Jennifer Amo

Disgrace a novel by JM Cotezee is a deceptively powerful novel about the legacy

of post apartheid and its effect on the psyche of the society as a whole. A careful

boundary must be made between the protagonist and the narrator in the text. Interactions

between characters are pivotal to understanding the deep ingrained effects that displaced

power based on racial and gender criteria can cause a country and its citizens. The novel

Disgrace is a simple narrative based on the life of its protagonist David Lurie. It

chronicles his affairs with various women from Soraya a prostitute to his student Melanie

and consequences that occur around his disgrace. David’s fall from grace and subsequent

actions, document the change in South Africa after Apartheid rule. The secondary

characters in the novel are pivotal to revealing the nature of South Africa. The most

important of these characters is Petrus. Petrus, the former aid of Lucy interactions with

David and Lucy sheds light on the circumstances of South Africa and its plight after

apartheid. The trajectory of Petrus, as he transcends from a farmer’s aid to a landowner

and the consequences of these circumstances show the new social structure in South

Africa.

Petrus is essential to the understanding of South Africa’s post-colonial society

because of how the other characters relate to him and his desires. Coetzee uses Petrus as a

catalyst merely accelerating and mirroring the formula never actually being a pivotal part

of it. The first emergence of Petrus occurs in chapter 7 in which the readers are shown

the dynamics of Petrus’ role in society. The use of different semantics when discussing
Petrus’ role in the farm highlights the discrepancy that exists in post -apartheid South

Africa. The fact that Lucy introduces him as her “…new assistant. In fact, since March,

co-proprietor” may seem to suggest that Petrus like many blacks in South Africa is in

transition to gaining a place of power (61). A contrast occurs when Petrus introduces

himself to David and states that he is “’the gardener and the dog-man.’ This

contradiction in job description by Lucy and Petrus highlight the difference in reflections

of his role. This highlights the problems present in the creation of the new South Africa

and Lucy’s ignorance of the peasant’s lust for land.

Petrus as he traverses the power structure is no longer farm aid but what is he

exactly. David states that Petrus”is no longer, strictly speaking hired help. It is hard to say

what Petrus is, strictly speaking.”(116). The fact that David can no longer identify Petrus’

position in society signifies the shift that has occurred in post apartheid Africa and

David’s inability to apprehend his position and the positions of other in this new South

Africa. The ambiguity of Petrus’ role highlights his transition as Lurie describes him, as a

“neighbour who at present happens to sell his labour, because that's what suits

him.”(117). The key part of the statement lies in the fact that “it suits him” which shows

that Petrus is no longer a farm aid or co-proprietor but his own man. Petrus is his own

man in terms of farming because he owns land. He is no longer a victim to the system but

an actual player with in it.

The novel’s structure allows a very calculated description of Petrus full of

biasness since it comes from David’s point of view with third person. David states “in

the old days one could have had it out with Petrus and continues with it is hard to say

what Petrus is strictly speaking. The word that seems to serve best however, is
neighbour.”(116). These observations show the reposition of the society and David’s

inability to deal with it. His inability to express it in the manner in which he wants

highlights the change in the new world order. He states it for the reader and himself, “It is

a new world they live in, he and Lucy and Petrus. Petrus knows it and he knows it, and

Petrus knows that he knows it.”(117). This truly shows Lurie’s true reaction to the new

society after Apartheid. According to Attridge (2000):

This is the closest we get to an expression from Lurie of discontent with the

passing apartheid and its benefits to the likes of him. The distribution of power is

no longer underwritten by racial difference, and the result is a new fluidity in

human relations, a sense that the governing terms and conditions can, and must,

be written from scratch. (105).

This shows the true power that lies in the character of Petrus. He is not a woman of

colour like that of Soraya or Melanie. He is a supposed equal in the paternalistic society

of post Apartheid South Africa. He is able to confront and bring forth the deep-seated

resentment of the new power structure in South Africa. The constant comparison of the

old days to the new times shows changing social political times. This observation can

only be made due to the strain relationship between Petrus and David.

Critical writers such as

“Gerrit Olivier (2003) writes in the South African magazine Insig, in Disgrace

the historical logic of revenge and retribution wins out over concepts such as the

rainbow nation, the African renaissance and the process of truth and reconciliation.
 The bankruptcy of the national myths, metaphors for recovering a paradisical

mutual understanding, is strikingly illustrated in a confrontation between Lurie and

Petrus”.

This confrontation is essential to the novel. This non-stated struggle embodies the inner

turmoil that is striking the new South Africa. The aftermath of the Lucy’ rape truly

solidifies and highlights this struggle. The scenes between David and Petrus after the rape

signifies the height of tension and this especially comes to a pivotal crux when David

confronts Petrus about the rape. The confrontation highlights the tension between the two

as David states, “I find it hard to believe the men who came here were strangers. I find it

hard to believe they arrived out of nowhere, and did what they did.”(118).

The placement of the phrase “I find it hard to believe” shows David's contempt, because

there is a degree of panic and uncertainty in what he is saying Petrus “straightens up,

takes the pipe from the pocket of his overalls” and “sucks at the pipe unlit”(118). This

shows that Petrus is not apart of this fight and deems it unnecessary. Then David

continues by asking the question: “How could they have known if they were complete

strangers to the district? The fact that Petrus refuses to answer this question shows the

complete power shift between the two parties.”(119) Petrus seems to be nonchalant and

in charge of the situation while David seems to be out of control. Phrases such as

“you are whipping yourself to a rage” and “yes, it was an outrage show Petrus to be

comfortable with their situation.”(119). As the situation reaches it climax, David seems to

be losing control and Coetzee highlights this by using italics and direct speech to

emphasize the extent to which Petrus has annoyed David. The use of the verb “whipping”
and the noun “rage” and “outrage” conjure images of violence and extreme frustration.

The end of the confrontation highlights the deceptive relationship of Petrus and David,

“In silence, side by side, he and Petrus finish off the job.”(119).

The fact that Lucy is pregnant serves as a constant harsh reminder of the rape and Petrus.

During David’s argument with Lucy about persecution of the rapists, Lucy explains,

“what happened to me is purely a private matter”(112).

Lucy seems to suggest that she is ashamed at what has happened, and maybe even feels

that she will be victimized if it is made a public matter. Her role seems to be precarious

but she goes on to say: “In another time, in another place it might be held to be a public

matter. But in this place, at this time it is not” (112) which links back to the concept of

the “new world” which Coetzee describes earlier in the book. Here, the difference in time

is reflected in the environment itself. This is highlighted when David asks her which

place, and Lucy replies, “This place being South Africa.” (112). This statement signifies

the environment has changed it is a new post-apartheid world; a world which is no longer

dominated by white attitudes rooted in the European culture. The heart wrenching point

occurs when Lucy breaks down and asks the question “But why did they hate me so? I

had never set eyes on them.” (156) and David replies “It was history speaking through

them. A history of wrong. Think of it that way, if it helps. It may have seemed personal,

but it wasn’t. It came down from the ancestors.” (156).

This interpretation seems puzzling but is it pivotal to the essential premise of the novel.
The rape is not an isolated incident but a manifestation of the real in the new post

apartheid society in South Africa. The rape allows for a bit of the real to be realized in the

symbolic order and show the underlying tension in post apartheid South Africa. The

disheartening part about Lucy’s rape is her reaction to the crime that is addressed by

many literary scholars.

As Buikema (2006) suggests Lucy’s submissive behaviour questions the future of South

African society:

Lucy refuses to report the crime. She assumes, as the consequence of historical debt, the

position of a martyr, thus furnishing Petrus and his people with certain immunity. She

accepts her destiny just the way it comes to her; she suffers from the pregnancy that

results from the rape, but she remains uninterested in the question of guilt. The only thing

remaining for her is the acceptance of Petrus’ protection in exchange for a larger share of

the farm. A position that many critics have immense difficulties with because this

surrender and acceptance of the unacceptable has determined the fate of women in a

patriarchal society for centuries and can hardly be viewed as a desirable perspective for a

society in transition (193).

Petrus’ response to Lucy’s rape is also despicable and horrendous and shows the

tremendous effects of apartheid. The fact that Petrus has no qualms about holding a party

while one of the rapists attends. When David tells Petrus that he is going to call the

police, “Petrus is stony-faced” (132), again showing no real emotion, making him seem
very cold. Again Buikema suggests an explanation for Petrus’ rigid behaviour:

Petrus remains indifferent to Lurie’s appeal for justice. Mind you, as far as Lurie is

concerned, no one has to show remorse, but a guilty verdict must be reached. Petrus,

however, adopts the attitude of the black man who says: a black man cannot be guilty

towards a white man for the coming fifty years; the young man is too young to go to jail,

and what is Lurie so upset abut anyway since ‘the insurance will give you a new car’

(137). Desire, revenge and retribution have supplanted the old African Ubuntu values.

(193).

This attitude is exemplified in how he deals with the rape and he states “But you are

alright now.” (114). This statement seems to correspond with Petrus' “cold” nature it

seems natural for the reader to take it as a statement, emphasizing his lack of compassion

for Lucy. The fact that he continues to ask “will Lucy go to the market tomorrow” (115)

shows that he is far more concerned about the business than Lucy herself. This lack of

compassion is pivotal in understanding the destruction left by apartheid. It highlights the

struggle needed in post apartheid South Africa in order to combat this.

As the readers find out that Lucy is pregnant, Coetzee makes it clear that it is out of

David’s realm of control. Lucy keeps the fact that she is pregnant from Lurie for quite a

while. He notices that something has changed, but instead of asking Lucy herself, he calls

Bev Shaw, who informs him that "there have been developments." When he finds out,
Lucy says that she couldn't face one of David's "eruptions." However Lurie doesn't

"erupt," and Coetzee implies that Lurie is concerned about the fact that she is going to

keep the baby and look after it with help from Petrus, forcing the reader to look into the

future. Petrus and the baby will be black, and Lucy white, creating a new scenario within

their social system; this relationship above all would be seen to represent post-apartheid

South Africa as during the apartheid, relationships between blacks and whites were

banned. As for Lucy's child, issues of identity will surely arise, especially as it will have

two mothers, Lucy and Petrus' wife. So the fact that there is going to be a mixed race

family shows that South Africa is making the transition between apartheid and post-

apartheid. However whether South Africa is becoming more democratic is debateable.

For it seems that if Petrus marries Lucy then she will have lost all control, and it could

also be seen as though the marriage would be like a dictatorship.

Andrew O'Hehir (1999) from Salon says that "Disgrace is Coetzee's first book to deal

explicitly with post-apartheid South Africa, and the picture it paints is a cheerless one

that will comfort no one, no matter what race, nationality or viewpoint." Petrus has an

ambiguous position in society, he shows a great lack of compassion and is very

patriarchal, as well as being very flexible in what he does. So if Petrus does represent the

new South Africa then O'Hehir's view is right.

However, Lucy's child could be seen as being a sign of hope as she is from a mixed race,

a sight that would have been very rare during apartheid itself. Lucy's child is also coming

from a culture of violence and aggression; with the child symbolising new life and hope,
even when conceived in the most terrible circumstances. Petrus can be seen as an

apparently peripheral figure in the novel because of his position in society and because he

only has tenuous links with the protagonist, David Lurie.

2403940989

003141