Abstract

Nabil Boudraa

‘Was Edward Said right in depicting Albert Camus as an imperialist writer?’

In the chapter entitled “Camus and the French Imperial Experience” from his controversial book, Culture and Imperialism, and in a later article, “Albert Camus, ou l’inconscient colonial,” published in Le Monde diplomatique of November 2000, Edward Said argued that Albert Camus, just like Jane Austen, is an imperialist.
As much as I agree with Said’s criticism of imperialism, orientalism and such, I strongly believe that he has not done justice to Camus. I will build up several arguments to critique Said’s contention. Here are some basic points:

1. Camus knows and explains well the hybridity of Algeria, whereas Said looks at this specific context through a war perspective (Colonized/Arabs versus Colonizers/French). The lens through which Said examines the Israel/Palestine conflict could be a reason for this misrepresentation of Algeria. The latter’s situation is not only different but much more complex.
2. Camus’s position against the independence of Algeria is no doubt questionable, but to argue that he was an imperialist is to ignore his several writings about the effects of imperialism. Said based his contention on examples from Camus’s fiction, but neglected the essays in which Camus defended the cause of the indigenous population.
3. At the publication of Culture and Imperialism Said was not aware yet of an upcoming posthumous book, Le Premier Homme which explains further Camus’s relationship with Algeria.
4. To see Camus as a normal Frenchman is to ignore his complex origins (French father but Spanish mother). The French of Algeria have an identity of their own and they form another component of the country.
Camus’s vision of a Mediterranean identity is also very relevant here as Algeria is not simply Arab and/or French. The country, he argued, cannot belong to only one group of people. The Berbers, the Maltese, the Turks, etc all have a role in the Algerian identity.
Looking at this problem from the present tragic situation of Algeria, we clearly see how since independence the country is stripped of its real pluralistic personality/identity and how one group on the detriment of the others appropriates it.
My purpose here is not to oppose Edward Said (knowing his enormous contribution to academia, culture and politics) but simply to argue that Albert Camus might have disappointed various groups of people during the Algerian War, but his political standpoint doesn’t necessarily make him an imperialist. On the contrary, he wrote about the effects of imperialism, and he was above all a man of peace.


	Nabil Boudraa ‘Was Edward Said right in depicting Albert Camus as an imperialist writer?’ In the chapter entitled “Camus and the French Imperial Experience” from his controversial book, Culture and Imperialism, and in a later article, “Albert Camus, ou l’inconscient colonial,” published in Le Monde diplomatique of November 2000, Edward Said argued that Albert Camus, just like Jane Austen, is an imperialist. As much as I agree with Said’s criticism of imperialism, orientalism and such, I strongly believe that he has not done justice to Camus. I will build up several arguments to critique Said’s contention. Here are some basic points: 1. Camus knows and explains well the hybridity of Algeria, whereas Said looks at this specific context through a war perspective (Colonized/Arabs versus Colonizers/French). The lens through which Said examines the Israel/Palestine conflict could be a reason for this misrepresentation of Algeria. The latter’s situation is not only different but much more complex. 2. Camus’s position against the independence of Algeria is no doubt questionable, but to argue that he was an imperialist is to ignore his several writings about the effects of imperialism. Said based his contention on examples from Camus’s fiction, but neglected the essays in which Camus defended the cause of the indigenous population. 3. At the publication of Culture and Imperialism Said was not aware yet of an upcoming posthumous book, Le Premier Homme which explains further Camus’s relationship with Algeria. 4. To see Camus as a normal Frenchman is to ignore his complex origins (French father but Spanish mother). The French of Algeria have an identity of their own and they form another component of the country. Camus’s vision of a Mediterranean identity is also very relevant here as Algeria is not simply Arab and/or French. The country, he argued, cannot belong to only one group of people. The Berbers, the Maltese, the Turks, etc all have a role in the Algerian identity. Looking at this problem from the present tragic situation of Algeria, we clearly see how since independence the country is stripped of its real pluralistic personality/identity and how one group on the detriment of the others appropriates it. My purpose here is not to oppose Edward Said (knowing his enormous contribution to academia, culture and politics) but simply to argue that Albert Camus might have disappointed various groups of people during the Algerian War, but his political standpoint doesn’t necessarily make him an imperialist. On the contrary, he wrote about the effects of imperialism, and he was above all a man of peace.