Thursday, 8 November 2012

Madness and Belonging

I've read quite a number of books in recent months.  I'm not going to share Read Reflections on each one of 'em - I may only mention them - and instead rather really opine on the ones I do review.

First up, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962).  The book's a thick read: 393 pages.  I took some time to finish it as I read it over the course of a busy schedule.  But I did finish it, and that's what counts because we tend to abandon books quite easily, especially when there's little time to devour said book plus said book makes for a tad boring read.  
Albeit, I do not abandon reads.  Well, I rarely do.  It might take me a while to start up a new read but once I've started I almost always see it through.  This could also attest to my reading for depth that goes beyond a story's plot.  I do close readings, building context as I go; I savour the brilliance of the written word, or even just the writer's unique method of story-telling - as a writer, I use every text I read as a basis for learning - every book has a quaint detail to it, and that is what keeps me reading to the very last line.  The quaintness could be a likeable detail or a not so likeable detail, depending on your reasons for reading.  As I've already mentioned, mine are many.  I'm a student of the arts, this may or may not be of influence.

I have to admit, though, Kesey's writing style is not my favoured style, nor is the narrative style he adopted.  It tends to be dreary and builds very slowly and even its climax is not much of a, er, climax.  With that said, the text as a critical reading on society is rich in insight and allows the reader to question a lot of what we have accepted as 1) normalcy and 2) insanity.  Who is the big shot that determines characteristics for either?  Who or what determines what stays and what goes?

At an even closer read you find that the text deals with many metaphors.  The setting is a mental hospital, for the most part.  The narrator, protagonist and all the other characters are constituents of this situation.  Some would read the text as a metaphor for norms, acceptance, rejection; for psychological ills; (contemporary) American society and on a greater platform for the human experience in society in general.  Kesey does a great job at not being explicit about this and at keeping the narratives based inside this asylum, where I might mention a matriarch heads.  Yup, this idea created quite the contestation in the literary/social critic parts of the world, from what I've studied.  Given that the book is published in the very early 60's before the era of pronounced feminism, and when women were largely the subordinate subjects of society; does make one wonder why Kesey set such an antagonist structure for his novel.  But again, if you ask enough questions measured against the contents of what Kesey implies within the narrative you'd come up with enough reasonable ideas as to why.  

I'm going off on a tangent...

The thing is, the text is rich.  If you love critically dissecting literature this one is a dream.  Read it along with Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilisation (1961) and with literature on the panoptical world.  On the ward of the hospital is a glass station where Nurse Ratched (the matriarch) stations to observe the patients - this is alluded to the panoticon in the sense of its purpose (designed for prisoners/inmates to be constantly conscious of being observed) - limiting personal freedom and constraining behaviour.
Also, the narrator suffers a history of colonial and imperial-induced violence to his identity, culture and familial community.  Read into this too, or at least pay mind to it in observing his character and narration.  The protagonist acts an an evasive character and saviour to the patients.  There are biblical and Christian connotations written to him too.  I read him as representing the instrument to anti-establishment.  He is eventually-- nah, I won't give it away, but I found his fate rather sad, given the role he had taken upon himself in this institution of social organisation, hierarchical dominance, emasculation, punishment and surveillance; of dementia and frontal lobotomies.  The other characters all represent some type of repressed identity, "otherness" - it's quite a triumphant read when you read it for a full and rich comprehension.

I'd go out on a limb and say the novel was written from an entirely masculinist perspective, rejecting all political correctness - and as feminist and womanist as my own perspective tends to be, I believe in being open to reading or hearing other narratives to make for complete reasoning of your own, allowing for measured critique or praise - views are verily misogynistic; and there is an act of sexual violation that alludes to "victory" (against turning man into machines) for the group of male patients.  The scene is violent, yet I read it as representative of all other global conquests performed the world over, in history, that was termed as the "rape" of continents or states by way of patriarchal language.

Well, I had written a much longer post than intended.  Hence I will only add one other Read Reflection, that of J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (1951).  Holden Caulfield, what a grim character.  He really is.  Most everything is of the phony nature to him.  His narration is repetitive, exaggerated, inconsistent, and grim.  But there are reasons to all of this.  Andrew Blackman, author of On the Holloway Road, wrote a review to the book better than anything I could think up to sum up Holden and Salinger.  He really did.
Please do read it HERE.

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Lessons for Africa from Africa

My concern for my Africa has grown over the last few months.  My interests span Africa's history, its current state and that of foreign involvement in the continent; all the Five W's and How reasons.  
We all know about Africa's history of relentless colonialism and imperialism and how these have affected the continent's current environment.  With a nearer gaze, we see too that Africa for the most part, has failed to derive any lessons from its past that reflect on-going and progressive expansion built on its previous cripplings.  Take industrialisation for example, it could never revolutionise because of the calculated denial to growth and development it faced under colonial rule.  However, the continent has not actualised any infrastructure to combat this, if economic growth and competitiveness is assumed to be of any concern.

All that aside, what's most visible about Africa right now is its lack of assertiveness, in leadership, governance and security.  And for this to materialise, as many experts point out, the continent needs to invest in capacity development -- this would help to actualise strategy that not only eradicates Africa's image of "needing aid" but would lead to stimulating and productive efforts in creating a collective wealth for the continent.  
Our challenges are socio-political and socio-economic, these stem from the Cold War era; and these are the very challenges that states were dealt with too post the Cold War.  Back then Africa was used as leverage for those states to pull themselves up again, is the continent going to assume this pawn-like role forever?  Africa was only ever "the plan" then - the strategic move - for the developed nation to bolster their ascendency into great-power status.

I feel that the "Third World" (I don't particularly fancy this term) is in good stead to concentrate on common development and prosperity, rising in synergy against the Western dominance that has hung heavy over them in past centuries.  Yes, globalisation is exploitative, but with a feasible framework Africa too, can derive benefits if it exceeds intelligently and strategically.  
I read about Africa's promising growth in the technology and banking sectors by new data released by the big credit rating agencies of the world.  The trade and investment avenue has the potential of scale and scope for African governments to become more pro-active risk managers, and to take a driving position. 
Loans are not the sort of change or path to growth Africa needs to employ, and it is exactly what Africa is gracefully excepting from countries like, say, China.  Rendering itself to future debt and a considerable disadvantage in the markets that have grown hyper-competitive in the face of globalisation and multilateralism.  
More than loans, Africa needs development in areas that would drive it to make use of its own resources to restore and build African economies; combat the escalating unemployment numbers; and improve conditions of living in Africa as a whole.  

What is the likelihood of this happening?  --It is possible, only if and when Africa gains the capacity to make good use of infrastructure and capital.  Which is the capitalist route of problem-solving but points as the best option for the land's current state.  The continent has an abundance of lessons it can work on solely based on its past, and that coupled with examples of other regions making good on their disenfranchised territories and environments.