Abstract

The goal of this work is to cause its readers to question post-colonial criticism of Camus. Initially, attention will be directed to the work of Conor Cruise O'Brien, who first presented Camus within the post-colonial frame. Embarrassingly uncomplimentary, Albert Camus of Europe and Africa presented Camus's work in such a way that he could not walk away from the "Algerian Question" uncompromised. Without fully committing himself, O'Brien strongly suggests that, for instance, Meursault killed an Arab because he was French. Camus criticism has not been the same since this position was articulated. ;Chapter one attempts to trace the genesis of anti-Camus criticism, which became notoriously strident following the publication of L'homme revolte . Chapter one proceeds from the assertion that after Camus went to war with Sartre, criticism of the former became increasingly gratuitous and less substantive. Opposed to the conclusions of critics such as O'Brien and Said, the following chapters attempt to defend Camus by calling attention to two sustained, redeeming strains in his work. ;Chapter two focuses upon Camus's commitment to standing as a historical witness. Both the concepts of "commitment" and "witnessing" are central here. Confirmation of Camus's commitment to witnessing is found in Shoshana Felman's Testimony: Crises in Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History, in which it is maintained that Camus was the first Western figure to break the Allied silence regarding the Holocaust. Building upon Felman's work, it is argued that many of the most disturbing elements of Camus's work further attest to the trauma of the colonial condition. ;The third and final chapter turns to Camus's treatment of the figure of the scapegoat. Ever attentive to the downtrodden, Camus's work instinctively attends to those victimized for their marginal status. That is, to society's scapegoats. Accordingly chapter three defends Camus against the claims of post-colonial critics by calling attention to his lifelong preoccupation with the victims of systemic power. Ultimately it is argued that in Camus's estimation all human sacrifices, even those made in the name of the greater good, represent unacceptable losses