Throughout Heart of Darkness, Marlow tells a tale of the conflict between his civility and the primal nature and dangers of Africa. With every step he takes closer to Kurtz, the and its primal dangers seem almost to attempt to stop his progress, and to claim him for themselves, and in the end, all that remained was the choice Kurtz made before him; leave and retain his civility, or remain, and revert to his most primal roots. His choice to leave with Kurtz in tow--and Kurtz's subsequent death--are significant in that they reveal the reality of this unspoken conflict...that neither side of this dichotomy can exist for long in the presence of their opposite. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad depicts, through symbolism and imagery, the duality of the civil and primal aspects of humanity.

From the very beginning of Heart of Darkness, Marlow’s description of Africa, its jungles, and its native inhabitants—both animal and human—is decidedly negative, as one would describe an enemy in wartime…and by the way he refers to the journey upriver, even the river seems malevolent in nature. “I had to keep guessing at the channel…I watched for sunken stones; I was learning to clap my teeth smartly before my heart flew out, when I shaved by a fluke some infernal sly old snag that would have ripped the life out of the tin-pot steamboat and drowned all the pilgrims (Conrad).” is a prime example of how Conrad depicts the subtle conflict of the civility (and therefore, sanity), that the boat represents with the primal nature (and likewise, madness), represented by the river on which it travels. The river’s wild, uncivilized aspects seem to keep Marlow on his toes, and at the same time, on the edge of his sanity, for the river's dangers are a constant threat to the survival of both boat and passengers. Marlow also happens to describe the journey upriver as slow and sluggish, as if the river itself is working purposefully against him. Conrad’s message is simple: savagery and civility are in constant conflict, and in the home of their opposite, can't last long…which goes for such division in people, too.

As the boat travels upriver, Marlow retails many different findings along the river, including a mud-hut once used by someone of obviously-civil origin. “Some fifty miles below the inner station we came upon a hut of reeds…The dwelling was dismantled; but we could see a white man had lived there not long ago. There remained a rude table—a plank on two posts; a heap of rubbish reposed in a dark corner, and by the door I picked up a book. (56)” reveals that this hut bore both civil and primal aspects. The desired surroundings of the person living in this hut were obviously civil, but the materials he had to work with were decidedly primal. In the end, the fate of the hut’s owner is left up to the reader…but the lesson meant to be learned is clear. ‘Civility’ and ‘savagery’ , in a way similar to good and evil, cannot coexist in equality. In the end, one will dominate the other…and in most cases, this is due solely to the environment around the person these aspects concern.

At the very end of Marlow’s journey, after bringing Kurtz to the ship, Marlow watches on as Kurtz dies soon after being retrieved, and in his final moments, it becomes clear that, in reality, it's his shift back to civility from the savagery in which he descended that kills him. “It was as though a veil had been rent. I saw on that ivory face the expression of somber pride, of ruthless power, of craven terror—of an intense and hopeless despair. Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried out in a whisper… “The horror! The horror!” (105)”. This quote explains flawlessly just how Kurtz’s decisions shaped his end. It's quite clear that, though his body was already decaying, it was his attempt to return from this primal state that ended up killing him. A lesson here lies: once a descent into the primal state of being is made, an attempt at return can prove lethal.

So, at the end, the truth is clear: savagery and civility cannot coexist for very long in equilibrium without killing the person they're in (be it a death physically or spiritually), and in the end, one will become dominant. The environment in which this occurs is important…however, it's possible that, while a very civil person can develop within a savage environment, a savage cannibal can develop in a civil environment. And in the end, another connection here can be made…that this battle is also between mankind and nature. Wherever civilization goes, nature is driven out by force; and wherever civilization fails, nature moves in to take control. So, when civilization falls, all of nature will come seething in, and return the land to its original state of merciless savagery. But at the same time, if civilization encompasses all, nature will be destroyed. So, in truth, these two opposites must exist at the same time in some form or another; what matters is which side is dominant.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness and The Secret Sharer. Bantam Dell; New York, New York 2004.