Fugard's Sizwe Bansi is Dead', is also a further dimension in retrospection on the rhythms of social reality in Africa. It undertakes a sociological reading of the ...
! " ! # $ $ ! % $ # $ $ $ & !' ( ( $ !
$ !)
" $$ $ !
! "
# $# % & ' $ ( )
! "
# $ !% ! & $ ' ' ( $ ' # % % ) %* %' $
' + " %
& ' ! #
$, ( $ - $$$ . /"/"#012" )*3- +) * !4 !& 5!6%55787& % 2 9:;567!%2 ?9:;567!; 0 @ ! * & / * ) % )*% 1 )*%& " )*%/ # *+,-./.0-/12-,0 # % 34( ) A 2 ! "A ( % 2
% % % % $ $ $A A
AA - $$$ /"/"#012" )*3- +) * !4 !& 5!6%55787& %) A 9:;567!%B?9:;567!; 0 @ ! C & " C + AD
E # *+,-./.0-/12-,0 - A F8>77A /"/"#012" )*3- +)
"
& 8>77
Tables of Contents Preface
3
Introduction
5 Part One
Art and Societal Dialectics: Critical Analysis of Selected Works of Ngugi Wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan
8
Background
9
Focus on Kenya
11
Realities of Kenya’s Colonial and Post-independence Socio-political Developments in Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Art
12
The Trial of Dedan Kimathi
13
I Will Marry When I Want
16
This Time Tomorrow
19
Focus on Nigeria
23
Realities of Nigeria’s Post-independence Socio-political Developments in Femi Osofisan’s Art
24
Morountodun
26
The Chattering and the Song
29
Once Upon Four Robbers
32
ϭ
Part Two Retrospection on South Africa: A Sociological Reading of Athol Fugard’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead
35
Preamble
36
Implications of the Sociological Theory of Art
37
The Setting and World of Sizwe Bansi is Dead
49
Synopsys of the Play
41
Thematic Concerns
43
A Sociological Reading of Sizwe Bansi is Dead
44
Dehumanisation
49
Insecurity
51
Further Dramatic Aesthetics Explored in the Play
54
Characterization
54
Techniques
57
Conclusion: Art, the Artist and his Society
59
Bibliography
63
Ϯ
Preface Africa is commonly divided along the lines of the Sahara, the world’s largest desert, which cuts across the northern half of the continent. The countries north of the Sahara make up the region of North Africa, while the region south of the desert is known as Sub-Saharan Africa which is generally subdivided into the regions of West, East, Central, and southern Africa. (Newman et al., 2008). This discourse centres on the socio-political developments in Sub-Saharan Africa, precisely focusing on Kenya on the East, Nigeria on the West, and South Africa on the south. This study in retrospection is structured in two parts. Part one, ‘Art and Societal Dialectics: Critical Analysis of Selected Works of Ngugi Wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan’, surveys the socio-political developments nay realities in two SubSaharan African societies, precisely Nigeria and Kenya, and examines the perceptible inextricable relationship between art and society; underscoring most significantly, the effect of the past on the present, using relevant works of two prominent dramatists from this region, Ngugi Wa Thiong’o (Kenya) and Femi Osofisan (Nigeria), as paradigms. Part two, ‘Retrospection on South Africa: A Sociological Reading of Athol Fugard’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead’, is also a further dimension in retrospection on the rhythms of social reality in Africa. It undertakes a sociological reading of the work of renowned South African anti-apartheid crusader, Athol Fugard (and collaborator)’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead. The course of the survey is directed from the thrust of sociological theory; laying emphasis on those prevailing social realities in Apartheid South Africa that informed the creation of the play, highlighting the subtle and salient effects of the Apartheid system as obtained in South Africa of that era.
ϯ
In the main, this study examines art’s instrumentality in understanding and interpreting aspects of human society. By exploring the inextricable nexus between art and society, as well as the artist’s unalienable role in mediating between the knit extremes of this duality, it establishes the understanding that art remains an effective means of representing the social realities of a people; and has become even more functional, more immediate, more realistic, and more truthful in this role. Drama, therefore, as the most social of art forms invariably predisposes the dramatist – artist – as invaluable in the solemn task of mirroring these realities. This preface, however, may not be complete without the acknowledgement of two distinctive personalities who were unpremeditatedly contributory to the idea of this work: Professor Charles E. Nwadigwe of Theatre Arts Department, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, and Dr. (Mrs.) Osita C. Ezenwanebe of Creative Arts Department,
University
of
Lagos,
Nigeria.
My
immediate
and
past
academic/research interactions with these distinguished scholars, is what has primarily spurred the interest for this work. My loving wife, Dr. Nnenna Ejije, and kids, Divine Oluomachi and Miracle Chimdimma are most appreciated too for all their sacrifice of understanding and tolerance, for the very long hours I had to spend on the work, most of the time denying them attention, just to see it to fruition. I owe it to you all. Samuel Okoronkwo Chukwu-Okoronkwo
ϰ
Introduction The appropriate perception of the concept of art in the present context is very pertinent in order to properly direct audiences’ focus and appreciation of its import in this study. As a generic term, art is considered in its broadest sense as a creative experience in which man shares in the most enduring and significant attribute of God Almighty as Creator and Supreme Artist. Sofola (1994, p. 2) remarks that art emanates from the soul of man and thus serves as a medium through which this soul “reaches out beyond itself to transform and make intelligible the proddings within the inner recesses”. Art is therefore a product of the creative impulse; and finds expression through a variety of media and materials. Among its genres are the literary, the performative, and the plastic arts. The literary arts include novels and poems; the performative arts include dance, drama, and music; with painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, decorative arts, crafts, and other visual works that combine materials or forms belonging to the plastic arts. Perhaps this explains why art is considered as a specific form of social consciousness (Lukin, 1980). As an expressive mode which emerges from creative consciousness, what then is the relevance of art to contemporary society? In other words, what role does art play in the society? Does it really help to move the society forward? Tracing down to the primordial era, we will discover that art has always been very functional right from the earliest agrarian community even before man began to live a settled life. Through it man has constantly sought to find meaning for his existence as well as to rise above the crises that confront him. Thus from time immemorial – from man’s earliest wandering and agrarian experience, man had adopted performance skills as part of his survival strategy, either to disguise himself and imitate the sounds and mannerisms of animals he hunted in order to trap and kill them or in employing ‘sympathetic magic’ in an attempt to ϱ
“understand, order and control his environment” in a kind of ritual process (Hagher, 1990, p. 3); or coercion of cosmic nature, all in his effort to survive. This way, art has become an integral component of man’s social transformation, his development and growth. Also, art signifies. It identifies societies and individuals, and most importantly it is a major aspect of culture; culture being the totality of a way of life that characterizes a society. Thus, as a major part of the cultural consciousness of a society, as Yerima (2010) notes, art cannot be devoid of man’s daily mechanism of existence. Through art, symbols, images, fears, joy, pains, aspirations and even scepticisms have been expressed. Therefore, it needs be pointed out here that it is this noted functionality of art as springing from creative consciousness that also makes it invariably and readily instrumental to dialectical pressure as is explored in part one of this study. Certainly, the perspective of art which this study holds is that which projects it from the focal lens of an expressive mode as emerging from the artist’s creative consciousness as a product of his environment. In this context, art functions to mirror the society as an expression of the artist’s perception of his society. The concept of social on the other hand emphasizes the relations and influences that exist among people, and connotes by extension the idea of a society. It suggests, therefore, how people’s lives are organized and conducted within their circle. Accordingly, society is meant to operate within certain social order, and it is this order that makes human behaviour in the society predictable. This order, therefore, becomes the parameter that defines the kind of relationship that exists within the component units of such society, thus resulting to increasing tendency to always count on people most of the time to meet the expectations of others. This kind of expectation runs through almost all the works studied in this discourse. For this order to thrive, it must be based on a scale of mutual ϲ
equilibrium, without which friction sets in. This further explains the rationale for two identifiable antithetical sociological theories: the structural functionalism and the conflict theories. The former focuses on the functions as performed by the various elements of a social system that are geared towards its collective stability; while the latter is directed by the tendency for some groups to dominate others as well as resistance to such domination. While one tends towards convergence, emphasizing social stability and equilibrium; the other tends towards divergence, emphasizing social change. On the whole, however, the study is premised on the firm conviction that no work of art exists in a vacuum without identifying with as well as reflecting the nature of the social relations nay realities in which it is created. It is this milieu that thus predicates the personality and role of the artist quite indispensable as he finds himself locked in an ineluctable tripartite relationship with both his art and society, thus serving as a vehicle through whose work the above reality is explored and concretized.
ϳ
Part One Art and Societal Dialectics: Critical Analysis of Selected Works of Ngugi Wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan
ϴ
Background Art as a form of social consciousness, having dialectical relation with social being … exists only in the context of the negation of existing contradictory reality of class society, by rising above its impediments, by going beyond its ideology and developing a system, qualitatively new, that challenges it. – Udenta O. Udenta (1993, p. 55)
The above quotation from Udenta is what sets the thrust for the discourse in this part of the study. By interpretation, Udenta is no doubt making a case for art as a veritable tool in the battle for the extermination of class society in all its manifestations:
a
realisation
which
can
only
come
through
aroused
consciousness furthered with action. Udenta’s statement above is clearly indicative of the reality of class consciousness inherent in African society; more so, the Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a class consciousness that is replete with its attendant contradictions. Art, therefore, through various aesthetics has not only proven instrumental in portraying these contradictions, but also in interrogating them. The impetus for the choice of Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan for consideration in analysis here stems from the fact of the commonalities which they share in this dialectic milieu with the instrumentality of their works both in their portrayal of their discontentment especially on their various nation’s postindependence realities as well as their concern for the oppressed, the less privileged, the marginalized, the pauperized and the brutalized of the society. The foregoing, therefore, predicates art as invaluable in its role as an effective means of representing reality and underscores its inextricable relationship to the society.
ϵ
Considering art, therefore, in relation to society in the dialectic context here, Slaughter may have really thought and observed in the above regard that, “when the social relations of capitalism reduce(s) human relations to (an) ‘(ir)rational’” level, “art is therefore … predisposed to challenge … (such) existing order” (p. 55), my emphasis (cited in Udenta, 1993). This points to the central theme of this part of discourse as explored through the works of our selected dramatists. This part of our discourse centres on the socio-political developments in two SubSaharan African states, precisely Kenya on the East, and Nigeria on the West, to critically examine how Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan used their art to capture these developments and underscore the extent of the effect of the past on the present in the contexts of their different environments. This implies, therefore, that art remains an effective means of representing reality as it has proven certainly instrumental to understanding and interpreting aspects of society – its inherent dialectics – its realities. Thus drama as the most social of art forms does not only reflect the nature of the social relations in which it is created, but invariably predisposes the dramatist as invaluable in the solemn task of mirroring these realities. That is also why the study stresses the essence of the relationship between art and society wherein the artist becomes the mediator who integrates the forces between the two extremes. Ultimately, the study would not only have portrayed our dramatists in context as having reproduced ‘life’ through their art, but would also have clarified this reproduced life in their own contexts – the realities of their environment; and perhaps, as having laid their own “judgement on the phenomena of life” (Plekhanov, 1974, p. 129); thus addressing “the question of the relationship of art to social life” which Plekhanov maintains “has always played a very important part in all literature”, and history as well, to reinforce Obafemi’s (2008, p. 78) conviction that “the internal dynamics, contents and significance of art” must therefore be such that it should be able to help people push history forward. ϭϬ
Focus on Kenya
ϭϭ
Realities of Kenya’s Colonial and Post-independence Socio-political Developments in Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Art Having earlier established the role of art as an effective means of representing reality, we will further examine how Wa Thiong’o has used his art to reflect the realities of Kenya’s colonial and post-colonial/independence socio-economic and political experience. However, it will be necessary to establish also Wa Thiong’o’s motivation in this role which he has engaged himself. In this regard, he asserts unequivocally his resolute interest in “human relationships and their quality” which he says he explores in his works (Interview with Pozo, 2004); and quality here translates to the acceptability of the standard of this relationship which Slaughter seems to argue above, must be rationally premised. Transition from colonialism to post-colonialism and the ensuing crisis, therefore, has been the central issues in these works, with their dramatic conflicts drawn along ideological lines, pitting rulers against the ruled, or exploiters against the exploited. In all his works, Wa Thiong’o’s attack against injustice and oppression has been most forceful, as he uses them to champion the cause of the less privileged and the marginalized in the society. He believes in the power of art that is in alliance with the people – that which gives them courage and urges them to higher resolves – in their struggle for total liberation, as well as the full commitment of the artist (using his art as an agency) in the cause of bringing about a new social order. His works selected for analysis in this discourse include: The Trial of Dedan Kimathi which takes us through the colonial past, I Will Marry When I Want and This Time Tomorrow as reflections of the post-colonial present.
ϭϮ
The Trial of Dedan Kimathi The Trial of Dedan Kimathi is an imaginative reconstruction of the heroic role played by Dedan Kimathi, the legendary leader of the Mau Mau movement in Kenya, and re-enacts reactionary colonialism against radical nationalism. Although the concluding part of the foregoing statement seems more paradoxical, it however explains the vehemence with which the forces of colonialism were matched with the determined vigour of the people to free themselves from its clutches.
The play reveals a colonial society in which
colonialists in alliance with their surrogates – both Kenyans and non-Kenyan settlers – are pitted against Kenyan peasants and workers, the exploited from whom emerged the freedom fighters.
While the former wield economic and
political power, the latter are exploited and oppressed. Therefore, key to the understanding of the dimensions of the dialectics in the Kenyan society as portrayed by Wa Thiong’o is the fact that colonialism being largely a system of economic and political exploitation is so intensely drawn between Henderson and his allies, who battle so much to uphold it, against the determined resistance of the people led by Kimathi. This understanding must also follow from Wa Thiong’o’s ascription of meaning to the present in the context of the past as he summarizes the Black Man’s History in four quick montages (p. 5) – a history replete with bondage – and thus reinforces the people’s determination to “make a new earth” (p. 6), a new social order. Here again, the underlying factor remains the light which Wa Thiong’o has been able to shed on the contradiction and conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed, much as the Kenyan peasants and workers are unequivocally representative of the generality of the masses of Kenyan populace.
ϭϯ
Central to the meaning of the play are the four trials to which Kimathi was subjected. Nwankwo (1992) no doubt directs our mind to the nature of the society in which this trial held when he observed that: Through the stage directions in the first confrontation between judge and Kimathi, the play questions the notion of justice in the context of the world of oppressors and oppressed. (p. 147) Henderson who stands as judge in the trials makes a parody of this justice when he tells Kimathi: “we are here to deal fairly with you, to see that justice is done. Even handed justice”. Kimathi, however, reinforces the interrogation of same justice by informing us that he is being put to trial in “an imperial court”, under a law which his people “had no path in the making”, and queries: “Whose law? Whose justice?” (p. 25) Through the development of the play’s plots, the themes of economic and political exploitation of the Kenyan people, and their relentless struggle for political independence, as well as exemplary heroism among others, were highlighted. The major plot presents Kimathi facing interrogations and temptations from different characters who Nwankwo says: Variously represent the forces of exploitation and injustice in Kenya … the exchanges reveal in turns their doubts and convictions of the questioner and the questioned and the implications which their various attitudes have on the welfare of the entire society. (p. 147) However, despite all the internal and external forces that tried to undermine the cause of the struggle, Kimathi seems to summarize the people’s defiance and determination towards the struggle in the following words: In the court of Imperialism!
ϭϰ
There has never and will never be Justice for the people Under imperialism. Justice is created Through a revolutionary struggle Against all the forces of imperialism. Our struggle must therefore continue… Our people will never surrender Internal and external foes Will be demolished And Kenya shall be free! (pp. 82 – 83) The collectivity of purpose in the struggle is symbolized in the engagement of all and sundry: man, woman, boy and girl – indeed, all Kenyan’s – in productive partnership. Kimathi, therefore, represents the patriotic and nationalistic force of the people. His trial also symbolizes the collective trial of the Kenyan people in their struggle for political independence. Although at the end Kimathi remained unyielding to all the forces of imperialism and held on to the people’s cause for which he died, there is of course no doubt as to who the villain or the hero is – “the oppressor or the oppressed”. His trial, therefore, is “only an illustration of justice in parody and a means of exposing those who in the vision of Ngugi deserve to face trial” (Nwankwo, 1992, pp. 146 - 147). In other words, Wa Thiong’o did not hide his scorn at such vicious perversion of justice which he so skilfully lampooned in Kimathi’s trial.
ϭϱ
I Will Marry When I Want I Will Marry When I Want is also about exploitation; the exploitation of neocolonialism rather than colonialism, and the role of the Kenyan “traitor-elite” (Nasidi, 2002) in maintaining the exploitation. In Decolonising the Mind, Ngugi offers us more insight about the play: Ngaahika Ndeenda (I Will Mary When I Want) depicts the proletarisation of the peasantry in neo-colonial society. Concretely, it shows the way the Kiguunda family, a poor peasant family, who have to supplement their subsistence on their one and a half acres with the sale of their labour, is finally deprived of even the oneand-a half acres by a multi-national consortium of Japanese and Euro-American industrialists and bankers aided by the native comprador landlords and businessmen. (p. 44) Essentially, therefore, although “the conflict in the play” as Nwankwo (1992) notes, “is between a proletarized peasantry and foreign-backed native bourgeoisie” (p. 155), which defines the class structure in the play, it still does not detract from the fact that these peasants form the majority of Kenyan populace. The sharp contrast between the worlds of these classes is evident in the representations of Kiguunda’s home and that of Kioi. Yet the Kiois were ready to stoop below class snobbery with their visit to the Kiguundas in order to advance their selfish and materialistic interests with which they wield power and dominion over the poor; with religion also highlighted as the opium of the masses in the entire scheme: Gicamba:
Arranged … to completely soften our hearts To completely cripple our minds with religion! And they had the audacity to tell us
ϭϲ
That earthly things were useless … But they, on this earth, this very earth, They are busy carousing on earthly things, our wealth, And you the poor are told… Lift up your eyes unto heavens. (pp. 57 – 58) So, the play is about the mindless exploitation of Kenyans by their own rich brothers in alliance with big foreign businessmen to perpetuate their capitalist interests. While this bourgeois class employs the poor peasants who produce so much wealth that enriches them, the peasants only get poorer and poorer because of gross underpayment by their employers despite rising cost of living. Kiguunda captures the situation thus: But tell me a single item whose price has not gone up? … Today I get two hundred shillings a month, And it can’t even buy insecticide enough to kill a single bedbug. African employers are no different From Indian employers Or from the Boer white landlords. They don’t know the saying That the hand of a worker should not be weakened. They don’t know the phrase, ‘increased wages’! (p. 20) Perhaps Gicamba’s factory experience speaks more of this industrial capitalism, having learnt so much about the cruelty of the system which he and his family with many others had not only been commitment to, but also depended on for many years and for very little pay despite being bereft of their basic humanity and being treated as disposable objects. Some inhaled industrial gas, chemical dust ϭϳ
and other kinds of poison, only to be rejected or forgotten when they become ill, maimed, grow mad or die. For all the atrocities of industrial capitalism, Gicaamba says: The owners of these companies are real scorpions. They know three things only: To oppress workers, To take away their rights, And to suck their blood. (p. 33) Unfortunately, those who perpetrate these atrocities are their own citizens who chose to collude with external capitalist forces, to deprive them of the dividends of political independence which they all fought to gain. The eventual dispossession of Kiguunda’s one and a half acres of land by Kioi and its consequence on him, portrays the hardship of the landless poor, as well as the greed and cruelty of the wealthy landowners. Finally, Gicamba enlightens Kiguunda regarding the cruel exploitation of the poor by the rich, envisioned also as a collective enlightenment by which all the workers and progressive forces are mobilized in a revolutionary song with which the play ended
The strength of the play’s success is tied to its effective application of familiar elements of the people’s indigenous artistic expressive mode – song, mime, and dance which Nwankwo says effectively transformed it into a rousing paean of cultural assertion, and pointed in its critical appreciation of the people’s condition. Little wonder, therefore, the force of antagonism with which the Kenyan government responded to it.
ϭϴ
This Time Tomorrow This Time Tomorrow also re-enacts the injustice in post-colonial Kenya. The thorny consequence of the effect of the past on the present is brought to the fore in this play. The pertinent question which the play raises remains the question of what Uhuru (independence) has brought to the people. The Stranger informs us: I was one of those who fought for Uhuru in the forests and in the detention camps, but what has this Uhuru brought us? (pp. 189 – 199) The Stranger, like every other simple folk in Kenya has struggled and sacrificed and suffered for freedom; when it eventually comes, with mounting hopes, what did the people get? Stranger:
We fought for Uhuru, because we were told it would mean decent houses, and decent jobs! But where are the jobs? Where are the houses? (p. 200)
No where. They still had to contend with poverty, unemployment and squalor in the city slums – this time, at the hands of their privileged fellow countrymen who took charge of both political and economic power. So, how have the inheritors of power in the new dispensation wielded this power? How have the common people responded to this, and what is the outcome of this response? All these are in consonance with the major issue raised in the play. Instead of living up to their responsibility and the expectations of the people on them, the government decided to compound the people’s woes by decreeing that the slums that shelter them and through which they survive must be utterly demolished to give the city an improved look, since they now constitute “a great shame”; only to serve the interest of their new clientele: “Tourists from America, Britain, and West Germany” (p. 193). Puzzled by this development – a rather ϭϵ
insensitive “determination to punish” the people, one of the threatened shanty dwellers asks, “is this not a black man’s government – our government?” (p. 193). Therefore, the play has an obvious attitude of anger and disillusionment associated with it – anger at the failure of a system to which the people had committed so much to see to fruition, and disillusionment at their inability to realise their dreams of it. The reference to ‘black man’s government’ above does not only magnify the misery and curiousity of the hopeless shanty dweller, but also clarifies the intensity of his disappointment and contempt at those with whom he had thought that their collective interest was ensured. The Journalist takes us through the slum city in scenes like the cinematic shots of the Brechtian epic tradition to observe the condition of lives and reactions of the dwellers that are the target of the government’s order. Their destitution and hopelessness are revealed through the Journalist’s interview with Tinsmith and Shoemaker as symbolic representation of the threatened folk. The Stranger, who is introduced as a revolutionary figure, is not insulated from the general problem of the common people in Kenya as Wangiro discloses: He worked long for the whiteman. Then he went to detention. When he came back his little piece of land had been taken away. He says he will hew and carry wood no more. (p. 190) These problems, therefore, says Nwankwo, “are related to the injustice arising from the lost lands which created a rootless or landless population with uncertain direction and destiny”; for which the Stranger advances his advocacy for change: There is magic! The magic is within you. The witchcraft with which to blind the City Council is within our hearts, in our hands. Let us stand together. Let us, with one voice, tell the new government: We want our homes, we love them. Unless the City Council shows us another ϮϬ
place to go, where we can earn our bread, we shall not lift a finger to demolish our homes! I go further: we must defend our own! (p. 199) Wangiro’s faith in the possibility of salvation from their predicament in the revolutionary activities of the Stranger contrasts with Njango’s suspicious and distrustful pessimism; perhaps, informed by the fate of her late husband, who: Like the other men in the land he, too, foolishly cried defiance to the white man. He went to the forest. Dedan Kimathi led them, and for many years they fought against the bombs and guns in the mountains and the forests. One day reports reached us. Your father was captured. They shot him dead like a dog … What has this Uhuru brought us? Brought to us who lost our sons and husbands? (p. 191) Thus, her inexplicable fear for the Stranger when he was eventually arrested; “afraid I know not of what” (p. 201). She finally laments in regret: They are herding us out like cattle. Where shall I go now, tonight? Where shall I be, this time tomorrow? If only we had stood up against them! If only we could stand together! (p. 203) Of course, there couldn’t have been a way of standing together in their prevailing circumstance without inviting action and possible violence. With Njango’s regretful statement above, Nwankwo opines that “she as a mother of men accepts collective responsibility for the failure of society because she embodies the problems responsible for that failure: tribalism, mutual suspicion and distrust”; issues which also recur in The Black Hermit, another of Ngugi’s plays, where despite political independence, the people still wallow in social bondage of tribalism, racialism and religious factions which are the bane of national development in postcolonial African society. This Time Tomorrow, however, sill Ϯϭ
points to the ability of the common people to unite and fight for freedom; the moral, therefore, is that those who lack conviction and readiness for action and unity will be simply pushed over by stronger forces (Jones, 1976).
ϮϮ
Focus on Nigeria
Ϯϯ
Realities of Nigerian Post-independence Socio-political Developments in Femi Osofisan’s Art. The commonalities which Osofisan shares with Wa Thiong’o in the dialectical context of this discourse with the instrumentality of their works both in the portrayal of their discontentment especially about their individual nation’s postindependence socio-political realities as well as their concern for the oppressed, the less privileged, the marginalized, the pauperized and the brutalized of the society, is irrefutable. Osofisan, no doubt, is a prolific and radical writer who addresses himself to the socio-political problems in Nigerian society. His dramas, like those of Wa Thiong’o, underscore the utility of art as agency for conscientization and social mobilization. There is this strong presence of Brechtian influence that has always effectively propelled their dramas. Through his works, Osofisan also evinces his strong belief in the power of art that is in alliance with the people – which enlightens and spurs the people/masses to take decisive actions in combating and changing a plaguing and oppressive system which does not favour them. The world he presents in his plays, therefore, is a real world, which is consistently involved in a process of change, and “manifestly observable from the conflict or struggle with the oppressive hegemony in society” (Obafemi and Yerima, 2004, p. 135). So, because the changes in the societies presented in his plays occur “dialectically”, the plays posses both “dialectic and didactic elements”. The picture Osofisan presents of his society undoubtedly portrays him as a dramatist with a sensitive eye for the problems of his society. These problems are socio-political and economic in nature, and in their multiplicity. His plays, therefore, says Awodiya (2002), respond to: The disillusionment of the masses arising from their disappointment at the insensitivity of the rulers to their Ϯϰ
plights after the euphoria of independence, stinking corruption, injustice and oppression, greed, selfishness and drift of political leadership that led to coups and counter-coups, the horror of the civil war, the post-civil war lawlessness and indiscipline of the military government, and the mismanagement of Nigeria’s economy by our prodigal governments since the oil boom days of the seventies, through the eighties to the present. (p. 171) These plays, he earlier observed in Femi Osofisan: Interpretive Essays I, “analyze the repeated betrayal of the society by the individuals and the response left them in seeking to redeem their sense of failure” and thereby “document the dynamics of people thwarted in attaining their dreams of good life” (p. 22). Invariably, Osofisan has proven himself a committed social crusader with a sanguine vision of the future he projects of his society – a revolutionalised new social order – to which he has remained resolute in using his art to propel by arousing the critical consciousness of the people. This is because of his strong belief in the collective action of the people, which once aroused is capable of bringing about a new social order. His plays, therefore, address themselves to people generally – the masses, whom he imbues with more assertive voices in their quest for progress and development. A “materialist perspective” of Osofisan’s dramas as “ideological weapon” (Osofisan, 1980, interview with Ossy Enekwe), no doubt prompts the firm assertion that their real significance is not so much in their perspicacity, but rather in their ideological commitment to proclaim a final stand in the conflict they consistently enact between the forces of progress and reaction. Furthermore, this significance, as Awodiya (2002) observes, does not merely lie in Osofisan’s resolve to interpret myth and history from the alternative perspective of the oppressed, but also, in his experimentations with various theatrical forms. His Ϯϱ
plays selected for analysis in this study include Morountodun, The Chattering and the Song, and Once upon Four Robbers. Morountodun Morountodun is based on the legend of Moremi of Ile ife, and dramatises the Agbekoya peasant uprising in the then western region in 1969, the year as the Director in the play informs us “in which ordinary farmers … rose up and confronted the state … illiterate farmers, whom we had all along thought to be docile, peace-loving, if not even stupid, suddenly took to arms, and began to fight against the government” (p. 6). In Morountodun, Osofisan recreates the Moremi myth of struggle and injustice in order to meet contemporary need of the Nigerian society. Peasants struggle, therefore, is the main conflict here, as the peasants battle to surmount the forces of exploitation and injustice perpetuated on them by the ruling class. This conflict in turn is posing a serious concern for the authority which finds it increasingly difficult to contend. So, when Titubi, the spoilt daughter of Alhaja Kudirat – the head of the market women, storms in with her group before the play really starts to disrupt the activities of the theatre group whose members are supposedly portraying the predatory nature of the bourgeois class whom her mother represents, and gets arrested by Superintendent Salami – symbolizing the repressive state apparatus, a veritable ally in the quest to quell the conflict, therefore, emerges. This results as Superintendent Salami challenges her on putting up a showdown on the peasant revolt that raged on in the area against her class instead of proving her gallantry in the theatre and seeking to destroy it: Why haven’t you offered your services to crush the peasant revolt? You know there is a battle going on now, don’t you? That the farmers and the villagers around us have risen in open rebellion, and are Ϯϲ
33marching down upon the city? When they arrive, who do you think will be the first target? But you don’t volunteer to help in fighting them. No. this mere wooden platform is your battlefield. Shit! This is where you come to put up a gallant fight. (p. 14) Titubi, who is no doubt stung by Salami’s remark instantly volunteers to collude with the police by serving as a decoy to infiltrate the peasants’ camp to trap their seeming intractable leader, and then quell the rebellion; not however without an aim also at redeeming her pricked pride of Salami’s allegation of cowardice. Here, however, Osofisan recreates the ancient Yoruba mythology by invoking the myth of Moremi as he links Titubi with the legendary Queen of Ile Ife, who risked her life to save her people from the menace of Igbo by serving as a decoy too. The ploy really is to have Titubi put into prison where she will be freed by the rebelling farmers when they attack the prison to release their captured members. Titubi indeed sets out on this espionage, albeit heroic mission. The rebelling farmers eventually attack as anticipated and free her together with their captured members. As she joins them in their camp, settling and interacting with them, “sharing their pain and anguish” (p. 66), she discovers to her disgust their plights for taking up arms against the state. In this new consciousness, Osofisan (2001) in Notes and Explanations on Morountodun (p. 34) says “her conscience was pricked to such an extent that she could no longer be against them” – the farmers – and thus denounces the evil perpetuated on them by her own class by killing “the ghost of Moremi” in her, as such myth only served the status quo; joining forces, therefore, with the cause of the oppressed farmers. She thus turns a ‘rebel’ against her own class and against the state, in what amounts to class suicide, as she becomes a spokesperson for the oppressed; a development which Osofisan describes as “the big surprise of the play” (p. 34). Here he subverts the legendary myth to Ϯϳ
serve a revolutionary purpose. In Titubi, therefore, Osofisan has created a “metaphor” for his “own feeling of disgust” with the unpleasant “set up of our society”, as well as his “aspirations for a better tomorrow” (p. 28), by making her instrumental to the materialisation of this social vision. The play, therefore, re-enacts the socio-political and economic realities of the Nigerian society, presenting this reality from class point of view. It emphasises an inequitable society where the masses that produce the wealth are deprived only to maintain an oppressive government. Titubi captures this reality when she informs us about how: Farmers cannot eat of their own products, for they need the money from the market. They raise chickens, but must be content with wind in their stomach. And then, when they return from the market, the tax master is waiting, with his bill. (p. 66) Her candid verdict, therefore, is that “it could not be just”. Thus Morountodun, as I have noted elsewhere, encapsulates the theme of social change – a case for social revolution. Osofisan’s advocacy for collectivism towards this revolution is symbolised in Titubi’s handing over the gun to Marshal, with the hope of establishing a new alliance for the betterment of the masses for which cause they have taken up arms against the government. Titubi’s action is perhaps propelled by the sheer conviction that the government cannot “win a war against a people whose cause is just” (p. 70).
At the end, Osofisan favours a compromise
agreement, a round table negotiation between the revolting farmers and the government, all in a bid to advance his vision of an equitable society.
Ϯϴ
The Chattering and the Song The Chattering and the Song is yet another of Osofisan’s recreation of history with the nineteenth century popular rebellion in the then old Oyo empire, to serve the contemporary need of expressing his social vision. In this play, he makes no pretention at expressing his frustration and outrage against Nigeria’s postindependence “socio-political milieu by presenting us with a society where politicians manipulated the masses without conscience or sympathy” (Nwabueze, 1988, p. 191). The “Chattering” and the “Song” from which the play derives its title, says Awodiya (1996), therefore, are metaphors for “commotion” and “a violent disturbance” (p. 55). The play, which also addresses the issue of revolutionary change and its attendant class struggle, portrays Osofisan’s rather radical approach to historical and social realities. Its plot is still centred on the increasing consciousness of the farmers’ movement in the society in their struggle against the oppressive machinery of the state. Right from the prologue which introduces the riddling game built around the Ifa motif – Iwori Otura, Osofisan sets out to explore, besides the theme of betrayal, the prey-predator, class stratification tendency that characterises the Nigerian society in three sets of riddles; and thus underscores the necessity for change: The first riddle involves the frog leaping upon the fish; the second riddle is about the hawk swooping down on the hen; and the third portrays the stag preying upon the doe. Through these preying images, Osofisan portrays the oppressive nature of the bourgeoisie in their attempt to subjugate the poor in the society, and brings to fore the suffering of the masses; foreshadowing therefore, the eventual revolution that would result from collective consciousness. The play is in two parts. While part one reveals the oppressive attitude of the people in power, especially through Sontri’s confrontation with Funlola regarding the weaverbird, part two presents us with the revolution which emerges as a Ϯϵ
rehearsal of a play in honour of Sontri and Yajin’s wedding. This play-within-theplay which is presumably written by Sontri, and to be performed for guests’ entertainment on the eve of his wedding with Yajin, is a re-enactment of the heroic confrontation between the rebel, Latoye, son of the executed notorious warrior, Bashorun Gaha, and the famous Alafin Abiodun in Oyo empire in 1885. This historic rebellion was quelled by the repressive power of the state. However, in the play-within-the-play, Osofisan subverts the ancient history and presents it from the side of the victim rather than the so-called victors, to advance the cause of social revolution and the overthrow of tyrant rulers whom Abiodun represents. Abiodun characterizes oppression, ruthlessness, ferocious brutality and savage cruelty, and one who uses his position to suppress and exploit the common man. His furious address to Latoye confirms this: I have ordered rain on kings, and it poured down in whole floods to drown them! On men with coral beads and necklaces of ivory I have commanded fire, and they have been burnt out of history by the harvest of sheer lightening! And yet you, you mere inconsequential ant, you dare to defy me! (p. 39) Latoye, however, succeeds in breaking the stronghold of Abiodun’s tyranny: the myth of a god-abated subjugation of one human being by another. He, indeed, must have wondered for how long the society would continue with such excesses that in confrontation with Abiodun, he firmly declares: Enough! … For centuries you have shielded yourself with the gods. Slowly, you painted them in your colour, dressed them in your own cloak of terror, injustice and bloodlust … in your reign, Abiodun, the elephant eats, and nothing remains for the antelope! The buffalo drinks, and there is draught in the land! (p. 45)
ϯϬ
Thus, Alafin Abiodun turns the villain – the “new plague! (And) new spot” that must “be scrapped out” (p. 39) for standing in the path of justice. This is further reinforced in Latoye’s address to the guards: Look around you … look into your future. What do you see? Always the same unending tale of oppression. Of poverty, hunger, squalor and disease! Why! Ah, you and your people, you are the soil on which the Alafin’s tree is nourished, tended until it is overladen with fruits! And yet, when you stretch out your hands, there are no fruits for you! Why? Only your limbs are gaunt with work and want, only your faces wrinkled with sweating and not getting! Alafin and his men are fed and flourishing, but they continue to steal your lands. They are rich, their stores are bursting, your children beg on the streets. I am begging you, please, fly out of your narrow nests. Come follow me, raise a song to freedom! Now! (p. 42) Through Latoye’s effective incantatory speech, Osofisan no doubt raises the socio-political consciousness of the masses, whom the guards symbolise here, through which their mobilisation towards the revolution is established and sealed. Hence, for Abiodun and his likes “who seek to unbalance the world, to rearrange it only according to their own greed, there is only one remedy … Death!” (pp. 45 – 46) as Aresa decrees. Aresa’s exterminatory bent only underscores Osofisan’s total revolutionary vision – a vision which is embedded in his concern to portray the necessity for the evolution of collective consciousness among the oppressed in order to emancipate themselves from the shackles of socio-political and economic bondage. Osofisa’s reconstruction of the ancient history in The Chattering and the Song, therefore, is basically to reinforce his social vision. The farmers’ anthem at the end of the play is very symbolic as it heralds a new sociopolitical order – a product of mass awareness, mobilization and revolution, reaffirming, therefore, Osofisan’s revolutionary optimism. ϯϭ
Once Upon Four Robbers Once Upon Four Robbers is another of Osofisan’s plays that rings so loudly of the reality that surrounds us as a nation and thus keeps us bound. Femi Fatoba (1996) aptly describes it as a dialectical interpretation of the sociological phenomenon of armed robbery which has plagued us as a nation since 1970. The significance in the year 1970 is more connected to the fact that the Nigerian Civil War which ravaged the nation for thirty months came to an end at this year, marking therefore a rising spate of violence and armed robbery, as many people whose lives were already dislocated had to seek for any possible means of survival – even armed robbery. This phenomenon became so much a matter of public concern for which the then ruling military government promulgated a decree stipulating public execution for any convicted culprit. Osofisan’s position in Once Upon Four Robbers, however, is that public execution which he described as “legalised slaughtering” is not the right panacea for armed robbery, as it does not portend any meaningful “restoration” to the warped sanity of the society. Rather, what should be of primary importance is the unravelling of the root cause of this social menace and adequately addressing it. Here, Osofisan explores once more our socio-historical reality and turns it into a significant analogy to arouse awareness of our immediate problems. Major in adducing one of the reasons for their involvement in armed robbery says, “It is hunger that drives us” (p. 20). Although one may readily dismiss Major’s reason for their despicable action as does Aafa: “it drives other people. But not to crime” (p. 21), it is but instructive to learn from his response that crime is quite indicative of a systemic failure, and that it has actually permeated the fabric of the society. “You mean, not publicly”, he tells Aafa. The foregoing also raises the question of who then the robber is in the society as Ayakoroma (2008, p. 359) queries, “is it he who steals out of hunger or he who ϯϮ
amasses wealth at the expense of the less opportune ones?” (Quoting Ayakoroma) Lack of employment also counts among the reasons for the robbers’ action. The available employment opportunities are but enslaving kind of jobs which do not attract commensurate remuneration, thus exposing the capitalist tendency of the rich. These jobs, explained the robbers, are: “service boys” “waiter”, “cleaner”, “cook”, “housemaid”, “washerman”, etc. (pp. 22 – 23) Once Upon Four Robbers portrays the high level of poverty and deprivation in the Nigerian society, and the power of the rich – the ruling class – over the poor. It also reveals the level to which the common man could be driven by frustration. So, “rebellion against being trapped in a deprived social setting”, as Awodiya (1996) observes in Femi Osofisan: Interpretive Essays I, “constitutes the chief subject matter” of Osofisan’s works, “as his characters revolt to achieve a better life” (p. 22). In Once Upon Four Robbers, the force that propelled inequity and class division is no doubt facilitated by the ruling class who has failed to create enough job opportunities for the teeming youths who roam the nation’s cities jobless, and who incidentally find alternative means of survival in armed robbery. This is also representative of the reality of the nationwide terror unleashed by armed robbers daily, especially on our highways, banks, homes, etc. It is perhaps in recognition of all the “callous contradictions” and repressive forces that encouraged corruption and facilitated inequity and class division that one of the robbers, Angola, was prompted to say that: There are many citizens who must be made to account for their wealth, and the poverty of their workers. (p. 29) Such account for them, therefore, must be settled only through one course – robbery. This, opines Fatoba, explains “their attempt to destroy law and order” as a reaction against “the perversion of justice in the highest places”, and the subjugation of the greater number of the citizenry by the ruling class. For armed ϯϯ
robbery “on the scale we are witnessing”, says Osofisan, remains “the product of our unjust society” (Once Upon Four Robbers, Programme Notes) since a few privileged members have decided to appropriate the people’s labour and the nation’s wealth all to themselves. In all, Once Upon Four Robbers should not be misconstrued as an attempt to exonerate robbers for the perfidious terror they unleash on the society daily, but rather as a way of drawing attention to the pernicious social conditions that occasions armed robbery. The play’s argument, as Obafemi (2008) observes, therefore, points to the clear suggestion “that to change (a) man’s social behaviour and attitudes … the whole body politic must be changed” (pp. 99 – 100). The play no doubt points to social redirection. On a summary note, Wa Thiong’o and Osofisan fully appreciate the implication of the above. That is why their dramas always underscore the utility of art as a viable agency for conscientization and social mobilisation. Through their dramas, they evince their strong belief in the power of art to enlighten and spur the masses to action in the battle to better their lot. This realisation would of course not have been made possible without a true sense of commitment on the part of these dramatists with their “total personality” as Wa Thiong’o (1982, p. 47) would say, to the cause of positive social change in the society – a cause which they have consistently used their works to advance.
ϯϰ
Part Two Retrospection on South Africa: A Sociological Reading of Athol Fugard’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead
ϯϱ
Preamble During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against White domination and I have fought against Black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. – Nelson Mandela The above epigrammatic declaration by Nelson Mandela, the legendary symbol of the struggle for the liberation of the suffering blacks in South Africa as captured in the blurb of his book, No Easy Walk to Freedom, foreshadows the dreams and aspirations of the creator’s of Sizwe Bansi is Dead, our play in context. Athol Fugard’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead was written during the Apartheid regime in South Africa, it is renowned to be the most typical of all plays that reflect the apartheid era. This part undertakes a sociological reading of the play; and takes initiative from defining the sociological evaluation of art, especially by considering its theoretical framework. It also offers a brief historical background on the Apartheid system, to provide a firm platform for a better understanding of the underlying world view of the play. The synoptic approach applied in the analysis of the play, therefore, is to further illuminate the plays thematic concerns. However, since our main focus here is the consideration of Sizwe Bansi is Dead from the thrust of sociological theory as already stated, emphasis is placed on those prevailing social realities in Apartheid South Africa that informed the creation of the play. It is on this sociological platform, therefore, that the subtle and salient effect of the Apartheid system as obtained in South Africa of the time is highlighted.
ϯϲ
Implications of the Sociological Theory of Art In a broad sense, sociological theory is defined as a set of ideas that provide an explanation for human society (Haralambos et. al., 2004). It is centred on the attempt to understand society, and from a rather scientific and more objective than subjective approach. This attempt also, remains but a continuum and will continue to evolve just as its theorists as long as the variant factors like the rise of individualism, emergence of the modern state, industrialization and capitalism, colonization and even globalization and wars, as identified by Craig (2002), which influence its development, continue to exist. As these theories emerge, therefore, new theorists would equally emerge alongside to build upon earlier postulations. Of all identifiable sociological theories, two rather antithetical ones remain outstanding, and will form the focal point here. These are the structural functionalism and the conflict theories. Whereas the structural functionalism theory focuses on the functions as performed by the various elements of a social system that are geared towards its collective stability, the conflict theory is directed by the tendency for some groups to dominate others, and even resistance to such domination. While one is tended towards a convergence, emphasizing social stability and equilibrium; the other is tended towards a divergence, emphasizing social change (Adrignola et al., n/d). From the foregoing, therefore, Fugard’s Sizwe Bansi is Dead is no doubt fashioned on the background of the conflict theory. This conflict is reflected in the grim portraiture which Fugard has painted on the grave canvass of relationship between the white minority and the black majority groups in Apartheid South Africa. The above assertion is further highlighted and given credence by Adrignola et al.’s three identified basic assumptions of modern conflict theory which (1) stress competition over scarce resources as being at the centre of all social ϯϳ
relationships; (2) inequalities in power and reward as characterizing all social structures, such that those that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained; as well as (3) change being a resultant effect of conflict between competing interests; with change in this situation occurring rather abruptly and revolutionary than evolutionary. Invariably, the sociological perspective of art is that which sees art basically as a representation of the society. The sociological theorist’s main concern in art is the realistic depiction of life as it is lived in the society. He is, therefore, a relist for whom art can only be art when it portrays a true picture of the life of a given society either in relation to its culture, politics, religion, etc.; and for whom drama by extension, must take its base from the happenings in the society, on those factual aspects of life than the ideal; aimed ultimately by pointing to those ills inherent in the society, towards affecting a reformation or regeneration of the same society. It is pertinent, therefore, to reiterate here that issues that border on social realities have been the major feature or dominant motif of writers the world over. The reason for this is not farfetched. Man by nature is a product of the society, and as such cannot alienate himself from the realities of this same society. His art, therefore, is obviously a product of the social life, which draws its themes from incidents, issues, and problems inherent in this society. Perhaps, Vasquez (1987) captures this reality more aptly when he categorically asserts that the artist – whom these writers represent – cannot
afford “to be indifferent to the
social relations in whose framework he creates” (p. 113). On a documentary perspective, Bamidele (2000) had identified Hypolyte Taine as crucial to the history and development of a theory in sociology of Literature, in an approach referred to as positivism in sociological theory. He explained that interest in Taine’s approach is basically geared towards “the historical ϯϴ
background or the culture from which a work emanates” (p. 8). To this end, understanding any work of art, therefore, will derive more from understanding the nature of the society that gave rise to it; since literature, as Taine argued, was largely a product of the author's environment. As such, a clear analysis of such environment would no doubt yield an equally perfect understanding of any work emanating from there. It is from this background, therefore, that the setting or the world of Sizwe Bansi is Dead will be considered. The Setting and World of Sizwe Bansi is Dead An understanding of the play will derive principally from understanding the society that produced it as rightly stated, that is – South Africa. To understand the society of South Africa enclave also, is to understand the system of government which operated the Apartheid system – a racial and discriminatory system which segregated the black majority populace from the white minority group; the latter being the only legal ruling group. The word Apartheid means “separateness” in the Afrikaans language – a language which is associated with a system that has kept races apart and produced so much hate – and describes the rigid racial division between the governing white minority populace and the black majority. Apartheid, says Gary van Wyk, (1990) “is a political philosophy” introduced in South Africa by the “Afrikaner Nationalist Party” as part of its campaign in the 1948 elections. With the party’s victory in the election, Apartheid, therefore, became the official policy for South Africa; to the extent that “after 1948, the apartheid idea, its discriminatory, segregatory and oppressive injunctions became progressively institutionalized in more and more laws restricting and regulating the movements, living conditions, working, even leisure hours of the African” (Okolo, 1988, p. 283). The foregoing development, Okolo emphasizes, is also such, to corroborate Wyk’s earlier view, in which Apartheid came to represent a philosophy of life, an official state policy and a way of life for ϯϵ
both whites and Africans or non-whites – a life of privileges and plenty for the one group, and that of ignominy and degradation for the other. However, as Davis (2007) wrote, evidence abound that South Africa had a long history of racial segregation and white supremacy. Apartheid laws, therefore, which classified people into racial groups, determined where members of each group could live, what jobs they could hold, and what type of education they could receive. These laws also prohibited most social contact between the whites and the non-whites population, authorised segregated public facilities, and denied any representation of nonwhites in the national government. Among these obnoxious laws that dehumanised blacks in South Africa was the ‘Influx Control Act’ – the pass system which controlled the blacks’ movement and made it mandatory for all blacks to carry identity cards no matter how highly placed they were. This grew out of the attempt to confine the blacks in the various homelands that were exclusively carved out for them. People who openly opposed Apartheid were considered Communists and government passed security legislation which in effect turned South Africa into a Police State. These laws gave the police the right to arrest and detain without trial and without access to families or lawyers, which in turn left courts scarcely any means of intervention. As Sisulu (1990) puts it, “state terror against the oppressed became the order of the day” (p. vii). Apart from racial segregation, the system also thrived on economic exploitation of the black majority for whom menial and dangerous jobs which attracted meagre remunerations were reserved. This is as a result of the capitalist economy which the whites fashioned for their selfish interests, to the detriment of the black owners of the land who only mined minerals for their industries and those of their European allies, and served them as domestic hands in their houses for survival. Apartheid, therefore, imposed appallingly heavy burdens on ϰϬ
the blacks in South Africa. There existed a deep economic gap between the wealthy whites, and the poor black masses. The whites were well fed, well housed, well cared for, while the majority of non white suffered from widespread poverty, malnutrition, and disease. Consequently, despite the growth of the national economy, for most South Africans life was a struggle for day-to-day survival. Worse still, in such atmosphere of poverty and exploitation, the black townships were also characterized by much violence and killings by blacks who attacked each other in desperation and hunger. The situation in South Africa as at the time the play was written was so grim that not until the Apartheid System became dismantled by the government of F. W. Deklerk in 1990, the black in South Africa did not live as human being and was always forced to accept such ridiculous packages which Sizwe grabbed in the play. It is instructive to note, however, that Sizwe Bansi is Dead is principally set in Styles’ photographic studio – a rather escapist world in which the scourge of the monster that is ‘Apartheid’ remains literally shut out. Little wonder why Styles had to remind Man: Your wife must not “get a card with her husband looking like he’s got all the worries in the world on his back?” Hence, he emphatically instructed him, “You must smile!” (p. 19). Synopsys of the Play The story revolves principally around two men, Styles and Sizwe, about their experiences in the hands of the obnoxious system that is Apartheid, and how they are able to surmount its hardships. The play opens in Styles’ photographic studio. Styles, a photographer reveals his new status as a man who can afford the luxury of a newspaper which a few years back he did not dream of. In a rather entertaining dramatic monologue, the effect of Apartheid is captured vividly ϰϭ
in the narration of events and his years as a labourer, with particular reference to Henry Ford’s visit. He recounts the deceit and hypocrisy of the white bosses, all to the detriment of the blacks, and the pain and torture the blacks go through in order to live. Yet, they are forced to wear false smile, in order to hide their sorrow. As soon as Sizwe walks into Styles’ studio to take a photograph meant for his family back home in King Williams Town to notify them of his new employment status, a new tempo in the development of the play becomes immediately ignited. Just the mere asking of his name from Styles in the process, opines Ezenwanebe (2008), gets him muddled in a hesitation that sets him struggling “to reconnect” and “reconcile his two identities” (p. 108). He barely overcomes the confusion that assailed him in that process when Styles prods him with further questions and suggestions that provokes him amid a freezing jaunty poise, to relive before the audience, all the horrible experiences that “killed’ him, as he captures them in his letter to his wife. It is therefore, in the narration of this traumatic experience that most of the actions of the play take place, in a series of flashbacks dramatised as play-within-the-play. In this flashback and play-within-the-play, Buntu is introduced; to whom Sizwe narrates his horrible police raid experience, and the consequent reality of his endorsement to vacate Port Elizabeth where he has come to seek for greener pasture within three days, back to King Williams Town, from where he came, without the hope of any job. He does not have any right of stay in Port Elizabeth, yet he is reluctant and apprehensive to leave. However, Buntu takes great pain to analyze to him the reality of the ugly situation of Apartheid, and further invites him to a drinking spree, perhaps to relive him of the tension and anxieties of his experience. As they return from this outing, they encounter a corpse which turns out to be that of Robert Zwelinzima. Thus ensues the whole trauma of argument ϰϮ
and persuasion, and ‘indoctrination’ to grab a new chance of survival, in transposing his passport with that of the dead man; so that he dies as Sizwe, to live as Robert Zwelinzima, from where the play derives its title, Sizwe Bansi is Dead. Thematic Concerns of the Play Theme emphasizes the main idea which the writer expresses in his work. While it must not be confused with the ‘motivating’ idea, that driving force which Krapenhenko, quoting Rasheed Ismailia, describes as “the chief and most fundamental factor in all human actions” in which “art” as an “embodiment of thoughts and living image” (p. 21) is no exception, it emphasizes the basic idea in a play which the writer dramatizes through the conflict of characters with one another, or with life events. Therefore, although there are several themes that could be identified in Sizwe Bansi is Dead, however, the central theme can be said to be that of political injustice and economic exploitation. This is painted right from the opening of the play, with Styles’ narration of Mr. Ford’s visit and the horrifying experiences of the blacks in the hypocritical hands of their white bosses. This theme runs through the play as exemplified in the Ciskeian independence and the pass system – the segregation, identification and movement control system that constantly puts the blacks in check; and the 48 years old man’s exploitative case. Other themes may include: man’s inhumanity to man, the search for freedom by South African blacks, and intrigue as a means of (survival) keeping body and soul together. In the play, there is ample exposition of the Apartheid System and its effects on the blacks. Among the issues to be noted also in the discussion of the theme of the play are: life and death as inextricably linked, with death as the only solution to peace in a trouble infested world; dehumanisation and frustration of the black man, with particular reference to Sizwe in his tearing off his cloths – baffled with ϰϯ
the white man’s inability to recognize his manhood, and the explanation of Buntu on the idea that all blacks are ghosts; insecurity, as can be recalled of the risky atmosphere of Ford Company and the reality of violence and crime in black townships. A Sociological Reading of Sizwe Bansi is Dead A sociological work centers principal attention on the society in which characters live, its effects upon them, and the social forces that control (their) action. [Dictionary of Literary Terms] Sizwe Bansi is Dead, says Julian Mitchell, therefore, analyzes “the South African society in terms of how it affects (the) people’s lives” (p. 310). Refocusing on the thematic concerns of the play will be necessary at this point, with particular reference to the political and economic exploitation in South African society of the time. In this regard, it will be pertinent to note the powerful political instrument which Apartheid as a system of government became in the exploitation of the blacks in South Africa. As a segregation system, Apartheid clearly drew a racial discriminatory boundary between the black majority and their white minority counterparts, and thus empowered the minority whites politically, socially, and economically at the expense and detriment of the majority blacks. What that situation portended becomes much grimmer considering the fact that besides the whites being the minority group, they were annoyingly, originally but strangers in South Africa. However, the situation in South Africa only became an extreme experience with the formalization of Apartheid which projected more glaringly, the depths of the underlying motives of the ‘invading’ white minority – who swooped on the natural resources of predominantly Gold with which God endowed the blacks in the land, and dispossessed them of those resources and
ϰϰ
their enjoyment of them, and made both the possession and enjoyment of those resources their exclusive reserve. In order to consolidate on achieving their obnoxious objectives, with political power in their kitty, therefore, the white minority had to come up with several instrumentations to subjugate the blacks – what Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the legendary Nigerian Afrobeat ‘maestro’ of the blessed memory would offhandedly dub ‘conjuration of magic’ – instrumentations which embodied the Apartheid system, characterized by racial discrimination through which they continuously asserted that power and superiority over the blacks. Sizwe Bansi is Dead, therefore, is replete with these instrumentations. The cause of Apartheid in South Africa as reflected in Sizwe Bansi is Dead, was obviously furthered by the establishment of the ‘Ciskeian Independence’; a settlement system in which blacks were meant to be confined into separate ‘homelands’, while the whites continue to live in developed reserve areas. This development was also such that centred the whole economic activities in these white dominated or rather controlled areas, to the effect that a ‘pass system’ was introduced through ‘Influx control Act’. This development also made it mandatory for blacks to carry identity cards before they could access such areas for the obvious reason of the whiteman’s scarce employment, either as a factory worker, or as a domestic servant, who is further confined under the watchdog of the whiteman in concentration camps. Failure to provide this card on demand at any point in time, therefore, meant severe punishable offence, which explains the incessant raids by white authorities in these camps. This card thus became a monitoring device to control the movement and activities of the blacks. Yet, they were in their father land, and could not express their fundamental liberty even in movement.
ϰϱ
Sizwe as a man had come all the way from King Williams Town, to Port Elizabeth, to look for employment. He did not have such valid record card on one of such raids, and promptly informed us of his fate: “I was in big trouble”. He further expatiated on his experience: I was staying with Zola ... But one night ... I was sleeping on the floor ... I heard some noises and when I looked up I saw torches shinning in through the window ... then there was loud knocking on the door. When I got up Zola was there in the dark ... he was trying to whisper something. I think he was saying I must hide, so I crawled under the table. The headman came in and looked around and found me hiding under the table ... and he dragged me out ... I was just wearing my pants. My shirt was lying on the other side. I just managed to grab it as they were pushing me out ... I finished dressing in the van. They drove straight to the administration office. (p. 23) The consequence of that offence was his immediate endorsement back to King Williams Town, for the purpose of further repatriation to his home district. However, the grim portrait of Apartheid in South Africa is painted right from the opening of the play, with Styles’ narration of Mr. Ford’s visit and the horrifying experiences of the blacks in the hypocritical hands of their white bosses. Styles explained that it was, A Thursday morning. I walked into the plant ... Everything was quiet! Those big bloody machines that used to make so much noise made my head go around ...? Silent! Went to the notice-board and read: Mr. Ford’s visit today! ... General Forman Mr. ‘Baas’ Bradley ... called us all together ... ‘Listen, boys, don’t go to work on the line. There is going to be General Cleansing first.’ (p. 4)
ϰϲ
All work was surprisingly suspended for the purpose of yet another surprise of a tasking sanitation exercise that perhaps, never took place in all his six years of service in the factory only to impress the august visitor. As if that was not enough, he was further instructed to, ‘Tell all the boys that they must now go to the bathroom and wash themselves clean.’ (p. 6) Styles informed us still: When we finished washing they gave us towels ... Three hundred of us, man! We were so clean we felt shy! ... From there to the general store ... new overall comes, wrapped in plastic. Brand new, man! ... Then next door to the tool room ... brand new tool bag, set of spanners, shifting spanner, torque wrench – all of them brand new – and because I worked in the dangerous test section I was also given a new asbestos apron and fire-proof gloves to replace the one I had lost about a year ago ... I walked back heavy to my spot. Armstrong on the moon! (p. 6) He was further instructed to tell the ‘boys’ to look happy as soon as Mr. Ford arrives, and to further slow the pace of work in order to allow them to sing and smile in the process; and he delivered it more contemptuously: Gentlemen he says when the door opens and his grandmother walks in you must see to it that you are wearing a mask of smiles. Hide your true feelings, brothers. You must sing. The joyous songs of the days of old before we had fools like this one next to me to worry about. (p. 7)
ϰϳ
Here, we are presented with the pain and torture which the Blackman had to go through in order to survive. The blackman’s horrifying experiences and the hypocrisy of the whites are, therefore, brought to an ironical climax in the vehemence with which the black workers were ordered back to their duty posts by their white bosses, immediately the visitor departed, to make up for production loss of their sham display. Styles clarified that: It ended up with us working harder that bloody day than ever before. (p. 9) More ironical, however, in the economic exploitation in Apartheid was the fact that the search for the employment opportunity for the Blackman could only fetch him but menial and dangerous jobs which, besides being his exclusive reserve, attracted only meagre wages in which he had little or no option if he really had to exist. The blackman’s economic dilemma was therefore further captured in Sizwe’s apprehension and frustration when Buntu recommended the mines job to him. He responded in apparent dismay: I don’t want to work in the mines. There is no money there. And it is dangerous, under the ground. Many black men get killed when the rocks fall. You can die there. (p. 26) The 48 years old man’s experience does also speak volume of the oppression and economic exploitation of the black in South Africa. He could only get promoted in his working place strictly on the basis of the presentation of an ‘education’ certificate, despite his old age and long years of service. Yet, the system was such that perhaps had completely deprived him of the opportunity of going to school as a child or in his youth, either because he did not have the opportunity or his parents were not disposed. What else could have explained such a senseless and inconsiderate condition and calculated attempt to deprive the old man of his right if not for sheer oppression and mindless exploitation? ϰϴ
Dehumanisation The African under apartheid is daily robbed of his freedom to be human, to do what he wishes, of his power for self-realisation, etc. Therefore, he rejects the system in its totality. For at bottom, man very much resents the invasion of own personality, the distortion of his own will and the manipulation of his world by another. Hence he often rebels against unjust societal structures, unjust governments, oppressive laws, etc. and fights for freedom of self determination with every ounce of his blood. Such is the fate and task of the African under apartheid. (Okolo, 1988, p. 299). The foregoing predicates a further dimension of sociological perspective in considering the play, that is, the angle of dehumanisation. The socio-political and economic structure in Apartheid South Africa, as already stated, was such that placed the white minority as the only superior and legal ruling group. Apart from disfranchising the blacks and grossly marginalising them in many vital areas like education and employment, it was such that grossly also eroded every shred of dignity of the blacks. This lack of human dignity experienced by the blacks asserts Mandela “is the direct result of the policy of White supremacy”, which only “implies Black inferiority” (p. 187). The best recognition and identity such structure had given the blackman, therefore, was only as a number – the native identification number. That was why he must always carry the record card which bore his identification number everywhere he went, failure of which he had always found himself in serious trouble. His whole life and activities was therefore, centred on this book. Its loss became the complete loss of his identity. The individual black thus became far less important than the book, which portrays the level of dehumanisation to which the black was subjected.
ϰϵ
The blackman, therefore, was not considered as a human being, rather as a number and a means of cheap labour. That was why the menial and most dangerous jobs were his exclusive reserve, despite the meagre remunerations attached. Mr. Ford’s factory and the mines examples were apt representations of this reality in Sizwe Bansi is Dead. The dignity of the Blackman was also further cut out for ridicule where grown men were referred to as boys even by a little white boy, to the extent that he existed only as mere ghost of himself. Buntu had captured the blackman’s dehumanisation experience in the following succession of queries to Sizwe: When the white man looked at you at the Labour Bureau, what did he see? A man with dignity or a bloody passbook with an N.I. number? Isn’t that a ghost? When the white man sees you walk down the street and calls out, ‘Hey, John! Come here’ ... to you, Sizwe Bansi ... isn’t that a ghost? Or when his little child calls you ‘Boy’ ... you, a man, circumcised with a wife and four children ... isn’t that a ghost? (p. 38) It was perhaps, the pressure of all the dehumanising experiences and the resultant frustration that had forced Sizwe to strip bare to the full glare of the audience – apparently baffled with the whiteman’s inability to recognise his manhood, to prove it himself. Our sympathy is rather provoked by his apparent frustration: What’s happening in this world, good people? Who cares for who in this world? Who wants who? Who wants me, friend? What’s wrong with me? I’m a man. I’ve got eyes to see. I’ve got ears to listen when people talk. I’ve got a head to think good things. What’s wrong with me? ... I’ve got legs ... I’m strong! I’m a man. Look! I’ve got a wife. I’ve got four children ... What has he got that I haven’t ...? (p. 35) ϱϬ
Similarly funny, this strange action by Sizwe is but a poignant portrayal of the abused psyche of the abused black South African whom he represented, and who often was perhaps assailed by an intense suspicion of himself as being incomplete and lacking some vital attributes of human species. Quta Jacob, much like Sizwe, also symbolized the oppressed and the dehumanised black under the Apartheid System. He had expended all his youth and energy in the service of the white man. Incidentally kicked out of his job by an employer’s son who never liked him, when the old man was no more, Quta Jacob was forced to take to the road with his family. Encumbered by old age, with limited employment opportunity for him, and his load on his back, his numerous responsibilities never abated either. So did he wander with his burden to his death, homeless, penniless, and completely forgotten by all who had exploited him. Ironically, however, Quta Jacob’s death only symbolized the blackman’s ‘real’ arrival and transition to a peaceful home, even though exploited, homeless, and rejected ‘the other side’ – his total freedom and release from the meaningless and purposeless struggle of life, in an obnoxious system where man’s inhumanity to man thrived. Buntu had further translated the situation thus: “The only time we’ll find peace is when they dig a hole for us and press our face into the earth” (p, 28). What this then means is that the blackman’s perfect peace in South Africa could only be ensured when he became dead and buried. Insecurity One of the direct consequences of the exploitation of Apartheid System in South Africa was the sheer impoverishment of the blacks. The Blackman was plunged into a complete state of lack, materially and spiritually, besides political. Practically, the black in South Africa owned nothing, even himself, since his life had been turned into that of servitude. He could not even afford to cloth himself by buying from the shops – a luxury, which was far beyond him, but forced to go ϱϭ
to the sales house – which rather conjures up a sense of a place where rejected items were always stored and consequently sold at cheap rates. Worthy of note here is Sizwe Bansi’s experience, among other vivid images of poverty and deprivation as painted in the play. Invariably, nothing could make a man feel as insecure as not being able to meet, even his basic needs. Worse still, however, in such atmosphere of poverty and deprivation, the black townships were also characterised by much violence and killings by blacks who attack each other, perhaps, in desperation and hunger, as moral standards depreciated to the lowest ebb, that no single day ever passed by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. Buntu tried to emphasize this in his attempt to give an explanation to the cause of the death of the corpse which they later discovered was Robert Zwelinzima, when he inferred that: Tsotsies (Black hooligans) must have got him. (p. 32) In all, Sizwe Bansi is Dead is a work of art that is in perfect consonance with the realities of its society, both in setting and characterization. What we are able to see here is a society that is typically identifiable, and real human beings with typical traits of human nature: ambitious, domineering, exploitative, having feelings, problems of life, etc., with normal (prose) language of everyday life, explored through convincing realistic techniques. The language of the play which is realistic and identifiable to the people in its raw, vulgar, and colloquial dimensions, coloured by clichés and slang of the masses of the people aptly summarizes the social and economic reality of the setting – South Africa. However, the rawness and vulgarity of language does not shock the speaker nor the audience who otherwise would have been outraged, because the same environment produces both the speaker and the audience.
ϱϮ
Noteworthy here is the scene in which Styles translated Mr. Bradley’s speech to his mates, “Big-shot cunt from America” (p. 6), “this old fool says there is hell of a big day in our lives” (p. 7), noteworthy also is his foul statement on Henry ford as “Big bastard”, or the workers’ curiousity to know whether Ford “is a bigger fool than Bradley” (p. 7), etc. There are also several cases of the use of “shit”, “bloody”, etc., in the play. The play, therefore, is endowed with parody and expresses the anguished and the abused psychology of the people. In general, the play mirrors through its language, the extent of exploitation and injustice in South Africa. In the light of the foregoing, Styles’ courage in taking a bold step to extricate himself from the shackles and predicament of the obnoxious system in which he found himself deserves commendation, as such feat is never achieved without deeper insight and sheer determination. He promptly informed us that after Mr. Ford’s visit experience, that he took a good look at himself and his long years of working in the factory, and decided to do something much better with his life than continue working there; and this marked the birth of the idea of the establishment of the photographic studio. Therefore, the obstacles he struggled with and finally surmounted to be where we saw him may after all be symbolic in foreshadowing the stiff struggle for survival of the Blackman which obviously ran through the play. However, what becomes even more symbolic here is the meaning which Styles’ photographic studio had given to the lives of the blacks as represented in the play. It had turned the world of the black into a fulfilment, which constantly eluded him, in contrast to that obtainable outside it. Styles’ camera (lens) therefore, became but a real symbol of the fulfilment of the blackman’s dreams and fantasies. However, it is instructive to consider this rather epigrammatic and apocalyptic excerpt (with the reality of democracy in South Africa today) in the production ϱϯ
note of Sizwe Bansi is Dead in a 1982 production in University of Nigeria for the 21st Anniversary and 17th Convocation Ceremony of the University, as directed by Jas Amankulor: The Sizwe Bansis of South Africa may be “dead” today but their resurrection and liberty is just a matter of time. They are “ghosts” hopeful of repossessing their real bodies and re-establishing their unique identity in a free democratic state with equal opportunity for all. (Amankulor, 1982)
Further Dramatic Aesthetics Explored in the Play The analysis of other dramatic elements in the play is necessary in order to appreciate their effectiveness in contributing to the overall development of the play and in shaping the rhythms of social realities as portrayed of Apartheid South Africa. These elements are considered in relation to characterization and techniques employed. Characterization Three chief characters who are active spokesmen of the creators of the play are: Styles, Buntu, and Sizwe. They are the principal human vehicles of action in the play. Among other things, it is instructive to portray how they have developed in their roles, as well as driven the course of the play. Styles Styles, portrayed as a determined and undaunting character who displayed an understanding sense of tenacity and determination to survive, was a business genius and everyman’s salesman who dared everything and went into business, and was able to extract a smile from the sorrow infested heart of his customers. ϱϰ
He informed Man: Your wife must not “get a card with her husband looking like he’s got all the worries in the world on his back? ... You must smile!” (p. 19). As a result of his business success, he became comfortable and happy, and could afford the luxury of smiles and laughter. He was the character used to set the play in motion from his photographic studio, from where he took us through flashback, in re-enacting the events that transpired during Mr. Ford’s visit to his factory where he worked; and first introduced us to the theme of racial discrimination in the play. From this flashback, he revealed to us the frustration from his experience which was rather symbolic of the South African blacks in general, that forced him to take a good look at his life, and then took the decision that placed him where we saw him when the play began, not without its accompanying obstacles. Through Styles, the theme of the Struggle of black man’s survival in South Africa was quite foreshadowed from this onset. It is significant also to note Styles’ instrumentality in propelling the development of the play with his apparent curiousity to get information from the ‘sociopsychologically reconstructed’ Sizwe who had come to take a photograph in his studio, which he hoped to send to his wife, and with exciting suggestions provoked him to reveal his horrible past experience right before the audience. In that traumatic experience, therefore, did most of the actions of the play take place, rather in a series of narration within the flashback, dramatized as playwithin-the-play. Buntu Buntu was a man of practical ability who showed some sense of the world he lived in. It was such apparent understanding that he had exhibited, therefore, in relating to Sizwe, who rather proved a stark novice of the realities of his world. ϱϱ
He recognized the world as unfriendly and unhelpful, and decided to help himself out by inviting Sizwe to a drinking spree. He had a sympathetic inclination to others’ problems and that was why he accepted to accommodate Sizwe unconditionally in the first place. Because of his apparent understanding and recognition of his world, he was able to take great pain to analyze the ugly situation of Apartheid to Sizwe. It is this apparent understanding and recognition, as well as accommodating relationship to Sizwe, with particular reference to his ‘socio-psychological reconstruction’, that his instrumentality in propelling the development of the play was reinforced. A striking trait to his character, therefore, was his stance as a man of compromise. For him, life must go on; and so must the play advance. Sizwe Bansi Sizwe, doubled as Man and Robert, apparently represented the black South African under Apartheid and displayed almost all the characteristics of the exploited species of mankind. He was an unskilled worker, unschooled and unemployed. Awkward in speech, he exhibited the uncertainties and lack of confidence of the illiterate. Totally conservative and traditional, he could not understand Buntu’s strange decision to abandon a black brother even if he were dead without rendering any help. He was thus portrayed as a neophyte in an environment where impersonality and individualism reigned. The extent of dehumanization in South Africa was quite illustrated in Sizwe’s character. He could not understand why he, a man, full-blooded, energetic and ready to work, should be made indolent, subservient and economically frustrated; and thus had to demonstrate his manliness by stripping bare to the gaze of the audience. Sizwe’s strange action here only portrayed the abused psyche of the abused black South African whom he represented, and who sometimes, as
ϱϲ
already stated, suspected himself as being incompetent and lacking some vital attributes of the human species. On the whole, Sizwe appeared to lack a will of his own, and despite his searching insightful question on the social reality which he directed to Buntu, he showed himself incapable of making a firm decision to survive. Thus he succumbed to Buntu’s ‘bullying’ and accepted his survival plan. Through Sizwe, the height of the traumatic experiences of Blacks in South Africa and the effect of those experiences on the people were solemnly portrayed. He encapsulated, therefore, the
segregated,
exploited,
impoverished,
oppressed,
and
indeed,
the
dehumanized and frustrated black South African under Apartheid. There is no gainsaying from the foregoing, therefore, that Sizwe Bansi is Dead abounds with realistic representation of characters; obviously true to type, and complementary in reinforcing both the salient and subtle themes of the play. Techniques • Flashback The entire actions of the play exist on a framework of flashbacks. All events are not in the present but have taken place in the past, and revealed through a series of flashbacks. • Monologue and Multiple Role Playing The play opens in a monologue, through which Styles dramatizes Ford’s visit to the factory, playing multiple roles as worker, foreman, supervisor, manager, and visitor. In the play also, Buntu acted as narrator, cashier, and workers receiving their pay-packets. He also doubled as sales-clerk, priest and police. Sizwe on the other hand, doubled as worshiper, the accosted by the police, Man and Robert. ϱϳ
• Spectacle Spectacle is obvious in the scene where Sizwe Bansi tore off his clothes to stand naked before the audience; an action which aptly explains the psychology of the oppressed and the injustice in Apartheid South Africa. Sizwe’s action is quite spectacular as it reveals not only Sizwe’s mental disposition, but also helped in directing the audience’s attention significantly to his society as characterized by dehumanization. • Symbolism Styles’ photographic studio, with regards to his experience prior to its establishment, is no doubt symbolic of Apartheid South African nation, with the cockroaches symbolizing the white oppressors and Styles representing the blacks. Styles’ camera equally symbolizes the utopian world of the black man. The black man realizes his ‘dream’ through its lens. The ‘pass book’ is also symbolic of white man’s oppression. • Technical Economy Fugard’s economy in the use of set and props in the play is noteworthy. He may perhaps, have been influenced by the Polish experimental theatre director, teacher, and theorist, Jerzy Grotowski’s ‘poor theatre’, which emphasized the essence of performance without elaborate staging and spectacle, besides the socio-economic realities of his environment, to achieve his sociological needs. On the whole, the various dramatic elements and techniques which Fugard and his collaborators have employed in the development of the play have combined to complement each other to enhance both its portrayal and clarity, as well as reinforce the theme/s of the play. ϱϴ
Conclusion: Art, the Artist and his Society There is no gainsaying the fact that art is now more consciously geared towards advancing human consciousness and the improvement of society. It is obviously a product of social life, and most useful to the society too. Therefore, no work of art exists in a vacuum without that identification with, as well as reflection of the nature of such social relations in which it is created. Consequently, drama as the most social of all art forms, serves as a true reflection of the human society in holding a mirror to nature. The question therefore is what is the inherent nature or reality of the social relations under which the human societies we have examined in this study existed? Obviously, they were such as fraught with gross inequalities and inequities: the oppressor against the oppressed, the exploiter against the exploited, the rich against the poor, and the strong against the weak, the privileged against the less-privileged, etc. The dramatist, therefore, serves as a vehicle through whose work these realities are explored. Thus his instrumental, perhaps, indispensable role in propelling and projecting these realities, cannot be neglected. Vasquez (1987, pp. 112 – 3) reinforces the relevance of the tripartite relationship integrating art, the artist and his society by advancing three reasons to affirm his conviction: First, “because the artists, however unique his primary experience might be, is a social being”, and of necessity must reflect his social nature in that experience; secondly: Because his work, however deeply marked by his primary experience and how unique … its objectification or form might be, is always a bridge; a connecting link between the artist and other members of the society.
ϱϵ
Thus with his creation – his art, the artist rather finds himself in a communicative experience with his entire society; since true art, as he emphasizes, reveals essential aspects of human existence in a way that could be shared. Thirdly: Because a work of art affects other people – it contributes to the reaffirmation or devaluation of their ideas, goals, or values – and is a social force which, with its emotional or ideological weight, shakes or moves people. The above could be explained in the fact that the dramatist, with his works, evokes reactions and responses from his audience and readers alike, no matter the particular experience and influence from which he creates. Invariably, therefore, the social relevance of art cannot be negated. Hence drama’s role as the most social of art forms in reinforcing this relevance is indeed, tremendous. The realities of the society are not only reflected through drama, but the society is also conscientized through it as it promotes meaningful social development. The dramatist, therefore, is but a vital agency in the above realisation, as he integrates the forces between the two extremes of art and society, to actually underscore the true nature of their relationship. In the belief and understanding that the utility of the work of art is but an important dimension in the full appreciation of the true nature of the relationship between art and society, let us at this juncture, direct our focus on the utilitarian conception of art in order to throw more light and further reinforce the true nature of this relationship. A lot of arguments have actually been raised in the past against the utilitarian function of art. Reactionists to this utilitarian notion have vehemently negated any social relevance of the work of art. For them, it is “art for art sake”. Art is but an end in itself and never a means to an end. Contemporary social realities, however, have turned such conservative views absolutely anachronistic. They no longer hold sway; as art is now more consciously geared ϲϬ
towards advancing human consciousness and the improvement of society. Art, therefore, is most useful to the society. They are most necessarily connected; since no art, as Asigbo and Utoh-Ezeajugh (2008, p. 121) note, is unaffected by society just as there is no society that has not been influenced by its art. Ngugi Wa Thiong’o and Femi Osofisan with particular reference to the first part of this study fully appreciate the implication of the foregoing. That is why, to reiterate the fact, their dramas underscore the utility of art as a viable agency for conscientization and social mobilization. Through their dramas, they have quite evinced their strong belief in the power of art to enlighten and spur the masses to action in the battle to better their lot. This realization, obviously, would not have been made possible without a true sense of commitment on the part of these dramatists, with their “total personality” (Wa Thiong’o, 1982, p. 47), to the cause of positive social change in the society – a cause which they have consistently used their works to advance. From a sociological critical lens in part two, Sizwe Bansi is Dead equally fits into our focus of interpretation and analysis of a good sociological drama. The creators of the play obviously had succeeded in mirroring the realities of the ills of the Apartheid South African society, as they reinforced, therefore, the urgency with which change was really needed in that society. Through realistic character and characterization, we are able to feel the heavy pulse of oppression and dehumanization with the people. Through the aesthetics of perfectly woven techniques, the main and sub-themes of the play have been reinforced. Generally, the play has captured vividly, therefore, the socio-political and economic realities of Apartheid South Africa, explored through good dramaturgy by representing grim images and themes as obtained in this society. Little wonder why Ogbe (1995) aptly asserts that “art should be committed to the aspirations of the people who use it” (p. 57); and in consonance with Bertolt ϲϭ
Brecht’s philosophy of using it to arouse critical interest for reasoning, one cannot overemphasize the contribution of Athol Fugard’s work, therefore, in redirecting the consciousness of the black South Africans towards their sufferings and the urgency with which to take their fate in their own hands.
ϲϮ
Bibliography Adrignola, B. (n/d). “Introduction to Sociology/Sociological Theory”. Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociological_Theory. [31st October, 2011] Asigbo, A. & Utoh-Ezeajugh, T. (2008). “Revolutionary Trends in Recent Nigerian Playwriting: Bakare, Ojo Rasaki’s Rogbodiyan and Alex Asigbo’s War of the tin Gods as Paradigms”. In D. Oni and A. Yerima (eds.) Trends in the Theory and Practice of Theatre in Nigeria. Lagos: Society of Nigerian Theatre Artists, pp. 119 – 131. Awodiya, M. P. (ed.) (2002). Femi Osofisan: Interpretive Essays II. Lagos: Centre for Black African Arts and Civilization. Awodiya, M. P. (ed.) (2006). Femi Osofisan: Interpretive Essays I. Lagos: Centre for Black African Arts and Civilization. Ayakoroma, B. F. (2008). “Femi Osofisan’s Theatre of Social resolution: The Example of Once Upon Four Robbers”. In Proceedings of Professor Femi Osofisan International Conference on Performance, held at University of Ibadan, June 17th – 21st, pp. 355-367. Bamidele, L. O. (2000). Literature and Sociology. Ibadan: Stirling-Horden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd. Craig J. C. (2002). Classical sociological theory (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=6mq-H3EcUx8C& pg=PA5). Wiley-Blackwell. Davis, R. H. (2007). Apartheid. Microsoft Student [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. Ezenwanebe, O. C. “2008”. “The Dramatisation of Angst and the Angst of Dramatising Africa”. In D. Oni and A. Yerima, eds. Trends in the Theory and ϲϯ
Practice of Theatre in Nigeria. Lagos: Society of Nigerian Theatre Artists, pp. 97 – 117. Fatoba, F. (2006). “The State as Terrorist: Once Upon Four Robbers”. In M. P. Awodiya (ed.) Femi Osofisan: Interpretive Essays 1. Lagos: Centre for Black African Arts and Civilization, pp. 81-87. Fugard, A., John K. & Winston N. (1973). Statements: Three Plays. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford. Hagher, I. H. (1990). “Introduction: Theatre and the Community through the Ages”. In I. H. Hagher (ed.)) The Practice of Community Theatre in Nigeria. Lagos: Society of Nigerian Theatre Artists [SONTA], pp. 2-13. Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. & Head, R. (2004). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (Sixth Edition). London, U.K.: Harpercollins Publishers Limited. Ismaila, R. A. (2005). “George Bernard Shaw and Ahmed Yerima: A Comparative Study of Dramaturgy”. (Unpublished) M. A. Thesis, University of Lagos. Jones, E. D. (ed.) (1976). African Literature Today, Number 8: Drama in Africa. London: Heinemann. Lukin, Y. A. (1980). “Ideology and Art”. In A. Roxboug (ed.) Marxist – Lennist Aesthetics and the Arts. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 103-115. Mandela, N. (1990). No Easy Walk to Freedom. England: Heinemann. Mitchel, J. (1976). “Athol Fugard in London”. In E. D. Jones (ed.) African Literature Today. No 8: Drama in Africa. U.S.A.: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., pp. 130 - 137. Nasidi, Y. (2002). Beyond the Limits of Experience: Theory, Criticism and Power in African Literature. Ibadan: Caltop Publications (Nigeria) Limited. ϲϰ
Newman, J. L., Mehretu, A., Shillington, K., & Stock, R. (2008). Africa. In Microsoft Student. DVD. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. Nwabueze, E. (1988). “Drama and Social Criticism: The African Experience”. In I. T. K. Egonu, (ed.) Readings in African Humanities: African perspectives in World Cultures. Owerri: Vivians and Vivians Publishers, pp. 187 – 198. Nwankwo, C. (1992). The Works of Ngugi Wa Thiong’o: Towards the Kingdom of Woman and Man. Longman Nig. Plc. Obafemi, O. (2008). Politics and Aesthetics: Essays in Drama, Theatre and Performance. Ilorin: Haytee Press and Publishing Co. Ltd. Obafemi, O. & Yerima, A. (2004). Ideology and Stage-Craft in the Nigerian Theatre. Lagos: Booksplus Nigeria Limited. Ogbe, N. G. (1995). Fundamentals of Literature: A Comprehensive Approach to Literary Appreciation. Enugu: John Best Publishers. Okolo, C. B., (1988). “Apartheid and African Experience”. In I. T. K. Egonu, ed. Readings in African Humanities: African perspectives in World Cultures. Owerri: Vivians and Vivians Publishers, pp. 277 – 304. Okoronkwo, S. (2008). “Femi Osofisan: A Marxist Perspective – The Rehearsal of Revolution and Revolutionary Aestheticism”. In Proceedings of Professor Femi Osofisan International Conference on Performance, held at University of Ibadan, 17th – 21st June, pp. 314 – 320. Osofisan, F. (2006). Once Upon Four Robbers. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nig.) Plc. Osofisan, F. (2001). Some Notes and Explanations on Morountodun. Ibadan: Opon Ifa Publishers.
ϲϱ
Osofisan, F. (1982). Morountodun and other Plays. Ikeja: Longman Nigeria Limited. Osofisan, F. (1980). Interview with Ossie Enekwe. The Greenfield Review. New York: Greenfield Centre. Osofisa, F. (1997). The Chattering and the Song. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. Plekhanov, G. (1974). “Art and Social Life”. In M. Solomon (ed.) Marxism and Arts. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 128-140. Pozo, M. A. (2004). An Interview with Ngugi Wa Thiong'o. Available at: [Accessed 24 April 2008]. Shaw, H. (1972). Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York, U.S.A.: Macgraw-Hill Inc. Sisulu, W. (1990). Forward to the 1990 Edition. In N. Mandela, No Easy Walk to Freedom. England: Heinemann. Sofola, Z. (1994). The Artist and the Tragedy of a Nation. Ibadan: Caltop Publications (Nigerian) Limited. Udenta, U. O. (1993). Revolutionary Aesthetics and the African Literary Process. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd. Vasquez, A. S. (1987). Art and Society. London: Pluto Press. Wa Thiong’o, N. (2002). The Black Hermit. Heinemann Educational Books (Nig.) Plc. Wa Thiong’o, N. and Githae, M. M. (1988). The Trial of Dedan Kimathi. Heinemann Educational Books (Nig.) Plc. ϲϲ
Wa Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Wa Thiong’o, N. and Wa Mirii, N. 1982. I Will Marry When I Want. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria) Ltd. Wa Thiong’o, N. 1982. Homecoming. London: Heinemann. Wa Thiong’o N. (1981). Writers in Politics. London: Heinemann. Wa Thiong’o, N. 1972. This Time Tomorrow. In C. Pieterse, ed. Short African Plays. London: Heinemann. Wyk, G. (1991). Preface. In R. Rosen and P. McSharry, eds. Apartheid: Calibrations of Color. New York: The Rosen publishers Group, Inc. Yerima, A. (2010). “Theatre and Change: Credible Elections for Good Governance”. Accessed from http://jerryadesewo.blogspot.com/2010/11/theatreand-change-credible-elections.html.[27th November, 2011]
ϲϳ
