imperial government, which intentionally affects the lives of the barbarians who then decide to rebel against the torture in which they are highly subjected to. The novel revolves around the justice and power clash as the magistrate tries to convince the colonel to consider favoring the innocent barbarians who are arrested and wrongfully judged without formal trial by the magistrate. The rebellion of the barbarians is because they are tired of the poor leadership imposed by the imperial government. According to Foucault’s sociology theory, knowledge and power should be applied for effective social relations.
Reference List
Dibavar, S.S., Abbasi, P. and Pirnajmuddin, H. (2020). The Metaphorical Stage of J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians. Research in African Literatures, [online] 50(4), pp.87–107. Web.
Hamilton, S. (2018). Foucault’s End of History: The Temporality of Governmentality and its End in the Anthropocene.Millennium: Journal of International Studies, [online] 46(3), pp.371–395. Web.
Hancock, B.H. (2018). Michel Foucault and the Problematics of Power: Theorizing DTCA and Medicalized Subjectivity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, [online] 43(4), pp.439–468. Web.
Ladkin, D. and Probert, J. (2021). From sovereign to subject: Applying Foucault’s conceptualization of power to leading and studying power within leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, [online] 32(4), p.101310. Web.
Laue, K.A. (2018a). “This Is How I Look”: Surveillance and Unexpected Guidance in the Panoptic Empire of Waiting for the Barbarians. [online] Scrutiny2. Web.
Laue, K.A. (2018b). “This Is How I Look”: Surveillance and Unexpected Guidance in the Panoptic Empire of Waiting for the Barbarians. [online] Scrutiny2. Web.
Martin, G.P. and Waring, J. (2018). Realising governmentality: Pastoral power, governmental discourse and the (re)constitution of subjectivities. The Sociological Review, 66(6), pp.1292–1308. Web.
Masquelier, C. (2019). Bourdieu, Foucault and the politics of precarity. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory. Web.
Maze, J. (2018). Towards an Analytic of Violence: Foucault, Arendt & Power. Foucault Studies, [online] pp.120–145. Web.
Moghadam, S.N.M., Rafieian, M. and Fosi, P.S. (2019). If Foucault were an urban planner: An epistemology of power in planning theories. [online] Cogent Arts & Humanities. Web.
Pandey, C. (2017). Critique of Imperialism in Waiting for the Barbarians by J. M. Coetzee. 147.228. Web.
Tavener, K. (2015). A Major in Literature at The University of North Carolina at Asheville Spring. [online] Web.
Wade, J., Attwell, D., M, C.J., Goddard, K. and Read, J. (1994). Doubling Back on J. M. Coetzee. English in Africa, Web.