An Outpost Of Progress

Conrad’s is a philosophical story that poses big questions. How would you answer this using the character of Kayerts: Are people moral because of society or is society moral because of people? Is morality a product of society or does morality, intrinsic to who you are, shape a society? Is morality part of who we are or is morality learned?

Kayerts shoots Carlier over a dispute involving a spoonful of sugar. Would it be the same crime if Kayerts shot Carlier in, say, Brussels or London rather than in the jungle? What is the relationship between Kayerts’s descent into the animal and his exposure to the jungle?

Compare and contrast Gobila and Makola as representatives of the African identity. Which character is morally stronger?

Both Belgians see themselves as agents of progress and representatives of Western civilization and culture. In the opening section, until the arrival of the renegade band of ivory traders, how does the narrator mock Kayerts and Carlier as agents of progress?

The central event in the story is the deal Makola negotiates to secure the ivory by trading the local servants. Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe decades earlier, what does this deal suggest about the locals and about Kayerts, who quickly comes around to the benefits of the deal?

Is this story best read as a critique of racism or greed?

Using the sequence in which Kayerts and Carlier argue over a spoonful of sugar to explore the motivation for Carlier’s murder, how does the shooting evidence elements of absurdism?

Because so much wilderness had been developed today, does Conrad’s argument still hold up? What sorts of contemporary places—real or digital--might a contemporary writer set a story that would argue the same idea as Conrad’s: that place determines morality? A city? A theme park? A mall? A video game? A social media platform?