J.M. Coetzee’s Disgrace deceives with its short length. It may seem like a personal story, but the book is far more complex. It is not just a novel about rape; it also explores the racial complexity of the new South Africa post-apartheid. Another question encompasses all of these themes: What is human-animal relationship? The three levels – personal and racial – of the novel each provide a different view of the central theme: redistribution. Although there is redistribution on each of these three levels, redistribution between humans and animals is unique. This exchange benefits humans as well as animals. This process of redistribution is examined from three different viewpoints – personal racial biological.
First, let’s examine the redistribution which occurs on an individual level, in this case, for David Lurie. David Lurie is a communications professor at Cape Technical University when the novel begins. He is guaranteed the social and economic status that come with his position as a professor. He takes advantage of this and pays prostitutes, like Soroya, to sleep with them. David uses his power and social standing as a professor, even though Melanie tried to resist, to get her to sleep. Even David admits, “It was not rape. Not quite that. But it was unwanted nonetheless, and undesired from the core.” (25). Coetzee describes the sexual act using words like “intruder”, “heavy as club”, and “crumple as a marionette” (24) that carry with them a connotation for violence. David also appears to be a powerful person. David loses the job he had when he’s charged with harassment. David’s social standing and income are both affected by his loss of his professorial job. He admits to becoming dependent on his young daughter. He loses not only his social and economic status but also his sexual power throughout the novel. The novel shows that he used to have a magnetic personality because of his height, good bones, olive-skinned skin and flowing hair. But now, people ignore him. He became “a ghost” overnight and learned to “buy [women]”. The most striking example of this is his affair, perhaps with Bev. David tells himself “not to forget this day…After Melanie Isaacs’ sweet, young flesh, I am now here with Bev.” This is the new normal I have to adapt to. He no longer calls her “poor Bev Shaw” because if she’s poor, then he’s bankrupt (150). By the end of the book, it is clear that David Lurie has changed in terms of his wealth, sexual power, and status. Who has received it?
This question allows a more complex interpretation of the redistribution. It is a power battle and it’s placed in a historical perspective. We must remember, when analyzing this book, that it takes place in South Africa post-apartheid. This country has a complex political and racial past. Our story is set against this background. David says that when his daughter Lucy is raped, it’s “history speaking to them…a history of wrong.” (156). Lucy says that rape is “the price to be paid for remaining on [the ]…[ The rapists] think I owe something”. They think of themselves as debt-collectors, tax-collectors” (158). David says it’s “No ordinary break-in” when his home is broken into. The raiding party moves in, cleans up the scene, and then retreats with a plethora of bags, boxes, and suitcases. Booty, war reparations; Another incident in the Great Campaign of Redistribution (176).
Lucy’s soon to be born baby is perhaps the best example of this redistribution. It is a kind of genetic redistribution. Two races are being mixed together. These redistributions are most often violent, coerced and violent in the manner of conception. The only group that benefits is one. Each of the examples above is marked by a sense of winners versus losers. Money and power flow in one direction. David Lurie is a case in point, as he loses his social standing and wealth. It’s also clear from the struggle that is taking place between the different social and racial class: the power is moving inexorably away from white colonialists into people like Petrus.
A striking similarity between both redistribution cases – racial and personal – is that they are described in economic terms. Rape has been portrayed as an attempt to collect tax. David is referred to as being “bankrupt” for his sexual impotency. Marriage is also portrayed as an investment. Petrus wants Lucy to “become a part [of] his establishment” (203). Lucy is aware that Petrus’s offer is not a traditional church wedding…Petrus offers an alliance and a deal. I donate the land in exchange for his permission to take me under his wings” (203). This economic aspect of marriage, sexuality, and rape in describing them is dehumanizing and troubling.
This observation leads me to another redistribution, which is a little more subtle. Coetzee gives the animal’s humanity to his human subjects throughout the novel. Coetzee achieves this by paying individual attention to each animal. The rape scene is a good example. Coetzee, however, never mentions the rape. In vivid detail, Coetzee describes the violence that Lucy’s dog suffered. Coetzee gives animals humanity by refocusing the narrative from Lucy on the dogs. Coetzee makes this parallel between humans and animals evident through his imagery. She is compared, for example, to a mole when David presses himself onto Melanie. She is described as “going slack for the duration and dying within herself like a rabbit when a fox clamps its jaws around its neck”. David wants to perform a human burial when he sends the dead bodies of animals to be incinerated. While David speaks of a dignified and honorable death throughout the novel’s pages, these are also human attributes. David’s attempt to give animals human attributes and rituals is also an attempt to transfer humanity.
This shift in focus from humans towards animals is beneficial to both parties. David Lurie’s interaction with animals is not only beneficial to the animals, but also to the author. David develops empathy. David Lurie’s character is first portrayed in the novel as cold, cynical and lacking warmth. He takes on this role as “dog man” after he meets the animals and works at the shelter with Bev. Why does this man do it? It would probably be easier for him to simply leave the bodies at the incinerator to be disposed of by the workers, but then he would have to dump them with the other waste. He is “not prepared to bring such dishonor to their name” (144). We see here the first time that economic efficiency is rejected in favor of moral principles. David admits “There are more productive ways for one to give themselves to the world…One can, for example, work longer at the Clinic” (146). But he’s not motivated by utility. He does it for himself, not to benefit others. David is able to reconcile himself with the true nature of his feelings for the animals at the end. “He no longer feels hesitant in calling it love,” he says (219). David has become a different man. He was cold, cynical in the beginning and driven more by lust than love. He also gains sympathy from the reader through his care for the animals.
In some ways, the third form of redistribution can be seen as an exchange rather than a redistribution. Redistribution is synonymous with charity. Redistribution is the act of transferring wealth from the wealthy to those who are less fortunate. When it comes to animal-human distribution, both sides gain humanity. Coetzee uses imagery and language to give the animals in his novel a human quality. David, the protagonist, wins sympathy from readers for the way he treats the animals. He sacrifices his economic interests for moral ideals such as honor, shame and disgrace. By doing this, he regains humanity. This exchange is a win-win situation. Benefits are reciprocal.
Coetzee told an interviewer that he wrote about animals to change people’s hearts towards animals, not because he wanted to challenge the law. He believes, “it isn’t inherently easier for us to close down our sympathies by wringing the neck of chickens we intend to eat as it is to shut our sympathies off to a man we send the electric chairs”. Coetzee achieves the goal of giving animals humanity by shifting narrative focus to animals in Disgrace. This redistribution also benefits the human protagonist, who, through caring for the animals, is able regain the sympathies of readers and his humanity. This is just one example of the many redistributions that take place in this novel. This is the only redistribution that is bidirectional. Both animals and humans benefit.
