WHEN THEORY MEETS PRACTICE: UNDERMINING THE PRINCIPLES OF TRADITION AND
MODERNITY IN AFRICA
Monika Brodnicka
Ideology, although a seemingly metaphysical exercise, is known to have
concrete effects on our perception of the world around us. It builds up
a particular understanding of everyday situations, through which we
engage in the world. Whatever ideology is followed, however, we should
be aware of its specific limits and boundaries within which it
functions. A re-reading of this ideology on different terms, or the
discovery of practical inconsistencies within it, points us to those
limitations and allow us to take a critical look. Through constant
criticism and re-interpretation, any ideology can be adapted to help
best deal with the current realities that we are facing. The ideology
of tradition and modernity, for example, has been in use for as long as
it can be remembered by contemporary society. It is particularly
popular with recent generations of the Western world, creating the
context for a humanist conception of progress, which affects their
social, political, and economic realities. In the colloquial sense,
tradition remains old-fashioned, attached to the past, and unchanging,
while modernity claims constant renewal, movement towards the future,
and continuous change. Although on the surface these terms seem to have
more of a harmless, descriptive character, without this theory meeting
practice, the tradition-modernity ideology divide is bound to create
problems due to the lack of a critical standpoint.
Without constant criticism and re-interpretation in relation to
practical realities, the ideology of tradition and modernity does much
more harm than good. The effects can be seen within Western society
itself and continue onto the relationship between the Western and the
so-called non-Western world. The Western notion of tradition and
modernity, treated separately and together, allows a particular
understanding of social, political, and economic relations, which are,
ironically, antithetic to the Western conception of progress. In fact,
both aspects of this fairly recent ideology impede social development,
political innovation, or even economic entrepreneurship in the name of
its defining principles. If modernity?understood as rational,
individualist, capitalist, and democratic1?and tradition?defined as the
exact opposite?are pushed to their logical limits, they become
uninterchangeable and empty of content and meaning. Modernity needs
tradition in order to overcome its limitations in the name of progress.
Through this process, tradition becomes the backbone of modernity. By
this relation, the two concepts create a stagnant screen through which
the world?s realities are interpreted and acted upon. To better
understand the principles creating the modernity-through-tradition
phenomenon and to unravel their restraining ideology, the repercussions
of this system can be examined on the African continent and its
relations with Western Europe.
Because the ideology of tradition and modernity has concrete and
perilous consequences in reality, interpreting the world through these
concepts should take into account their own limited scope?once they are
investigated historically, or applied to everyday life. In the face of
practical necessities and historical revelations, this ideology becomes
subject to continuous alteration. For example, the notion of tradition
and modernity in West Africa fossilizes tradition as characteristically
African and mobilizes modernity as a function of European culture. But
this interpretation comes with its own historical baggage, which, once
analyzed, reveals the negative effects of Europe?s increasing intrusion
into African realities. Aside from history, even if this ideology is
accepted by everyone in principle, the conditions and specific
situations on both continents shatter its artificial bond.
The ability to shatter the tight grip of the ideology, especially
through practice, opens the possibility for the Eurocentric notions of
tradition and modernity breeding in Africa to be treated as inventions.
The meanings and identities created by this ideology, which are assumed
to have always existed in Africa and continue to float around in
discourse on Africa to this day, can be challenged by new
interpretations and practice. In this scenario, Africa can no longer
sustain its primitive, tribal, lawless character, so necessary for the
existence of European modernity. Although the notions of tradition and
modernity have a lasting effect on reality, as can be seen on the
African continent, they are already undermined when put to the test of
everyday life. This is why it is important to differentiate the
ideology of tradition and modernity from tradition or modernity as they
are experienced. Not only does the former have no sound grounding in
accounts of African historians,2 but also practice of the latter does
not follow ideological definitions. The interest of this paper lies in
examining the function of the tradition-modernity ideology in Africa
and the different ways it is challenged.
Arrival of Tradition
The installation of a Euro-specific modernity-tradition ideology in
Africa began with the arrival of a European influence on the continent.
This ideology helped sponsor the one-sided relation of control and
dominance between Europe and Africa?Africa being the tradition
counterpart of modern Europe. From the beginning of their trade
relations, through the development of the slave trade, and later with
expanding colonization, Europe utilized this ideological tool to
explain its actions and promote a particular identity for Africans. It
helped to explain European domination of Africa ?rationally,? marking
Africans as childlike and incapable of self-development, rule, or
commerce, and therefore in need of a fatherly hand. This ideology also
helped Europeans to posit Africans with supposed authentic traditions
against others.3 This process, commonly known as divide and rule, is
responsible for creating different ethnicities and the violences that
have emerged out of them. The assumed superiority of European modernity
also created divisions among African intellectuals, some of whom tried
to distance themselves from African traditions in order to make their
society progressive.4 These and other styles of control based on this
ideology made it easier to blind people from the ultimate goal of
European domination of Africa.
Assuming that this ideology, which persists in Africa, is a European
creation, its own history could be traced through Europe?s encounter
with Africa through trade and colonization. The European explorer and
colonizer applied the main concepts of this ideology to the African
experience, viewing different African cultures as ?traditional,?
compared to the ?progressive? European society. The definition of
tradition put forward by Kwame Gyekye?beliefs and practices from the
distant past that are accepted in their essence by the current
generation5?was applied to Africa/Africans as a whole. Africa became
the ?distant past? that needed to be accepted or rejected by the
European ?generation.? The static nature of this definition was used by
Europeans to imply the same about African culture?as entirely
traditional. The usefulness of tradition to Europe was at least
twofold. The concept of tradition allowed Africans to appear backward,
childlike, and natural compared to the Europeans and therefore suitable
for domination. This concept equally created the notion of ethnicities
as different and threatening to each other?s traditions. Although
unequal relationships within societies and conflict between people were
not new to the African soil, this type of differentiation nurtured by
the idea of tradition created a whole new dynamic of ethnic and
religious conflicts.
This European ideology applied in Africa was equally useful in
developing European identity and economic prosperity through the prism
of modernity. In a sense, Africa became the physical and ideological
battleground for the physical and ideological survival of Europe. As
early as the budding trading relations between Europe and Africa,
Europe was eager to establish a particular relationship of dominance?
based on this new ideology. Trade was not intended to nurture the
developing industries in Africa but to stifle them in order to impose
the surplus of European products and further Europe?s progress. By
breaking down flourishing trade between different African societies?
trans-Saharan trade routes, trade form West to East, regional trade,
etc.?Europeans were progressively successful in creating a dependency
on their own products. This in turn made African trade useless or
stagnant. Eventually the only export that Africa was able to thrive on
was raw materials and slaves.6 Thus, African products themselves were
only valuable as traditional artifacts that somehow became co-
significant with African ?culture.? In the case of the slave trade, not
only was the selling of slaves more profitable than other production or
trade for Africans, but also the slave her/himself became a
crystallized identity of the ?primitive??a traditional artifact
bartered for wine and spirits. Meanwhile, the European flourishing
economy and modernist identity was able to maintain its oppositional
status as progressive, liberal, individualist, etc.
The growing dependence on European products on the one hand, and
marginalization of production in Africa, on the other, chiseled the way
for the European ideology as well as social, political, and economic
control to take hold on the African continent. After France and Britain
(predominantly) made their role in Africa clear as military powers,
they used this ideology to keep the people subdued in a way that could
never be accomplished with just violence, brutalization, and divisive
politics. The structures of the colonial government, for example, which
reinforced the inferiority of ?traditional? Africans and the
superiority of Europeans, made it easier to control and gauge the
capacity of the population. Likewise, every established social
institution, from the railroad to the schools reminded the locals of
the ?greatness? of European modernity (built on the traditional backs
of slaves). The reinforcement of this ideology through strategic
control of the social, political, and economic structures made its
effects much stronger than any military offensive on the African
continent.
Resurrecting a Euro-specific Definition
The ideology that was created as a tool for European domination,
however, did not go away with the onset of independence. Many African
intellectuals, like Kwame Gyekye for example, try to resolve Africa?s
problems through the same notions of tradition and modernity that were
posited by European colonials. Thus, even outside of direct European
control, this ideology continues to pose a real threat to the social,
political, and economic situation in Africa. From developing political
systems to rebuilding elementary level education, the ideology
(consciously or not) reproduces the same dynamics that were used during
European occupation. In Kwame Gyekye?s work, Tradition and Modernity,
tradition and modernity follow a similar pattern, already introduced by
Europe a few centuries before. Although he attempts to give an
objective definition of these two concepts, he inadvertently
participates in the tradition-through-modernity ideology. He states:
. . . a tradition is any cultural product that was created or pursued
by past generations and that, having been accepted and preserved, in
whole or in part, by successive generations, has been maintained to the
present. 7
Modernity, which is essentially the intellectual basis of life in the
Western world but has mutatis mutandis become a common heritage of
humankind, can only be said to be a new stage in cultural development,
a surrogate, if you like for advanced forms of human knowledge,
techniques, and socio-economic structures.8
These definitions do not immediately expose the opposition between
tradition and modernity, nor do they reveal their dependency on each
other. Gyekye is very careful to posit a moderate definition of both,
in which tradition is accepted in modernity, either without
reservations or with some adaptations, therefore allowing room for
change. In this sense, tradition always has a place in the present
culture and is not antithetic to progress. Instead, by drawing on past
tradition (at least the one that is still pertinent to our development)
the present generation is capable of progressing from the present
context towards the future. Yet, at the basis of his definition and the
arguments that he presents in preceding chapters, Gyekye still posits a
very ideological and eurocentric relationship between the two concepts.
The eurocentric aspect of Gyekye?s definitions is exposed through his
project to resolve major problems in Africa, particularly in politics
and social realities. According to Gyekye, political and social
problems in Africa stem from either clutching on to traditional
structures or accepting modern European ones without discernment. In
answer to these serious issues, he offers the moderate definition of
tradition and modernity, which is supposed to underlie the moderate
approach to rebuilding the continent. With the help of African
political and social traditions, Gyekye hopes to create a different
type of modernity, an African one. Not rejecting the African past, nor
the European present, he hopes to find a middle ground from which to
nurture Africa?s future. However, in setting up his project in this
manner, the author creates (as others did before him) a tradition-
dependent modernity that, at the same time, needs to oppose this
tradition. Traditional politics or social realities, such as African
communitarianism, become crystallized models from which one borrows the
aspects that can be accepted by modernity. In this case, both tradition
and modernity remain static entities in which modernity allows some
parts of tradition to be grafted on its skin. This strategy still
projects a false sense of tradition?backwards, communal, authoritarian?
onto modernity?open to change, individual, and democratic. His strategy
resembles more of an intellectual game, as superficial as taking the
best of both worlds, in which a European-originated modernity is, in
fact, the ultimate solution.
Submission to the Modernity/Tradition Binary
Assuming that Gyekye?s interpretation and approach to African
realities is not unusual, at least in intellectual circles, the harmful
impact of this ideology has reverberations on many levels within
society. In fact, once the import of this particular ideology is taken
for granted, the possibility of seeing outside of this model becomes
very difficult. While this holds true for any society, it can be
witnessed most vividly in colonized countries where the modernity-
tradition binary between the colonizer and the colonized is most
acutely contrived. Once the ideology is firmly in place, everything can
easily fall under either rubric of tradition or modernity. Even if the
beliefs and practices of a particular society could be claimed as
authentic and flexible, once they are placed in the context of Western-
initiated intellectual discourse of modernity-through-tradition, they
no longer have the same function. Instead of a function, they begin to
crystallize into some kind of identity. The same thing happens to
modernity.
Because of this overburdening ideology, which affects the way the
world can be understood, it is easy to believe that we are victims of
this type of system. The complex system in which modernity and
tradition are implicated is not immediately apparent, but weaves itself
into the fabric of social relations in a way that does not easily
reveal its origin. It is therefore difficult to counterattack without
falling into its logic. In this sense, the struggle for or against
tradition or modernity becomes only reactionary, never escaping the
bounds of the tradition-modernity duality initiated by Europe. Even if
there seems to be a choice to get outside of the system, the choices
are usually subsumed under this same ideology. Therefore, whether one
chooses to fight for African tradition or assimilate to European
modernity, one is still implicated within the logic of tradition-
modernity. Those subjected to this ideology are placed in the position
of victims, controlled by this new dynamic that either imprisons them
in the clutches of tradition or sweeps them away in the torrent of
modernity.
The submission to this ideological game can be seen through many
cultural venues, where the tradition-modernity debate rages on?
vilifying one and glorifying the other and vice versa. Because both
concepts are rarely seen as problematic at the same time, this debate
continues in circles without showing any signs of release. For example,
in the Christian-influenced movie called Submission, which takes place
in Nigeria, modernity wins the game. The movie portrays particular
African traditions as stagnant and evil in the face of the good African
modernity. For the director, Christian Onu, actual submission of the
wife begins not from the moment when she blindly obeys her ?modern?
husband in all daily matters, but when the ?traditional? mother-in-law
urges her daughter to rebuke him. As a result of the daughter?s
obedience to the mother, grave problems ensue between the couple,
apparently thanks to the mother?s conniving. In this depiction of
Nigerian life, the husband represents the modern African man:
progressive, open, caring, but demanding the fulfillment of a wife?s
duties toward her husband. The mother, on the other hand, is depicted
as the traditional matron: backwards, selfish, stubborn, and consumed
by her hunger for money. In the end the daughter comes back to her
husband, ironically by becoming the dependent, static but ?modern? wife
she has been from the beginning. By vilifying tradition, the movie
ignores the cultural context of the mother?s supposed backward
behaviors, and it refuses to acknowledge the freedom that the mother
offers to her daughter. Tradition, in this case, becomes the obstacle
to the couple?s happiness in the modern Nigerian city life, an obstacle
to becoming ?civilized.? Once again, through the mother?s beliefs and
practices, tradition is rendered lifeless and backwards, yet necessary
to affirm the couple?s modernity. Yet, despite the director?s one sided-
depiction of the tradition-modernity conflict, neither tradition nor
modernity resolves the couple?s issues. Although the wife is portrayed
as happy at the end of the movie, she does not have any authority in
the marriage, authority which the ?traditional? mother took for
granted. Instead of resolving the issue, the film falls into the
ideological trap showing a particularly Nigerian dynamic, where
submission to tradition (the mother) is frowned upon, yet the
submission to modernity (the husband) is encouraged. The message fails
to underscore the entrapment of both tradition and modernity in the
film.
Beyond Tradition-Modernity
It becomes more and more evident that the consequences of the
tradition-modernity ideology go beyond intellectualized definitions or
family quibbles in movies. More than just an ideological nuisance,
these consequences reach into the fabric of society. Even at the level
of basic cultural activities, this particular ideological
interpretation overlooks the function of such activities and places
them in some sort of category. By creating static identities which
surgically define each characteristic of a particular activity, the
tradition-modernity binary erases the constant changing aspect of
culture. The vibrant role of the folktale in West Africa, for example,
is often disregarded in order to place it in some form of literature?
folkloric, oral, fantastic, etc. Instead of participating in its
adventures, the analysts categorize it as some type of field,
eventually belonging to a traditional or a modern model. The dynamic
and complex life-pulse of folktales, which allows for the interrelation
of many agents, is lost to a stagnant, simplistic identification.
The fossilization that occurs with the ideological interpretation of
folktales, is demonstrated through the critiques of a modern folk-
teller and writer, Amos Tutuola. According to Emmanuel Obiechina,9
Tutuola is either read by critics of the European community as an
original fantastic writer, or portrayed by the Nigerian critics as
merely repeating old West African folktales. Whether the actual review
seems negative (unoriginal) or positive (original), the dichotomy of
the tradition-modernity model is working conspicuously within both
criticisms. Both responses, in fact, trap Tutuola?s work in an
essentialist dimension, reducing his own personal rendition of old
folktales to tradition or modernity. Yet, as Obiechina claims, Tutuola
is not inventing a new genre of a fantastic tale, nor is he following
word for word old Nigerian folktales. Instead, just as thousands of
storytellers before him, he uses what he has already heard and plays
with it, tunes its songs and lines to his music and to the music of a
real and imaginary audience. He weaves in his own experience in hope
that his story will be contemporary with his listeners, while his
European and African critics try to fix him someplace in the middle of
his dance, loosing at the same time the motion necessary to make his
tale effective.
Regardless of either interpretation, however, there is a possibility
to go beyond the strict tradition-modernity model, which does not
exactly coincide with Tutuola?s project. Just like any cultural
activity, his stories slip through the durable molds of categorization
imposed by tradition and modernity. The liveliness of his stories, the
contemporary situations of his characters, and the signature folktale
structure take us beyond this logic.10 It is, therefore possible to
avoid fixation produced by this ideology. To a certain extent, the
confrontation of everyday life already shows us the way and the
function of the folktale illustrates it. It is difficult to sustain
notions of tradition-modernity in practice the same way it cannot be
done with the performance of the folktale. If one looks underneath
these ideologies, one may notice that they are in fact false
dichotomies that obstruct concrete changes and evolution of life, going
on at every moment.
The Failure of Victimization
Just as the criticisms of the folktale only work within a limited
scope of interpretation, the situation of all actors within the
tradition-modernity ideology is more hopeful that it may originally
seem. The defeatist attitude that easily coincides with a sense of
victimization cannot be practically sustained throughout all
experience. Even if it seems that there is no escape from such a
powerful system of control, which ignores even the most obvious
contrary experience, there are many loopholes to avoid it. The example
of the folktale already opens up such possibilities. Despite the
traditional or modernist critique of Tutuola, for example, his stories
escape rigid categorization once they are read or performed. Thus, even
with the strong influence of ideology that has been developing for
years, no one is absolutely subjugated to it (nor are people subjugated
in the same way). The idea of tradition in the embrace of modernity, no
matter how deeply ingrained in our understanding of the world, does not
always hold out in practice.
Undeniably, the ideology of tradition-modernity had powerful
repercussions for those who embraced it. For the most part this
ideology was welcomed by the African elite, who readily accepted the
notion of tradition-modernity and their role within it. Many, in their
attempt to avoid falling into the fixation of the ?backward? traditions
of their ancestors, identified full-heartedly with modernity. Some,
with a more negative experience of colonization re-embraced what they
thought were their lost traditions. Although the elite were quite ready
to position themselves ideologically for modernity or tradition, the
issues related to this ideology became much more complex in practice.
Both positions were possible on a theoretical level. In practice,
however, since both participated in the ideology of modernity-through-
tradition, these positions became much more difficult to sustain
unproblematically.
The difficulty in sustaining the particular ideological position
within the tradition-modernity binary was demonstrated by the elite
reactions to the British colonial influence in the Gold Coast in the
mid 1900s.11 One of the last lines that Audrey Gadzekpo leaves us with
in her article illustrates the weakness of the ideological effect that
the West has made on the Gold Coast elite: ?The more things change, the
more they stay the same.? As seen through articles in Gold Coast
newspapers in those times, Western categorization of men and women by
the British was not completely successful. Despite the British creation
of overt inequalities between genders, women progressively re-
established the importance of their roles within society. Although they
could not return to, nor could they fight from their pre-colonial
positions, they were capable of reformulating their roles using the
tools available for them at the moment?newspapers. They adapted to the
changing situation of their times. Although in the beginning women
columnists were urging women to be good Victorian wives, social
realities transformed this foreign ideology into a more practical
subsistence. When theory met practice, women had to stop entertaining
their men intellectually and fought to go into the workforce to be able
to sustain their families and to find a more rewarding social status.
Theories of victimization easily ignore these creative struggles
against colonial impositions, especially if these struggles do not
bring clear-cut victories. Yet, those struggles bring about the most
significant changes within the contemporary situation. The achievements
of Gold Coast elite women could be counted as one of these. Although
they did not free themselves from the colonial powers, they helped to
re-establish the important role of Nigerian women within their society.
On the other hand, if African resistance to ideological and practical
colonization is solely measured by the success or failure to attain
freedom (physically and spiritually), success becomes equivocal to
attaining independence. The African heroes, with a few exceptions,
become limited to the ones that break with the colonial regimes. Yet,
if this was the only mark of success, independence would herald the end
of problems related to colonialism and the complete break from further
colonial influence, as well as the ideology behind it. It is
unrealistic today to claim either of the two propositions, knowing
historically the turmoil that followed after many African countries
attained their independence. In this sense, independence is not the end
of the struggle nor is it the beginning. If we look at the histories of
African people even before independence, many successes would come out
of the woodwork that could give us inspiration today, and projects like
attaining independence tomorrow or unifying the entire African
continent are just as unrealistic as they are self-defeating.
As a result of this independence-oriented mark of success, many elites
in the 19th and early 20th centuries were discounted as co-conspirators
of the colonial system. The case of Blyden, like that of many others,
suffers this type of de-contextualized (independence oriented)
interpretation that classifies him as a failure. Within this goal-
oriented interpretation, Blyden can be seen as failing on at least two
accounts: 1) by not accomplishing his dream of educated Africans
leading Liberia towards civilization and 2) by promoting a Eurocentric
and a reverse-racist viewpoint.12 Yet, when looked within the context
of his time and position, such claims stand on a shaky ground. Needless
to say, Blyden was a product of his own time. He was a Western educated
black man (from West Indies) living during the time of colonialism in
Liberia. Because of his position in colonial society, he was faced with
a particular set of limited options. He was able to take advantage of
his limitations, however, to envision and to some extent enact a better
society based on both European principles and African Islam. E. W.
Blyden did not subscribe to the eurocentric/civilizing modernity, as
some of his critics might point out, but rather to modernization.13 He
adapted what he considered useful from European ideology and applied
his understanding to African realities at the time. The importance of
his mission was not a successful civilization of Liberians or an open
mind towards Europeans, but the creation of possibilities for Africans
within the system created by colonization without abandoning the
African culture.
Tradition-Modernity in Politics
The presence of the tradition and modernity ideology despite its
stronghold on many aspects of society, particularly the elite sector,
is thus possible to manage. The overstepping or at least the
manipulation of such a system that was happening in Nigeria and Liberia
on the local levels moved many African countries closer to
independence. However, the large-scale politics that ensued after
liberation did not seem to have as much success. The general
disappointment with African political systems after independence is
shared by many people, especially those with a stake in Africa?s well-
being. There have been many visions of successful political systems,
and Kwame Gyekye?s vision can be counted among them.14 Seeing how, for
the most part, the European-influenced structures of government have
not been successful, he posits alternatives for social organization,
legitimation of power, nation-building, and political leadership.
Although for Gyekye the question of politics in Africa is of primary
concern, the fact that he poses the question within the binary logic of
tradition and modernity already foretells the answer. The question is
engaged in a specific interpretation, one that is invested in the
politics of this ideology. It is not surprising that the title of the
book reflects this investment, and that his chapters culminate in the
last section also entitled: ?Tradition and Modernity.?
The approach taken up by Gyekye to find a better political system for
Africa brings back the same ideological problems in which the political
systems were originally created. The only difference here is that he is
proposing to bring the other half of the binary into the equation.
Therefore, instead of basing political structures on the model of
European modernity, Gyekye wants to base them on African modernity and
involve African tradition in the process. His attempt to inscribe the
new political structures in Africa with some traditional innovations,
reestablishes similar dichotomies with which we are already familiar in
modernity-through-tradition ideology. This approach is reflected in
individual chapters. When Gyekye argues for a moderate
communitarianism, for example, he is attempting to bring in tradition
into modernity, positing a middle ground where they could meet. The
impossible compromise that Gyekye is trying to make involves placing an
independent, free-willed individual into a community demanding
conformity to its rules and regulations. Yet, it is not clear how an
individual can simultaneously live within and outside of the community,
without reproducing the same tradition-modernity binary.
Despite criticisms of Gyekye?s philosophy, his book points out an
important need: the political and social structures in Africa, adopted
from colonial regimes after independence, need to be re-examined and
alternative models for political and social organization should be
found. These alternative models, however, need to be established
outside the tradition-through-modernity ideology. In fact, this kind of
project should not only focus on Africa. Rather, problems emerging in
the political, social, and economic sphere after independence in
African countries need to be looked at within the context of world
history. The turbulence that Africa is accused of sustaining during the
post-independence years was preceded by an even bloodier colonialism
and is followed by a blood-sucking imperialism. Today the world is
still oppressed by imperial powers through sanctions, economic
dependencies, pauperization of large sections of the world, and bloody
military ?campaigns.? All of these aspects should be taken into
consideration when assessing the situation in Africa and attempting to
posit a solution.
The Ideology Underlying Violence and Colonialism
The repercussions in the context of market-oriented ?globalization? of
modernity and tradition are felt to this day on the African continent.
Much of the violence that is considered to be crime against humanity:
military dictatorships, rebellions, ?tribal? and religious wars are
effects of this phenomenon. Without examining the concrete and
ideological effects of Africa?s encounter with Europe, it is easy to
assume that the violence, in these cases, is African by nature. Relying
on the dominant ideology Africans are considered inherently violent or
at least not ready for self-governance, indirectly implying their lack
of civilization. Yet, the concept of tradition-modernity begins to
sketch a source for this madness, a madness that was instilled by the
West, and which is continuously intruding into African business.
However, even if the blame is directed towards the West, the source of
this violence is still not named. Colonization, which is given as an
alternative reason for so much turmoil in Africa, doesn?t explain by
itself how colonial violence could be sustained by freedom-minded
African leaders after liberation. How is it possible that many African
governments became the micro-reflection of the Western global politics?
Gyekye only offers an indirect reason as to why such atrocities
continue to happen on the African soil?the lack of an Africa-
contextualized modernity (an ideological one). Yet, it seems to me that
the problems go further than that. The problem is the ideology of
modernity-through-tradition all together.
Patrice Lumumba?s short-lived reign in Zaire and its surrounding
circumstances depict a good example of this complex dynamic in African
politics after independence. The framework of tradition and modernity
helps to understand at least part of this violence that was sustained
in different forms until recent times. Although the new country of
Zaire was looking for a leader to guide the new nation to the heights
of freedom, its goals could never be accomplished within the structures
already imposed by the European-organized government. The governing
colonial structures and the ideology in power left little room for a
passionate leader who was determined to end colonization once and for
all. The new government was quickly sabotaged, and the cherished
leader, who rose out of the crowds, swiftly put down. Under the guise
of posing a danger to the new country through communist ideology,
Lumumba was considered an enemy of the state and as a result
exterminated. Mobutu, the hand picked candidate of Belgium and the U.
S., eventually seized power, leading a repressive and brutal regime for
over 20 years.
In light of the political situation after, and even before his
assassination, Patrice Lumumba is considered by many people as a
prophet,15 a martyr in the name of freedom. If it were possible to
fathom the structure of his political leadership (if he stayed in
power), how would the Democratic Republic of Congo look now? Would it
be different under his government?
Although the historical and social contexts of Lumumba?s rule should
be considered, a reading through the tradition-modernity ideology of
his cadency could bring out a different set of answers. First and
foremost, Lumumba was Prime Minister of a political institution
developed by the colonial powers to rule over the Congo, the legitimacy
of which was highly questionable from the start. Yet, the Eurocentric
form of government that was capable of allowing so many abuses against
the Congolese people was generally accepted by the new Congolese
officials in power. Secondly, the politics in support of a unified
Congo encouraged Lumumba?s government to use military force to prevent
secession of the Kasai and Katanga regions.16 This type of politics,
which shared similar methods of control with its colonial predecessors,
encouraged a centralized government, which suppressed any uprisings
against its unilateral control. By participating in the machinery that
had oppressed the Congolese people for decades, to some extent Lumumba
already took on similar policies against resistance. Overstepping his
role as a revolutionary, he put on the same gloves of power that
oppressed him.
It is impossible to seize the circumstances and the implications of
Lumumba?s short rule perfectly. Yet, the colonial legacy remaining in
the structures of power and ideology, concurrent with the logic of
tradition and modernity, becomes an important indication from where to
approach the problem. Frantz Fanon addressed this issue quite clearly.
17 He warned of the danger of the elite bourgeois class re-
appropriating the institutional system of the colonial powers. They
might change a cog or two here and there to appropriate it to the
?African character? of things, but the system as a whole is
unquestioned. As a result, the new African elite occupy old colonial
positions, whose structure is indebted to the tradition-modernity
ideology. This is my main critique of Kwame Gyekye, who undertakes an
archeological dig to find useful bits and pieces of the ?traditional?
system in order to do a makeover of the one already in place. At the
same time, this tradition that he is ?discovering? is already
constrained within the modernist ideology believed to be legitimate.
Active Struggle with Ideology
Based on the examples mentioned above, realizing and engaging the
modernity-through-tradition ideology, effectively, depends on many
factors. As we have seen, the elite does not always have all of the
necessary resources to accomplish this feat. Since the struggle with
this ideology does not only happen on the level of educated elites,
perhaps it is time to turn to ordinary people. During colonialism, for
example, even if the grip of tradition-modernity over elites in Africa
was not as tight as it might initially seem, it was definitely less
constrictive for the masses. The rest of the population, most hard-hit
by the effects of colonialism, was able to challenge this ideology on a
daily basis. The luxuries of the so-called modern life that kept so
many elites in check were not available to the populace, who continued
to lead lifestyles in proximity to how they lived before. Therefore, to
challenge the colonial system and its ideology most effectively, it was
necessary for the elites and the masses to join forces. Elites had the
resources and spare time to fight this ideology, while the masses had
the practical know how.
Perhaps Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti (FRK)18 was one of the few educated
elites that was able to combine her Western education and the
shrewdness of the Nigerian masses in the most effective way to
undermine Western ideology of modernity-through-tradition. Her
strategies focused on the immediate problems of the market women, which
eventually brought out the larger issues of colonial domination and its
reigning ideology. Even the way the struggles were taken up, already
challenged the tradition-modernity ideology. One of the few capable of
bridging the growing rift between the uneducated19 masses and the
alienated elite, FRK used this bridge to fight inequality of women
within the Western context. Yet this fight seemed almost secondary to
the camaraderie that developed over the years of struggle between the
elites and the market women. The real source of power came from this
factor, rather than from her charisma or courage to take on the
injustices in her home town.
FRK?s political struggles nurtured a positive relation among all women
that participated and gave courage for further struggles in the face of
setbacks (as was often the case within the colonial government). The
style in which she undertook many of the struggles was not only
functional but also entertaining. The songs, dances, and performances
allowed demonstrations to be enjoyable and bonding. In a sign of
kinship toward her sisters she began wearing traditional clothing, and
to involve local women in the political arena she only spoke in the
Yoruba language during all meetings, even the ones with British
officials. She strategized her struggles creatively within the
limitations of her situation, using her position as a woman and acting
with a sense of humor. If the government did not give her permission
for a parade or a formal demonstration, she acquired permission for a
picnic which basically served the same purpose. Amidst all the good
humor, she took her role as a leader seriously and was the first to put
herself at risk, being arrested for the refusal to pay taxes several
times. Because Ransome-Kuti adapted Western strategies to popular
wisdom, she was able to keep up the momentum of the struggle long after
many Western-imitated organizations had failed. The presence of
playfulness in her organization reanimated the fossilized practices of
resistance influenced by the tradition-modernity ideology.
The significance of Ransome-Kuti?s struggle raised her to the status
of a prophet.20 She was able to see beyond the ideology imposed by the
British?the one that carefully balanced the duties of tradition with
the urgency of modernity. FRK equally rejected so-called traditions
like the Alake?s seizure of power from the population, and the
insignificant role of women in politics. She also refused to accept her
modern status as an educated elite woman unproblematically (i.e. being
above ignorant, lower class market women). In this way, not only did
she question her (new) local traditions, and undermine her own
particular modernity, but she was capable of surpassing the ideology
that was found behind them.
By actively questioning the particular traditions and modernities of
her community through her struggles, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was able to
break the static ideology of the tradition-modernity bond. Neither
tradition nor modernity was at stake in her co-operation with the
market women. Instead, the current situation of women gave rise to
particular mobilizations that created complex solutions based on what
was already known and the current context. This process happened
without specification of what was tradition and what was considered
modernity: the emotional aspect of humanity was never separated from
the rational one, the serious struggle against discrimination was never
placed apart from enjoyment and camaraderie, etc. Instead of allowing
these dynamics to break up into oppositions, mimicking the tradition-
modernity binary, FRK managed to maintain the momentous force that kept
the struggle alive and that helped realistically better the situation
of women in Lisabi.
Conclusion
Although the tradition-modernity ideology can become so powerful as to
shape practice, if we are aware of its limits, which crystallize
particular identities and do not respond to any change seriously, we
can overcome it and allow for its adaptations. Only through practice
can we learn how a particular truth depends on circumstances, as our
own lives show evidence of this phenomenon. Finding alternatives
through practice then might be easier than it looks. There are always
events or people that change the way that we see the world, as long as
we accept to participate in life. Equally, an attempt to re-interpret
that truth based on different historical perspectives can bring about
the movement necessary to shake up an ideological standstill. If we
look closely enough, many examples of successful initiatives that
adapted the political, social, and economic spheres to social realities
are waiting to be re-discovered.
The tradition-modernity ideology seems to prolong the anthropological
desire to dry butterflies and pin them in the collector?s album for
comparison. In the same way, Africa has become?in the eyes of the West
and for itself?the epicenter of tradition and the battleground in the
name of Euro-centric modernity, both ideologically and to some extent
in practice. In this sense, through the creation of a hierarchy between
Europe and Africa as well as the tribalization of cultural groups, this
new ideology sparks waves of violence and disorder throughout the
continent. By critically looking at what is posited as tradition and
modernity and analyzing history within a particular context, we are not
necessarily reformulating another fixed ideology. The constant re-
adaptation of this contemporary structure could allow flexibility and
movement in a particular culture, continuing its changing cycle. It is
time to realize modernity and tradition as only ideological constructs
that stand in opposition to the reality we experience in practice, as
long as they are not engaged in this reality.
Notes and References
1 A similar description of modernity is given by Samir Amin when
describing the culture of capitalism in his book Eurocentrism, and by
Olufemi Taiwo in his article ?Prophets Without Honour: African Apostles
of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.?
2 Both Amadou Hampaté Bâ and Cheikh Anta Diop?s depiction of West
African history does not partake in this type of ideology.
3 Amadou Hampaté Bâ speaks about how the French set different clans or
even Islamic sects against each other in order to have a better control
of the particular region.
4 This phenomenon is evidenced in Gold Coast Newspapers in the mid-
1900 as described by Audrey Gadzekpo in her article entitled ?Gender
Discourses and Representational Practices in Gold Coast Discourses and
Representational Practices in Gold Coast Newspapers,? Jenda: A Journal
of Culture and African Women Studies, 2001.
5 Kwame Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on
the African Experience, Oxford University Press, New York?Oxford, 1997,
p. 221.
6 Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Howard University
Press, Washington D.C., 1982.
7 Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity, p. 221 (my italics).
8 Ibid., p.272.
9 Emmanuel N. Obiechina, ?Amos Tutuola and the Oral Tradition,?
Language and Theme: Essays on African Literature, Washington D.C.:
Howard University Press, 1990.
10 Amos Tutuola?s stories in The Palm Wine Drinkard and My Life in the
Bush of Ghosts, New York: Grove Press, 1954,escape the rigid criticisms
that he is placed in.
11 Gadzekpo, ?Gender Discourses and Representational Practices in Gold
Coast Newspapers.?
12 V.Y. Mudimbe, The Invention of Africa: gnosis, philosophy, and the
order of knowledge, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.
13 Olufemi Taiwo?s concept from ?Prophets Without Honour: African
Apostles of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century,? West Africa Review,
2001.
14 Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity.
15 Raoul Peck, Lumumba: Death of a Prophet, France/ Germany/
Switzerland, 1992. (documentary).
16 Congo Democratic Republic of 2001
17 Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press, 1963.
18 Cheryl Johnson-Odim and Nina Emma Mba, ?Lioness of Lisabi: The Fall
of a Ruler,? The Woman and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of
Nigeria, Urbana Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.
19 By uneducated masses I mean those that did not attend Western
schools.
20 Olufemi Taiwo?s concept in ?Prophets without Hounour: African
Apostles of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.?
Bibliography
Amin, Samir. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990.
Bâ, Amadou Hampaté and Marcel Cardaire. Tierno Bokar: Le sage de
Bandiagara. Paris: Présence Africaine, 1957.
Bâ, Amadou Hampaté and Jaques Daget. L?Empire Peul du Macina. Paris:
Mouton & Co, 1956
Congo Democratic Republic of the 2001
Diop, Cheikh Anta. L?Afrique noire pré-coloniale. Paris: Présence
Africaine, 1960.
Fanon, Frantz. Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1963.
Gadzekpo, Audrey. ?Gender Discourses and Representational Practices in
Gold Coast Newspapers.? Jenda: A Journal of Culture and African Women
Studies, 2001.
Gyekye, Kwame. Tradition and Modernity. Oxford University Press, New
York?Oxford, 1997.
Johnson-Odim, Cheryl and Nina Emma Mba. ?Lioness of Lisabi: The Fall
of a Ruler.? The Woman and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of
Nigeria. Urbana Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.
Mudimbe, V.Y. The Invention of Africa: gnosis, philosophy, and the
order of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.
Obiechina, Emmanuel N. ?Amos Tutuola and the Oral Tradition.? Language
and Theme: Essays on African Literature. Washington D.C.: Howard
University Press, 1990.
Peck, Raoul. Lumumba: Death of a Prophet. France/ Germany/
Switzerland, 1992. (film?documentary)
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington D.C:
Howard University Press, 1982.
Taiwo, Olufemi. ?Prophets Without Honour: African Apostles of
Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.? West Africa Review, 2001.
Tutuola, Amos. The Palm Wine Drinkard and My Life in the Bush of
Ghosts. New York: Grove Press, 1954.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|