Science and Superstition in Dracula and “The Beach of Falesa”By Laura Cunningham
Several works of late 19th century British imperial literature contrast the role of information with the role of superstition in colonial encounters. Looking at Stevenson’s “The Beach of Falesa” and Stoker’s Dracula, we see that information plays an important role in both British and non-British characters’ abilities to dominate over their opponents. However, each of these works differs in its treatment of rational and irrational forms of knowledge. In “The Beach of Falesa,” the natives’ irrational belief in demons stands in contrast to the practical knowledge of the Europeans, which is shown as superior to knowledge based on superstition. The role of information in “The Beach of Falesa” also demonstrates that the high intellect of whites allows them to dominate over the native people whose land they colonize. Stoker’s Dracula counters this point by illustrating that both Europeans and their non-European opponents can use information as a tool for domination and conquest. While “The Beach of Falesa” portrays rational forms of knowledge as superior to beliefs in magic or folklore, Dracula shows the importance of utilizing multiple types of information in defeating the enemy. Comparing Dracula to Stevenson’s “The Beach of Falesa,” Stoker uses the theme of information to challenge the idea of a clear separation between Europeans and the “others” they encounter in imperial experience.
In “The Beach of Falesa,” the protagonist Wiltshire asserts that the native Kanakas have a natural predisposition for superstitious beliefs. As he explores Case’s “devil’s bush,” Wiltshire tells the reader, “Any poor Kanaka brought up here in the dark, with the harps whining all round him, and shown that smoking face in the bottom of a hole, would make no kind of doubt that he seen and heard enough devils for a lifetime” (FE 232). Stevenson shows that Case, as a white European, has the ability to exploit the childlike fears of the Kanakas “with a box of tools and few mighty simple contrivances.” Case’s knowledge and ingenuity, therefore, plays a crucial role in his ability to dominate over the natives. It is not until another white man arrives, Wiltshire, that the natives can be saved from Case’s trickery. As soon as Wiltshire learns about the Kanakas’ association of Case’s with Tiapolo, he suspects how Case acquired this reputation (FE 226). Unlike a native, he does not even consider the possibility that Case is some sort of demon. Stevenson’s illustration of Wiltshire’s ability to immediately form a logical explanation for Case’s scheme demonstrates his superior European intellect.
However, Wiltshire’s journey through the devil bush reveals that he is no less vulnerable to the workings of his imagination and fear of the unknown than the Kanakas. He tries to convince the reader that he puts no stock in the stories Uma tells him about the dangers of the high bush (FE 229). Yet, Stevenson makes it clear that Wiltshire is so frightened that his “heart is like ice.” Even though Wilshire is not a religious man, he is so desperate that he falls to his knees and prays. Wiltshire becomes feminized by his fear and susceptibility to the trickery of Case, such as the placement of harps in the trees. Thus, “The Beach of Falesa” portrays superstition and belief in the supernatural as a weakness. It is only by eventually recognizing the harps, figurines, and paint as harmless objects that Wiltshire can redeem himself as an intelligent, logical man.
One could make the argument that Stevenson takes an anti-imperialist stance by showing the immorality of Case’s manipulation of the natives through his devil’s bush. While Stevenson may be expressing a genuine moral concern for natives such as the Kanakas, “The Beach of Falesa” reinforces the myth of colonization that Europeans can use their intellect to manipulate ignorant, childlike natives. This myth is advanced further by the fact that it takes another European, Wiltshire, to “save” the natives from the scheme being employed against them. While Wiltshire, like the Kanakas, experiences irrational fears, the story does not show the possibility of a Kanaka using his intellect to see past the white man’s manipulation of native superstition. By characterizing superstitious belief as a weakness, “The Beach of Falesa” portrays the Kanakas as an easy target of British domination. In this way, Stevenson’s story seems to endorse the widespread contemporary attitude in Britain that the greater intelligence of Europeans would benefit and educate the native peoples they conquered, justifying imperial action (Bolt 147).
Stoker’s Dracula, on the other hand, gives a more complex view of imperialism by showing that the dissemination and use of information can break down the barrier between the colonizer and the colonized. Stoker accomplishes this by showing that things perceived to be rational forms of knowledge the British characters possess, such as books and schooling, can actually make them more vulnerable to their enemy. Dracula studies English books, laws, and customs so that he may permeate into London and pose as an Englishman. This contrasts the relationship between the Kanakas and the whites in “The Beach of Falesa” because Dracula can use the British forms of knowledge against them. Thus, Stoker does not allow the use of information act as a distinguishing characteristic between the colonizer and the colonized.
Stoker also calls into question the idea that (what the contemporary English reader would consider) rational types of information are superior to knowledge of superstition and folklore. The British characters’ tendencies towards practical rationality make it more difficult for them to understand their enemy. When Jonathon Harker visits Dracula’s castle and first begins to suspect the Count’s sinister intentions, he doubts his own perceptions, forcing himself to focus on facts rather than intuition (Dracula 61). As a result, it takes him longer to understand Dracula’s true identity as a vampire. Similarly, Dr. Seward’s stalwart reliance on logic and empirical knowledge makes him reluctant to accept the “abstract truth” of the vampire’s possession of Lucy, so that Van Helsing has to devise a method of proof more consistent with the scientific method he trusts. Stoker further illustrates the vulnerability of empirical knowledge when the Count destroys the manuscripts and phonographs Mina creates to design a plot against Dracula. All of the European characters’ diligent journaling goes to ruin when the papers are burned because that knowledge cannot live on beyond the words recorded on the page. The history of Dracula’s life also reveals the corruptibility of scientific knowledge, as it is through the mastery of academic studies that Dracula learned to develop vampires as a “new order of beings” (Dracula 342). These elements of the novel demonstrate the inherent weaknesses in the empirical, scientific, and academic forms of learning and information privileged in western society. Rather, it is superstition and folklore that serve as the highest forms of knowledge because they provide the strongest weapons for the European characters to defeat their enemy. Hypnotizing of Mina, a process which would have been considered mystical by most contemporary readers, allows the group to track Dracula’s whereabouts as he travels back to Transylvania. Van Helsing’s reliance on folkloric traditions and customs becomes the key element in his ability to destroy the vampires. Without the knowledge he gains about how to use the host, garlic, stakes, and the cross, the group would not have been able to destroy the vampiric Lucy, and more importantly, would never have managed to kill Dracula.
Stoker’s emphasis on the importance of multiple types of information, even those commonly perceived as irrational, relates to the larger theme of imperialism in Dracula. Stoker uses tradition and superstition to disprove the notion that the increasing scientific advancements made in the late 19th century would render Britain invincible to the types of threats that imperialism creates. This idea is expressed in Van Helsing’s words:
“Tradition and superstition…are everything…a year ago
which of us would have received such a possibility
[of vampires], in the midst of our scientific, matter-of-fact
nineteenth century?...Let me tell you, he [the vampire] is
known everywhere that men have been. In old Greece, in
old Rome…he have followed the wake of the Slav,
the Saxon, the Magyar” (Dracula 278).
Here, the vampire becomes a symbol for the inevitable threat to the power of great empires. Dracula shows that Britain, as a contemporary imperial power, is no less susceptible to an external threat like the vampire than the classical empires of Greece and Rome that preceded it. The novel also illustrates that scientific knowledge alone is not enough to thwart such an enemy. Unlike Stevenson, who contrasts native superstition with British rationality, Stoker’s European characters must harness both types of knowledge to defeat the enemy. By avoiding an overly simplistic connection between natives and magic and Europeans and science, Stoker forces the reader to consider a difficult question: if rationality and information does not distinguish the British from the “other,” then what does? While we may not be able to definitively characterize Stoker as a pro- or anti-imperialist based on the role he gives these types of information in Dracula, his novel shows how information can blur the distinction between Europeans and the “other.”
Works Cited
Bolt, Christine. “Race and the Victorians,” in British Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. C.C. Eldridge. St. Martin’s Press: 1984.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. “The Beach of Falesa,” in Fictions of Empire, ed. John Kucich. Houghton Mifflin: 2003.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula, ed. Glennis Byron. Broadview Press: 1998.
© Laura Cunningham |