Ngugi and Language

by Melissa 2 Comments

The dual character of language as a carrier of culture and as a tool of communication allow it to be deployed for the benefit of communality and self-determination. Self-determination and communality serve as crucial points of resistance. But when located within an imperialist logic, language serves as a function of power and a as means by which the parameters of subjectivity are delineated for the colonized subject. The three integral aspects of communication outlined by Thiong’o are: its importance as a mode of creating and solidifying interrelationality through the division of labor, its usage through verbal signposts, and its function through the written word. Communication essentially creates patterns of life and produces naturalized truths about subjectivities. Colonized subjectivities are interpolated by the truths and logics of imperialism. That is, the images and conceptions of individual and collective identity are reconfigured via imperial tools that destroy “a people’s culture, their art, dances, religions, history, geography, education, orature and literature” (16) while “[elevating] the language of the coloniser” (16). Thiong’o is interested in the “dissociation, divorce, [and] alienation” (17) this process ushers in. Written language became the most effective area of language domination because it created a disconnect between native student’s spoken world and their written world, creating colonial alienation.

Comments ( 2 )

  1. Tiana Reid
    Melissa, I'd like to know a little bit more about your perspective on the engagement with the readings for this week. I know that rereading Ngugi last week really made me pause around some of his use of language. As in, how might we take for granted some of the words we use like "native" or "resistance?" What exactly do we mean by them? What are some of the productive encounters Ngugi draws from language? (I'm thinking of the "Language of African Theatre" section.) And how could Shange's work fit into your summary? Or your own rewriting of a passage?
  2. Nadia Mbonde
    Melissa, thinking about your post and Tiana, thinking about your questions, this is what came to mind for me: Engaging with the words “native” and “resistance,” I see two types of “natives” at play. There are the peasantry, which Ngugi talks about in “Language of African Theatre,” and then there are the colonized intellectuals mentioned by Fanon in “On National Culture.” And I think resistance takes up different forms for the two groups. As the very embodiment of Kenyan culture, history and knowledge, the peasants are key to the liberation movement because their intimate connection their people’s language and therefore, their way of thinking and understanding the world. This is why Ngugi uses peasants as actors in his political play written in Gikuyu "Ngaachika Ndeena" (I Will Marry When I Want). On the other hand, Fanon shows that colonized intellectuals struggle in their resistance efforts because of “cultural alienation.” Colonialism has imposed its language on them and thus “the colonized intellectual will endeavor to make European culture his own” (156) while still fighting for liberation. As Ngugi shows in his rejection of all things Western (including English) and as Shange does in the way in which she deconstructs English to suit her own purposes, they both show how we can begin to redress the effects of colonialism and engage in forms of resistance that allow us to embody culture as a means of resistance in ways that the Bantu peasants did/do in Kenya.

Leave a reply