3.2. The Second Paradigm: The Dialogic
The second interrelated principle of Postcolonial eco-poetics is the dialogic paradigm developed and introduced by Mikhail Bakhtin. The dialogic paradigm seeks to unmask and unsettle dominant discourses in colonial and anthropocentric discourses. Bakhtin’s affiliation and appropriation to both postcolonialism and eco-poetics has been recently acknowledged by scholars and critics. Bakhtin is cited to lend prestige and weight to the theoretical sphere of postcolonial eco-poetics as he “emphasises a space of enunciation where the negotiation of discursive doubleness […] engenders a new speech act” (Bhabha, “Cultures in Between” 58). In the same vein, Bakhtin’s theories can be re-interpreted from an eco-critical …show more content…
There are three main dialogic encounters in the novel creating a dialogue among man and animal, animal and animal, nature and culture. In all these encounters, Buck, the dog, is involved as a subversive force and as a voice representing and speaking for the marginalised and oppressed subjects whether they are animals or humans. Buck has gained respect and acceptance as having soul and spirit from which people can learn and develop their own self-worth. He is considered as a narrative dialogic voice that humans have to understand and respect. Buck’s character reveals how this canine animal struggles to undermine and challenge not only the anthropocentric hegemonic discourse but also any other authoritative discourse among his wild …show more content…
Because Buck led a happy and quiet life in the civilised landscape of California, his voice has never been heard as a menace to men. However, his voice starts to be heard to challenge and deny the materialistic and greedy traits of people such as the gardener Manuel, the man in a red sweater, Hal, Charles, and Mercedes. Manuel exploits Buck’s trust and kidnaps him for the sake of some coins. The others, out of foolishness, treat Buck and the other dogs harshly. From that time one, Buck’s voice manifests a potential for challenging human injustice. He has been beaten and kicked and forced to pull sleds through wilderness. Buck’s resistance of the orders of his human masters, Francois and Perrault, can be read as a struggle against the authoritative demands of the humans. Buck’s voice refuses to passively accept his masters’ orders, even when they are accompanied by the use of the club, the tool of oppression. His rebellious voice enforces Francois and Perrault to give in and accept Buck as the lead dog. These anthropocentric attitudes towards Buck have never silenced
The second interrelated principle of Postcolonial eco-poetics is the dialogic paradigm developed and introduced by Mikhail Bakhtin. The dialogic paradigm seeks to unmask and unsettle dominant discourses in colonial and anthropocentric discourses. Bakhtin’s affiliation and appropriation to both postcolonialism and eco-poetics has been recently acknowledged by scholars and critics. Bakhtin is cited to lend prestige and weight to the theoretical sphere of postcolonial eco-poetics as he “emphasises a space of enunciation where the negotiation of discursive doubleness […] engenders a new speech act” (Bhabha, “Cultures in Between” 58). In the same vein, Bakhtin’s theories can be re-interpreted from an eco-critical …show more content…
There are three main dialogic encounters in the novel creating a dialogue among man and animal, animal and animal, nature and culture. In all these encounters, Buck, the dog, is involved as a subversive force and as a voice representing and speaking for the marginalised and oppressed subjects whether they are animals or humans. Buck has gained respect and acceptance as having soul and spirit from which people can learn and develop their own self-worth. He is considered as a narrative dialogic voice that humans have to understand and respect. Buck’s character reveals how this canine animal struggles to undermine and challenge not only the anthropocentric hegemonic discourse but also any other authoritative discourse among his wild …show more content…
Because Buck led a happy and quiet life in the civilised landscape of California, his voice has never been heard as a menace to men. However, his voice starts to be heard to challenge and deny the materialistic and greedy traits of people such as the gardener Manuel, the man in a red sweater, Hal, Charles, and Mercedes. Manuel exploits Buck’s trust and kidnaps him for the sake of some coins. The others, out of foolishness, treat Buck and the other dogs harshly. From that time one, Buck’s voice manifests a potential for challenging human injustice. He has been beaten and kicked and forced to pull sleds through wilderness. Buck’s resistance of the orders of his human masters, Francois and Perrault, can be read as a struggle against the authoritative demands of the humans. Buck’s voice refuses to passively accept his masters’ orders, even when they are accompanied by the use of the club, the tool of oppression. His rebellious voice enforces Francois and Perrault to give in and accept Buck as the lead dog. These anthropocentric attitudes towards Buck have never silenced