A satisfactory interpretation of Swift's Gulliver's Travels requires a proper understanding of its narrator. Unfortunately, the problematic and inconsistent character of that narrator, especially in the fourth part, renders such interpretation nearly impossible. Denis Donoghue, in his essay, "The Brainwashing Of Lemuel Gulliver," attempts to justify these inconsistencies through the argument that "Gulliver has been brainwashed to become what he is." Citing the discourse of English reason as the culprit of this brainwashing, Donoghue flatly denies that colonial discourse has any place in such a reading (128). Yet, the abundance of twentieth-century colonial critiques of Gulliver's Travels suggests otherwise. For instance, Liz Bellamy insists that through Gulliver's "imperialistic prejudices," Swift "ridicules the whole idea of colonial voyages of 'discovery'" (114). Wolfgang Zach's 1993 essay, "Jonathon Swift and Colonialism," relies on heavily on such a reading when he proposes that we should put Swift in the "'schizophrenic position" of being an "anti-colonial colonialist" (Zach 96). While I agree with Donoghue's interpretation of Gulliver's character, any reading that ignores the omnipresence of colonial discourse in both Gulliver's voice and Swift's conscience is incomplete. It is my intent to reconcile this "brainwashing" with colonial discourse by showing how Gulliver's colonial indoctrination throws him into the epistemological crisis of being both a colonizer of and immigrant to Houyhnhnmland.

First of all, it is important to clarify what I mean by colonial discourse. My sense of colonialism is informed mostly by Edward Said's 1979 study, Orientalism. In it, he defines Orientalism as "a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient" (Said 3). For the purposes of this essay, I interpret "the Orient" as any civilization whose foreignness puts it distinctly outside the bounds of Western culture—or, as it is often labeled, the "other." Colonialism is virtually synonymous with Orientalism, the distinction being that colonialism represents the actual act of "dominating" the Orient. Thus, Orientalism is the substance of colonial discourse.

To gain a better sense of colonialism and colonial discourse, one needs merely examine the relationship between Swift's Yahoos and Houyhnhnms.¹ The Houyhnhnms feel a "violent hatred" (Swift 2165) towards the Yahoos and thus desire to exterminate them; but, as with Western civilization, their obligation to reason demands that they rationally justify such action. In order to overcome this obligation, they build a discourse in which their "violent hatred" becomes accepted as natural. This discourse maintains that the Yahoo is the "most unteachable of all the brutes" (2144), despite the fact that unlike many animals, the Yahoo can be taught to pull a carriage. It also hypothesizes a myth of degraded origin for the Yahoo—much like the Western creation of the myth of Cain—which declares that the Yahoo were either "produced by the heat of the sun upon corrupted mud and slime, or from ooze and froth out of the sea" (2165). Furthermore, the Houyhnhnms have no other word besides "Yahoo" to describe anything that is evil (2168), suggesting a binary opposition of good and evil between the two races. In so doing, the Houyhnhnms produce the Yahoo as the "other."² Having placed the Yahoo comfortably outside the bounds of civility, this discourse allows the Houyhnhnms to feel morally secure in having "enclosed the whole herd; and destroying the older, . . . brought them to . . . a degree of tameness" (2166).

It is this same discourse that, feeding off a subconscious fear of the "other," banishes Gulliver from the Houyhnhnmland, lest his "rudiments of reason, added to the natural pravity of [the Yahoo]," (2170) disrupt its balance of power. This fear is an essential ingredient in colonial discourse. Critic Paul Brown notes that colonial discourse involves the "struggle and risk" of "producing colonialist stereotypicality" while avoiding "its possible erosion in the face of the other" (141). In other words, colonialism is constantly subject to the fear that its own discourse could break down if confronted with the reality of the "other." While the Houyhnhnms merely fear the potential of this erosion, Gulliver realizes this fear. The remainder of this essay will explore the "brainwashing" colonialist attitudes that build up to this realization, and then the consequential crisis of it.

If, as Bellamy insists, Gulliver's Travels is an "articulate attack on the system of colonialism" (116), then the reader will naturally question my characterization of Gulliver as a colonizer. Indeed, Gulliver uses the twelfth chapter of book four to make an argument against the colonial tactics that render native populations "enslaved, murdered, or driven out by colonies" (Swift 2180). Yet, Gulliver's actions reveal that he operates under a colonialist mentality. His own satire ironically hints at this hypocrisy when he asks, "Who is there alive that will not be swayed by his bias . . . to the place of his birth?" (2158). His preparations for exile reveal his faith in colonial stereotypes, as he hopes to "deliver [him]self to the first savages [he] should meet, and purchase [his] life from them by some bracelets, glass rings, and other toys" (2137). The first stereotype he entertains in this statement is that any civilization existing outside of Europe is "savage," and therefore the "other." Secondly, he believes the mentality of the "other" is childish and simplistic enough to subject itself to him on account of a few trivial "toys." When he finally encounters the anticipated "other" in the form of the Yahoo, his attempt to explain its physical features displays his lack of desire and his inability to understand the nature of the "other:"

The face of it was flat and broad, the nose depressed, the lips large, and the mouth wide; but these differences are common to all savage nations, where the lineaments of the countenance by the natives suffering their infants to lie groveling on the earth, or by carrying them against their backs, nuzzling with their face against the mother's shoulder. (2142)

Underlying this explanation is the assumption that the physical differences between Western civilization and the "other" are deformities consequential to a lack of civility. The fact that the prejudice of these passages is narrated from the future, when a supposedly enlightened Gulliver makes his case against colonialism, undermines any attempt to absolve Gulliver from the influence of colonialist discourse.

Perhaps the most powerful, albeit subtle, manner in which Gulliver attempts to exert his colonialist influence is through the use of language. Beginning with his first encounter with a Houyhnhnm, it is Gulliver's " principle endeavor . . . to learn their language," an action which his master strongly encourages (Swift 2143). Yet none of the Houyhnhnms have any desire to learn Gulliver's language. If, as Said declares, "to have knowledge over such a thing is to dominate it" (32), Gulliver's mastery of the Houyhnhnm language is evidence of his ability to conquer them. Even more disturbing is that while the Houyhnhnm's are incapable of books and literature, Gulliver is able to write down all he learns in his notebook (Swift 2144). As both colonialist critic Stephen Greenblatt and his subject, Shakespeare's Caliban, recognize of Prospero in The Tempest, books are the colonizer's "source of power" (65). Through his books, then, Gulliver puts himself in the only position of power available to him. Using the written word "to help [his] memory" (Swift 2144), Gulliver takes on the unavoidable role of historian. The reader must eventually recognize that, since the Houyhnhnms are incapable of publishing their own history, all knowledge of them must come through the filter of that memory.³ In other words, Gulliver possesses the colonialist's power to create the "other" according to whatever image he sees fit.

Realizing that Gulliver has this authorial power, the reader will naturally question what Gulliver does with this power—is Gulliver telling the truth, or is he the ironic victim of the same sensationalism he condemns in others "who travel into remote countries [and] . . . form descriptions of wonderful animals both at sea and land" (Swift 2177)? While most criticism before the twentieth century argued in favor of Gulliver's narrative reliability, modern criticism leans towards an unreliable narrator. Kathleen Williams, for example, refutes the notion that the Houyhnhnms represent the ideal society Gulliver claims they are: "If Swift did intend the Houyhnhnms to stand as an ideal contrast, he has badly mismanaged the matter. The Houyhnhnms do not strike the reader as altogether admirable beings" (248). If Williams is correct, then the average reader already accepts Gulliver's ideology as unreliable. Given this unreliability, it is quite possible that Gulliver never even permits the reader the opportunity to form a true opinion of Houyhnhnms. Indeed, the unreliability of Gulliver as narrator may extend beyond misplaced idealization, to the extreme that much of what he has to say about the Houyhnhnms falls subject to the misinterpretations of colonial discourse.

The plausibility of such extreme unreliability gains respect when one considers that Gulliver offers an orientalized portrait of both the Yahoo and the Houyhnhnm. Orientalism, after all, "is nothing more than a structure of lies and myths" (Said 6). As a colonialist and Orientalist, Gulliver has no choice but to employ Orientalism as he interprets the foreigners he meets; for, as Said says, "Orientalism is better grasped as a set of constraints upon and limitations of thought" (42). The brainwashing of colonial discourse necessitates that he turn the native inhabitants of the islands he visits into the "other," which transformation he produces quite aptly by creating them as horses, giants, little people, and savages. They are, quite simply, not like the common man. Once he has made this distinction, he is ready to orientalize their culture so that it conforms to stereotypes suitable for Western assimilation.

In regard to the Houyhnhnms, Gulliver's first act of Orientalism is to deny them their individuality. He never refers to his master or any other Houyhnhnm by name, and he makes sweeping judgements of the entire civilization based on his observations of his master. In so doing, he falls into the Orientalist tendency to "conceive of humanity either in large collective terms or in abstract generalities" (Said 154).⁴ Furthermore, this denial of individuality refuses the Houyhnhnms any sense of "humanity" through individual emotion. The instance of this are too numerous list, but it is epitomized in Gulliver's claim that, at death, the Houyhnhnms "feel a gradual decay, but without pain" (Swift 2168). Again, the words of Said condemn Gulliver's attitude; Said claims that orientalist discourse says of the Oriental, "Those people . . . don't suffer—they are Orientals and hence have to be treated in other ways" (155).

A more obvious aspect of Gulliver's Oriental reconstruction is the binary opposition he describes between the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms. The problem with trying to "divide human reality into. . . different cultures," argues Said, is that Orientalist inevitably "polarizes the distinction" (45-46). The opposition of good and evil, which I have already noted as a crucial aspect of the relationship between the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms, is just one instance when Gulliver does this. This polarization complicates Gulliver's attempt to describe the Houyhnhnms and Yahoos, as it demands that Gulliver reduce the opposing cultures to oversimplified embodiments of certain characteristics. Such reduction often occurs in the re-creation of the savage, and it is of little surprise that Gulliver emphasizes the baseness of the uncivilized Yahoo. He must do so in order to relate the Yahoo to his colonial audience. When Gulliver meets the Houyhnhnms, however, the contrast between the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms will not allow him to resort to the same type of reduction. At the same time, since the Houyhnhnm are still "the other," he cannot accept the complexity of Houyhnhnm civilization, and thus relegates them to the reduction usually reserved for his own culture—that of a completely rational being.⁵

The Oriental prejudice of this reduction is obvious in the ease with which Gulliver's portrayal of Houyhnhnm society as completely rational is deconstructed. For example, Gulliver's insistence that "Power, government, war, law, punishment, and a thousand other things had no terms" (Swift 2149), is irreconcilable with the social status the sorrel nag (2157), the fact of the Houyhnhnm Grand Council (2165), and the extermination of the Yahoo (2166). Gulliver also argues that there is no such thing as opinion in Houyhnhnm society , yet the only effect of the Grand Council that the reader ever sees is its discussion of opinion regarding the Yahoos (2165). Finally, although Gulliver's Orientalism masks it well enough to fool critics like Bellamy into seeing a "general soullessness" in the Houyhnhnm, the Houyhnhnm do appear capable of emotion. This is especially apparent in the farewell scene, where Gulliver confuses his master's affection with "the noble and courteous disposition of the Houyhnhnm" (2172), and where he outright admits that the sorrel nag "always loved me" (2173).

Gulliver's authorial power further orientalizes the Houyhnhnm through its description of Houyhnhnm history, or rather lack thereof. An important part of Orientalism, Said argues, is the creation of a "vision" of the Orient as a static counterpoint to Western civilization. As such, the Orient becomes "synonymous with stability and unchanging eternality" (Said 240). The Houyhnhnm are the epitome of this stability. There are "few events of any moment" historically among them (Swift 2167). Given that the Houyhnhnm "have no letters, and consequently, their knowledge is all traditional" (2167), the text suggests that the Houyhnhnm lack even the possibility of history as the record-keeping West knows it. Essential to this stability, Gulliver never inquiries into their history, meaning that he never sees its dynamic complexity. Once again, we see Gulliver capitalizing on the susceptibility of their history to his colonial interpretation. This time, the susceptibility allows the Houyhnhnm to safely persist in their function as a counterpointing "other" to Western civilization.⁶

One final indicator of Gulliver's Orientalism is his tendency to see the "other" in terms of his own origin. Said argues that the West sees the Orient as the "source of its civilizations and languages" (1). The Houyhnhnm's idealistic society and republican government remind of classical Greek or Rome, capturing the intellectual root of Western civilization. Meanwhile Gulliver compares their language to "High Dutch or German" (2144), essentially tracing the linguistic roots of the English language. Finally, the simplicity and innocence of their culture hint at the religious roots of Christianity in the Garden of Eden. On the other hand, the Yahoos represent a remarkably different origin. The contrast of the Houyhnhnms' innocence renders their baseness a reminder of original sin. The problem is, not only are the Yahoos physically similar to Gulliver, but they come to represent this origin through devolution. Gulliver recognizes that since he is the same species as the Yahoo, this devolution can also occur in himself. Therefore, he cannot deny that he shares in the origin of the "other" and its baseness.

The sense of origin in the "other" serves as the foundation of Gulliver's epistemological crisis. While, as Brian Tippett argues, man, and therefore, Gulliver "occupies a position midway between" the Houyhnhnm and the Yahoo as "part beast, part reason" (46), Gulliver feels that his origins lie only in his orientalized model of the Yahoo. The brainwashing of colonial discourse will not allow him to see beyond the binary opposition of the "civilized" and the "other" that he creates, and he is forced to identify with only one side. His inability to perceive the complexity of the Houyhnhnm culture has simplified it to the point of inhuman rationality, with which his shock at discovering his own "otherness" will not allow him to identify. Thus, Gulliver becomes a Yahoo, realizing the colonialist's fear of becoming the "other."

Obviously, Gulliver's attempts to exert his colonial powers over the Houyhnhnm fail to conquer them—Gulliver is conquered instead. He becomes an immigrant to the island rather than a colonizer, the distinction of which being simply the relationship of power between the newcomer and the native.⁷ As an immigrant, Gulliver is subject to the same brainwashing his colonialism once forced upon the "other." He begins to disdain his heritage for its inferiority and baseness, respecting instead the assumed superiority and rationality of his "colonizers." Donoghue describes the ease with which this brainwashing took place: "A mind already brainwashed by the England that made him is ready to be brainwashed again by his new masters, the Houyhnhnms" (Donoghue 130). Or, in terms of colonial discourse, because Gulliver is already indoctrinated with colonialism, he needs only reverse the polarity of his previous prejudice to arrive at the discourse and prejudices of the Houyhnhnms.

The process of this brainwashing is slow, but obvious. At first, Gulliver does not feel what he later describes as "natural awe" towards the Houyhnhnms; yet, he admires "the strength, comeliness, and speed of the inhabitants" (2170). Even though he does not immediately recognize the Houyhnhnms as his "colonizers," he is still concerned with their "strength," and therefore power. That they have more strength than him, and can thus defend him against the more violent Yahoos, is perhaps the greatest reason for his initial esteem of their society.⁸ Eventually Gulliver reaches the point where the discourse of his master has convinced him of his own "bad habits and disposition," which may or may not exist, but which, because of the thoroughness of his brainwashing, he attempts to cure "by endeavoring . . . to imitate" what, the reader must remember, is essentially a group of horses (2171).

An examination of the power relationships that the Houyhnhnms utilize in their brainwashing of Gulliver reveals that they, too, employ tactics of colonial discourse. Their physical power convinces Gulliver of their power in other areas, most significantly reason, a power of which the Houyhnhnms constantly remind him. Gulliver, meanwhile, must accept their rational superiority with the guide of emotion rather than reason, as emphasized in the fact that his awe is "mingled with a respectful love and emotion" (2170). His inadequacy in reason is further reinforced in the Houyhnhnm's power over the Yahoos with whom Gulliver identifies. Their ability to sustain the binary relationship between themselves and the Yahoo maintain this position of power. Finally, despite their insufficient knowledge of human history, their established rational authority places them in a position of power over it, allowing them to redefine and interpret that history according to their needs in reinforcing their colonial discourse against the Yahoos. They succeed so well in defining this last relationship of power, that Gulliver returns home with his "memory and imaginations . . . perpetually filled with virtues and ideas of those exalted Houyhnhnms" (2177). Gulliver's memory no longer contains his human identity.

The colonizing of Gulliver's memories is punctuated in Gulliver's interaction with humanity upon his return to it. Particularly in the case of Don Pedro, the reader is astounded to discover the degree of Gulliver's brainwashing. Don Pedro's character stands in such contrast to the memory of humanity that the Houyhnhnms have created, that Gulliver "wondered to find such civilities from a Yahoo" (2715). Like many critics, Bellamy notes that the behavior of Don Pedro and the Portuguese crew illustrates that man is not the same as Houyhnhnmland's Yahoo (108). That Gulliver is incapable of recognizing this, or showing affection for his loving family, leaves the reader in awe of colonial discourse's threat to destroy an individual's identity.

In my discussion of Gulliver, I have avoided involving Swift, the author. In closing, however, it is important to the validity of my argument to note that Gulliver's colonialist crisis was merely a manifestation of Swift's own crisis in regards to England and Ireland. Zach insists that Gulliver's Travels "cannot be understood without noting Swift's Irish experience, his dilemma of national identity and colonial 'schizophrenia'" (Zach 97). Bellamy also notes Swift's investment in the character of Gulliver: "Gulliver is caught between the Yahoos and Houyhnhnms just as Swift [was] . . . caught between the Irish and the English" (Bellamy 106). While a proper discussion of Gulliver's relationship with Ireland (his colonized place of his birth) and England (his colonizing heritage), is outside the bounds of this paper, perhaps the closing remarks of Zach's essay will shed light on Swift's colonial crisis:

Swift's wish to be buried at Holyhead, the bleak port in the middle of nowhere, midway between Dublin and London, is like the hyphen in Anglo-Irish, indicating Swift's alienation from both worlds, his painful oscillation between his English and his Irish identities, between allegiance to the colonialists and the colonized. (Zach 99)

While Swift may not have deliberately set out to describe this dilemma in Gulliver's Travels, it is an unavoidable part of the book. Gulliver, like Swift, is at once the colonizer and the colonized—a victim of a discourse that made the British Empire.

"Gulliver travels to find himself," remarks Patrick Reilly. Said's arguments show that this was not an unreal expectation—the Orient became a career "in which one could remake and restore not only the Orient but also oneself" (Said 166). The irony, of course, is that he loses himself instead. Colonial discourse inevitably arrives at Gulliver's confusion, where the boundaries between the colonized and the colonizer disappear.⁹ In this confusion, the security of discourse falls apart, and unless the colonialist is able to escape the brainwashing of his own system of thought, he must, like Gulliver, fall into the crisis of not understanding his own identity.

Endnotes

1. While the Houyhnhnms do not necessarily colonize the Yahoo, they employ colonial discourse in rendering the Yahoos unwelcome immigrants to their island.
2. By "producing" the Yahoo as the "other" through the binary opposition of good and evil, the Houyhnhnms offer support to Paul Brown's statement that colonizer "produces" the "other" to "confirm him[self] as a truly civil subject" (Brown 132).
3. Further significance in Gulliver's ability to speak the language and write the history of the Houyhnhnms is found in Said's statement that "The Orientalist can imitate the Orient without the opposite being true. . . . His power was to have existed among them as native speaker . . . and also secret writer" (Said 160).
4. Of course, Gulliver's Orientalism operates in a direction opposite of the one typically discussed; that is, Gulliver gains a favorable impression of the whole Houyhnhnm race from just one individual, whereas the typical problem is that one gains a unfavorable impression of a whole race from one individual.
5. Kathy Williams supports this in her observation that the Houyhnhnms "can live by reason because they have been created passionless. . . . because their nature is different than ours" (Williams 251).
6. Ironically, Gulliver's record-keeping contributes to the erosion of colonialist stereotype. Said observes that "history and the narrative by which history is represented argue that vision is insufficient" (240).
7. It is this distinction that turned Pilgrims into colonizers of America, while it regulated Asian Americans to the status of immigrants.
8. The reader would be correct to wonder how the story would turn out had Gulliver been in a position of greater militaristic strength. This brings up the point that physical power is the most valued commodity in colonialism.
9. As Paul Brown observes, "the same discourse which allows for the transformation of the savage into the civil also raises the possibility of the reverse transformation" (Brown 140).

Works Cited

Bellamy, Liz. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

Brown, Paul. "The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism." William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988.

Donoghue, Denis. "The Brainwashing of Lemuel Gulliver." The Southern Review. Baton Rouge: Winter, 1996: 128-140.

Greenblatt, Stephen J. "Learning to Curse: Linguistic Colonialism in The Tempest." William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988.

Reilly, Patrick. Jonathon Swift: The Brave Desponder. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

Swift, Jonathon. Gulliver's Travels. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 1. 6^th ed. Ed. M. H. Abrams. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993. 2039-181.

Tippett, Brian. Gulliver's Travels. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, 1989.

Williams, Kathleen M. "Gulliver's Voyage to the Houyhnhnms." Swift: Modern Judgements. Ed. A. Norman Jeffares. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1968. 247-57.

Zach, Wolfgang. "Jonathon Swift and Colonialism." Reading Swift: Papers from The Second Münster Symposium on Jonathan Swift. Eds. Richard H. Rodino and Hermann J. Real. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1993. 91-99.