Inconsistencies in Naguib Mahfouz' Writing

Not every author writes about his political opinions, or from his own cultural/engendered/ethical/ethnic/etc. position. But Mahfouz’s Nobel Prize Lecture seems not on par with the messages he sends in his novel (or first part of his novel, anyway).

In his lecture, Mahfouz engages the audience in a discussion of the significance of mankind’s moral progress—he calls our era the “age of human rights” (Nobel Lectures 252) and posits that “Truth and Justice will remain for as long as Mankind has a ruminative mind and a living conscience.” (251). But even within the same work of writing—this speech—he contradicts himself, ignoring the possibility of certain cultures to be “civilized”. In fact he makes them seem rather helpless and dumb. He praises mankind’s rigor for obtaining knowledge but implies that the third world is unable to attain this profound status of “civilization.” He says, “…we, the children of the Third World, demand of the able ones, the civilized ones” (254) to follow the examples left by the Good.; “it is both our right and our duty to demand of the big leaders in the countries of civilization…to affect a real leap that would place them into the focus of the age.” (253)

Now where the major contradiction comes into play is this: Mahfouz asserts the importance of universality and “responsibility towards all humankind” (253), exemplifying people living in South Africa who have been living with “deprivation of all human rights in the age of human rights, as though they were not counted among humans” (252), but in Palace Walk his views are inconsistent. Children and women are not counted among humans—they don’t carry the same status and are unable to speak unless spoken to, to look at their “higher-ups”, or to refuse any and all of a person of higher status’ commands. (Amina was thrown out of her own house and could do nothing about it!) Mahfouz completely ignores the globally well-accepted notion of women as part of mankind. For someone who claims he is so forward thinking, it seems a bit at odds.

He also says “We have had enough of words. Now is the time for action.” (253) which was so stunningly ironic I almost laughed out loud. In a speech delivered to people whose jobs it is to sit around and read literature (and judge it), Mahfouz wants to incite action? Half of these people are a hundred years old!

Okay, okay, so the message was meant for the world. But still, it strikes me as terribly ironic because this is an author speaking. If we’ve “had enough of words”, he’s out of a job. Does he expect to lead this revolution? because a lot of people have fancy ideas about governmental and global restructuralism but you don’t see just anyone jumping into action sporadically. What he’s suggesting, effectively, is a war—in a speech that’s intended to promote peace.