Colonial Power and the Marginalized Voice in J.M. Coetzee’s Foe

Introduction of J. M. Coetzee

John Maxwell Coetzee, widely known as J. M. Coetzee, is one of the most influential novelists, critics, and thinkers of contemporary literature. He was born on 9 February 1940 in Cape Town, South Africa. Growing up during the apartheid era shaped much of his intellectual and literary outlook, as his works often deal with themes of power, oppression, silence, and the struggle for justice.

Coetzee studied both mathematics and English, earning degrees from the University of Cape Town and later completing a PhD in linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin. He went on to teach literature at several universities, including the University of Cape Town and later in Australia, where he settled permanently.

As a writer, Coetzee is best known for his postcolonial and philosophical novels that question authority, truth, and representation. His style is often spare, precise, and deeply reflective. He frequently rewrites or reimagines classic literary texts—such as in Foe (1986), which revisits Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. His novels also examine the legacy of colonialism, apartheid, and human cruelty, while exploring the ethical responsibilities of both writers and readers.

Coetzee has received many prestigious awards, including the Booker Prize twice—for Life & Times of Michael K (1983) and Disgrace (1999). In 2003, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his “well-crafted composition, pregnant with meaning, and stripping the South African reality to its moral core.” Today, J. M. Coetzee is regarded as a global literary figure, whose works challenge readers to confront uncomfortable truths about history, identity, and humanity.

Introduction of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (born 24 February 1942 in Kolkata, India) is one of the most influential scholars in the fields of postcolonial studies, literary theory, and feminism. She is best known as a literary critic, philosopher, and theorist who combines insights from Marxism, feminism, and deconstruction.

Spivak studied at Presidency College, Kolkata, and later earned her PhD in Comparative Literature from Cornell University. She is currently a professor at Columbia University, New York. She became widely recognized after her English translation of Jacques Derrida’s Of Grammatology (1976), which brought deconstruction into the English-speaking academic world.

Her scholarship focuses on issues such as colonialism, neo-colonialism, globalization, feminism, education, and the silencing of marginalized voices. Spivak is especially concerned with the subaltern—the oppressed and marginalized people who are left out of history and whose voices cannot be easily represented.

She is often called one of the “big three” postcolonial theorists, alongside Edward Said and Homi K. Bhabha.

Article Overview

Spivak’s essay explores how J. M. Coetzee’s Foe engages with and subverts Daniel Defoe’s works (Robinson Crusoe and Roxana) through postcolonial and feminist lenses. She addresses themes of marginalization, silence, authorship, and the impossibility of fully representing “the other.” (JSTOR)

Spivak’s Reading of Foe

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay examines how J. M. Coetzee’s Foe engages with and subverts Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Roxana through both postcolonial and feminist perspectives. Her analysis highlights themes such as marginalization, silence, authorship, and the limits of representation, particularly focusing on the impossibility of fully speaking for or representing “the other.” Spivak argues that Coetzee’s novel refuses the neat colonial and patriarchal frameworks of Defoe’s works and instead foregrounds the complexity of silenced and marginalized voices.

Key Themes and Interpretations

1. Margins and the "Wholly Other"

Spivak distinguishes between:

• A “margin in the narrow sense”, involving subjects relegated to the periphery—victims who can be spoken for.
  
  

• A “margin in the general sense”, which represents the “wholly Other”—those who cannot be fully assimilated or represented (junctionsjournal.org).

Spivak makes an important distinction between two kinds of margins. On the one hand, there is the “margin in the narrow sense,” which refers to subjects who are marginalized but can still be spoken for—such as oppressed victims who can, at least in theory, be represented by others. On the other hand, there is the “margin in the general sense,” which points to the “wholly Other”—figures so radically outside dominant systems of knowledge and representation that they cannot be assimilated into language or fully spoken for. In Foe, this distinction is central, as Coetzee explores not only the plight of the marginalized but also the deeper question of whether the “wholly Other” can ever be represented in literature at all.

2. Friday as the Unrepresentable Subaltern

In Foe, Friday—who is rendered tongueless—symbolizes the subaltern’s inaccessibility:

• He cannot speak or be given voice by colonial or even anti-colonial forces.
  
  

• His silence, Spivak argues, is a kind of active resistance and agency, not mere passivity: he "withholds," becoming a "curious guardian at the margin".
  
  

For Spivak, the character of Friday epitomizes the unrepresentable nature of the subaltern. Friday’s tongue has been cut out, leaving him permanently silent and inaccessible. His muteness symbolizes the condition of colonized and enslaved subjects, who are denied not only a voice but also the possibility of translation into dominant narratives. Importantly, Spivak does not interpret Friday’s silence as mere passivity. Instead, she argues that his refusal or inability to speak is a form of agency—an act of withholding that resists colonial appropriation. In this sense, Friday becomes what Spivak calls a “curious guardian at the margin,” a presence that cannot be captured or domesticated by either colonial or even sympathetic anti-colonial voices.

3. Critique of Representation

Spivak warns against the ethical pitfalls of attempting to speak for the subaltern:

• Susan Barton (the narrator in Foe) wants to give Friday a voice, but all efforts fail.
  
  

• This failure is not a flaw—it foregrounds the unrepresentable nature of marginalized voices and critiques the assumption that they can be fully captured in language.
  
  

A key aspect of Spivak’s interpretation is her critique of representation. Susan Barton, the narrator of Foe, repeatedly attempts to give Friday a voice or to speak on his behalf. However, every attempt fails. Rather than viewing this as a shortcoming in the narrative, Spivak emphasizes that this failure is the point: Coetzee is deliberately showing the impossibility of representing the subaltern in conventional literary or historical terms. By making Friday’s silence unresolvable, the novel critiques the assumption—common in both colonial and liberal discourses—that marginalized voices can be fully captured in language. The novel thus becomes a meta-commentary on the limits of representation itself.

4. Authorship and Narrative Authority

Foe centers on the struggle over who controls storytelling:

• Mr. Foe (representing Defoe) attempts to reshape Susan’s account into a palatable adventure story.
  
  

• Barton tries to assert her narrative but ultimately fails, mirroring the larger critique of authorship and historical truth.
  
  

Another crucial theme Spivak identifies is the struggle over authorship and narrative authority. The figure of Mr. Foe (a fictionalized Daniel Defoe) tries to reshape Susan Barton’s account into a marketable adventure story, filled with pirates and excitement. Susan, however, resists these distortions, insisting on her own version of events. Yet, despite her efforts, she cannot secure full control over her story. This conflict mirrors the broader issue of narrative power: who owns a story—the person who lived it or the one who writes it? Spivak reads this struggle as Coetzee’s critique of how history itself is authored, edited, and manipulated, often at the expense of marginalized voices that remain silenced.

Impact and Significance

Spivak’s reading of Foe highlights the novel’s deep engagement with questions of power, representation, and voice. By focusing on Friday’s silence, Coetzee demonstrates the ethical and political difficulty of trying to “give voice” to the subaltern. Spivak reminds us that some voices are not simply unheard but are fundamentally unrepresentable within dominant structures of language and power. This challenges readers, scholars, and writers to reflect on their own role in reproducing or resisting the silencing of others, making Foe not just a retelling of Defoe’s narrative but a radical critique of how stories—and histories—are constructed.