Describing Hegemony in Pre-Colonial to Post-Decolonization Africa

An hegemony assumes that all other cultures must take inspiration from its success, and avoid treading where it has failed. What works in a dominant culture must work in a sub-culture; what does not work in a dominant culture will not pass anywhere else. New Criticism, which posits that “a text’s meaning is inextricably bound to [tools of rhetoric] found within the structure of the text itself” (Cultural Studies 233), is founded on this notion. If a text chooses to avoid Western archetypes on what “literature” should be, then it must fail at reaching that elusive writing plateau known as “classic.” However, “classical” may be more accurately described as “class-exclusive.” Almost all examples of writing to reach this status belong to dead white men of the middle-to-upper-class variety. Therefore, it appears to be political, rather than artistic reasons, that have come to define literature today.

Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart uses allusion to traditional Greek tragedy to challenge colonial perception of Western Africa. Africa is not the property of its colonizers. It is as unique, multi-faceted, and flourishing as the city states of Greece. Its heroes are not savage, but human. Okonkwo-full of hubris, resentment, and religious fervor-represents this archetypal tragic hero. By defining him as such, Achebe defies Western notions that “the peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Asia were ‘heathens,’ possessing ways that must be Christianized” (Cultural Studies 236). I will compare the characters of Things Fall Apart to Greek tragedies, and also note the differences between Africa and Western society. Okonkwo, as a tragic hero, will symbolize Africa’s attempt to define itself, and its eventual destruction. By taking this allegorical viewpoint, I can utilize a postcolonial lens to describe the conflict between Africa and the West. For example, Okonkwo’s pride and abusiveness could represent the clash between remaining African and escaping injustice-even though the injustices of Africa’s culture paled in comparison to their future treatment at the hands of colonizers. Achebe also alludes to future conflict between natives and whites, and justifies it as inevitable. Therefore, I will also discuss post-decolonization; its causes, results, and future. Achebe’s novel only describes the first step in the creation of the Western hegemony in Africa. Its implications extend to today, however, and to a lack of understanding or compassion for modern Africa. I will utilize Peter Godwin’s postmodern journalistic novel The Fear to describe the lasting effects of colonization, and to detail further creation of hegemony through the dictatorships in Africa today.

The Rise of the American Technopoly

Whatever man does not know, he imagines; creates and shapes from the ground up, and justifies with whatever tools available. Before the Enlightenment, this brought about morality and faith. These two sisters directed mankind in nearly all affairs, and any that failed to obey them were labeled as anti-social. In this way, humanity became “humane,” establishing values that prized life and the continuation of Man: the Ten Commandments, the justice system, democracy, chivalry, and charity.

However, the 18^th century shook the traditional ‘tool-wielding’ and belief-oriented society. As Neil Postman notes, “there developed a profound belief in all the principals through which invention succeeds: efficiency, expertise, standardization, measurement, and progress” (Postman 42). This took two forms—invention under the flag of science, and capitalism under the flag of Adam Smith. Smith even defined man as a being “born with an instinct to barter and acquire wealth". This ran contrary to previous ideals, which perceived money as the root of all evil, and straying from traditional notions of reality to be blasphemy. And leading the charge on this front was the United States of America.

America was founded on the freedom of religion, and therefore seems an unlikely candidate for Postman’s theory. Yet the idea of freedom of religion actually runs against the grain of tool-wielding societies, sitting far closer to technocracy, and the age of disbelief. Individuals could now believe in whatever they wished, but they could also disbelieve anything they wished—a social heresy that could have toppled most old world governments. However, after the initial shock wore off, and the world realized that not only were they still standing, but that they were falling behind, the age of technology took hold. Now, as Postman notes, “There were empires to build, opportunities to exploit, exciting freedoms to enjoy, especially in America. There, on the wings of technocracy, the Unites States soared to unprecedented heights as a world power” (Postman 45).

Indeed, as America grew (and eventually rebelled against its own social “god”, the King of England), it surpassed every other nation in its thirst for technology. The Founding Fathers were, for the majority, not children of tradition, but children of the Enlightenment; of change and radicalism and Kurzweil’s exponential growth curve. As America expanded its knowledge, tradition became less and less viable. Religion separated from state, and after the Scopes Trial, from education. This marked the beginning of a new era—the age of technopoly.

Until the end of the 19^th century, “the citizens of a technocracy knew that science and technology did not provide philosophies by which to live, and they clung to the philosophies of their fathers” (Postman 47). However, there was no balance between the two mediums; only paradox. One would have to win out over the other, and this “other” would then die. Yet the outcome was possibly determined from the outset—after all, every weapon the tool-wielding society used had been designed and then improved upon by the technocracy.

This triumph led to the final question: what would the technocracy do with its subdued foe? Technopoly had learned from history. One could not live side by side with opposing values. Just as Zeus chained Chronos to a rock and left him to wonder aimlessly, so did technopoly tie religion with political and economic knots and leave it to die. It was a slow death, but a sure one, and no one (not even the final and noble crusaders of the old world) could challenge it. Finally, man had begun to change his worldview. He finally understood, and therefore did not need justification or faith. The new morality did not serve Man, but the Machine.

On the Singularity:

The rise of the internet marked the beginning of a new era in human history. For the first time, humanity was united across the world; unfettered by geography, race, or time. The internet is to the world as breaking light speed is to the universe.

However, the growth of technology can have consequences just as alien as the breaching of the solar system. Raymond Kurweil’s theory on the Singularity, which posits that technology grows exponentially rather than arithmetically, suggests that “there might conceivably come a moment when [computers] are capable of something comparable to human intelligence” (Lev Grossman, 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal). However, since technology would not stop there, the human race must follow either one of two paths: either Artifical Intelligence will enslave us with superior technology, or we will enslave ourselves.

The latter is supported by mankind’s voracious appetite for advancement. The internet increases in speed each year, and grows into near infinite. Video games advance their graphics and gameplay to near simulation of real life. Every new invention makes life easier, and supposedly “more humane.” Even death is just a disease to Singularitans—something to be cured with science, regardless of human consequences. A God-Complex justified by mathematical efficiency and precise calculations. As Grossman notes, “Old age is an illness like any other, and what do you do with illnesses? You cure them.”

Aldous Huxley predicted this tendency to eradicate human discomfort in his novel Brave New World. The humans are engineered in bottles, mass-produced like just another machine to serve “Society.” Each factory strives to outdo its input, and to outstrip its competitors. Mr. Foster, a factory worker, notes that Mombasa created over 1700 twins from a single embryo. “Still,” he says, “we mean to beat them if we can.” Man’s desire to compete and yet to bring comfort to society provides more than enough proof for Kurzweil’s theory. After all, if humanity can create an infinite world on the internet, less than a century after inventing the computer, then it can remold the real world less than a century after that.

Literary criticism link

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/530/vehicles-for-story-chinua-achebe-and-ng#361;g#297;-wa-thiongo-on-defining-african-literature-preserving-culture-and-self

 

In her piece Vehicles for Story, Kristina S. Ten uses a journalistic approach to inform both readers and writers of African literature about the opposing viewpoints of Chinua Achebe and Ngugi wa Thiong’o. Ten points out that the English language, while accepted as an international medium, still has limits. According to EnglishClub.com, over one and a half billion people speak English—nearly a quarter of the world’s population. Yet according to Isadc.org, there are more than 6800 languages in the world—6799 languages with nuances, grammar, accents, proverbs, and subtle meanings that can never be properly translated into English.

The 1962 conference at Makerere University in Uganda discussed African literature—“who should write it, what it should depict, and – of central importance in the debate – how it should be communicated” (Ten). Out of this conference appeared the two leaders of the movement to “re-Africanize” African literature, Ngugi and Chinua. As Ten points out, both follow the same principle—“the preservation of African ideals among sustained multilingual diversity.” However, Ngugi follows the more controversial stance, refusing to write any stories in English, while Chinua holds that English is essential to the expansion of African culture. In order to catalogue both sides, Ten abandons the traditional thesis format in favor of an investigative journalism format.

Therefore Ten’s piece resembles a Pullitzer Prize feature rather than an essay—except that her reporting is fifty years late. By never inserting her opinion, Ten retains Ethos for both Ngugi and Chinua supporters. Yet her overall message remains clear: she feels that African literature has been pushed to the side as a nonentity, and deserves attention. Her journalistic style fits this motive perfectly, and therefore extends her audience to not only fans of African literature, but to individuals who never knew that fans of African literature existed.

Ten also uses simplistic vocabulary to complement her approach, as per the seventh grade standard of modern newspapers. In this way, Ten avoids losing any potential audience, and maintains her incognito presence. She forgoes fancy metaphors and flashy turns-of-the-phrase, relying on cold facts to get her message across. By dissecting and placing Ngugi’s and Chinua’s points in an easy to read fashion, Ten succeeds in her goal of educating her audience.

Ten almost completely abandons the formally stated thesis, burying it between the lines as an indirect lead. The traditional thesis resembles the hypothesis of the scientific method, rather than the encapsulation of an idea. Certainly, it remains a valuable tool, but in the end it is nothing more than a roadmap; a table of contents reduced to a single sentence. Ten uses the body of her essay as her idea—removing linear limits while retaining structure. Instead of using topic sentences in each paragraph, Ten uses the preceding paragraph to lead into the next, increasing the flow of the document. There is no ratio for her evidence—many paragraphs contain no supporting quotes at all. Instead, Ten relies only on ease of reading to dictate her writing. The formula of concrete details to commentaries does not exist in this essay. Ten therefore breaks away from traditional rules, following her own journalistic format to maintain Ethos and audience.