Guilt And Redemption In J. M. Coetzee's Disgrace

Since the end of Apartheid, confession has been a common theme within South Africa. Due to the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, confession became an everyday event. Those who had committed heinous crimes had the opportunity to come forward to apologize to the victims or families of victims in return for a pardon from the government. With this comes the idea of whether or not a perpetrator can truly be redeemed through a public apology that is expected of him due to the common cycle of guilt, apologies, and acceptance. Hannan Hever states that “guilt and redemption are abstract rather than concrete concepts” (Hever 42). When reading J. M. Coetzee’s novel Disgrace, the idea of confession and redemption is a major theme …show more content…
Once he has been asked to confess and refuses, rather than beginning a journey of redemption, he believes he is due a punishment. The reader is asked to consider whether Lurie deserves his subsequent assault for his actions and lack of guilt, or if through his punishment he becomes redeemed and can be forgiven for what he has done. Lurie is not innocent, but neither does he think he is guilty of assaulting Melanie Isaacs. Immediately after the assault happened, the narrator states that it was “not rape, not quite that, but undesired nonetheless, undesired to the core” (Coetzee 25). To him, the event was not an assault, so not a crime, and when he is brought to the committee to discuss what might be done in consequence, he states his guilt without first reading Melanie’s statement. Throughout most of the hearing, he reiterates his guilt whilst mocking the people on the committee who either want him to defend himself or explain what it is he is guilty of. The first group is made up of men; they want him to defend himself so that he might not lose his job and could explain why it is not a …show more content…
The latter group is only women who want him to fully confess and repent what he has done, not brush it off with a guilty plea. Saying he is guilty is not absolving him of what has happened, and it is obvious that Lurie has no patience for admitting to his wrongdoings. Coetzee may be making a mockery of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission here by showing that admitting to a crime or admitting guilt does not equate to remorse or an acknowledgment of the crime and why it was wrong to begin with. Hever states that Coetzee “demands sustained skepticism regarding some of the illusions attaching to “Truth and Reconciliation” …, particularly regarding the quasi-official notion that treaties and agreements are sufficient to purge the traces of oppression from the deepest tissues of the South African social body” (Hever 42). He is claiming that Coetzee wants the reader to doubt the usefulness of the TRC, or the committee in this case, because although it is formally apologetic, people are so deeply ingrained in their ways that it may not truly make a difference. Lurie says this to the committee when he is asked if he has considered counselling and he responds by saying “’No, I have not sought counselling nor