Research Based Arguments

Auer 1

Charlie Auer

Dr. Colón

English 38033

19 April 2015

Relativism in J.M. Coetzee’s Disgrace

Disgrace is a novel by J.M. Coetzee published in 1999 and

tells the story of David Lurie, a Literature Professor from Cape

Town living in post-apartheid South Africa. His position and

subsequent removal from it are used by Coetzee to allegorically

contextualize the political climate of the time and the shifting

of power within the country. David’s affair with a student during

which consent is very much in doubt, his subsequent departure

from the university, and the aftermath featuring more sexual

encounters allows Coetzee to employ his protagonist in a variety

of roles within the same type of morally questionable sexual

incidents. David’s interpretation of these events while occupying

the position of power and later being the one that is violated

illustrates a great degree of moral relativism as well as

Auer 2

allegorically portraying the way in which the shifting balance of

political and social power affected other facets of society. This

is most prevalent when David’s daughter, Lucy, is raped by three

local black men with one reappearing later in the novel. The

reactions, and in some cases level of involvement, of the

characters in the novel give the reader the ability to experience

a variety of motivations, many of which blur the lines of

morality by conflicting with how one would expect something as

heinous as rape to be treated. By using rape and other sexual

encounters to metaphorically portray power in South African

society, Coetzee uses moral relativism and to incorporate the

political climate of the time into the most extreme of

situations, in order to examine the evolution of race relations

in personal life.

One of the most explicit instances of a character attempting

to make retributions for past injustices is Lucy’s refusal to

report her rape to the authorities. This action is understandably

confusing to David, and his insistence on an explanation and a

lack of ability to empathize with her decision causes a rift

between the two. Lucy’s only real identifiable feeling about the

Auer 3

matter is a desire to move on, which David infers as an attempt

at retribution for past wrongs committed by white people. It also

speaks to her impersonal feelings towards the attack, implying

that she believes that their motivations came about because of

their oppression, and that their actions were a symptom of their

circumstance rather than targeting her or serving their own

interests. This mentality stems from her recognition of the

infrastructure and its inherent need to place responsibility, “It

is the history of apartheid she identifies as the instigator of

the horrific violence she was subjected to, but it is also a

history that is in fact history. Its effects are lingering and

undeniable but so is its passing, and it is its disappearance

rather than its stronghold that she chooses to remember, reify,

and will into the future” (Mardorossian 77). By refusing to seek

accountability, Lucy is demonstrating a belief that the

assailants acted as a result of corruption by the oppressive

system they were forced to live in. In her empathy, she also

demonstrates an unwillingness to pursue further oppression of the

formerly subjugated peoples because she feels that it would be

unjust to punish them for the actions that were brought about by

Auer 4

forces outside of their control. By allowing her rape to be

committed without any kind of knowable consequence, Lucy embodies

the notion that morality can only be assessed in circumstantial

terms.

After some time has passed after Lucy’s attack, she and

David attend a party thrown by Petrus. While there, they meet a

boy named Pollux, who they recognized as one of Lucy’s rapists.

They also find out that he is related to Petrus, who David

promptly demands report Pollux to the police, which Petrus

refuses. David then proclaims that this matter should be for the

law to decide, which in doing so reveals a great deal of naiveté

in regard to how the people around him view the authority of law.

By proclaiming that this matter should be left up to the law,

David is pursuing the same course of action that people like him

pursued while apartheid was still in effect. This in turn creates

uneasiness with the rest of the people in attendance, most of

whom are black, because they had until very recently been

discriminated against by the government. By saying that this

should be left to the law, David fails to realize the schism

between his perception of the law and the perception that exists

Auer 5

among the people around him. Because David had yet to be

subjugated by the law, the idea that it would be unjust is far

less consequential to him than the black people that had been

denied rights by it.

the opposition between “the law” and the

“anthropological” might shed some light on the novel’s

title. “Disgrace,” itself part of the discourse of

anthropology rather than law, points to the failure of

“the law” or other mechanisms of redress to purge the

crimes committed in the novel and the historic and

enduring wrongs that form its backdrop. But not all

parties accept the justice of this law; in Coetzee’s

Eastern Cape, “the law” stubbornly retains its own

idiomatic quality and it is David’s idiom. (Kelly 164)

Not only does David fail to realize the lack of trust these

people have for the law, he has also failed to question whether

or not it is just. He has revealed that he believes that law is

not to be opposed, and that it is in fact morally correct. This

dichotomy between justice law that is demonstrated forces the

Auer 6

reader to choose between the two sides, neither with morally

defendable positions. David is seeking retribution for Lucy’s

rape through means that have been proven to be morally

questionable in the past and have yet to be proven otherwise.

Petrus’ goal is to protect his family member from an institution

that has in the past been unjust to people like him, and in doing

so opposes the legal consequences that would arise from a trial

that would in this case be justified. When viewed metaphorically,

the situation extends to the relations of races as a whole. The

black oppressed class having a mistrust of law because it has

wronged them consistently in the past, the white male upper class

using it to achieve their own means. While it would seem that

defense of rape would be considered universally immoral, the

allegorical context of this situation leads to a decision by

Petrus that was influenced by immorality of past actions by the

same people against his own race. David is unable to use moral

reasoning to definitively place blame on Petrus, showing that

something as seemingly black and white as the defense of rape

cannot always be codified as an objective morality.

Auer 7

Another allusion to the relativism in David’s perception of

the rape is the name choice of the one attacker who is actually

named, Pollux. This name has great literary significance, and is

a clear allusion to the different perspectives of the sexual

encounters throughout the novel,

Pollux as a famous twin in Greek mythology and David’s

twin in behavior. David’s anger at the boy’s name

suggests a deconstruction of the divine right to take

any woman one likes: this Pollux is not a god, after

all, and seeing the rape of Lucy in a classical light,

as a matter of divine desire that is not morally wrong

or punishable, as suggested by the boy’s name, is

therefore inappropriate. Ironically, however, the same

applies to Lurie himself, when he sees himself as a

kind of latter-day Byron, heroically oblivious of

conventional morality. This, too, is deconstructed.

(Franssen 241)

Though David was appalled by what happened to Lucy, his

“affair” with Melanie brought about no feelings of wrongdoing for

Auer 8

David. David’s views of Pollux are the effects of being

confronted with his own actions, this time without his judgement

being clouded by a convenient literary figure whose reputation he

can use to justify his own actions. This fact is not explicitly

realized or articulated in the novel, yet nevertheless is evident

in the progression of David’s character. This dichotomous

struggle extends beyond the existing conflict, “for much as David

may resent Pollux, there is always the awareness that part of his

anger is really directed at himself. Pollux’s crime, raping a

woman of a different colour, is a mirror image of David’s own

rape” (Franssen 241). The mirror imagery creates a great deal of

linkage with the other aspects of the social climate. By invoking

the idea of David’s polar opposite, Coetzee reveals the degree to

which David has dodged any kind of moral questioning of his

actions before this, and by extension, view the attack from the

perspective of the subjugated. This similar action, the only

difference between the two incidents being the race of the

aggressor, ties together race and the perception of the incident.

This inseparability creates a situation in which race is a

determining factor for the subsequent reaction and opinion of the

Auer 9

two different rapes. By linking the perception of rape to the

race of the individual, Coetzee illustrates an inability of the

characters to adhere to a morality that is not centered around

their social station. In doing so, Coetzee’s use of relativism

implies that it is impossible to analyze the characters and their

actions without considering race.

Later in the novel, Coetzee again uses Lucy to demonstrate

the uncertain terms on which the nation of South Africa was

resting in the post-apartheid era. After her rape results in a

pregnancy, Lucy decides to marry Petrus for protection and share

her land with him. David, completely opposed to the idea that

Lucy would even consider keeping the baby let alone live with

people sympathetic to her attacker, is unable to empathize and

reduces her decision to one that is in his mind primitive and

illogical. This decision is a progression of the same mentality

she had when refusing to seek legal recourse for her attackers.

By choosing to be protected and integrated into the new society,

Lucy is demonstrating a desire not to be controlled or dictated

by her rape. In doing so, Lucy exemplifies the inability of

people to share a common morality if their life experience is a

Auer 10

factor. David is unable to realize why she feels the need to

start over

Without refusing to acknowledge the extent of past

injustice, subsequent responsibilities are not locked

into static identities of oppressor and victim,

repentant and forgiver; such moralizing approaches are

clearly rejected by the novel which sends the message

that transformation can only work if one generously

gives himself to the Other. This ethics of otherness

constitutes an engagement with history that aims to

interrupt all totalities (including political ones)

through one’s infinite responsibility to the Other

(Zembylas 227)

By disregarding her past so that she can assimilate into the

new society, Lucy embodies the idea of past experiences having

inevitable impact morality. The “Other” referred to by Zembylas

is the ethical system external from the self. The “infinite

responsibility to the Other” means that in order to align one’s

self with a particular system of ethics, one must sacrifice their

Auer 11

personal feelings. In this sense, Lucy is sacrificing her

personal history so that she can revert herself to a state of

greater impartiality, and in doing so allows herself to adhere to

the new collective values of the people around her. Without this

position of neutrality in which history is not incorporated into

her beliefs, Lucy could never be a part of the new societal whole

that has been created. This sacrificing of personal history gives

insight into the moral implications of the new post-apartheid

South Africa. In creating this scenario of forced sacrifice as a

means of acceptance, Coetzee illustrates the inability of a new

nation to form a shared moral system if history is to remain

relevant in the lives of individuals. By forcing Lucy to feign

ignorance of her own rape, Coetzee demonstrates the degree to

which relativism is not only unmistakably influential, as well as

being vital to the progress of the nation. Because a collective

ignorance of history would be impossible to achieve, so too would

a universally objective codified morality.

A key aspect to consider when examining Lucy’s choice is the

fact that it took place in the countryside. This is particularly

stresses in the dialogue and David’s narration of the events. The

Auer 12

reason for this is to create specificity and to contextualize

rural life as something distinct from that of all other

communities within South Africa. Maria Lopez exposes a deeper

reason for this, saying:

After the attack, scattered throughout the text, are

the expressions ‘country life’,12 ‘country ways’13 and

‘country people’.14 And when Lucy is trying to make

David understand Petrus’s ways, she forcefully asserts:

‘Wake up, David. This is the country. This is

Africa’.15 What this lexical repetition suggests is

that a central part of the novel deals with the

particularities of life in the African countryside, and

hence, that its significance and implications should

not be extended to other contexts (Lopez 925)

With this analysis, Lopez has revealed the subtle acceptance of a

separateness that is inherent in the lifestyle that comes with

living in this rural community. Because David has only lived in

the contexts in which the values “should not be extended”, he

Auer 13

cannot interpret or empathize with them to the degree needed to

adequately make judgments within their framework.

Also important to note is the fact that neither David or

Lucy were part of constructing the cultural framework in which

most of the event’s take place. Lucy as a woman who has lived

there has at least an understanding of the local culture, which

plays a critical role in determining the reasons that she is

unable to reach a place of understanding with David. This is

because while it would seem that rape is an act worthy of

universal condemnation, Lucy has chosen to be integrated into the

collective and thus foster’s a certain degree of acceptance of

the fact that most of the people around her are entitled to

retribution from the former dominant class. While this

marginalization of individuals such as Lucy would seem wholly

unfair, she recognizes that culture is merely an aggregate of the

beliefs most common to the individuals that comprise it. This can

be best illustrated by considering that, “in some cases, what we

think of as the ‘culture’ of a given society may be appropriately

described as an ‘integrated whole’ even though it does not

reflect the desires and perspectives of many, or even most, of

Auer 14

that society’s members” (Sikka 58). Furthermore, the reasons for

the exclusive nature of many cultures can be understood as the

nature of how beliefs and ideas are promulgated within a culture.

The ascription of beliefs to a collective whole is often

misleading in itself: “values or ethical propositions as being in

some sense relative to a ‘culture’ obscures the truth that moral

systems and conventions are almost always produced and reproduced

by powerful groups within a society, who have their distinct

perspectives and interests: men, clerics, landowners, aristocrats

and so forth” (Sikka 58). Because the individuals involved, David

as well as Lucy and the rapists, are subject to the local people

who hold some kind of influence, the standard of permissibility

cannot be judged from the perspective from those that have not

subscribed to the “integrated whole”

Also important to consider is the way that the Attack was

committed. Because most of the novel only alludes to or

references rape in the implied sense, the reader cannot know how

this event was actually committed. Therefore, it can only be

imagined based on assumptions the reader has based on the way

that rape is depicted in their culture. This is revealed when

Auer 15

This is an unsettling moment, because it is also the

author warning us that we, the readers, have not “seen”

the rape, neither in reality nor in graphic narrative

simulation. We have accepted a convention, as old as

the novel itself, to suspend disbelief and to let

imagination roam, but at the end of the text we have

only an illusion, however cleverly crafted; an

illusion, moreover, dependent on and exploiting

centuries’ worth of the discursive, social, ethical and

indeed mythic approaches to rape and our culturally and

historically conditioned responses to it (Van Wyke

Smith)

Without actual first hand description, the reader can only base

reactions of the cultural opinions and stigmas he or she has been

exposed to. To this rule, David is no exception. He makes very

clear that this incident was unforgivable and deserves

punishment. He is even more disgusted by the idea that Lucy would

mother a child that is the product of the rape. Lucy in turn does

not disagree or try to correct David, she merely rejects his

suggestion. This impasse can be described as a “Faultless

Auer 16

disagreement”, in which parties must agree to disagree “because

neither could accept the others’ belief consistently. But also

that neither is making a mistake, or is at fault; for neither has

a false belief, relative to their own perspective” (Hills 414).

Because this scenario is one in which David can only base his

feelings in his assumptions about what occurred and what should

be done consequently, he has no real ability to know what the

correct course of action would be. Conversely, only Lucy is able

to make decisions, and cannot further David’s understanding.

In addition to being unable to understand the choices of

those that would allow Lucy’s attack to go unpunished, David is

conversely unable to recognize the wrong he committed in regards

to Melanie. This is because he was a part of the institution that

formerly empowered members of his class the power to commit

morally questionable acts with impunity. This distinction between

acts, granted with non-identical circumstances, is a result of

David’s ability to make his ethics conducive to supporting his

own behavior. This belief system based on self-interest is

inherent among people. Ragnar Franén Olinder describes this

phenomena as “fundamental variance”. He writes “an important part

Auer 17

of the function of moral discourse is practical: moral thought

and language allows us to approach interpersonal conflicts in a

way that makes it easier to cooperate and coordinate our

behavior” (Olinder 599). When viewed thusly, it becomes clearer

how David gravitated toward romantic poetry and based his moral

compass on its biggest figures. Because his ethics conformed to

particular aspect of Byron, David adopted him as a justification

for behavior. Coetzee’s use of Byronic parallels results in,

Lurie's concern with passion, both his awareness of the

waning possibilities of sexual passion or the more

aesthetic "literary passions" that he quizzes Melanie

about (13), is a deeply Byronic concern. The

layperson's idea of Byron - handsome libertine,

disgraced outcast, gloomy and rebellious satirist,

author of works like Cain, Lara, Mazeppa, Don Juan, all

of whose eponymous heroes are thought to be

autobiographically revealing - is of course a

caricature ( Beard 63)

Auer 18

With this information it is clear how David’s actions are

personally excusable because he has created an archetype for

himself that glorifies his pursuits. Conversely, the people that

commit the same act are in David’s evil, because he does not

afford them the same ethical framework as result of their

motivations being different than his own. This hypocrisy is an

aspect of relativism. David fails to realize that his beliefs are

not a universal truth, but rather a creation of his own mind. His

belief that what he did was not wrong in the same way was based

on the fact that he does not believe that he acted out of malice

and therefore allowed for a code of ethics “, which holds that

some but not all moral actions are relatively right or wrong, and

other moral actions are universally right or wrong.” (Quintelier

and Fisher 96).

In his time with Lucy in the countryside, David does exhibit

change. The title of Disgrace is in itself an implication that

David has failed in the eyes of society and therefore must find a

redemptive course of action. The beginning of the novel, he is

aware that his impulses for Melanie are inappropriate, yet he

still acts on them. This decision is a result of David’s

Auer 19

dismissal of the feelings of others as he personally excuses

himself because he believes that he is not responsible for his

desires. For this reason he is unable to prevent himself from the

incident because, “David, paradoxically, falls from grace because

of his inability to question the authority of desire itself and

in this he is slave to his bodily instincts. All mind, he falls

prey to the body” (Kossew). His transformation comes as a result

of learning the ability to recognize the need to place others

into consideration in regard to his actions. This is brought

about by his time working in the animal shelter, during which he

was responsible for disposing of dead animal carcasses. This act

continues to instill empathy that had not existed before David,

as he comes to see his work as an obligatory act that fulfills

the rights of the animals. This stems from the shift from

theoretical to personal, “He cries and ‘does not understand what

is happening to him’ as his indifference towards animals

dissipates from an ‘abstract’ disapproval of cruelty to a

personal commitment to the dogs and, through them, to ‘his idea

of the world’ (146). In ‘offering himself to the service of dead

dogs,’ the ‘selfish’ David finds a kind of grace for himself and

Auer 20

the dogs, a way of working through the endlessness of his

skepticism and towards repentance” (Kossew). This shift from the

abstract to the personal is what allows David the redemption that

he had not realized he was looking for. It comes from the fact

that David now feels an obligation to perform actions based on

the needs and desire of others rather than simply serving his

impulses, thus, in this new state he could not excuse himself

from another incident like what happened with Melanie.

Coetzee’s use of relativism is one that allows for the

transformation of a country to be mirrored in his protagonist.

David as a protagonist reveals the various ways in which

relationships with power affect people. His relations with

Melanie and the subsequent rape of Lucy invoke a degree of

relativism that forces the reader to the degree to which certain

acts can be condemned. In this way, Coetzee illustrates the way

in which history is inseparable from the mentality of people.

Whether through Lucy’s decision to eschew history for societal

acceptance or David’s views on his affair with Melanie and his

later feelings towards pollux, it is evident the degree to which

the novel gives credence to the notion that nothing can be judged

Auer 21

without the proper context. Therefore, the novel is able to

allegorically portray the shifting of power in South Africa

through depicting it on a personal level.

Works Cited

Kelly, Michelle. "'Playing It By The Book': The Rule Of Law In J.

M. Coetzee's Disgrace." Research In African Literatures 46.1

(2015): 160-178. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Lopez, Maria. "Can We Be Friends Here? Visitation And Hospitality

In J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace." Journal Of Southern African Studies 36.4

(2010): 923-938. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2015.

McCoppin, Rachel. "Acceptance Of The Other: Reconciliation In

J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace."Atenea 31.1/2 (2011): 53-

65. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2015.

Auer 22

Zembylas, Michalinos. "Bearing Witness To The Ethics And Politics

Of Suffering: J. M. Coetzee’S Disgrace, Inconsolable

Mourning, And The Task Of Educators." Studies In

Philosophy & Education 28.3 (2009): 223-237. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Franssen, Paul J. C. M. "Pollux In Coetzee’S Disgrace." Notes &

Queries 57.2 (2010): 240-243. Academic Search Complete. Web.

22 Apr. 2015

Mardorossian, Carine M. "Rape And The Violence Of Representation

In J. M. Coetzee's Disgrace." Research In African Literatures

42.4 (2011): 72-83. Academic Search Complete. Web.

22 Apr. 2015

Sikka, Sonia. "Moral Relativism And The Concept Of

Culture." Theoria: A Journal Of Social & Political Theory 59.133 (2012): 50-


Quintelier, Katinka, and Daniel Fessler. "Varying Versions Of

Moral Relativism: The Philosophy And Psychology Of

Normative Relativism." Biology & Philosophy 27.1 (2012): 95-


Auer 23

Hills, Alison. "Faultless Moral Disagreement." Ratio 26.4 (2013):

410-427. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 7 May 2015.

Olinder, Ragnar Francén. "Moral And Metaethical Pluralism: Unity

In Variation." Southern Journal Of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 583-


Beard, Margot. "Lessons From The Dead Masters: Wordsworth And

Byron In J. M. Coetzee's Disgrace." English In Africa 34.1

(2007): 59-77. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 May 2015.

Kossew, Sue. "The Politics Of Shame And Redemption In J. M.

Coetzee's Disgrace." Research In African Literatures 34.2 (2003):


van Wyk Smith, M. "Rape And The Foundation Of Nations In J. M.

Coetzee's Disgrace." English In Africa 41.1 (2014): 13-


Research Based Arguments

Documents

Transcript of Research Based Arguments