○ Yuan Cairong

(School of Foreign Language, Yan’an University, Yan’an, Shannxi, 716000)

?

On the Violation of Natural Ethics inTheGrassisSinging

○ Yuan Cairong

(SchoolofForeignLanguage,Yan’anUniversity,Yan’an,Shannxi, 716000)

Doris Lessing’sTheGrassisSingingcan be either a masterpiece or an literary work related to ecological issues in the history of English literature. Lessing ruthlessly displays and attacks colonial hegemony which brings sufferings to nature also shows her deep concern for it. Through the close analysis of colonizers’ trample on the nature, this

paper attempts to probe into the violation of natural ethics in this novel so as to show Lessing’s hope for the harmonious

coexistence of men and nature.

TheGrassisSinging, natural ethics, harmonious coexistence

I. Introduction

As an exceptional female writer in British literature in the 20th century, Doris Lessing contributes a lot to the literary field. Especially, her first novelTheGrassisSingingearns her much. In the novel, Doris Lessing exposes the real appearance of colonialism, uncovers the twisted humanity under the intense pressure of western colonialism and racial discrimination.TheGrassisSingingcan be either a masterpiece or an literary work related to ecological issues in the history of English literature. Lessing ruthlessly displays and attacks colonial hegemony which brings sufferings to nature. Through close analysis of social reality depicted in this novel, Lessing’s hope for the harmonious coexistence of men and nature is clearly revealed. In her eyes, man’s behavior has violated natural ethics.

American ecological philosopher, Aldo Leopold advocates that human beings are not the master of nature, but a member of the community just as plants, soil and the land. They should be kind to nature, they should respect and protect nature, However, the colonizers misuse the colonial land without taking its future into consideration.

Ⅱ. The White Colonizers’ Mistreatment to the Nature

The colonizers come to their colonial land in the hope that they can earn a lot of money. In order to achieve their purpose, they often exploit the natives and their land regardless of ecological balance. Their acts have greatly destroyed the harmony between nature and human beings.

Charlie Slatter as a representative of the colonizers has over-exploited the colonial land. They abuse the land because they lack sense of belongings. For most of the white farmers on African veldt, their thinking does not depend on agricultural responsibility but financial account ability. They just squeeze but never fertilize the land, as a result, the ecosystem there is severely destroyed. The white farmers like Charlie Slatter treat the land as goods which can be turned into money. So “he farmed as if he were turning the handle of a machine which would produce pound notes at the other end.”(7)

The root of the colonizers’ behavior is apparent in the novel. As a colonizer, Charlie Slatter refuses to maintain a harmonious relationship with the colonial land in the long run not only because he lacks sense of belonging to the African veldt but also he is utilitarian and anthropocentric. Charlie Slatter’ utilitarianism is also a main reason. “Until world war one, Slatter had been poor; after it, he found himself rich. And once a man is rich, when he has the temperament of a Slatter, he gets richer and richer.” (194) “His attitude to the land was fundamentally the same as that of the natives whom he despised.”(195) In his eyes, nature should serve for human beings, and be inferior to mankind. They should keep a harmonious relationship with the nature. While Charlie carries himself on just like a master to conquer the nature. Therefore, because of his anthropocentrism, he can not treat nature as his equal one but think it be inferior to him, which paves a way for him to quicken his pace of exploiting the nature.

The farmer Charlie, in the novel, who is a typical representative of the colonizers in the South Africa, is eager to accumulate his capital by misusing the African veldt. Driven by his utilitarianism and anthropocentrism, he destroys the ecological balance. He does not bear the ecological balance and justice in his mind but holds the idea that mankind is the center of the earth. What he concerns is to make as much profits as possible from the land but never fertilize and make it be sustainable. It is obvious that Slatter’s acts have violated natural ethics.

Ⅲ. The White Colonizers’ Alienation from the Nature

The same as Charlie Slatter, Mary never regards the South Africa as her motherland, but feels aversion to the African veldt, she just aims at making a big profit from the nature, either. She “was looking at the farm outside, as a machine for making money: that was how she regarded it.”(138) If it is Mary who manages the farm, she should have farmed the soil out, too.

As a female representative of the colonizers, Mary is alienated from the nature. Her alienation from the nature is shown in her hostility to the nature. Mary develops an indescribable fear for the colonial land, like the bushes and the grass. Mary is

afraid of the bushes just as she is afraid of the natives. She has lived on the farm for decades but never walk into the bushes, till on her last day she walks straight into the bushes. Which represents Mary has never really tried to walk into the life of the

natives just like she never walk into the bushes around her until the last moment of her life, though she makes up with the veldt and the bushes. She thinks that the bushes will swallow up their house, their farm and restore the original state of the primitive veldt. Of course, Lessing predicts that the white settlers on the continent will be punished by nature. As the veldt and the bushes represent nature inTheGrassisSinging, Mary’s fear to the veldt and the plants on the veldt indicate her alienation from the nature.

Mary’s intense reaction to the heat on the farm shows her alienation from nature, either. Since Mary follows her husband to live on the farm, she strongly feels that heat on the farm is unbearable. Apart from fighting against the poverty, she has to fight with the heat; clearly heat is one of the elements which bring her anxiety and alienation. Undoubtedly Mary can not live in harmony with the nature. If Mary can come closer to the

nature, know more about the weather and accept it completely at ease, she will not have a lot to complain about and will get along well with Dick and other farmers. Perhaps she will not be tortured by loneliness and heat on the veldt.

Besides, Mary lacks of a sense of belonging to the colonized nature. Her family has lived in South Africa for two generations. South Africa is not only her birthplace but also her parents’ birthplace, but Mary never admits it to her homeland. The distant England where she and her parents have never been to is treated as her homeland. So “for Mary, the word home, spoken nostalgically, meant England,” (28) Mary’s fear and hostility to the nature shows her alienation from the colonized nature, and also indicates that she never respects and blends into the nature, which is against natural ethics.

Practically mankind should live in harmony with nature as Leopold suggests, can not always conquer it or be master of it, otherwise the nature will revenge on him in reverse. A person who dislikes the place he inhabits will lose the foundation of a happy and satisfying life. As an invader to the African veldt, Mary tries to take control of the nature by ruthlessly misusing the land. Her evil deeds let her never be acknowledged and accepted by the nature. She is alienated from the nature, “she had never penetrated into the trees, had never gone off the paths” (227). She wants to control the nature but fails. She always wants to enslave the nature, so she can not get along with the nature harmoniously.

The colonizers’ alienation from the nature shows in their lack of sense of belonging, hostility to nature and intense

response to heat on the African veldt. They try every means to control and enslave nature. Surely they can not be well integrated with nature, which has violated nature ethics.

Ⅳ. Conclusion

Doris Lessing devotes herself to show the twisted ethics in South Africa colony. Living in colonial world, Mary is almost in passive position. She has resisted against patriarchy and racial discrimination, but tries in vain. The white colonizers are invaders to the South Africa. Driven by utilitarianism and anthropocentrism, they make a big profit by maltreating the nature. Specifically, they over-exploit the land without fertilizing. As a

result, they destroy the ecological balance. They keep an alienated relationship with nature. Thus they exploit the land mindlessly and recklessly. Undoubtedly they have violated natural ethics. It is evident that Lessing calls for harmonious relationship with nature.

Through employing literary ethical interpretation to rereadTheGrassisSinging, Lessing’s ethical outlook and ethical and moral significance are implicated in the novel. Lessing has

attacked the abnormal ethics resulting in Mary’s tragic life, which indicates her hope for establishing harmonious relationship between man and nature, she pays close attention to ethical issues in the whole society, too, it is easy to come to an conclusion that Doris Lessing is a humanitarian.

[1]Taylor, Paul W. 1986. Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics[M].Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[2] Lessing, Doris. 2007. The Grass is Singing[M].London: Harper Perennial.

[3] Grogan, Bridget. 2011. (im)Purity, Danger and the Body in Doris Lessing’s The Grass is Singing[J].English Studies in Africa, 54.

[4] Lessing, Doris. 1994. Under My Skin[M].London: Harper Collins Publishers.

[5] Visel, Robin. 2008. Then Spoke the Thunder: The Grass is Singing as a Zimbabwean Novel[M].Commonwealth Literature, 43.

袁彩榮，女，陜西延川人，延安大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院講師，碩士，研究方向：英美文學(xué)。

I106.4

A

1672-8610(2015)06-0047-02

淺析《野草在歌唱》中自然倫理的違背

袁彩榮

(延安大學(xué) 外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院，陜西 延安 716000)

多麗絲·萊辛的小說(shuō)《野草在歌唱》堪稱(chēng)是英國(guó)文學(xué)史上一部杰作的生態(tài)文學(xué)作品，作者在小說(shuō)中無(wú)情揭露和抨擊了殖民霸權(quán)主義踐踏自然的暴虐行為。本文從生態(tài)批評(píng)的視角分析探討了小說(shuō)中自然倫理的違背從而看出萊辛想要人類(lèi)與自然和諧共存的期望。

《野草在歌唱》； 自然倫理； 和諧共存