In his article on Jean de Brunhoff’s The Story of Babar, Adam Gopnik argues against the common opinion that the children’s story became an “unconscious expression of French colonial expansion.” Instead, he attempts to prove that it was merely a “self-conscious comedy of French colonial expression.” Gopnik focuses on de Brunhoff’s The Story of Babar but reinforces his hypothesis through different writings that de Brunhoff authored, including Babar the King. In the twenty-first century, we are able to look back at texts from previous times, such as The Story of Babar and analyze them. However we are vulnerable to quickly fall into the trap of failing to recognize the external influences that affects the composition of a story from a different era. For instance, looking back upon Anti-Semite and the Jew we may think Jean-Paul Sartre guilty of describing any Jew as wanting to assimilate, and therefore conclude that Sartre was an anti-Semite. What we might forget is that during the time that he wrote the article, the concept of accepting Jews into society was an extremely foreign idea, far more radical than any kind of social exclusion we experience today. Gopnik’s main claim in his essay on The Story of Babar asserts that the story was not written as a positive analogy for French colonization, but instead served as a mockery of the French colonial imagination, closely resembling the prototypical French societal dreams. This distinction is important to recognize, because it changes our view of the text from a form of propaganda, meant to promote French colonization, to a kind of satire, making fun of the very thing it was perceived to be promoting. Gopnik characterizes the previous texts, such as “Babar the King” as a reflection of life in the bourgeois, or the middle class. It represents the organized and civilized nature of the middle class as being so desirable that the craving to becoming a part of it is not unique to human beings: even elephants yearn to join the bourgeois. The Story of Babar has also spawned different interpretations and impacted people in different ways depending on when and where it was being read. Gopnik describes France as, “a troubled nation with a violent history in search of peace.” The Story of Babar was written following the multiple revolutions and the First World War, which shook France harder than almost any other nation. Depicting an animal that is shaken from his mother’s murder, The Story of Babar represents the violence that France as a nation has been through. Babar goes through a transformation and comes back to his herd of elephants and revolutionizes the way they live, just as the French hoped that the nation could undergo a change, and live under peace for a long period of time.
In London The Story of Babar might have been interpreted differently. England had always lived in order and peace, with the majority of power changes within the government coming peacefully. The country longed for adventure. The English could see Babar in the sense that he had long lived within a routinized society, but goes through an amazing adventure that eventually changes his society. The English longed to fill their void as Babar did with his journey to the city.
An American interpretation of Babar takes on a whole different tenor. American culture has a sense of independence and self-achievement surrounding their society. However there is always the looming risk that something will periodically go wrong. We see this in Babar in the death of Babar’s mother, which Babar overcomes by navigating himself to the city, becoming “educated” and returning to his village to take control of the herd.
My own experiences, having been born and raised in America, confirm Gopnik’s opinion of the American interpretation of The Story of Babar. Throughout my life my parents have always emphasized the importance of independence. They always stressed that I would have to find ways to get myself out of problems I find myself in, regardless of whether it was my fault I was there in the first place. Gopnik sees the appeal of Babar to Americans in the journey from childhood to adulthood. Babar begins in the childish and immature society he lived in, and is suddenly struck with the scary reality that he is alone in the world, and that there are people who are trying to take advantage of him. He however finds his way to the city, and takes advantage of the help he is given, and returns successfully from his journey, ready to help others achieve what he has done. What I found to be the most compelling argument presented in Gopnik’s essay was his reminder that this story was meant to provoke laughter. De Brunhoff didn’t write a children’s book in an effort to critique or support French colonization; it was supposed to be a comedy. De Brunhoff was attempting to exaggerate the descriptions and sequences throughout the story in an attempt to make children laugh, not for it to be an endorsement or refutation of French colonization. Despite this seemingly neutral stance that de Brunhoff is holding, Gopnik maintains that de Brunhoff was attempting to describe the prototypical French society. What Gopnik fails to account for is a serious flaw in Babar’s society, that “Death is a rifle shot or poisoned mushroom away.” In what way is the society that would best compliment the French nation be a society in which disaster is lingering over their everyday lives. Gopnik’s opinion is that Babar was really about the excellence of bourgeois life in France. However, in drawing this conclusion he may have overlooked an important moment in the book. When Babar and his cousins return from the old lady accompanied by his cousins and their mothers, the children are civilized, wearing clothing and standing on two legs. In comparison, the mothers are seemingly stuck in their old ways, left on all fours, and naked. If The Story of Babar was meant to idealize the life of the bourgeois, then why are the mothers left in the dark? Why can they not attain in society what their children are able to attain? One might assume that a child would not benefit or deal with the daily struggles of the middle class, however in The Story of Babar if that is the case. In The Story of Babar, it is only the children who suffer, and only the children who succeed, who become enlightened. Gopnik’s article allowed me to view the children’s story of Babar in multiple ways. It provided me with the background on the sequels to The Story of Babar, which is necessary in order to effectively draw a comparison between them. However, Gopnik fails to realize that the self-glorifying attitude of France in regards to colonization had an overwhelming impact upon this story. For every example that Gopnik brings in order to reinforce his opinion that it is merely a self-conscious comedy, one could point to multiple uses of imagery in the writing that would challenge this interpretation. As much as I would love to view The Story of Babar as a children’s book and only that, I think that position ignores too much evidence to the contrary. Just like the hunter is always present in Babar’s society, the expression of French colonial expression will always loom over The Story of Babar.