Consider The Theme Of Living In The Margins In Remembering Babylon

The boundary fence by which the children discover Gemmy Fairley is an introduction to the prominent motif of margins and boundaries that runs the course of the novel. The initial reference to a fence symbolises not only the marginalisation, divides and differences that occur throughout the plot and affects each character, physical location and culture but also symbolises a sense of discovery. Malouf`s exploration of the concept of marginalisation starts with the very title of his novel, Remembering Babylon. On the surface this alludes to conjuring memories of the ancient city but on a deeper level the word `remembering` can be broken down into re-membering, meaning to put the pieces back together. Whichever interpretation is focused upon, both require an understanding of why Malouf used the image of Babylon. Peter Otto claims that "The allusion [to Babylon] suggests that colonial Australia is a dismembered Albion...if the scattered pieces of Albion`s body could be put back together again, then according to Blake, Babylon would become Jerusalem once more" (Otto, 1993: p545). This idea of Australia having the potential to `fix` society is portrayed in Mr Frazer`s diary entry when he writes about Gemmy`s role in the settler`s society. Gemmy is described as "a true child of the place as it will one day be" (p121). If the settlers could accept Gemmy`s hybrid status it have been a more fulfilled society with everyone learning from one another. Instead, a colonial attitude was adopted towards Gemmy, thus an absence of unification ensued rendering the dismembered Albion unimproved. Defined as the treatment of a person, group or concept "as insignificant or peripheral" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012), marginalisation is a result of one part of one society not accepting another. Remembering Babylon explores various facets of marginalisation and exposes the reasons behind it. As already mentioned, marginalisation occurs when one group treats another as insignificant, however this raises the question the if the apparent marginalised group does not recognise the fact that they are marginalised, do they still live on the boundaries of society? The aboriginal tribe that Gemmy belonged to are treated with contempt by the white settlers yet the natives have no consideration or concern for the opinions of the westerners. When the Aboringes, who are simply referred to as "they" when the event is told from the perspective of Andy, visit Gemmy they cross all boundaries, both physical and cultural. Andy is taken aback at how they "boldly turned their backs on him and with no further interest in whether or not he was observing" (p86) walked over to Gemmy and had a "powwow". This "bloody effrontery" (p86) indicates that Andy is shocked at their lack of regard for Western social practices, values and prejudices; they do not recognise the white`s apparent ownership of land as valid and have no concept of owning land. The settlers` attitudes towards and marginalisation of the aboriginal people are entirely irrelevant to them and they cannot be marginalised by physical boundaries or location. The question of whether marginalisation is an active or passive process holds deep relevance in the novel; one could say that Gemmy marginalises himself through his passive introduction to the children. He describes himself as a "B-b-British object"(p 3), indicating that although a member of the apparent dominant ethnic group, he considers himself to be passive. He conforms to the expectations that the settlers have of the aborigines behaviour towards them, as opposed to their actual behaviour. In essence, the settlers are effectively marginalised by the aborigines due to their rejection of settlers` attempts to keep them on the fringes of their society and the infiltration of an Aborigine/English hybrid being accepted into the settlement. The interpretation of who marginalises whom is dependent upon the perspective an event is told from. Through the use of different points of view, Malouf encourages the reader to interpret an individual understanding of the colonialisation and event; Malouf is as unbiased as possible and builds an image for the reader from all angles. Sarangi and Mishra acknowledge Malouf`s inclusion of all points of view and point out that "David Malouf often tells his stories not only from the Australian perspective and with reference to a cultural centre but also about people who live at the fringes of society" (Sarangi and Mishra, 2006: p155).<- UNPACK A LITTLE From the settler`s point of view, the Aborigines were barbaric and uncivilised, a people to be feared not due to their actions but because of a lack of understanding of them or their customs. Malouf accurately identifies the concerns and myth harboured by the settlers surrounding the native people, demonstrated by Jock early in the novel. He feared that Gemmy was "in league with the blacks" (p34) and the Aborigines contacted him, " maybe they did not come in flesh but had other, less visible ways of meeting and passing information that a white man would not recognise because it was not in a white man`s mind to conceive of it" (p34). Jock`s differentiation between white men and black men is a heavily colonialist concept and this point of view challenges the reader to consider the differences, or lack thereof and also raises the point of what makes a white man white or a black person black; after all Gemmy is a white man from England. This fear of another culture and spirituality was the cause of the belief that the native Australians were barbaric people, yet Malouf illustrates the irony of this in the scene that sees Gemmy fleeing from the shed where "someone had plastered the place with shit" (p105). This behaviour is truly uncivilised and at no point in the novel are the Aborigines depicted under such grim circumstances, indeed Theresa Kelley remarks that the "Scottish colonialists imagine Gemmy as a demonic, violent alien, even as his aboriginal companions hover in a clearing at the edge of the wilderness to console and protect him from the strange, spiritless company he now must keep" (Kelley, 1988: p165). Whilst the settlers are indirectly marginalised by the Aborgines, it is implied that Australia itself is on the fringes of Western society. The settler`s colony is in the middle of the Australian wilderness, "unknown to all of them" (p7). It is alluded to that the settlers found it "disturbing...to have unknown country behind you as well as in front" (p7). It is as though the very land of Australia has segregated the settlers and given them false sense of authority whilst they are ultimately in the hands of nature. The Scottish colonialists felt that because "this bit of country had a name set against it on a numbered document" in Brisbane, and thus was `owned` by Westerners, it automatically belonged to them. The country however, does not belong to them and they do not belong to it; their original identity has been removed but not replaces, instead the settlers must build a new identity that has its basis in the land surrounding them. Indeed the very man who is supposed to oversee the settlement`s progression, Sir George, is more preoccupied with keeping his name before the Lords in Westminster in England than he is with the actual country he writes of. Mishra and Sarangi point out that "Australia is a settler-invader colony which does not quite satisfy the requirements for acceptance into the "first" and "old" world of Europe, yet it is not "poor" enough to be included in the economically and politically determined "third world" (Sarangi and Mishra, 2006: p154). This perception of Australia is entirely from the perspective of Europe; the place that is rejecting it as its own, superseding a colonialist reading and being replaced by a concept that pushes the country past simple marginalisation. The very land is a hybrid that fits nowhere and belongs to no one, despite attempts to the contrary. The Aborigine people, on the other hand do not hold claim to the land, yet accept it as their own as they accept Gemmy into their tribe. Gemmy reflects the hybrid state of Australia through his own situation. Malouf describes him as always having lived on the fringe of and not fully belonging to whichever society he was a part of, whether it be his street boy days in London, his time with the Aborigines or his situation in the settlement.. Perhaps it is for this reason that it seems that his easiest and happiest days were those spent with the indigenous Australians, despite still being "an in-between creature" (p25); the Aborigines belong to the land and the tribe yet hold no prejudices against other humans regardless of skin colour. To the white settlers, however, Gemmy is an enigma; despite his whiteness he is also seen as black and this scares them. Jock expresses these fears when he considers Gemmy`s life, "When he fell in with the blacks - at thirteen, was it? - he had been like any other child, one of their own for instance.But had he remained white?" (p36). It is uncertain whether it would have been preferable to the settlers for Gemmy to have lost all his `whiteness` , thus keeping their race `pure` in the absence of native infiltration. Ashcroft explains that "Gemmy represents something literally beyond the imagination because he exists beyond that reality we learn is the world as we grow up" (Ascroft, 2001: p61) and this is why he does not fit in with and is marginalised by the settlers; they cannot place him and do not understand him. "It was the mixture of monstrous strangeness and unwelcome likeness that made Gemmy Fairley so disturbing to them" (p39). Apart from the McIvors, Mr Frazer is the only character to recognise the importance that such a cultural hybrid can hold in a simple, single cultured society. His diary entry reveals he feels that "our poor friend Gemmy is a forerunner. He is no longer a white man, or a European, whatever his birth, but a true child of the place as it will one day be" (p121). Mr Frazer`s acute observation is a comment by Malouf upon what could have happened if instead of marginalising the native Australians, the settlers had learnt from them. This is especially poignant because Gemmy is after all white, yet this is disregarded because he has aboriginal knowledge. Gemmy deconstructs the identity of the colonialists through his own lack of identity "because he is both subject and object, both European and aboriginal, he challenged the distinctions, the differences, with which they try to maintain their identity" (Taylor, 1999: p11). Gemmy does have a profound effect upon the identity and attitudes of several characters in the novel, most notably the McIvors. Jock`s initial reactions towards Gemmy were those of fear and apprehension; he had suspicions that the newcomer was a spy for an Aboriginal tribe. Gemmy is not blind to this and feels that "Jock`s fear of getting on the wrong side of his friends might in the end be more dangerous to him, he thought, than the open hostility he met in the settlement" (p34). This is reasonable, considering that Jock offers him protection; not from the elements - that he is used to- but from the other members of the settlement; if Jock were to reject Gemmy he would be thrown out with nowhere to go and no other means to continue a life in the white settlement. From the children`s point of view, however, Gemmy is a playmate and Lachlan especially takes him under his wing, if only to showcase him. As a child, Lachlan sees not a dangerous and barbaric man, but an adventure; when he first sees Gemmy, he is lost in "a scrap of make-believe" (p1); am imaginary game with snow and wolves and Gemmy is simply an extension of this fantasy. Indeed, as Lachlan grows up he becomes ashamed of his earlier mateship with Gemmy, blushing at the memory of "a time when he had regarded it as a sign of his power" (p144). This, despite appearing as callous and cold is natural part of a child`s progression; Lachlan had protected and stood up for Gemmy when he was young and what is more important is the change in Jock`s attitude. The more Gemmy is marginalised by the settlers for having Aborigine links and the more the McIvors are punished for keeping him, the closer Jock finds himself becoming to Gemmy. After the night time incident where Jock`s neighbours terrorise Gemmy, Jock finds himself comforting Gemmy and "not draw[ing] away when the man clutched and held on" (p114). Gemmy had taught Jock to have a sense of acceptance and humanity as a result of his marginalised position in society. Ultimately everyone in the novel seeks to be accepted because a lack of acceptance in a society results in marginalisation. The McIvor`s acceptance of Gemmy results in them becoming almost their own microcosm, clinging together as a family unit. Through Gemmy they learn to live closer to nature and the land upon which they live, so although they are effectively living on the margins on their society, they are a part of the country and find their identity. This is epitomised in Janet, who realises that her gender will hinder her later in life, a fact that Gemmy also recognises. He sees that Lachlan had power "and it was the power that belonged to him because he was a boy; because one day, the authority he had claimed...would be real" (p33). Instead of fighting this male dominance, she instead joins a convent where she is "suspected of being a risk to security, perhaps a spy" (p166). Janet does not, however, seem to be too concerned by her lack of belonging in this particular outreach of society due to her affinity with the bees; she will not marry because it is to the bees she truly belongs. Her initial experience with Mrs Hutchence`s bees was a hugely spiritual experience for her, where "her own mind closed in her. She lost all sense of where her feet might be, or her dreamy wrists, or whether she was still standing...or had been lifted from the face of the earth" (p129). They literally claimed her body, accepting it as it was without prejudice in the very same way the Aborigines claimed Gemmy; both are groups that are perceived to be dangerous but in reality are depicted as kinder beings than the settlers. Malouf succeeds in exposing the marginalisation that happened in not only colonial Australia, but what still happens today. The chronology in the book is very disjointed due to the multiple viewpoints, but it also serves as a comment by Malouf on the stubbornness of humanity; no matter what order events happen in, general opinion will not be changed, which is what Mr Frazer alluded to in his aforementioned diary entry about Gemmy being the forerunner. Taylor notes that "Gemmy does not simply transgress boundaries and divisions, he challenges the way the settlers- and ourselves- construct the world in terms of difference and division" (Taylor, 1999: p11); Gemmy stands for all that is elusive about both cultures and so embodies the fear that the settlers felt towards the Aborigines; they felt as though the natives could take the `whiteness` out of someone. Yet the reader only ever sees Gemmy as kind and gentle, challenging the reader to deconstruct not only the ideologies examined in the novel but also their own attitudes the those who are living on the margins of society.

Word Count: 2,578

Bibliography: Ashcroft, Bill, `Childhood and Possibility`, On Postcolonial Futures: Transformations of Colonial Culutre, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001 Kelley, Theresa, `Postmodernism, Romanticism and John Clare`, Lessons of Romanticism: A Critical Companion, ed. Pfaw, Thomas and Gleckner, Robert, Duke University Press, 1988 Malouf, David, Remembering Babylon¸ Chatto and Windus, London, 1993 Otto, Peter, `Forgetting Colonialism`, in Meanjin, Vol. 52, No 3, September, 1993 Oxford English Dictionary, http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marginalize#m_en_gb0500150.003 accessed 02/01/2012 Sarangi, Jaydeep and Mishra, Binod, Explorations in Australian Literature, Sarup and Sons, New Delhi, 2006 Taylor, Andrew, `Origin, Identity and the Body in David Malouf`s Fiction`, Australian Literary Studies, ed. Hergenhan, Laurie, University of Queensland Press, 1999