WHEN THEORY MEETS PRACTICE: UNDERMINING THE PRINCIPLES OF TRADITION AND 
MODERNITY IN AFRICA
 

Monika Brodnicka

Ideology, although a seemingly metaphysical exercise, is known to have 
concrete effects on our perception of the world around us. It builds up 
a particular understanding of everyday situations, through which we 
engage in the world. Whatever ideology is followed, however, we should 
be aware of its specific limits and boundaries within which it 
functions. A re-reading of this ideology on different terms, or the 
discovery of practical inconsistencies within it, points us to those 
limitations and allow us to take a critical look. Through constant 
criticism and re-interpretation, any ideology can be adapted to help 
best deal with the current realities that we are facing. The ideology 
of tradition and modernity, for example, has been in use for as long as 
it can be remembered by contemporary society. It is particularly 
popular with recent generations of the Western world, creating the 
context for a humanist conception of progress, which affects their 
social, political, and economic realities. In the colloquial sense, 
tradition remains old-fashioned, attached to the past, and unchanging, 
while modernity claims constant renewal, movement towards the future, 
and continuous change. Although on the surface these terms seem to have 
more of a harmless, descriptive character, without this theory meeting 
practice, the tradition-modernity ideology divide is bound to create 
problems due to the lack of a critical standpoint.

Without constant criticism and re-interpretation in relation to 
practical realities, the ideology of tradition and modernity does much 
more harm than good. The effects can be seen within Western society 
itself and continue onto the relationship between the Western and the 
so-called non-Western world. The Western notion of tradition and 
modernity, treated separately and together, allows a particular 
understanding of social, political, and economic relations, which are, 
ironically, antithetic to the Western conception of progress. In fact, 
both aspects of this fairly recent ideology impede social development, 
political innovation, or even economic entrepreneurship in the name of 
its defining principles. If modernity?understood as rational, 
individualist, capitalist, and democratic1?and tradition?defined as the 
exact opposite?are pushed to their logical limits, they become 
uninterchangeable and empty of content and meaning. Modernity needs 
tradition in order to overcome its limitations in the name of progress. 
Through this process, tradition becomes the backbone of modernity. By 
this relation, the two concepts create a stagnant screen through which 
the world?s realities are interpreted and acted upon. To better 
understand the principles creating the modernity-through-tradition 
phenomenon and to unravel their restraining ideology, the repercussions 
of this system can be examined on the African continent and its 
relations with Western Europe.

Because the ideology of tradition and modernity has concrete and 
perilous consequences in reality, interpreting the world through these 
concepts should take into account their own limited scope?once they are 
investigated historically, or applied to everyday life. In the face of 
practical necessities and historical revelations, this ideology becomes 
subject to continuous alteration. For example, the notion of tradition 
and modernity in West Africa fossilizes tradition as characteristically 
African and mobilizes modernity as a function of European culture. But 
this interpretation comes with its own historical baggage, which, once 
analyzed, reveals the negative effects of Europe?s increasing intrusion 
into African realities. Aside from history, even if this ideology is 
accepted by everyone in principle, the conditions and specific 
situations on both continents shatter its artificial bond.

The ability to shatter the tight grip of the ideology, especially 
through practice, opens the possibility for the Eurocentric notions of 
tradition and modernity breeding in Africa to be treated as inventions. 
The meanings and identities created by this ideology, which are assumed 
to have always existed in Africa and continue to float around in 
discourse on Africa to this day, can be challenged by new 
interpretations and practice. In this scenario, Africa can no longer 
sustain its primitive, tribal, lawless character, so necessary for the 
existence of European modernity. Although the notions of tradition and 
modernity have a lasting effect on reality, as can be seen on the 
African continent, they are already undermined when put to the test of 
everyday life. This is why it is important to differentiate the 
ideology of tradition and modernity from tradition or modernity as they 
are experienced. Not only does the former have no sound grounding in 
accounts of African historians,2 but also practice of the latter does 
not follow ideological definitions. The interest of this paper lies in 
examining the function of the tradition-modernity ideology in Africa 
and the different ways it is challenged.

Arrival of Tradition
The installation of a Euro-specific modernity-tradition ideology in 
Africa began with the arrival of a European influence on the continent. 
This ideology helped sponsor the one-sided relation of control and 
dominance between Europe and Africa?Africa being the tradition 
counterpart of modern Europe. From the beginning of their trade 
relations, through the development of the slave trade, and later with 
expanding colonization, Europe utilized this ideological tool to 
explain its actions and promote a particular identity for Africans. It 
helped to explain European domination of Africa ?rationally,? marking 
Africans as childlike and incapable of self-development, rule, or 
commerce, and therefore in need of a fatherly hand. This ideology also 
helped Europeans to posit Africans with supposed authentic traditions 
against others.3 This process, commonly known as divide and rule, is 
responsible for creating different ethnicities and the violences that 
have emerged out of them. The assumed superiority of European modernity 
also created divisions among African intellectuals, some of whom tried 
to distance themselves from African traditions in order to make their 
society progressive.4 These and other styles of control based on this 
ideology made it easier to blind people from the ultimate goal of 
European domination of Africa.

Assuming that this ideology, which persists in Africa, is a European 
creation, its own history could be traced through Europe?s encounter 
with Africa through trade and colonization. The European explorer and 
colonizer applied the main concepts of this ideology to the African 
experience, viewing different African cultures as ?traditional,? 
compared to the ?progressive? European society. The definition of 
tradition put forward by Kwame Gyekye?beliefs and practices from the 
distant past that are accepted in their essence by the current 
generation5?was applied to Africa/Africans as a whole. Africa became 
the ?distant past? that needed to be accepted or rejected by the 
European ?generation.? The static nature of this definition was used by 
Europeans to imply the same about African culture?as entirely 
traditional. The usefulness of tradition to Europe was at least 
twofold. The concept of tradition allowed Africans to appear backward, 
childlike, and natural compared to the Europeans and therefore suitable 
for domination. This concept equally created the notion of ethnicities 
as different and threatening to each other?s traditions. Although 
unequal relationships within societies and conflict between people were 
not new to the African soil, this type of differentiation nurtured by 
the idea of tradition created a whole new dynamic of ethnic and 
religious conflicts.

This European ideology applied in Africa was equally useful in 
developing European identity and economic prosperity through the prism 
of modernity. In a sense, Africa became the physical and ideological 
battleground for the physical and ideological survival of Europe. As 
early as the budding trading relations between Europe and Africa, 
Europe was eager to establish a particular relationship of dominance?
based on this new ideology. Trade was not intended to nurture the 
developing industries in Africa but to stifle them in order to impose 
the surplus of European products and further Europe?s progress. By 
breaking down flourishing trade between different African societies?
trans-Saharan trade routes, trade form West to East, regional trade, 
etc.?Europeans were progressively successful in creating a dependency 
on their own products. This in turn made African trade useless or 
stagnant. Eventually the only export that Africa was able to thrive on 
was raw materials and slaves.6 Thus, African products themselves were 
only valuable as traditional artifacts that somehow became co-
significant with African ?culture.? In the case of the slave trade, not 
only was the selling of slaves more profitable than other production or 
trade for Africans, but also the slave her/himself became a 
crystallized identity of the ?primitive??a traditional artifact 
bartered for wine and spirits. Meanwhile, the European flourishing 
economy and modernist identity was able to maintain its oppositional 
status as progressive, liberal, individualist, etc.

The growing dependence on European products on the one hand, and 
marginalization of production in Africa, on the other, chiseled the way 
for the European ideology as well as social, political, and economic 
control to take hold on the African continent. After France and Britain 
(predominantly) made their role in Africa clear as military powers, 
they used this ideology to keep the people subdued in a way that could 
never be accomplished with just violence, brutalization, and divisive 
politics. The structures of the colonial government, for example, which 
reinforced the inferiority of ?traditional? Africans and the 
superiority of Europeans, made it easier to control and gauge the 
capacity of the population. Likewise, every established social 
institution, from the railroad to the schools reminded the locals of 
the ?greatness? of European modernity (built on the traditional backs 
of slaves). The reinforcement of this ideology through strategic 
control of the social, political, and economic structures made its 
effects much stronger than any military offensive on the African 
continent.

Resurrecting a Euro-specific Definition
The ideology that was created as a tool for European domination, 
however, did not go away with the onset of independence. Many African 
intellectuals, like Kwame Gyekye for example, try to resolve Africa?s 
problems through the same notions of tradition and modernity that were 
posited by European colonials. Thus, even outside of direct European 
control, this ideology continues to pose a real threat to the social, 
political, and economic situation in Africa. From developing political 
systems to rebuilding elementary level education, the ideology 
(consciously or not) reproduces the same dynamics that were used during 
European occupation. In Kwame Gyekye?s work, Tradition and Modernity, 
tradition and modernity follow a similar pattern, already introduced by 
Europe a few centuries before. Although he attempts to give an 
objective definition of these two concepts, he inadvertently 
participates in the tradition-through-modernity ideology. He states:

. . . a tradition is any cultural product that was created or pursued 
by past generations and that, having been accepted and preserved, in 
whole or in part, by successive generations, has been maintained to the 
present. 7 

Modernity, which is essentially the intellectual basis of life in the 
Western world but has mutatis mutandis become a common heritage of 
humankind, can only be said to be a new stage in cultural development, 
a surrogate, if you like for advanced forms of human knowledge, 
techniques, and socio-economic structures.8
These definitions do not immediately expose the opposition between 
tradition and modernity, nor do they reveal their dependency on each 
other. Gyekye is very careful to posit a moderate definition of both, 
in which tradition is accepted in modernity, either without 
reservations or with some adaptations, therefore allowing room for 
change. In this sense, tradition always has a place in the present 
culture and is not antithetic to progress. Instead, by drawing on past 
tradition (at least the one that is still pertinent to our development) 
the present generation is capable of progressing from the present 
context towards the future. Yet, at the basis of his definition and the 
arguments that he presents in preceding chapters, Gyekye still posits a 
very ideological and eurocentric relationship between the two concepts.

The eurocentric aspect of Gyekye?s definitions is exposed through his 
project to resolve major problems in Africa, particularly in politics 
and social realities. According to Gyekye, political and social 
problems in Africa stem from either clutching on to traditional 
structures or accepting modern European ones without discernment. In 
answer to these serious issues, he offers the moderate definition of 
tradition and modernity, which is supposed to underlie the moderate 
approach to rebuilding the continent. With the help of African 
political and social traditions, Gyekye hopes to create a different 
type of modernity, an African one. Not rejecting the African past, nor 
the European present, he hopes to find a middle ground from which to 
nurture Africa?s future. However, in setting up his project in this 
manner, the author creates (as others did before him) a tradition-
dependent modernity that, at the same time, needs to oppose this 
tradition. Traditional politics or social realities, such as African 
communitarianism, become crystallized models from which one borrows the 
aspects that can be accepted by modernity. In this case, both tradition 
and modernity remain static entities in which modernity allows some 
parts of tradition to be grafted on its skin. This strategy still 
projects a false sense of tradition?backwards, communal, authoritarian?
onto modernity?open to change, individual, and democratic. His strategy 
resembles more of an intellectual game, as superficial as taking the 
best of both worlds, in which a European-originated modernity is, in 
fact, the ultimate solution.

Submission to the Modernity/Tradition Binary
Assuming that Gyekye?s interpretation and approach to African 
realities is not unusual, at least in intellectual circles, the harmful 
impact of this ideology has reverberations on many levels within 
society. In fact, once the import of this particular ideology is taken 
for granted, the possibility of seeing outside of this model becomes 
very difficult. While this holds true for any society, it can be 
witnessed most vividly in colonized countries where the modernity-
tradition binary between the colonizer and the colonized is most 
acutely contrived. Once the ideology is firmly in place, everything can 
easily fall under either rubric of tradition or modernity. Even if the 
beliefs and practices of a particular society could be claimed as 
authentic and flexible, once they are placed in the context of Western-
initiated intellectual discourse of modernity-through-tradition, they 
no longer have the same function. Instead of a function, they begin to 
crystallize into some kind of identity. The same thing happens to 
modernity.

Because of this overburdening ideology, which affects the way the 
world can be understood, it is easy to believe that we are victims of 
this type of system. The complex system in which modernity and 
tradition are implicated is not immediately apparent, but weaves itself 
into the fabric of social relations in a way that does not easily 
reveal its origin. It is therefore difficult to counterattack without 
falling into its logic. In this sense, the struggle for or against 
tradition or modernity becomes only reactionary, never escaping the 
bounds of the tradition-modernity duality initiated by Europe. Even if 
there seems to be a choice to get outside of the system, the choices 
are usually subsumed under this same ideology. Therefore, whether one 
chooses to fight for African tradition or assimilate to European 
modernity, one is still implicated within the logic of tradition-
modernity. Those subjected to this ideology are placed in the position 
of victims, controlled by this new dynamic that either imprisons them 
in the clutches of tradition or sweeps them away in the torrent of 
modernity.

The submission to this ideological game can be seen through many 
cultural venues, where the tradition-modernity debate rages on?
vilifying one and glorifying the other and vice versa. Because both 
concepts are rarely seen as problematic at the same time, this debate 
continues in circles without showing any signs of release. For example, 
in the Christian-influenced movie called Submission, which takes place 
in Nigeria, modernity wins the game. The movie portrays particular 
African traditions as stagnant and evil in the face of the good African 
modernity. For the director, Christian Onu, actual submission of the 
wife begins not from the moment when she blindly obeys her ?modern? 
husband in all daily matters, but when the ?traditional? mother-in-law 
urges her daughter to rebuke him. As a result of the daughter?s 
obedience to the mother, grave problems ensue between the couple, 
apparently thanks to the mother?s conniving. In this depiction of 
Nigerian life, the husband represents the modern African man: 
progressive, open, caring, but demanding the fulfillment of a wife?s 
duties toward her husband. The mother, on the other hand, is depicted 
as the traditional matron: backwards, selfish, stubborn, and consumed 
by her hunger for money. In the end the daughter comes back to her 
husband, ironically by becoming the dependent, static but ?modern? wife 
she has been from the beginning. By vilifying tradition, the movie 
ignores the cultural context of the mother?s supposed backward 
behaviors, and it refuses to acknowledge the freedom that the mother 
offers to her daughter. Tradition, in this case, becomes the obstacle 
to the couple?s happiness in the modern Nigerian city life, an obstacle 
to becoming ?civilized.? Once again, through the mother?s beliefs and 
practices, tradition is rendered lifeless and backwards, yet necessary 
to affirm the couple?s modernity. Yet, despite the director?s one sided-
depiction of the tradition-modernity conflict, neither tradition nor 
modernity resolves the couple?s issues. Although the wife is portrayed 
as happy at the end of the movie, she does not have any authority in 
the marriage, authority which the ?traditional? mother took for 
granted. Instead of resolving the issue, the film falls into the 
ideological trap showing a particularly Nigerian dynamic, where 
submission to tradition (the mother) is frowned upon, yet the 
submission to modernity (the husband) is encouraged. The message fails 
to underscore the entrapment of both tradition and modernity in the 
film.

Beyond Tradition-Modernity
It becomes more and more evident that the consequences of the 
tradition-modernity ideology go beyond intellectualized definitions or 
family quibbles in movies. More than just an ideological nuisance, 
these consequences reach into the fabric of society. Even at the level 
of basic cultural activities, this particular ideological 
interpretation overlooks the function of such activities and places 
them in some sort of category. By creating static identities which 
surgically define each characteristic of a particular activity, the 
tradition-modernity binary erases the constant changing aspect of 
culture. The vibrant role of the folktale in West Africa, for example, 
is often disregarded in order to place it in some form of literature?
folkloric, oral, fantastic, etc. Instead of participating in its 
adventures, the analysts categorize it as some type of field, 
eventually belonging to a traditional or a modern model. The dynamic 
and complex life-pulse of folktales, which allows for the interrelation 
of many agents, is lost to a stagnant, simplistic identification.

The fossilization that occurs with the ideological interpretation of 
folktales, is demonstrated through the critiques of a modern folk-
teller and writer, Amos Tutuola. According to Emmanuel Obiechina,9 
Tutuola is either read by critics of the European community as an 
original fantastic writer, or portrayed by the Nigerian critics as 
merely repeating old West African folktales. Whether the actual review 
seems negative (unoriginal) or positive (original), the dichotomy of 
the tradition-modernity model is working conspicuously within both 
criticisms. Both responses, in fact, trap Tutuola?s work in an 
essentialist dimension, reducing his own personal rendition of old 
folktales to tradition or modernity. Yet, as Obiechina claims, Tutuola 
is not inventing a new genre of a fantastic tale, nor is he following 
word for word old Nigerian folktales. Instead, just as thousands of 
storytellers before him, he uses what he has already heard and plays 
with it, tunes its songs and lines to his music and to the music of a 
real and imaginary audience. He weaves in his own experience in hope 
that his story will be contemporary with his listeners, while his 
European and African critics try to fix him someplace in the middle of 
his dance, loosing at the same time the motion necessary to make his 
tale effective.

Regardless of either interpretation, however, there is a possibility 
to go beyond the strict tradition-modernity model, which does not 
exactly coincide with Tutuola?s project. Just like any cultural 
activity, his stories slip through the durable molds of categorization 
imposed by tradition and modernity. The liveliness of his stories, the 
contemporary situations of his characters, and the signature folktale 
structure take us beyond this logic.10 It is, therefore possible to 
avoid fixation produced by this ideology. To a certain extent, the 
confrontation of everyday life already shows us the way and the 
function of the folktale illustrates it. It is difficult to sustain 
notions of tradition-modernity in practice the same way it cannot be 
done with the performance of the folktale. If one looks underneath 
these ideologies, one may notice that they are in fact false 
dichotomies that obstruct concrete changes and evolution of life, going 
on at every moment.

The Failure of Victimization
Just as the criticisms of the folktale only work within a limited 
scope of interpretation, the situation of all actors within the 
tradition-modernity ideology is more hopeful that it may originally 
seem. The defeatist attitude that easily coincides with a sense of 
victimization cannot be practically sustained throughout all 
experience. Even if it seems that there is no escape from such a 
powerful system of control, which ignores even the most obvious 
contrary experience, there are many loopholes to avoid it. The example 
of the folktale already opens up such possibilities. Despite the 
traditional or modernist critique of Tutuola, for example, his stories 
escape rigid categorization once they are read or performed. Thus, even 
with the strong influence of ideology that has been developing for 
years, no one is absolutely subjugated to it (nor are people subjugated 
in the same way). The idea of tradition in the embrace of modernity, no 
matter how deeply ingrained in our understanding of the world, does not 
always hold out in practice.

Undeniably, the ideology of tradition-modernity had powerful 
repercussions for those who embraced it. For the most part this 
ideology was welcomed by the African elite, who readily accepted the 
notion of tradition-modernity and their role within it. Many, in their 
attempt to avoid falling into the fixation of the ?backward? traditions 
of their ancestors, identified full-heartedly with modernity. Some, 
with a more negative experience of colonization re-embraced what they 
thought were their lost traditions. Although the elite were quite ready 
to position themselves ideologically for modernity or tradition, the 
issues related to this ideology became much more complex in practice. 
Both positions were possible on a theoretical level. In practice, 
however, since both participated in the ideology of modernity-through-
tradition, these positions became much more difficult to sustain 
unproblematically.

The difficulty in sustaining the particular ideological position 
within the tradition-modernity binary was demonstrated by the elite 
reactions to the British colonial influence in the Gold Coast in the 
mid 1900s.11 One of the last lines that Audrey Gadzekpo leaves us with 
in her article illustrates the weakness of the ideological effect that 
the West has made on the Gold Coast elite: ?The more things change, the 
more they stay the same.? As seen through articles in Gold Coast 
newspapers in those times, Western categorization of men and women by 
the British was not completely successful. Despite the British creation 
of overt inequalities between genders, women progressively re-
established the importance of their roles within society. Although they 
could not return to, nor could they fight from their pre-colonial 
positions, they were capable of reformulating their roles using the 
tools available for them at the moment?newspapers. They adapted to the 
changing situation of their times. Although in the beginning women 
columnists were urging women to be good Victorian wives, social 
realities transformed this foreign ideology into a more practical 
subsistence. When theory met practice, women had to stop entertaining 
their men intellectually and fought to go into the workforce to be able 
to sustain their families and to find a more rewarding social status.

Theories of victimization easily ignore these creative struggles 
against colonial impositions, especially if these struggles do not 
bring clear-cut victories. Yet, those struggles bring about the most 
significant changes within the contemporary situation. The achievements 
of Gold Coast elite women could be counted as one of these. Although 
they did not free themselves from the colonial powers, they helped to 
re-establish the important role of Nigerian women within their society. 
On the other hand, if African resistance to ideological and practical 
colonization is solely measured by the success or failure to attain 
freedom (physically and spiritually), success becomes equivocal to 
attaining independence. The African heroes, with a few exceptions, 
become limited to the ones that break with the colonial regimes. Yet, 
if this was the only mark of success, independence would herald the end 
of problems related to colonialism and the complete break from further 
colonial influence, as well as the ideology behind it. It is 
unrealistic today to claim either of the two propositions, knowing 
historically the turmoil that followed after many African countries 
attained their independence. In this sense, independence is not the end 
of the struggle nor is it the beginning. If we look at the histories of 
African people even before independence, many successes would come out 
of the woodwork that could give us inspiration today, and projects like 
attaining independence tomorrow or unifying the entire African 
continent are just as unrealistic as they are self-defeating.

As a result of this independence-oriented mark of success, many elites 
in the 19th and early 20th centuries were discounted as co-conspirators 
of the colonial system. The case of Blyden, like that of many others, 
suffers this type of de-contextualized (independence oriented) 
interpretation that classifies him as a failure. Within this goal-
oriented interpretation, Blyden can be seen as failing on at least two 
accounts: 1) by not accomplishing his dream of educated Africans 
leading Liberia towards civilization and 2) by promoting a Eurocentric 
and a reverse-racist viewpoint.12 Yet, when looked within the context 
of his time and position, such claims stand on a shaky ground. Needless 
to say, Blyden was a product of his own time. He was a Western educated 
black man (from West Indies) living during the time of colonialism in 
Liberia. Because of his position in colonial society, he was faced with 
a particular set of limited options. He was able to take advantage of 
his limitations, however, to envision and to some extent enact a better 
society based on both European principles and African Islam. E. W. 
Blyden did not subscribe to the eurocentric/civilizing modernity, as 
some of his critics might point out, but rather to modernization.13 He 
adapted what he considered useful from European ideology and applied 
his understanding to African realities at the time. The importance of 
his mission was not a successful civilization of Liberians or an open 
mind towards Europeans, but the creation of possibilities for Africans 
within the system created by colonization without abandoning the 
African culture.

Tradition-Modernity in Politics
The presence of the tradition and modernity ideology despite its 
stronghold on many aspects of society, particularly the elite sector, 
is thus possible to manage. The overstepping or at least the 
manipulation of such a system that was happening in Nigeria and Liberia 
on the local levels moved many African countries closer to 
independence. However, the large-scale politics that ensued after 
liberation did not seem to have as much success. The general 
disappointment with African political systems after independence is 
shared by many people, especially those with a stake in Africa?s well-
being. There have been many visions of successful political systems, 
and Kwame Gyekye?s vision can be counted among them.14 Seeing how, for 
the most part, the European-influenced structures of government have 
not been successful, he posits alternatives for social organization, 
legitimation of power, nation-building, and political leadership. 
Although for Gyekye the question of politics in Africa is of primary 
concern, the fact that he poses the question within the binary logic of 
tradition and modernity already foretells the answer. The question is 
engaged in a specific interpretation, one that is invested in the 
politics of this ideology. It is not surprising that the title of the 
book reflects this investment, and that his chapters culminate in the 
last section also entitled: ?Tradition and Modernity.?

The approach taken up by Gyekye to find a better political system for 
Africa brings back the same ideological problems in which the political 
systems were originally created. The only difference here is that he is 
proposing to bring the other half of the binary into the equation. 
Therefore, instead of basing political structures on the model of 
European modernity, Gyekye wants to base them on African modernity and 
involve African tradition in the process. His attempt to inscribe the 
new political structures in Africa with some traditional innovations, 
reestablishes similar dichotomies with which we are already familiar in 
modernity-through-tradition ideology. This approach is reflected in 
individual chapters. When Gyekye argues for a moderate 
communitarianism, for example, he is attempting to bring in tradition 
into modernity, positing a middle ground where they could meet. The 
impossible compromise that Gyekye is trying to make involves placing an 
independent, free-willed individual into a community demanding 
conformity to its rules and regulations. Yet, it is not clear how an 
individual can simultaneously live within and outside of the community, 
without reproducing the same tradition-modernity binary.

Despite criticisms of Gyekye?s philosophy, his book points out an 
important need: the political and social structures in Africa, adopted 
from colonial regimes after independence, need to be re-examined and 
alternative models for political and social organization should be 
found. These alternative models, however, need to be established 
outside the tradition-through-modernity ideology. In fact, this kind of 
project should not only focus on Africa. Rather, problems emerging in 
the political, social, and economic sphere after independence in 
African countries need to be looked at within the context of world 
history. The turbulence that Africa is accused of sustaining during the 
post-independence years was preceded by an even bloodier colonialism 
and is followed by a blood-sucking imperialism. Today the world is 
still oppressed by imperial powers through sanctions, economic 
dependencies, pauperization of large sections of the world, and bloody 
military ?campaigns.? All of these aspects should be taken into 
consideration when assessing the situation in Africa and attempting to 
posit a solution.

The Ideology Underlying Violence and Colonialism
The repercussions in the context of market-oriented ?globalization? of 
modernity and tradition are felt to this day on the African continent. 
Much of the violence that is considered to be crime against humanity: 
military dictatorships, rebellions, ?tribal? and religious wars are 
effects of this phenomenon. Without examining the concrete and 
ideological effects of Africa?s encounter with Europe, it is easy to 
assume that the violence, in these cases, is African by nature. Relying 
on the dominant ideology Africans are considered inherently violent or 
at least not ready for self-governance, indirectly implying their lack 
of civilization. Yet, the concept of tradition-modernity begins to 
sketch a source for this madness, a madness that was instilled by the 
West, and which is continuously intruding into African business. 
However, even if the blame is directed towards the West, the source of 
this violence is still not named. Colonization, which is given as an 
alternative reason for so much turmoil in Africa, doesn?t explain by 
itself how colonial violence could be sustained by freedom-minded 
African leaders after liberation. How is it possible that many African 
governments became the micro-reflection of the Western global politics? 
Gyekye only offers an indirect reason as to why such atrocities 
continue to happen on the African soil?the lack of an Africa-
contextualized modernity (an ideological one). Yet, it seems to me that 
the problems go further than that. The problem is the ideology of 
modernity-through-tradition all together.

Patrice Lumumba?s short-lived reign in Zaire and its surrounding 
circumstances depict a good example of this complex dynamic in African 
politics after independence. The framework of tradition and modernity 
helps to understand at least part of this violence that was sustained 
in different forms until recent times. Although the new country of 
Zaire was looking for a leader to guide the new nation to the heights 
of freedom, its goals could never be accomplished within the structures 
already imposed by the European-organized government. The governing 
colonial structures and the ideology in power left little room for a 
passionate leader who was determined to end colonization once and for 
all. The new government was quickly sabotaged, and the cherished 
leader, who rose out of the crowds, swiftly put down. Under the guise 
of posing a danger to the new country through communist ideology, 
Lumumba was considered an enemy of the state and as a result 
exterminated. Mobutu, the hand picked candidate of Belgium and the U.
S., eventually seized power, leading a repressive and brutal regime for 
over 20 years.

In light of the political situation after, and even before his 
assassination, Patrice Lumumba is considered by many people as a 
prophet,15 a martyr in the name of freedom. If it were possible to 
fathom the structure of his political leadership (if he stayed in 
power), how would the Democratic Republic of Congo look now? Would it 
be different under his government?

Although the historical and social contexts of Lumumba?s rule should 
be considered, a reading through the tradition-modernity ideology of 
his cadency could bring out a different set of answers. First and 
foremost, Lumumba was Prime Minister of a political institution 
developed by the colonial powers to rule over the Congo, the legitimacy 
of which was highly questionable from the start. Yet, the Eurocentric 
form of government that was capable of allowing so many abuses against 
the Congolese people was generally accepted by the new Congolese 
officials in power. Secondly, the politics in support of a unified 
Congo encouraged Lumumba?s government to use military force to prevent 
secession of the Kasai and Katanga regions.16 This type of politics, 
which shared similar methods of control with its colonial predecessors, 
encouraged a centralized government, which suppressed any uprisings 
against its unilateral control. By participating in the machinery that 
had oppressed the Congolese people for decades, to some extent Lumumba 
already took on similar policies against resistance. Overstepping his 
role as a revolutionary, he put on the same gloves of power that 
oppressed him.

It is impossible to seize the circumstances and the implications of 
Lumumba?s short rule perfectly. Yet, the colonial legacy remaining in 
the structures of power and ideology, concurrent with the logic of 
tradition and modernity, becomes an important indication from where to 
approach the problem. Frantz Fanon addressed this issue quite clearly.
17 He warned of the danger of the elite bourgeois class re-
appropriating the institutional system of the colonial powers. They 
might change a cog or two here and there to appropriate it to the 
?African character? of things, but the system as a whole is 
unquestioned. As a result, the new African elite occupy old colonial 
positions, whose structure is indebted to the tradition-modernity 
ideology. This is my main critique of Kwame Gyekye, who undertakes an 
archeological dig to find useful bits and pieces of the ?traditional? 
system in order to do a makeover of the one already in place. At the 
same time, this tradition that he is ?discovering? is already 
constrained within the modernist ideology believed to be legitimate.

Active Struggle with Ideology
Based on the examples mentioned above, realizing and engaging the 
modernity-through-tradition ideology, effectively, depends on many 
factors. As we have seen, the elite does not always have all of the 
necessary resources to accomplish this feat. Since the struggle with 
this ideology does not only happen on the level of educated elites, 
perhaps it is time to turn to ordinary people. During colonialism, for 
example, even if the grip of tradition-modernity over elites in Africa 
was not as tight as it might initially seem, it was definitely less 
constrictive for the masses. The rest of the population, most hard-hit 
by the effects of colonialism, was able to challenge this ideology on a 
daily basis. The luxuries of the so-called modern life that kept so 
many elites in check were not available to the populace, who continued 
to lead lifestyles in proximity to how they lived before. Therefore, to 
challenge the colonial system and its ideology most effectively, it was 
necessary for the elites and the masses to join forces. Elites had the 
resources and spare time to fight this ideology, while the masses had 
the practical know how.

Perhaps Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti (FRK)18 was one of the few educated 
elites that was able to combine her Western education and the 
shrewdness of the Nigerian masses in the most effective way to 
undermine Western ideology of modernity-through-tradition. Her 
strategies focused on the immediate problems of the market women, which 
eventually brought out the larger issues of colonial domination and its 
reigning ideology. Even the way the struggles were taken up, already 
challenged the tradition-modernity ideology. One of the few capable of 
bridging the growing rift between the uneducated19 masses and the 
alienated elite, FRK used this bridge to fight inequality of women 
within the Western context. Yet this fight seemed almost secondary to 
the camaraderie that developed over the years of struggle between the 
elites and the market women. The real source of power came from this 
factor, rather than from her charisma or courage to take on the 
injustices in her home town.

FRK?s political struggles nurtured a positive relation among all women 
that participated and gave courage for further struggles in the face of 
setbacks (as was often the case within the colonial government). The 
style in which she undertook many of the struggles was not only 
functional but also entertaining. The songs, dances, and performances 
allowed demonstrations to be enjoyable and bonding. In a sign of 
kinship toward her sisters she began wearing traditional clothing, and 
to involve local women in the political arena she only spoke in the 
Yoruba language during all meetings, even the ones with British 
officials. She strategized her struggles creatively within the 
limitations of her situation, using her position as a woman and acting 
with a sense of humor. If the government did not give her permission 
for a parade or a formal demonstration, she acquired permission for a 
picnic which basically served the same purpose. Amidst all the good 
humor, she took her role as a leader seriously and was the first to put 
herself at risk, being arrested for the refusal to pay taxes several 
times. Because Ransome-Kuti adapted Western strategies to popular 
wisdom, she was able to keep up the momentum of the struggle long after 
many Western-imitated organizations had failed. The presence of 
playfulness in her organization reanimated the fossilized practices of 
resistance influenced by the tradition-modernity ideology.

The significance of Ransome-Kuti?s struggle raised her to the status 
of a prophet.20 She was able to see beyond the ideology imposed by the 
British?the one that carefully balanced the duties of tradition with 
the urgency of modernity. FRK equally rejected so-called traditions 
like the Alake?s seizure of power from the population, and the 
insignificant role of women in politics. She also refused to accept her 
modern status as an educated elite woman unproblematically (i.e. being 
above ignorant, lower class market women). In this way, not only did 
she question her (new) local traditions, and undermine her own 
particular modernity, but she was capable of surpassing the ideology 
that was found behind them.

By actively questioning the particular traditions and modernities of 
her community through her struggles, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was able to 
break the static ideology of the tradition-modernity bond. Neither 
tradition nor modernity was at stake in her co-operation with the 
market women. Instead, the current situation of women gave rise to 
particular mobilizations that created complex solutions based on what 
was already known and the current context. This process happened 
without specification of what was tradition and what was considered 
modernity: the emotional aspect of humanity was never separated from 
the rational one, the serious struggle against discrimination was never 
placed apart from enjoyment and camaraderie, etc. Instead of allowing 
these dynamics to break up into oppositions, mimicking the tradition-
modernity binary, FRK managed to maintain the momentous force that kept 
the struggle alive and that helped realistically better the situation 
of women in Lisabi.

Conclusion
Although the tradition-modernity ideology can become so powerful as to 
shape practice, if we are aware of its limits, which crystallize 
particular identities and do not respond to any change seriously, we 
can overcome it and allow for its adaptations. Only through practice 
can we learn how a particular truth depends on circumstances, as our 
own lives show evidence of this phenomenon. Finding alternatives 
through practice then might be easier than it looks. There are always 
events or people that change the way that we see the world, as long as 
we accept to participate in life. Equally, an attempt to re-interpret 
that truth based on different historical perspectives can bring about 
the movement necessary to shake up an ideological standstill. If we 
look closely enough, many examples of successful initiatives that 
adapted the political, social, and economic spheres to social realities 
are waiting to be re-discovered.

The tradition-modernity ideology seems to prolong the anthropological 
desire to dry butterflies and pin them in the collector?s album for 
comparison. In the same way, Africa has become?in the eyes of the West 
and for itself?the epicenter of tradition and the battleground in the 
name of Euro-centric modernity, both ideologically and to some extent 
in practice. In this sense, through the creation of a hierarchy between 
Europe and Africa as well as the tribalization of cultural groups, this 
new ideology sparks waves of violence and disorder throughout the 
continent. By critically looking at what is posited as tradition and 
modernity and analyzing history within a particular context, we are not 
necessarily reformulating another fixed ideology. The constant re-
adaptation of this contemporary structure could allow flexibility and 
movement in a particular culture, continuing its changing cycle. It is 
time to realize modernity and tradition as only ideological constructs 
that stand in opposition to the reality we experience in practice, as 
long as they are not engaged in this reality.

Notes and References
1 A similar description of modernity is given by Samir Amin when 
describing the culture of capitalism in his book Eurocentrism, and by 
Olufemi Taiwo in his article ?Prophets Without Honour: African Apostles 
of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.?

2 Both Amadou Hampaté Bâ and Cheikh Anta Diop?s depiction of West 
African history does not partake in this type of ideology.

3 Amadou Hampaté Bâ speaks about how the French set different clans or 
even Islamic sects against each other in order to have a better control 
of the particular region.

4 This phenomenon is evidenced in Gold Coast Newspapers in the mid-
1900 as described by Audrey Gadzekpo in her article entitled ?Gender 
Discourses and Representational Practices in Gold Coast Discourses and 
Representational Practices in Gold Coast Newspapers,? Jenda: A Journal 
of Culture and African Women Studies, 2001.

5 Kwame Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on 
the African Experience, Oxford University Press, New York?Oxford, 1997, 
p. 221.

6 Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Howard University 
Press, Washington D.C., 1982.

7 Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity, p. 221 (my italics).

8 Ibid., p.272.

9 Emmanuel N. Obiechina, ?Amos Tutuola and the Oral Tradition,? 
Language and Theme: Essays on African Literature, Washington D.C.: 
Howard University Press, 1990.

10 Amos Tutuola?s stories in The Palm Wine Drinkard and My Life in the 
Bush of Ghosts, New York: Grove Press, 1954,escape the rigid criticisms 
that he is placed in.

11 Gadzekpo, ?Gender Discourses and Representational Practices in Gold 
Coast Newspapers.? 

12 V.Y. Mudimbe, The Invention of Africa: gnosis, philosophy, and the 
order of knowledge, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. 

13 Olufemi Taiwo?s concept from ?Prophets Without Honour: African 
Apostles of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century,? West Africa Review, 
2001.

14 Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity.

15 Raoul Peck, Lumumba: Death of a Prophet, France/ Germany/ 
Switzerland, 1992. (documentary).

16 Congo Democratic Republic of 2001

17 Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press, 1963.

18 Cheryl Johnson-Odim and Nina Emma Mba, ?Lioness of Lisabi: The Fall 
of a Ruler,? The Woman and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of 
Nigeria, Urbana Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.

19 By uneducated masses I mean those that did not attend Western 
schools.

20 Olufemi Taiwo?s concept in ?Prophets without Hounour: African 
Apostles of Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.?

Bibliography
Amin, Samir. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990.

Bâ, Amadou Hampaté and Marcel Cardaire. Tierno Bokar: Le sage de 
Bandiagara. Paris: Présence Africaine, 1957.

Bâ, Amadou Hampaté and Jaques Daget. L?Empire Peul du Macina. Paris: 
Mouton & Co, 1956

Congo Democratic Republic of the 2001

Diop, Cheikh Anta. L?Afrique noire pré-coloniale. Paris: Présence 
Africaine, 1960.

Fanon, Frantz. Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1963.

Gadzekpo, Audrey. ?Gender Discourses and Representational Practices in 
Gold Coast Newspapers.? Jenda: A Journal of Culture and African Women 
Studies, 2001.

Gyekye, Kwame. Tradition and Modernity. Oxford University Press, New 
York?Oxford, 1997.

Johnson-Odim, Cheryl and Nina Emma Mba. ?Lioness of Lisabi: The Fall 
of a Ruler.? The Woman and the Nation: Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of 
Nigeria. Urbana Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.

Mudimbe, V.Y. The Invention of Africa: gnosis, philosophy, and the 
order of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Obiechina, Emmanuel N. ?Amos Tutuola and the Oral Tradition.? Language 
and Theme: Essays on African Literature. Washington D.C.: Howard 
University Press, 1990.

Peck, Raoul. Lumumba: Death of a Prophet. France/ Germany/ 
Switzerland, 1992. (film?documentary)

Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington D.C: 
Howard University Press, 1982.

Taiwo, Olufemi. ?Prophets Without Honour: African Apostles of 
Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.? West Africa Review, 2001.

Tutuola, Amos. The Palm Wine Drinkard and My Life in the Bush of 
Ghosts. New York: Grove Press, 1954.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤