Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Peter Dunwoodie’s chapter seeks “to explore in a selection of texts what underpins both Camus’s ties to a birthplace lived as royaume/exil, and some of the presuppositions operative in the French Algerian dilemma as he confronted it”. The chapter begins by recounting the evolving situation in Algeria after 1930, and Camus’ responses to it, both as a writer and as a political agent (as per chapter 18 by Orme). Dunwoodie appreciates the ambiguity and difficulty of Camus’ situation as a poor, pied-noir French-Algerian, for whom the Muslim population was “too proximate to be seen as exotic, the Metropole too dominant to be ignored, and the colony too productive to be marginalised”. Like post-colonial criticism before him, Dunwoodie is not charmed by Camus’ rhapsodic descriptions of the hic et nunc that he reports from his youth, visiting ruins and swimming in the sea, rather seeing this (in line with Richardson here (chapter 1)) as giving free reign to his own impotence, and perhaps guilt, as the beneficiary of a French colonialism soon doomed to pass into history. Controversially, Dunwoodie reads Camus’ work on Tipasa, Djemila and other Roman sites alongside works of thinkers on the Right whose vision of colonial Algeria Camus opposed, however impotently, like Bertrand, Randau and the Algerianists. In a comparable way, Dunwoodie contends, Camus’ “psychogeographic” evocations of the places of his upbringing in Le Premier Homme (see chapter 21 here) are haunted by the surrounding, enabling violence of French colonialism. Camus’ explorations of his love for his family and maman, his school-teacher and friend, Malan/Grenier, together with his exploration of the temporality of the existence of the pied-noir poor become in this optic another form of overdetermined rationalisation and evasion. And behind this evasion, there is for Dunwoodie an “overtly political” intentionality, whether conscious or partly-unconscious: “seeking to ground and promote non-confrontational belonging in the face of a legacy of conflict and the current violent rejection of continued coexistence”.