Awritingreader’s Weblog

Today in class, while discussing Ngugi and his proposal to abolish the English department, I brought up the question as to whether or not Ngugi’s flip-flopper attitude regarding politics and social stances affects the validity of his arguments. In particular, I’m thinking about his decision to exclusively write in Gikuyu because this brought him closer to his people and preserved his culture far better than the colonizer’s English could do. Yet, despite his commitment (fueled by an unjust stint in prison) to only write works in Gikuyu, Ngugi went on to translate one of his most famous works Devil on the Cross, into English, only a few short years later. I have the advantage of being in Postcolonial Literature right now, and so I further know that despite his fervor for Kenya and his call to resistance, Ngugi lives comfortably in the U.S Capitalist society.

Powers commented on these concerns by saying that one of the benefits of literary criticism is that men like Barthes and Foucault allow us to grant the author permission to experience different phases in their life, i.e. to call for the abolition of the English Department, to decide only to write in Gikuyu, and then later to change his mind and write in English. But I couldn’t help thinking during class today that this appreciation of the author’s flexibility is only possible because you/we read it through the western lens of Barthes, Foucault, and others. Our own position in a society that encourages the study of such theories and furthermore grants them legitimacy affects the way we allow grace for Ngugi to change his position.

In actuality though, this very question has caused significant problems for Kenyans who looked to Ngugi as a hero for the nation. Not only did he appear to abandon some of his convictions, but his very  zeitgeist seems to have changed. For example, upon moving to the U.S, he divorced his first wife (very un-kenyan) and remarried. His first return to Kenya was to sponsor a political candidate, something he hadn’t done in the past, and a move that many Kenyans felt was out of line for his philosophies and beliefs that had hitherto transcended momentary politics. Among other things, these changes have been problematic for Ngugi’s Kenyan audience who no longer seem to know whether he should still stand as their iconic symbol, or if he has let down his people. You see, it isn’t as simple as a matter of phases in his life, and we only see it that way, because we have been taught to, and we don’t have to deal with  the ramifications of his actions.