By Richard Chirombo
African Mythology
constitutes a discourse because myths, by their nature, are narratives that
serve to connect individuals to their culture by explaining nature and
supernatural phenomena1 in a carefully structured manner that conceals real
meaning.
Michel Foucault, who is variously regarded as a
philosopher, social theorist, cultural historian and an historian of political
thought, captures this aspect very well when he implies that mythologies
and other forms of narratives are forms of discourse in the sense that there
are subtle rules and, therefore, hidden meaning below the surface of their
seemly harmless message, observing thus: “They (ordinary people) have probably
found it difficult enough to recognise that their history, their economics,
their social practices, the language (langue) that they speak, the mythology of
their ancestors, even the stories that they were told in their childhood, are
governed by rules that are not all given to their consciousness (…)”2.
In other words, “things and events” will only become discourse “in the
unfolding of the essential secrets. Discourse is no longer much more than the
shimmering of a truth about to be born in its own eyes; and when all things
come eventually to take the form of discourse, when everything may be said and
when anything becomes an excuse for pronouncing a discourse, it will be because
all things having manifested and exchanged meanings, they will then all be able
to return to the silent interiority of self-consciousness”3.
In fact, the link between mythology and discourse becomes
more pronounced when the term ‘discourse’ is defined. For instance, Bertrand
and Hughes (2005) define discourse as an organised series of statements about
the natural and social world which have, over a period of time, become
formalised into ‘rules’ which govern the behaviour of members of a social or
cultural field, operating through architecture, habit, practices and ethics to
permit or constrain behaviour thereby shaping the individual sense of self4. A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory, on the
other hand, defines discourse as ‘talk’ or
‘conversation’ with the hint of a ‘didactic’ purpose5,
acknowledging, however, that this definition rather contradicts the
word’s etymology, going back to the Latin verb discurrere, which
means ‘to run about’, ‘range widely’, ‘wander off course’, among others. In
both cases, language is used to deduce meaning.
More importantly, mythology shares the features of
discourse in the sense that the narratives’ arrangement is not arrived at by
chance, but is purposefully arranged to control people. For example, Seymor
Chatman6captures this aspect well when he proposes that a narrative
must have both story- which he describes as the content, the events and
existents it talks about, the ‘what?’- and discourse, “the way in which it is
told, the selection and ordering of events and existents, the ‘how’”- further
observing that, “For, though a narrative must have a beginning, a middle and an
end, they need not always be presented in that order. From this perspective,
story is potential, discourse is actual; story elements (plot, functions,
characters) are predictable whereas discourse provides variety/surprise.
Indeed, literary critic Mark Shorer emphasises this point by analysing the
function of myths in society, observing that, “Myths are the instruments by
which we continually struggle to make our experience intelligible to ourselves.
A myth is a large, controlling image that gives philosophical meaning to the
facts of ordinary life”7.
However, it must be borne in mind that it is not always
true that all narratives are discourse. For instance, while a number of
scholars and theorists have described narratives as a form of discourse, this
school of thought is not always true because some narratives have varied
meanings in various societies. “There is no
fixed meaning to any narrative, therefore, and it is always open to multiple
interpretation”8. Therefore, to brand all narratives as discourse is to
deny the “plural quality” of various writings.
Additionally, even Foucault himself recognises the fact
that there is “false” and “true” discourse when he observes, thus; “A division
emerged between Hesiod and Plato, separating true discourse from false ; it was
a new division for, henceforth, true discourse was no longer considered
precious and desirable, since it had ceased to be discourse linked to the
exercise of power”9. It must be noted, however, that Foucault used ‘true’ and
‘false’ in the ironic sense, by which he means that ‘false’ discourse which is
not linked to the exercise of power.
More importantly, to always link the term discourse to the
exercise of power constitutes flawed reasoning because it presupposes that
power only invoke discourses as a covert means of cultivating, or exercising
power. To the contrary, some myths relate to sacred history; that is, a
primordial event that took place at the beginning of time, ab initio10.
This, notwithstanding,
both mythology and discourse share similar attributes. For example, myths have
the attribute of discourse in the sense that discourse is the form myths use to
portray a message, while the combination of words in the narrative is, in no
way, haphazard. They are, in fact, carefully woven. Discourse, too, shares the
same attributes. Foucault aptly observes thus, “I am supposing that in every
society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised
and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to
avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its
ponderous, awesome materiality11.”
However, it must be
noted that discourse often takes the form of ideology, dogma or doctrine. In
analysing the impact of doctrine on ”subjects”, Foucault notes that
doctrine, as a tool of exercising power, effects a dual subjection, that of
speaking subjects to discourse, and that of discourse to the group, at least
virtually, of speakers12. This implies that subjects are not in control of their
lives; instead, they are “determined” by language, referring to how “(…)
historically and culturally located systems of power/knowledge construct
subjects and their worlds”13. Indeed, the use of language to subtly convey dominant
ideologies and imperialistic goals has been a topic for debate for a long time.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o, for
example, observes that every language has two aspects. “One aspect is its role
as an agent that enables us to communicate with one another in our struggle to
find the means for survival. The other is its role as a carrier of the history
and the culture built into the process of that communication over time.14”
This holds true for Africa, where former colonial powers lay hold on the
continent by imposing their ideologies through language. In fact, ideology
assisted in reproducing “colonialist relations through the strategic deployment
of a vast semiotic field of representations- in literary works, in advertising,
in sculpture, in travelogues, in exploration documents, in maps, in
pornography, and so on.15”
Therefore, it is
imperative that, in order to recapture the culture and history carried by
Africa’s original “culture and history carried by these languages (…) thrown
onto the rubbish heap and left there to perish”16,
literary works such as narratives taking the form of myths should be revived by
being told in their original languages. This brings us back to the point that
African Mythology constitutes a discourse, more so when the ‘subtle’ agenda
behind revitalisation of such myths is to ‘reclaim’ the culture and history
that were thrown onto the rubbish heap.
Moreover, myths, more
than the other narratives has the unique characteristic of being composed by a
number of individuals, thereby cementing the possibility of their utilisation
as a discourse. More so because, “Unlike a story composed by a single author, a
myth always stands on its own, with a plot and a set of characters easily
recognised by those who listen to the story-teller, poet, or dramatist making
use of it”17, thereby bringing “divinity into focus. And their subject
matter inevitably touches upon the nature of existence, the world over which
the gods rule”.
Therefore, myths can be
a powerful tool in reversing the cultural and historical damage inflicted on
Africa by the ‘invisible’ hand of language. It goes without saying that
disciplinary power “is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it
imposes on whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility”18.
In the case of Africa, this compulsory visibility was achieved through
ideologies imposed in the choice of national language imposed by the conquering
masters.
However, turning myths
into an ideological vehicle in Africa faces the inevitable challenge that, as
in all cases where ideologies are being passed through narratives (discourses)
such as myths, there are always differences in expertise over a subject among
people. In which case, “members are able to speak or act (only) on the basis of
the acquired ideology, but are not always able to formulate its beliefs
explicitly”19.
END NOTES
1. Arthur
B. (1995) Cultural Criticism: A Primer of Key Concepts (vol.
4.) Sage Publications : California. P. 122
2. Michel F. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge
and The Discourse on Language. Tavistock Publications Limited: New York. P.
210-211
3. Ibid, p. 228
4. Ina B.,
and Peter H. (2005) Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions,
Texts published by Palgrave MacMillan. New York. p.166
5. A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory (2nd Ed.)
(2010) Wiley-Blackwell. West Sussex
6. Seymour C.
(1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.
Cornell University Press. Ithaca (Cited in Bertrand and Hughes, ibid,
p.212)
7. Arthur Asa Berger, ibid, page 122
8. Stuart S., and Borin
L. (2004) Introducing Critical Theory. Icon Books Limited. London.
P. 56
9. Foucault, Ibid. p.
218
10. Berger, ibid. p. 122
11. Foucault, p.
216)
12. Foucault, p. 226
13. Gubrium, J.F. and
Holstein, JA (2000) Analysing Interpretive Practice in Denzin and
Lincoln (eds) (2000) pp. 487-508 (quoted in Bertrand and Hughes. P.
167)
14. Ngugi T.
(1993) Moving the Centre: The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms. East
African Educational Publishers. Nairobi. P. 483
15. Ashcroft, B.,
Gareth H.T. (1995) The Post-Colonial Studies Leader. Routledge.
London. p. 47
16. Ngugi T. ibid.
p. 50
17. Arthur C. (2005)World
Mythology (1st Ed.) Paragon Publishing. London: p.5
18. Arthur C. ibid. p.6
19. Foucault, M.
(1995) Discipline and Punish and The Birth of the Prison. Vintage
Books. New York. p. 187