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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤