This blog post is a sort of synthesis of what we’ve covered in the last couple weeks, taking Achebe’s novel and using it to counter the arguments of Hegel and offset the narrative approach of Conrad. While we read "Things Fall Apart" I might post other interesting factoids related to it as well.
This post ought to help readers view the text with a more acute eye and it gives further examples of Barthes’ “codes” which I mentioned in an earlier discussion post in class. The stuff with Barthes has nothing to do with the course, and there are other less complex ways to approach a work of literature, but this example will serve just fine to negate Hegel’s and Conrad’s respective views of Africa.
I want to draw your attention to pages 57 and 61 in the 1994 Anchor edition of "Things Fall Apart". This is chapter seven, when Okonkwo learns that Ikemefuna is to be killed, and that Okonkwo is not to have a hand in it. A weak reading will view the incident as Conrad would have, or Hegel, as something primitive and inhuman, but if we use Barthes’ five codes to tear apart two paragraphs, we can see that Hegel and Conrad were astoundingly wrong about Africans and that Achebe's narrative validates African culture as something universal to humanity.
First, a bit on Barthes’ five codes. I’ve mentioned the “cultural code” which plays off our prejudices outside the text, and the “semic code” which is connotative, but there are three others. First, the “proairetic code,” which signifies action, or serves as the indication of action. Second, the “hermeneutic code,” which poses questions or enigmas that heighten suspense. And finally, a close relative to the semic code, connotative of theme on a larger scale, the “symbolic code.” The codes will be denoted as follows: Proairetic—P; Hermeneutic—H; Cultural—C; Semic—SE; Symbolic—SY.
I’ll begin by taking apart the second full paragraph on page 57. Note the signifiers of Barthes’ code in parentheses.
“Yes, Umuofia has decided to kill him (C). The Oracle of the Hills and Caves has pronounced it (P) (C). They will take him outside Umuofia as is the custom (H), and kill him there (P). But I want you to have nothing to do with it (H). He calls you his father (SE).”
The first line grabs our attention and evokes in us an ethnocentric view of the narrative in line with Conrad’s description of Africa as a primordial place. The second line signifies a course of action that is pending, but also reinforces our ethnocentric view of Africa as primitive in the sense that they are obeying some sort of pagan god’s wishes. Another correlation can be drawn here to Greek tragedies such as the Theban Plays due to this instance of an oracle’s pronouncement. The third line provides for a bit of suspense as we don’t know what the custom is, but it also negates our prior ethnocentric view, and that of Hegel’s as well, in that it explicitly states there is a "custom." If a people are so primitive and outside history that they are not even considered human, then they must be incapable of formulating any sort of custom. In this instance Hegel is shown to be wrong. The fourth line again signifies suspense because we wonder, given the nature of Okonkwo’s character, whether he will actually play a role in the killing. And the fifth line, the instance of the semic code, alludes to familial relationships that are in no way primitive. Fatherhood is a universal theme.
Moving forward to page 61:
“As the man who had cleared his throat drew up and raised his machete (H), Okonkwo looked away (SY). He heard the blow (P). The pot fell and broke in the sand (H). He heard Ikemefuna cry, ‘My father, they have killed me!’ as he ran towards him (SE). Dazed with fear (SY) (H), Okonkwo drew his machete and cut him down (P). He was afraid of being thought weak (SY).”
The first line contains a reference to suspense, as well as a symbolic gesture made by Okonkwo. Oknokwo’s act of looking away is important in the sense that it signifies a sort of paternal bond, and an unwillingness to watch the murder of this boy he has taken in as a son. If the culture were completely devoid of human emotion there’d be no such action. The second line is a statement of action. The third a statement of suspense as we are not given any further information as to whether or not this blow was fatal, only that the “pot fell and broke in the sand.” The fourth line is representative of the semic code because it again connotes the relationship between father and son. The fifth line is symbolic in nature because Okonkwo is “dazed with fear,” as well as suspenseful because we can’t predict his action. We could assume on the one hand that he will kill Ikemefuna given the nature of his character as presented to us thus far. But we could be equally justified in assuming that Okonkwo will protect the boy given the affectionate bond he has developed with him, but the statement of action seals Ikemefuna’s fate. The last line is symbolic to the overall theme because it represents a poor choice, or a tragic character flaw in Okonkwo that caused him to act in such a way. This does not signify anything primitive in the nature of the culture, but rather props it up as one full of human complexity, and thus negates the narrative argument of Conrad, and the philosophical arguments of Hegel.
Such close reading is essential in order to actively engage the text and understand the context. Keep in mind, however, that there are multiple ways in which to analyze this narrative, not just from a post-structuralist standpoint.
At any rate, Achebe validates the culture as human.
