Naturalism in Relation to Power Relations and Determinism in The Call of the Wild

Naturalism in Relation to Power Relations and Determinism in The Call of the Wild

Among many kinds of literary movements, there is one movement called Naturalism. There are some factors responsible for the emergence of the movement, and they are the evolution theory and the writers’, the people’s rebellion against the moral values at home. In terms of the factor of evolution theory because of which naturalism emerged, naturalism “inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution and kept repeating the doctrine that men, being part of the animal kingdom, were subject to natural laws.” In terms of the rebellion cause, “they”, naturalists, “were rebelling against intolerable situation at home.” This intolerable situation was the genteel tradition which was practiced by most people at that time in the society from the influence of Christianity, and to express this disagreement with the tradition, the naturalists write:

 “They were in rebellion against the genteel tradition because, like writers from the beginning of time, they had an urgent need for telling the truth about themselves, and because there was no existing medium in which they were privileged to tell it.” (Cowley, 2004)

Besides the genteel tradition practiced in the society at that time (for example, in the form of censorship in printed media) naturalists in general were against Christianity and they disagree with humans playing their “role” in life by adopting moral values. The naturalists are in accordance with the idea that the only force that controls human’s fate is the force of the nature itself, and thus, the role humans should take is the role of mere observer of the very powerful nature:

“Reading and experience led to the same convictions: that Christianity was a sham, that all moral professions were false, that there was nothing real in the world but force and, for themselves, no respectable role to play except that of detached observers gathering the facts and printing as many of them as their publishers would permit.” (Cowley, 2004)

Moreover, naturalists don’t believe in human nobility, and thus perhaps the main factor which made them disagree against the adoption of moral values in social life. Then, through writing, making literary works, naturalists try to fight the tradition they did not preferred. Besides adopting “not men” as its constant echo and “to subtract from literature the whole notion of human responsibility,” they write to introduce new standards asides from the current standard which was adopted by the society at that time:

“Try as they would, they could not remain merely observers. They had to revolt against the moral standards of their time; and the revolt involved them more or less consciously in the effort to impose new standards that would be closer to what they regarded as natural laws.” (Cowley, 2004)

Enough with naturalistic writers’ background in doing their writing, discussing naturalism in terms of literary style or movement is what will come up next. As Oscar Cargill stated, naturalism in literature is defined by its pessimistic determinism characteristic. Further explanation:

“Naturalism in literature has been defined by Oscar Cargill as pessimistic determinism, and the definition is true so far as it goes. The naturalists were all determinists in that they believed in the omnipotence of natural forces. They were pessimists in that they believed in the absolute incapacity of men and women to shape their own destinies.” (Cowley, 2004)

To put it simply, writers of naturalism movement determined, strongly believed that natural forces are far superior and powerful when they are compared to humans live inside the nature. But, they also believe that humans don’t have a chance in shaping, making their fate by themselves. This is rational, since naturalistic writers see natural forces, and perhaps its effect on human’s life, as beyond the control of human hands. In addition to that view, writers of naturalism movement see human as “the victim of forces which he has no control,” “… men and women are part of nature and subject to the same indifferent laws,” and that “men were nothings, mere animalculae, mere ephemerides that fluttered and fell and were forgotten between dawn and dusk.”

The superiority of natural forces, or simply force, is further explained in terms of its view in naturalistic works:

 “Men were naught, life was naught; FORCE only existed—FORCE that brought men into the world, FORCE that made the wheat grow, FORCE that garnered it from the soil to give place to the succeeding crop.” (Cowley, 2004)

As a prove that man’s fate is judged, determined by natural forces, the concept of hereditary factor is also a part of naturalistic literature. In the words of Norris, this hereditary is evil, it inherits evilness, it could mean anything, but surely there is something inherited from one generation of humans to other generation of humans, and it can be anything. In this case, human is powerless against nature:

 “Below the fine fabric of all that was good in him,” Norris said, “ran the foul stream of hereditary evil, like a sewer. The vices and sins of his father and of his father’s father, to the third and fourth and five hundredth generation, tainted him. The evil of an entire race flowed in his veins. Why should it be? He did not desire it. Was he to blame?” (Cowley, 2004)

Furthermore, in naturalists’ view, “nobody was to blame in this world where men and women are subject to the laws of things.”

Explaining further characteristic of nature, Peters described nature in naturalism scope as unforgiven, having no tolerance, and ready to crush humans and their life. Although Presley described it that way, bad way, Presley didn’t mean that nature is malevolent or chaotic, explaining it as if the force it has works in some kind of fluid and natural, or supposed to happen.

“There was no malevolence in Nature … Colossal indifference only, a vast trend toward appointed goals. Nature was, then, a gigantic engine, a vast, cyclopean power, huge, terrible, a leviathan with a heart of steel, knowing no compunction, no forgiveness, no tolerance; crushing out the human atom standing in its way, with nirvanic calm.” (Cowley, 2004)

Although the concept adopted by naturalistic writers in which nature forces are far more superior, or simply omnipotent, that doesn’t mean humans are left completely unable to cope with anything nature give them. In the next excerpt, I see hardships given by nature, in naturalism scope, as the force that compels humans to devolve (instead of evolve) and turn him into “the beast within.”

“A favorite theme in naturalistic fiction is that of the beast within. As the result of some crisis—usually a fight, a shipwreck, or an expedition into the Arctic—the veneer of civilization drops or is stripped away and we are faced with “the primal instinct of the brute struggling for its life and for the life of its young.”” (Cowley, 2004)

The beast, which commonly referred to as the primitive or uncivilized, is the next step in naturalistic literature’s evolution, or it should be called devolution.

“When evolution is treated in their novels, it almost always takes the opposite form of devolution or degeneration. It is seldom that the hero evolves toward a superhuman nature, as in Nietzsche’s dream; instead he sinks backward toward the beasts." (Cowley, 2004)

Moreover, the step of devolution in naturalistic literature is started from “civilized man became a barbarian or a savage, the savage became a brute and the brute was reduced to its chemical elements.”

So far, nature forces are defined by something biological and physical, which can be said that biological and physical forces are superior, above human’s position in mother nature. In social laws, in human society, the laws continue to live on as Jack London believed “that such biological principles as natural selection and the survival of the fittest were also the laws of human society.”

Furthermore, whether in the vast nature and in smaller society, an individual will pay the price if he resist the law of nature and the forces living in society or nature:

 “.. Men are “human insects” whose brief lives are completely determined by society or nature. The individual is crushed in a moment if he resists; and his struggle, instead of being tragic, is merely pitiful or ironic, as if we had seen a mountain stir itself to overwhelm a fly.” (Cowley, 2004)

Moreover, naturalists seem to relate natural forces with social factors to display that men is mere subjects to natural forces:

“They believed that men were subject to natural forces, but they felt those forces were best displayed when they led to unlimited wealth, utter squalor, collective orgies, blood, and sudden death.” (Cowley, 2004)

The discussion about what and how naturalism and naturalistic literature is shows that there is power relations in both naturalism views and in naturalistic literature. Foucault in Discipline and Punish talk a little bit about power relations. In the next excerpt, I see the body belongs to human, and nature does anything it want to it:

“But the body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.” (Foucault, 2004)

Foucault also stated that in order for the body to be a useful force, besides being productive, the body must also be subjected through subjection:

“This subjection is not only obtained by the instruments of violence or ideology; it can also be direct, physical, pitting force against force, bearing on material elements, and yet without involving violence; it may be calculated, organized, technically thought out; it may be subtle, make use neither of weapons nor of terror and yet remain of a physical order.” (Foucault, 2004)

Moreover, he explained that the power is not an obligation or prohibition for those who do not have it, and it also exerts pressure, in my view, on people under the effect of the power, referred to as “them:”

“… this power is not exercised simply as an obligation or a prohibition on those who "do not have it"; it invests them, is transmitted by them and through them; it exerts pressure upon them, just as they themselves, in their struggle against it, resist the grip it has on them.” (Foucault, 2004)

As I have discussed earlier, naturalistic literature’s characteristic, one of which, is determinism besides pessimistic. Knowing that fact, determinism should be added to examine naturalistic literature:

“Determinism is a philosophical position according to which all human actions are predetermined. According to it, a person in a given situation may think that he is able to do this or that, but in every case the stars, the laws of physics, his character, the conditioning he has received or something else makes him unable to do any but one thing. It is essential to note that determinists do not say that some actions of some people are determined.” (Cowburn, 2007)

Besides determinism, indeterminism is also there and there is a difference between both concepts:

“By determinism, then, I mean the view that every event A is so connected with a later event B that, given A, B must occur. By indeterminism I mean the view that there is some event B that is not so connected with any previous event A that, given A, it must occur.” (Cowburn, 2007)

Further explaining it, determinism in literature of naturalism lies in the concept of heredity:

“In the nineteenth century, some novelists thought that determinism was an essential element of the modern (scientific) world-view, and accepted it. These were the Naturalistic novelists, some of whom believed that heredity determines a person’s nature, which determines his or her actions.” (Cowburn, 2007)

In Jack London’s The Call of the Wild, The main protagonist, a dog named Buck, is at first a fully domesticated dog, a normal dog, a companion to man. Then, the nature of Buck gradually changed as he progresses through the journey into wilderness, the seemingly never ending winter of Klondike. Buck seems to be a “victim” of the natural laws in The Call of the Wild, which is a naturalistic literature, and also a tool nature used to test men, and it is when Buck attained his beastly form at the end of the story.

Seeing from the perspective of determinism, Buck’s fate is predetermined by the nature in the form of heredity. It is not seldom in the story, the speaker keep saying that Buck has inside of him the “memories” of the past, memories of his ancestor, believed to be wolves or wild dogs, and that heredity, in the story, drove him to, let’s say, approach and use the more beastly side of him such as when he faced confrontation with the current leader of the pulling sledge pack, Spitz. If it is not because of his beastly side, said to be the inheritance of his ancestors, Buck will never defeat Spitz.

In terms of power relations, at the beginning Buck is forced to obey the law of club. If he doesn’t obey the order from the man with the club, he will be beaten until he understands. The beating of his body is how human who is superior above him to subject Buck in subjection. Then when he is subjected, he finally became a useful force ready to be used. Furthermore, the power relation between the superior and inferior, between the man and Buck, “conditioned” Buck as a body that has useful value, in the first place

The predetermined factor from heredity and power relations with humans seem to act like catalyst or simply factors that helped Buck to gain his beastly form. The beast within the previously domesticated dog is awaken through labor in the harsh wilderness of Klondike, in which not only Buck must learn to survive from the weather, the climate, but also he has to learn to be the alpha dog in the sledge dog pack by the confrontation given by Spitz. Finally, the process of becoming the wild one is complete by the sacrifice of the character, John Thornton. Thornton gave Buck what he is lacking when he was laboring as a sledge dog, the love, the caring from a master. This sudden death of Thornton, happened when Buck following a wolf to its pack and then hunting together with them, killed by a tribe of Indians displayed Buck as a subject to natural forces. Besides the sudden death of Thornton the scene also portrayed Thornton as wealth for buck and an utter squalor, or in this case an utter loss adding more elements to display Buck as a subject to nature.

In the end, Buck gained his total beastly form and went for the tribe and annihilate all of them. The story then tells Buck as a legendary beast feared by man, and to me in that form Buck has successfully been altered to be superior as nature. He became a part of nature, the superior one, and he is, perhaps, the agent of nature ready to bring hardships, fear, and “to crush” humans and their life.

References

Cowburn, J. (2007). Determinism. In J. Cowburn, Free Will, Predestination, and Determinism (pp. 144, 161, 164). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

Cowley, M. (2004). Naturalism in American Literature. In H. Bloom, American Naturalism (pp. 49-78). Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publications.

Foucault, M. (2004). Discipline and Punish. In J. Rivkin, & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary Theory: An Anthology Second Edition (pp. 549-551). Malden, Massachusetts.