Ngugi himself says on page 88 - "How we see a thing - even with our eyes - is very much dependent on where we stand in relationship to it." He uses the example of a classroom, stating that when a group of people leaves the classroom, each individual would be able to describe the room in a different way. He follows this by saying that "the way we view ourselves, our environment even, is very dependent on where we stand in relationship to imperialism in its colonial and neo-colonial stages." Ngugi approaches Achebe's work through the eyes of an African language purist, and the fact that he is able to absorb the content and fashion a detailed criticism of it means that he was able to 'access' the knowledge through English. I don't see how he can fault something that helps him prove his own thoughts. A thought-provoking text should be applauded - it wouldn't be any fun if everyone loved every piece of literature written. Ngugi should be more considerate of the fact that everyone has a different relationship with a work.
At the same time, however, I appreciate Ngugi's opinions about preserving African culture/dance/theatre/song. I'm a huge fan of the fine arts and as such, I understand the importance of keeping up cultural roots through these vehicles. Ngugi says "it was imperialism that had stopped the free development of the national traditions of theatre rooted in the ritual and ceremonial practices of the peasantry" (41). Maybe so, but then wouldn't he applaud Achebe's attempt to incorporate Igbo words/idioms/songs in Things Fall Apart? Though Achebe's incorporations may not be "up to standard," he at least tries to show the European/Western audience that the Ibo culture is different and should be valued. The provision of the glossary is a courtesy to readers, almost a gift. Achebe wants us to understand, but also wants it to be easy to do so. He appeals to our human nature, while Ngugi appeals to our academic nature.
I love the quote you used from Ngugi about the classroom on page 88, and I totally agree with your argument. I think he provides another example as well with a group of men who all have to give a description of what an elephant is without being able to see it but touching different areas of it. It is impossible for all people to form the same opinions or see things in the same light as others due to a variety of factors that influence our lives and ways of thinking throughout our lifetimes. Because of different experiences and degrees of knowledge we all see things from different perspectives, or "stand in different relationships" to such things or issues.
ReplyDeleteAs you argued that we each have a different relationship to a work, such as with a great majority of us probably siding with Achebe, we should also realize that Ngugi probably had a very opposite relationship to this work as well- one which probably would not be very apparent to us or which we might not understand. For this reason, although I don't personally believe him to be right for criticizing Achebe, I also do not believe him to be completely wrong for doing so either. Certainly he saw the issue from a much different perspective, and though it is not exactly ostensible to me, I'm sure he must have had some fairly reasonable means for arguing against Achebe as he did.