Reflections in a Postcolonial Mirror: A Comparative Analysis of Hella Haasse’s Oeroeg (1948) and Sleuteloog (2002) Research Master’s thesis “Literary Studies: Literature in the Modern Age” drs. Alina Helsloot (0012564) March 30, 2007 Supervisor: prof. dr. Paulo de Medeiros Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 General Introduction 3 1. European Colonialism and Imperialism 1.1 Introduction 12 1.2 European Colonialism: Short Historical Sketch 14 1.3 The Dutch Overseas Territories 19 1.4 The Dutch East Indies 1.4.1 Beginnings 21 1.4.2 Institutionalizing Colonial Power 25 1.4.3 Decline of the Dutch Empire 29 1.4.4 Aftermath 31 2. The Postcolonial Critique 2.1 Introduction 35 2.2 Postcolonial Prospects 36 2.3 Postcolonial Criticism: The Pioneering Work 40 2.4 Theoretical Framework 55 2.5 Postcolonial Literary Writing: “Writing Back” to Empire 58 2.6 Problematizing the Postcolonial 60 3. Oeroeg and Sleuteloog, a Comparative Analysis 3.1 Introduction 63 3.2 The Indische Letteren 65 3.3 Hella Haasse: Life and Work 71 3.4 General Outline of the Novels 3.4.1 Oeroeg: outline 82 3.4.2 Sleuteloog: outline 85 3.5 Comparative Analysis 88 3.5.1 Imagining Life in the Colony 89 3.5.2 Construction of Identity 93 3.5.3 Relationship Between the Characters 108 Conclusion 116 Works Cited 120 1 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to Paulo de Medeiros for supervising this project and for all his kind support throughout the research and writing process. I would like to thank Ann Rigney for her willingness to step up as a second assessor. Furthermore, I am grateful to Henk Schulte Nordholt and Pamela Pattynama for their useful suggestions as regards the content of this thesis. 2 General Introduction Amsterdam, January 31, 2001. The city council of the Amsterdam district Oud Zuid1 decides to change the name and purpose of the Van Heutsz-monument, a structure that had up until then honored the actions of Johannes Benedictus van Heutsz (1851-1924). Van Heutsz had been governor-general of the Dutch East Indies from 1904 until 1909, a period in which he became known as the “pacificator of Atjeh.2” However, in a contemporary perspective, one might think of Van Heutsz’ practices of “pacification” in the East Indies as “genocide”: during the height of the Dutch colonial era, the expeditions ordered by Van Heutsz violently repressed Muslim resistance against colonial rule, leading to over 70.000 Indonesian casualties. It is therefore not surprising that the Van Heutsz-monument has been controversial ever since its foundation in 1935.3 The monument has been the target of several anti-colonial action groups and in 1967, it was even the object of an attempted (but failed) bomb attack. As a result of on- going protests against the monument (coming from both action groups as well as from prominent residents of Oud Zuid) the issue of the monument was put on the agenda of the city council in 1998. This has led to the council’s 2001 decision to re-name the structure “Monument Indië Nederland.” A directorate was installed that became 1Oud Zuid (“Old South”) is one of the older neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. It is known for its wealthy, upper-class residents and expensive living accommodations. 2 The modern Indonesian spelling of “Atjeh” is “Aceh.” 3 The Van Heutsz- monument was founded in 1935. It was designed by architect Gijsbert Friedhoff (1892- 1970) and sculptor Frits van Hall (1899-1945). On May 28, 2000 an episode of Andere Tijden was devoted to the person of Van Heutsz and to the debate about the monument. Andere Tijden is an historical documentary programme broadcasted by the Dutch VPRO. More information can be found on the website http//:geschiedenis.vpro.nl. 3 responsible for carrying out alterations and maintaining the monument within the context of its new purpose as a commemoration of the colonial period in the Dutch East Indies. The directorate has recently furnished the monument with a commentary that explains both the history of the disputed monument as well as the relation of the monument to the colonial era. In a press release on February 3, 2005, the political faction Amsterdam Anders/De Groenen Oud Zuid4 expresses her satisfaction with regard to the commentary, because it “raises questions about the colonial past without subscribing to one particular interpretation of that past.” According to De Groenen, in its current form the monument opens up new possibilities for discussion and stimulates a “continuous re-interpretation” of the Dutch colonial past in the East Indies. The controversy about the Van Heutsz-monument illustrates how the Dutch East Indies still play a significant role in contemporary political and social discourse in the Netherlands. The efforts of the action committees that urged for a re-assessment and adjustment of the monument can be regarded as attempts to expose on-going structures of colonial thought in Dutch society. The persistent presence of these structures in contemporary society emphasizes the need for a continuous process of “mental decolonization5.” The importance and relevance of such a process becomes clear if one considers how the collective memory of the (colonial) past continues to inform our national self-image in the present. 4 More information on this political faction can be found on the website http://www.aadg.nl. 5 See Houben 1996, 91. 4 Dutch national identity is deeply rooted in a collective memory6 of the past, in which the Dutch have come to regard themselves as a tolerant, civilized, hard-working people. In recent years, national identity and culture have been securitized by a “turn to the right”: a tendency towards conservatism that characterizes contemporary political and social discourse in Western-European countries. Within this conservatism, certain aspects of Dutch common history are foregrounded and consequently function as a symbol for Dutch national identity, while others are forgotten or distorted. Consequently, contemporary Dutch society is imagined to be thriving mainly because of the Dutch ingenious business sense and its preference for peaceful solutions in the domain of international politics. However, the period in which the Dutch colonized large parts of Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, oppressed and enslaved its people and exploited its natural resources foregrounds a very different image of the Dutch. Not surprisingly, the violent nature of Dutch colonial practice, its far-reaching effects on the lives of the colonized people, as well as the Dutch failure to accomplish a peaceful process of decolonization are themes that are often silenced in social and political discourse. Instead, the memory of the colonial period evokes images of economic prosperity7, a feeling of nostalgia (“tempo doeloe”) and a deeply rooted moral responsibility towards the ex-colonized countries, 6 In the third chapter of this thesis, the theoretical background of the concept of “collective memory” will be addressed, as well as its terminology and its implications for the academic study of literature. 7 In the debate following the annual speech from the throne by Queen Beatrix on March 26, 2006, prime- minister Jan-Peter Balkenende referred to the (economic) future of the Netherlands by suggesting that the Dutch should return to a “VOC-mentality.” (Laten we blij zijn met elkaar. Laten we zeggen: Nederland kan het weer, die VOC-mentaliteit. Over grenzen heenkijken. Dynamiek! Toch?) His remark caused a controversy in Dutch public debate. Surinamese pressure groups protested to the remark in a demonstration. More information on the controversy can be found on the website of De Volkskrant: http://www.devolkskrant.nl. 5 that has resulted in the “paternalistic” interference of the Dutch in those countries up until today. The images that constitute the Dutch collective memory of the colonial era do not only linger on in the political domain. They manifest themselves in a wide range of social constructs and cultural products, such as art and literature. Literature can be regarded as a site where the collective memory of a country is represented or reflected. However, a literary work is also an active agent in constructing the images that inform collective memory, and must therefore be studied as both a product as well as a producer of that memory. In this thesis, I will study the way in which literature informs, criticizes and constructs the collective memory of the colonial past. Within the larger context of Dutch writing on the East Indies, the relationship between representation and colonial reality will be discussed: how did the Dutch represent their colonial past in literary and other forms of writing from the sixteenth century onwards? How did these representations contribute to images of the East Indies that still linger on today? Within the smaller context of my analysis, I will focus specifically on two literary novels by an author for whom the former Dutch colony of the East Indies is a defining theme: Hella Haasse. Haasse is a highly acclaimed author in the Netherlands and is often referred to as the “grand dame” of Dutch literature. She owes her prominent position in the Dutch literary community to an authorship that encompasses more than half a century and more than sixty-five titles. Her work has been awarded numerous prizes, 6 which include the prestigious PC Hooftprijs (1984) and the Prijs der Nederlandse Letteren (2004) for her whole authorship.8 Many of Haasse’s novels have been translated: her debut Oeroeg9 and the historical novel Het Woud der Verwachting (1949) are even translated in more than seven languages. Haasse’s work deals with the issues of history, memory and representation. The novels that I have chosen for my analysis, Oeroeg (1948) and Sleuteloog (2002), address the same overall theme (the East Indies), but were written with more than half a century of time difference between them, creating a relevant case study for my research.