Abstract:

This project analyses Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s novel Weep Not, Child through the framework of postcolonial theory. Through the chosen themes of British Rule, landownership, the role of the Mau Mau, education, and religion, the analysis delves into the characters identification as subjects in a colonial setting. Firstly, a brief historical context of Kenya’s colonial history is described, to create a frame of reference for the following report. Following this is the presentation of the chosen theory: mimicry and ambivalence, hegemony, hybridity, the Third Space and subaltern. The analysis concludes that the characters as subjects in a British colonial government are subjected to an antagonizing system off repression, that stops them from furthering themselves above their status as black Africans. The question of land ownership is especially telling in this regard, with the ownership of land being directly linked to the characters’ self-image as free individuals. The Mau Mau are a violent reaction to this oppression form the British rule, and serve as an outlet for the frustrated Kikuyu youth. Education and religion are both intrinsic parts of the main character Njoroge’s identity. Through the concepts of hybridity and mimicry, Njoroge can combine his Kikuyu heritage and British values. In the discussion it is concluded that the hegemony of British Rule results in the subaltern groups subscribing to the British ideals. This happens either through mimicking the values of the colonial power, as Njoroge does, or outright opposing this hegemony, as in the case of Boro. Ultimately however, it results in tragedy for all the characters, who end up either dead or severely disillusioned with any hopes for a future Kenya.

1

Roskilde University

English

Fall Semester 2017

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s Postcolonial Kenya

Rubén Campos Arjona 59640

Arre Fonteyne 54631

Sylvia Aidé Figueroa Garduño 52594

Nikola Kováčová 51801

Maya Lyngs 55246

Supervisor: Ebbe Klitgård

Сharacter count: 100 554

2

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 3

Research Question ............................................................................................................ 4

Delimitation ....................................................................................................................... 4

A brief history of Kenya ..................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 10

Themes ........................................................................................................................... 11

Theory ................................................................................................................................ 12

Hegemony and the Subaltern .......................................................................................... 12

Hybridity .......................................................................................................................... 13

Ambivalence and Mimicry ................................................................................................ 14

The Third Space .............................................................................................................. 16

Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 17

British Rule ...................................................................................................................... 18

Land ................................................................................................................................ 21

Mau Mau ...................................................................................................................... 24

Religion ........................................................................................................................... 26

Education ........................................................................................................................ 32

Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 36

Education as a Tool of Control ..................................................................................... 37

Mau Mau as the Rebellious Subaltern .......................................................................... 40

Disillusionment with Colonial Kenya ............................................................................. 42

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 43

Works Cited ........................................................................................................................ 45

3

Introduction

The dissolution of the British Empire in the 1950s and 60s was a monumental change in

the cultural perception of the time. The notion of European hegemony was not only

challenged, but overthrown through the secession of British colonies. Especially the

continent of Africa saw numerous new states emerging from the rapidly dissolving

British Empire and with it, the development of a new literary sensibility: the

postcolonial novel. This project examines one such novel, ‘Weep Not, Child’, by Kenyan

author Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Ngũgĩ’s authorship has been especially relevant for the

postcolonial movement and its subversion of the British literary tradition, while also

putting Kenya on the map of world literature, contributing to a distinctly African literary

canon.

Motivation

The motivation for this project came from a general interest in the contemporary

literature of the postcolonial period. We were curious as to how authors from these

newly-independent states saw themselves in relation to their former colonial rulers and

how they viewed the uncertain future. For this reason, we chose a contemporary novel

by the well-known post-colonial author, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Weep Not, Child was first

published in 1964, the year after Kenya gained independence. Ngũgĩ himself is known as

a literary giant of African literature, not only for his distinctly Kenyan narratives that

feature heavily in his writings but also due to his very critical outlook on colonial

policies. He, therefore, wrote most of his work first in his native language, Kikuyu, and

then translated into English. This especially made us intrigued by his authorship, as his

novel is not only written from the perspective of the colonised but with the voice and

tone of them as well. In particular, we were interested to examine Ngũgĩ ’s

characterisation of the British colonial rule and which influences it had on the emerging

Kenyan nation. This reading of the novel led to us finding specific themes we wanted to

examine further in the context of postcolonial theories, leading us to the main problem

formulation:

4

Research Question

How is colonial Kenya presented through the characters in the novel Weep Not,

Child by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o?

Under this headline, we decided to focus on the characters and their identity within the

colonial framework. Rather than looking at each individual character instead, we will be

looking at how the characters interact with the main themes of the story. The themes

that we found most relevant to our problem definition are how the characters relate to

the contemporary British rule through the Mau Mau rebellion especially, the importance

of land ownership for the characters’ identities, and the influences of religion and

education respectively. To analyse these themes, we chose to utilise the concepts of

subaltern, mimicry, ambivalence, hybridity and the Third Space. These concepts and

theories all deal with different aspects of the relations between coloniser and colonised,

giving us a multifaceted look at the novel and its themes.

Delimitation

As mentioned, we have decided to examine Ngũgĩ’s novel as it is contemporary with

Kenya’s independence, and thus we find it to be closer to the inception of postcolonial

literary theory, not to mention exceptionally relevant to its own historical context.

However, we refrain from making a comparative study of another body of work, as a

resulting analysis would be too broad and unfocused on the themes we initially found so

engaging in the novel.

Another aspect we have limited ourselves from is the aspect of language. As

previously mentioned, Ngũgĩ is widely regarded as a reputable postcolonial thinker,

largely due to his critical thoughts on the use of language in a postcolonial literary

tradition. These are exceptionally prevalent in his work Decolonizing the Mind (1986),

wherein Ngũgĩ discusses the effect the coloniser's language has on its colonial subjects.

However, we have chosen to base our analysis on a number of cultural theories and

concepts in favour of a more linguistic approach, as we did not find a merging of the two

feasible.

In regards to the themes we have chosen, we limit ourselves to the characters

and their identities in the novel, rather than searching for a possible moral message

5

regarding the nation-building of Kenya. As the characters through the novel attempt to

navigate a hostile society, we find that their dreams and ideals for the future are more

crucial to the novel’s progression than our own interpretation of what Ngũgĩ’s Kenya

would look like, based on our reading of this one novel.

The methodological and theoretical approach in this paper falls under the area

postcolonialism. Unlike post-colonialism, which deals with the consequences of

colonialism after countries gain their independence, postcolonialism is not concerned

with the chronological break implied in the former term. Instead, postcolonialism looks

at “who people are before colonization, during colonization, and after colonization” (Elias

2011, 109-110). Importantly, although the novel was published in 1964 - one year after

Kenya’s independence, our analytical focus is on the story which takes place during an

unspecified period under the colonial rule, which is why we use postcolonial critique.

A brief history of Kenya

To gain a more in-depth understanding of how Kenyan society was shaped

during the era of colonialism, this chapter will examine the concrete historical events

referenced in the novel. This provides ample context to understand the period in

question, and how the struggle for independence manifests itself in the fictional

accounts.

British colonization started at the end of the 19th century, with the establishment

of the British Protectorate of Kenya in 1895. As part of the Scramble for Africa, Britain’s

goal was the accumulation of land and natural resources, and, as a more moralistic

reasoning – the civilization of Africa and its people (Ochieng 1985, 82). Following the

expansion of British dominated territory, it was discovered that the highlands north of

Nairobi were extremely well-suited for growing cash crops such as coffee, tobacco and

tea. With the recognition of Kenya as a British Crown Colony, British farmers built their

farms in what became known as ‘the White Highlands’. The native Kikuyu population

were largely uprooted and placed into reserves (Ngũgĩ 2012, 32). In the years following

the British settlements came the Registration Act, which forced all African adult males to

carry identification whenever leaving the reserves to work on the farms (Ochieng 1985,

107). This was one example of racist policies put in place to subdue the native African

6

population. Another example was that only white settlers had permission to grow and

profit from the cash crops leaving the African farmers in poverty relative to their white

counterparts (Kenya Timeline, Crawfurd.dk, 13.11.2017). A personified example of this

is in the character of Mr Howlands in Weep Not, Child, who employs Ngotho on his farm

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 32). Howlands’ attitude towards Ngotho and how it changes in the course

of the novel is a manifestation of this divide between the white settlers and the native

Africans, as will be examined later in the analysis.

“If he employed someone in the house, it was only because his wife had asked for an

extra ‘boy’. And if she later beat the ‘boy’ and wanted him sacked, well, what did that

matter? It was not just that boys had black skins. The question of wanting to know more

about his servants just never crossed his mind.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 30).

Religion can be argued to be part of a colonial heritage that transcends time and

space. Kenya’s religious beliefs have changed over time and thus the narrative contains

a glimpse of this assortment of religions displayed by the characters.

Since 1859, explorers and missionaries were sent to Kenya with the purpose of

“the diffusion of better principles” (Fazan 2014) in order “to open up the interior of

tropical Africa to Christianity and trade”(Fazan 2014) and by the time Kenya was

established as the British Protectorate of Kenya in 1895, the country had already

suffered significant religious changes.

For the purpose of this analysis, the focus will lie on the relationship of the

Kikuyu and British colonialism. The next section will briefly introduce the Kikuyu

process of evangelization. Religion in the pre-colonial Kenya was an important aspect of

societies, especially in the Kikuyu tribe, which is based on a system of spiritual belief

that was under constant transformation during colonization (Sandgreen 1982, 196).

The Kikuyu believe in the creator god Ngai, and that “a reservoir of power existed

that could be tapped for the good of all, through proper contact with Ngai and the

ancestors” (Sandgreen 1982, 196). In order to approach the creator Ngai, it is imperative

that the nation is found in a time of crisis, in which Riika senior leaders “would commune

with him through sacrifices at the sacred Mugumo trees”(Sandgreen 1982, 196). This

ritual would be present only when matters over kinship nature arise; “each mbare

leader would gather his descent group together and sacrifice to the family ancestors”

(Sandgreen 1982, 196).

7

However, when the African Inland Mission (AIM) arrived in 1903 the Kikuyu

system of belief changed substantially as a result of the four missions opened around

Kenya (Sandgreen 1982, 196). The change was gradual and multifaceted depending on

geographical zone. The Kikuyu were not pulled towards Christianity by force or due to

territorial enclosement. They had the need to “feel closer to spiritual forces than was

hithertofore available to them” running to the missions (AIM) as a form of refuge from

the “obnoxious colonial situation such as taxation, land alienation, forced labour and even

conscription to the military” (Sandgreen 1982, 196).

Between the years of the First and Second World War, the discontent with the

ruling white government grew, as the mission-educated African youth came of age and

started to organize. Groups such as the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA, formerly

known as the Young Kikuyu Association) and the later political party Kenyan African

National Union (KANU) were created to protest the widely racist policies set in place by

the British government and recover the lands taken by the white settlers (Kenya Colony,

Encyclopedia Britannica, 09.11.2017). This sentiment is widely echoed in Weep Not,

Child, where the Christian Mission schools are widely referenced and the dissatisfaction

of the Kikuyu is a major theme. While the main character of Njoroge attends one of the

missionary schools, his father Ngotho attends a workers’ strike, ultimately costing him

his job at Mr Howlands’ farm (Ngũgĩ 2012, 60-61).

A key player in these groups was Jomo Kenyatta, who would become the first

President of the independent Republic of Kenya. While he does not directly appear as a

character in Weep Not, Child, Kenyatta is often referred to as ‘Black Moses’ and seen as a

symbol for the Kikuyu “Education is the light of Kenya. That’s what Jomo says.” (Ngũgĩ

2012, 40). To fully understand the implications, however, it is worth examining his

specific role in the struggle for independence.

Born around 1894 in Kiambu in the heart of the Central Highlands, Kenyatta

joined the EAA in 1921 along with fellow Kikuyu Harry Thuku. In the 1930s Kenyatta

travelled to England to testify at the British Parliament against more expansive plans to

further unify British East Africa (Uganda, Kenya and, after the First World War,

Tanzania). While he was in Britain, Kenyatta studied at University College London and

the London School of Economics, where he became increasingly critical of the Empire

and its actions, not only in Kenya, but in Africa at large (Jomo Kenyatta, Encyclopedia

8

Britannica, 09.11.2017. In Weep Not, Child Kenyatta’s education is a symbol of his status,

inspiring Njoroge to follow in his footsteps by educating himself “Njoroge thought that

he would like to learn like Jomo and eventually cross the sea to the land of the white man.”

(Ngũgĩ, 2012 40).

After the Second World War, Kenyatta returned alone to Kenya and joined the

Kenya African Union, a political union fighting for more African representation in the

Kenyan government. He was elected the Union’s leader in 1947, quickly gaining

monikers like ‘Great Elder’ or ‘Mzee’, which persisted throughout his life. The KAU had

one goal in mind: independence from British colonial rule. However, it was not the only

group fighting for independence.

The Mau Mau movement was a culmination of oppressive British policies that

put especially the Kikuyu at a disadvantage. With more and more restrictive land

ownership laws, and the conscription of young Kikuyu men into the British Army as so-

called askaris under the Second World War, a revolutionary movement was underway

(Ochieng 1985, 134). Their goal was to drive the British settles out of Kenya, and while

the movement consisted mainly of the disaffected Kikuyu, many other tribes joined as

well. The involvement with the Mau Mau is heavily implied, lending the Mau Mau an air

of mystery and unknowable danger. This was especially furthered by the rumoured

oath-swearing ceremonies which gave the movement an almost cultist renown among

the British colonists. These oaths are never shown directly in the novel, but referred to:

“He would not take the Mau Mau oath at his son’s hand or instruction.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 77).

The nature of the Mau Mau movement was unlike its KAU counterpart, a highly

militaristic effort. Employing guerrilla tactics from the Kikuyu veterans’ experiences in

the Second World War, the movement conducted raids on white settler farms, and

similar acts of sabotage (Mau Mau uprising: Bloody history of Kenya conflict, BBC.com,

07.04.2011). The most prominent actions of the Mau Mau that feature in the novel,

however, are the murders. In the second part of Weep Not, Child, Howlands, now a

District Officer, is finally shot by Boro as revenge for the death of his father (Ngũgĩ 2012,

139-140).

In 1952, the rebellion erupted with the British government declaring a state of

emergency in Kenya and army troops were dispatched to fight the rebellion. The state of

9

emergency entailed curfews and large numbers of Kikuyus being arrested and harassed.

This violence is shown as key moments in Weep Not, Child, for example in chapter 12,

where Njoroge witnesses the murder of his teacher Isaka (Ngũgĩ 2012, 111-112) and

later with his brutal interrogation (Ngũgĩ 2012, 127). The British government used the

Mau Mau as a scapegoat against all African-led political organizations, generalizing

these movements as simply being branches of the vicious Mau Mau rebellion. “Who were

black men and Mau Mau anyway, he asked for the thousandth time? Mere savages! A nice

word – savages.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 86).

The fights continued for 7 years, with 32 casualties on the British side and an

estimate of 25’000 on the Kenyan side (Bloody uprising of the Mau Mau, BBC.com,

07.04.2011). One of the most renowned of these casualties was the Field Marshal Dedan

Kimathi.

Kimathi was widely regarded as the leader of the violent rebellion, but was not a

founder of the movement. Historical accounts are conflicting, but Kimathi joined the

KAU in the late 1940’s and subsequently joined the militaristic Kikuyu-led Mau Mau

movement. He took the oath in 1951 and lead a great number of raids from the base in

the Abedare forest. As a prolific ex-veteran, he became the face of the Mau Mau

movement and was targeted by the colonial government and a heroic figure to Mau Mau

sympathizers (Ngũgĩ 2012, 73-74). Following his arrest in 1956, Kimathi was hanged,

marking the end of the forest wars (Politics of death: How Dedan Kimathi was captured,

Peter Nguli, 04.06.2013).

This hostility towards the black population culminated with the arrest of Jomo

Kenyatta in 1953 and the ban of KAU (Ochieng 1985, 135) (Ngũgĩ 2012, 68). Though

Kenyatta was never involved with the Mau Mau, he was considered a huge inspiration

for the movement, for better or for worse. The British regarded him as a leader of the

movement, and the Kikuyu saw him as a spiritual leader. “To him too, Jomo had been his

hope. Ngotho had come to think that it was Jomo who would drive away the white men.”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 82). It is around this time that Ngũgĩ’s novel ends; before independence

and with the around Kenyatta’s arrest, thus leaving us with a pessimistic ending for the

Kikuyu protagonists.

10

The end of the colonial period in Kenya was marked by violence against the

native population and the struggle for land ownership. Through an escalation of the

Mau Mau rebellion and the British subsequent attempts to subdue the rebellion, the

novel shows the personal consequences this violent period had for the lives and ideals

of its characters.

Methodology

The analysis of Ngũgĩ’s Weep Not, Child in this paper follows a character analysis

through a number of themes that will be described and developed further below. The

themes were chosen after a close reading of the novel, keeping in mind the theoretical

focus of this research - the intention to explore the concepts of hybridity, ambivalence

and mimicry, and Third Space in the context of colonial Kenya. At the same time, we are

also interested in the working of hegemony in a colonial setting. For these reasons,

looking at the relationships between characters through themes is the most suitable

method to analyze the power struggles and negotiations created, conditioned, inhibited

and permitted by the colonial regime in Kenya.

The analytical framework adopted in the analysis is one of postcolonialism,

which is reflected in the selection of Bhabha’s theories of hybridity, ambivalence and

mimicry, and Third Space. This approach to the study of Ngũgĩ’s novel is deemed most

appropriate because of the main goals that postcolonialism has set out, namely to

challenge racist and oppressive practices and discourses, which is done by “including

voices, stories, histories, and images from people traditionally excluded from

European/western descriptions of the world” (Bauchspies in Ritzer, 2007).

Elias notes that the analysis of postcolonial texts or the postcolonial analysis

starts by deconstructing “the position of the subject in the moment of enunciation; look at

what the subject says, how it says it, in what context, on whose behalf and for whom”

(Elias 2011, 119). In this project, this is done via character analysis, with the objective of

depicting colonial Kenya from the colonial subject’s point of view. In Weep Not, Child,

the story is told from a third-person, omniscient unintrusive point of view, with the

focus on character shifting between the themes that frame the analysis. Looking at the

point of view implemented in the novel allows for the destabilization of power relations

(Elias 2011, 112) inherent in the colonial character of the then Kenya which Ngũgĩ was

11

writing in and about. Elias (2011, 119) also suggests that when dealing with a

postcolonial text, it is necessary to investigate the field of marginality in a given text and

analyze what tension this move creates.

Themes

The themes that structure the analysis are British Rule, Mau Mau, Land, Religion,

and Education. Our reading posits these themes as in a mutual interplay. Looking at how

the characters engage with the themes allows us to trace the ways in which Ngũgĩ

portrays the conflict that took place in the 1950’s, and how he sketches the relations of

the oppressed and the oppressors.

As the name suggests, the first theme revolves around the presence of the British

in Kenya. This section analyses the broader relationships and interactions between the

colonizers and the colonized in Weep Not, Child.

The second theme, the Mau Mau, explores the emergence of the revolutionary

group that sought to liberate Kenya from the oppressive colonial system. Like the

section on British Rule, this analysis allows us to examine the historical context of the

setting and how it is portrayed by Ngũgĩ.

The third theme, land, is closely tied to the previous theme, as it ties in with the

conflict of land ownership, as mentioned in the section on historical context. Here the

relationship of the natives and the settlers to the land is explored through the

characters of Ngotho, Boro and Mr Howlands.

Religion stands out as an important factor in the encounter between the

Christian British colonizers and American missionaries (Sandgren 1982), and the belief

system of the Kikuyu people. In our analysis of this theme, we aim to explore how

religion shapes the world views of the characters of Njoroge and his family and Mr

Howlands in the novel.

Lastly, education is a significant theme when studying hybridity in Ngũgĩ’s work,

as it provides a fertile space for the interactions and consequent negotiations between

the different classes represented in the novel.

12

Theory

Hegemony and the Subaltern

Hegemony and the subaltern are key concepts in Gramsci’s work (Bates 1975,

351; Green 2002, 1). The concept of the subaltern was developed gradually throughout

the Prison Notebooks: Notebook 1 mentions the subaltern only in relation to hierarchy

in military rankings (Green 2002, 4), whereas in Notebook 3 one already finds the

subaltern as an issue of social class, where the tension between the subordinate and the

ruling groups is central. The term was then narrowed down to stand for “slaves,

peasants, religious groups, women, different races, and the proletariat” in Notebook 25

(Green 2002, 2). Subalternity is thus constituted by a wide range of groups whose social

and political organization varies significantly (Green 2002, 10), and whose only

common trace is their submission to the ruling groups (Louai 2011, 5). Consequently,

while some groups “leave no traces of their development, […] others have “advanced” to

the point where they have the ability to come to power” (Green 2002, 11).

Gramsci’s inquiry into the position of the groups he defined as subaltern revolves

around their genesis and the socio-political causes that brought it about, their agency in

the domains of politics, history and literature, and the possibility for the transformation

of their status quo (Green 2002, 3) - the latter imagined by Gramsci as a permanent

victory which subverts the master-slave relation, and realized by “releasing the

subordinated consciousness of non-elite group from the cultural hegemony exercised by

the ruling class” (Louai 2011, 5).

Furthermore, hegemony is described as “political leadership based on the consent

of the led, a consent which is secured by the diffusion and popularization of the world view

of the ruling class.” (Bates 1975, 352) This is related to an important shift in the

understanding of state’s relationship to power. The state does not possess the power to

subject people per se, that is, “man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas.” (Bates

1975, 351) Hegemony complements the political domination of social groups by the

ruling class. In fact, without hegemony, the subaltern’s subordination to the ruling

groups is not possible. Gramsci indicated that hegemony operates in the realm of civil

society (the church, newspapers, trade unions, schools, etc.) where the dominant

group’s values and ideology become appropriated (Green 2002, 7). As an implication,

13

any value or norm of the dominant society becomes internalized and adopted as ‘truth’

and ‘common sense’ by those subordinated to the ruling class (Green 2002, 21).

When studying the subaltern, the risk of encountering a text which

misrepresents and misinterprets the subaltern groups complicates the tracing and

producing of the subaltern history (Green 2002, 14). Therefore, each representation or

interpretation of the subaltern history, conditions, and aspirations needs to be

understood as stemming from a specific context which influences the portrayal of

subalternity (Green 2002, 15).

The study of Weep Not, Child in this project is one of the many possible ways of

analysing hegemony and the subaltern in colonial Kenya. One should keep in mind that

we are dealing with a work of fiction, and therefore the representations of the colonial

relations are deeply dependent on the author’s position. As mentioned earlier in the

introduction, we are treating the novel as a postcolonial work and our overall

framework is that of postcolonialism, thus the portrayal of the subaltern and hegemony

in Weep Not, Child are treated in accordance with this framework.

Hybridity

This concept seeks to transcend and break with the barriers of conventional

western modes of thought that construe ethnicity “as unified and unitary set of beliefs,

practices, and configurations” (Klages 2006, 159).

In the Location of Culture, Homi K. Bhabha exhorts the reader to step out of the

conventional modus operandi and to reconstruct the modern world within a new line of

thought. As we leave behind the ‘primary and conceptual’ (Bhabha 2004, 2) categories

and bring forth new conceptualizations of the self, Bhabha asserts that we “need to think

beyond narratives of originary and initial subjectivities and to focus on those moments or

processes that are produced in the articulation of cultural differences” (Bhabha 2004, 2).

From these ‘moments or processes’, Bhabha mentions, emerge fragments of ‘in-between

spaces’ where it is possible to assemble “new strategies for selfhood— singular or

communal— that initiate new signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration, and

contestation, in the act of defining the idea of society itself” (Bhabha, 2004, 2). The hybrid

represents this step towards a new conceptualization and construction of the subject

that is characteristic of Post structuralism (Klages 2006, 159).

14

Bhabha’s position emerges from a deconstructionist approach that aims to

transcend from the logic of binary oppositions and essentialist notions characteristic in

structuralism (Lal and Lal 1997, 72). Cultural differences, comprehended within a

Structuralist perspective, are based on a system of binary oppositions, unities always in

contrast to each other (McQuillan 2000, 8). However, according to Bhabha, these

cultural differences constructed within binary oppositions and ‘singular or communal’

milieus ought to be seen as an ‘ongoing negotiation ’(Bhabha 2004, 3), not as a part of a

‘pre-given ethnic or cultural trait’ (Bhabha 2004, 3) which allows to reassess identity

construction. Thus, hybridity refers to the subject located in an “interstitial passage

between fixed identifications” which “opens up the possibility of a cultural hybridity that

entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy” (Bhabha 2004, 5).

In postcolonial discourse, the hybrid transcends the boundaries of the binary

oppositions colonizer/colonized, west/rest and self/other discourses, and hails its

construction as a “superior cultural intelligence through the advantage of ‘in-

betweenness’, the straddling of two allures and the consequent ability to ‘negotiate the

difference’” (Hoogvelt 1997, 170). The concept of hybridity will shed light on the

characters in the novel and their development through the narration. By analysing the

characters throughout different themes we will unravel how the characters are

constructed through the lens of postcolonial context.

Ambivalence and Mimicry

Bhabha’s concepts of ambivalence and mimicry are, according to his own work, an

unavoidable result of colonial discourse and the exertion of its authority over the

colonized. It is precisely in the space in which colonizer and colonized meet that these

concepts arise as a consequence of colonial interaction.

Ambivalence, Bhabha explains, “describes the complex mix of attraction and repulsion

that characterizes the relationship between colonizer and colonized” (Ashcroft 2007, 10).

This notion assumes that the relationship between the two is not a matter of clear-cut

divisions, such as total assimilation or absolute rejection, but rather something in

between and something fluid. This ambivalence emerges from the way in which the two

agents, colonized and colonizer, interact, and at the same times shapes the way in which

they relate to each other. If the status of the colonized is to be perceived as a layered

15

reality of ambivalent attitudes, the position of the colonizer is equally nuanced, since

“the way in which colonial discourse relates to the colonized subject […] may be both

exploitative and nurturing, or represent itself as nurturing, at the same time.” (Ashcroft

2007, 10). According to Bhabha, the role of ambivalence in colonial discourse is a key

concept in the analysis of colonial relationships, for it is this ambivalence that can

ultimately bring the downfall of colonial domination.

The concept of ambivalence and its aforementioned implications can only be

understood when paired with the concept of mimicry. Bhabha defines colonial mimicry

as “the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost

the same, but not quite.” (Bhabha 2004, 122) Thus, the colonialized is turned into a

mimic, a version of the colonizer that looks like itself but it is not. This is done as a

means of control, to ensure the compliance of the colonized subject not through

assimilation, but through a process of mimesis that results in a colonized individual that

is, as an example, “Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, opinions, in morals,

and in intellect.” (Ashcroft 2007, 125). As a result of colonial action, a type of individual

emerges that is neither/or, for the adoption and adaption of the English language and

the English customs, amongst which religion can be included, are not total and

complete. There is no assimilation, no “harmonization of repression of difference, but a

form of resemblance” (Bhabha 2004, 128); mimicry is a camouflage rather than a

transformation. Thus, the ambivalent nature of colonial discourse converges in and is

revealed by the result of colonial authority: “mimicry repeats rather than re-presents”

(Bhabha 2004, 128) or rather, the imitator is not what it imitates. As a consequence, this

“flawed colonial mimesis, in which to be Anglicized is emphatically not to be English”

(Bhabha 2004, 128), enables a “splitting of colonial discourse so that two attitudes

towards external reality persist; one takes reality into consideration while the other

disavows it and replaces it by a product of desire that repeats, rearticulates ‘reality’ as

mimicry” (Bhabha 2004, 130), this product being the colonized subject.

If mimicry poses a threat to colonial power, Bhabha argues, it is because it makes of the

colonial subject a ‘partial’ presence, an uncertainty that is born from the repetition of

signs the implications of which does not necessarily understand or accept (Bhabha

2004, 123). These elements, be they language, religion or custom, become in the hands

of the colonized a partial presence like itself, an empty repetition, a mockery of the signs

of authority of the colonizer (Bhabha 2004, 172). In other words: “mimicry reveals the

16

limitation in the authority of colonial discourse”(Ashcroft 2004, 125). Thus, the colonizer,

in articulating the colonial discourse around difference, enables and at the same time

promotes the emergence of ambivalence and mimicry, elements through which,

according to Bhabha, the limitations and weaknesses of colonial discourse are exposed

(Bhabha 2004, 162).

Taking into account the definitions of ambivalence and mimicry presented in this

chapter, the characters of Weep Not, Child will be analysed according to their

relationship with colonial discourse and the way it affects their own depictions and that

of a postcolonial Kenya.

The Third Space

The Third Space of enunciation is a term coined by Homi K. Bhabha and can roughly be

defined as “an alternative place that emerges once people of different cultures try to

negotiate and transgress the boundaries between Self and other” (Ikas and Wagner 2009,

123). Bhabha sees an opposition in the relation between the first space, the indigenous,

and the second space, the colonial. This opposition is the difference in power the

colonizer has over the colonized. The Third Space comes into play when an individual

from either the first or second space tries to interact with the other’s culture. It is

neither a real physical place nor a spiritual place but rather acts as an in-between place.

Bhabha approaches this space through literature and language and views it “as a process

that opens up and broadens horizons for translating and communicating the multiple

elements and experiences of the self and the other that are simultaneously present and

thought to interact in a contact zone” (Ikas and Wagner 2009, 130). The Third Space,

therefore, breaks away from duality contrasts like ‘man and woman’ or ‘colonizer and

colonized’ and instead look at how each pair influences each other in a mutual exchange

relationship instead of an either-or relationship (Ikas and Wagner 2009, 130). The

Third Space is closely linked with the previously mentioned idea of hybridity, as

hybridity opens up the way for the Third Space. Bhabha sees Hybridity as the Third

Space, as it enables the new positions to emerge. As Bhabha goes on to say in his work

The Commitment to theory (1988) “It is that Third Space, though unrepresentable in itself,

which constitutes the discursive conditions of enunciation that ensure that the meaning

and symbols of culture have no primordial unity or fixity; that even the same signs can be

17

appropriated, translated, rehistoricized, and read anew.” (Bhabha 1988, 21). The main

use of the Third Space in the project is seeing when the novel goes beyond the

dichotomies of colonizer and colonized and instead shows us a Third Space and to see

how this is then used in the novel.

Analysis

As previously mentioned, the themes that will be analysed are British rule, Land and the

Mau Mau, religion and education. But before getting to the main themes of the novel it is

important to analyse the notion of race and class. While race and class are not as big of a

theme as the others, it is important to briefly analyze them as they are present

throughout the background of the novel. However, race and class will be relevant

throughout the analysis.

There is a clear class and racial hierarchy shown throughout Weep Not, Child. At

the top, we have the white British settlers, followed by the Indians, and then the native

Kenyans. Within each of the groups, some further subdivision can be seen. The white

settlers are the ruling class but also get the best lands and freedom to grow the cash

crops. While the Indian perspective is not prevalent in the novel there are a few scenes

with them. In these few scenes, they are mainly shown as shopkeepers who go out of

their way to help white customers while being somewhat dismissive of the native

Kenyans. During the interlude between parts 1 and 2, the concept of a colour bar is

introduced. As Njoroge goes on to say “black people had no land because of the colour

bar, and they could not eat in hotels because of colour bar. Colour bar was everywhere.

Rich Africans could also practise colour bar on the poorer Africans” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 69). The

rich Africans using the colour bar on poorer Africans can be seen in the relationship

between Jacobo and Ngotho.

Within the family of Njoroge, there is also a hierarchy present. His father Ngotho

is the absolute head of the house. Between Ngotho’s two wives there is also a hierarchy

between first wife and second wife (Ngũgĩ 2012, 10). Males are also separated from

those who are uncircumcised and seen as boys and those who are circumcised and seen

as men. Lastly, there is also a dichotomy between younger and older generations which

in mainly shown through Ngotho and Boro.

18

This distinction of race and class sets the scene of which hierarchies the novels

operate within. Having established this, we are further observant of how the characters

relate to each other across the established ranks of the community.

British Rule

The setting of Weep Not, Child is in colonial Kenya, where the British Empire and

its oppressive laws shape the lives of the main characters, for better or for worse.

Referencing the restrictive land laws from the start of the 20th century, the richest

characters in the novel are the ones allowed farm cash crops of tea and pyrethrum. Mr

Howlands, the main antagonist, is one, and Jacobo, the local Kikuyu chief is the other. Mr

Howlands is throughout the novel a manifestation of the British settler. Through a close

third-person narration, the reader is shown Mr Howlands train of thought and how he

identifies with this persona of the settler. Though British himself, Howlands does not

seem interested in Britain or British ideals, but is instead alienated from his home

country, and by extension, his family. He does not acknowledge England as his home or

a higher authority, neither does he identify as Kenyan, native or otherwise. “To submit to

his wife was to listen to the voice of England. He would reduce everything to his will. That

was the settlers’ way.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 87). This characterization of Howlands being neither

Kenyan nor English allows him to enact Bhabha’s mimicry, as he finds himself creating a

new identity outside the established culture of the two countries. This is especially

significant for Howlands’ relationship with his surroundings, which will be examined

further in the question of land ownership.

With Mr Howlands as the novel’s manifestation of British rule, Jacobo is his

subordinate and an example of the cronyism that was established during this period.

“Although the British officials later realised that most Kenyan societies, especially

the Akamba and Kikuyu, did not have traditional chiefs and were ruled through councils of

elders, they nevertheless retained these artificial chieftainships as a convenient, even

necessary, instrument of colonial rule.” (Ochieng 1985, 106).

As the only African in the community allowed to grow pyrethrum, Jacobo’s status

and wealth are immediately elevated from his African peers. In the extremely

hierarchical structure of the community, Jacobo is closer to the European ideal than

Ngotho and his family, as seen in how he and his wife behave.

19

“The place looked like a European’s house and Njoroge was always overawed by

the atmosphere around the whole compound.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 18) “... she never liked her

children to associate with primitive homes” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 19).

However, as an African, he remains subservient to Mr Howlands, which becomes

especially clear in the second part of the novel, where Jacobo becomes his assistant. It is

clear from their relationship that Mr Howlands does not hold Jacobo in any regard,

unlike Ngotho. Jacobo however, seems ignorant of this fact, merely relishing in his

position of power and how it allows him to torment Ngotho and his family:

“Their detention would make it easier to keep an eye on this Ngotho because as I

was telling you he may be the real leader of the Mau Mau.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 88). This

relationship between the two echoes Bhabha’s concept of mimicry. In his close

proximity to the colonial powers, Jacobo finds himself trying to mirror this power

through assimilating to English sensitivities “Jacobo, gun in hand, came in. He removed

his hat and folded it respectfully.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 87). On the other hand, Howlands

despises Jacobo for this and views him on par with the rest of the African population: as

savages “ Mr Howlands despised Jacobo because he was a savage. But he would use him.”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 86). This again is in line with Bhabha’s explanation of mimicry, as

Howlands’ repulsion of the colonized attempts of adapting into the English manner

seems to him hollow and ignorant.

Jacobo functions as a pawn in a larger conflict, where his own goals are clear, but

his options to pursue this are limited to the will of his superior. He is little more than a

minion of the oppressive British colonial system and his position is a result of

Howlands’ ‘divide and conquer’-mentality, as is revealed in chapter 10: Howlands had in

fact helped Jacobo to get permission to grow pyrethrum. In turn, Jacobo had helped him to

recruit labour and gave him advice on how to get hard work from them.” (Ngũgĩ 2012,

87).

This strict hierarchy of the community becomes the main source of conflict in the

novel. Jacobo is set up as a lackey for the British government, making him the target of

envy from his African peers. Meanwhile, Ngotho and his family live in relative poverty,

with Ngotho working as a squatter on Mr Howlands’ farm and Kamau working as a

carpenter. Boro, having returned from the Second World War, has no land of his own

and very bleak prospects of finding work, leaving him disillusioned and bitter. This

bitterness will be examined further in relation to the question of land. In general, the

20

characters are all dissatisfied with the situation and the British rule at large. Ngotho

comes to this conclusion after the conversation with Mr Howlands, where it is revealed

that he, and the British colonizers at large, will never leave (Ngũgĩ 2012, 32-33). Kamau

further articulates the sentiment: “‘And they have left their country to come and rob us

acres of what we have?’

‘Yes. they are robbers” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 46).

The conflict escalates with the arrest of Jomo Kenyatta in the interlude of the

novel and the instalment of the state of emergency that follows it. The oppression of the

Kikuyu increases and the British colonial government becomes stricter, as seen with the

appointment of Mr Howlands as the DO. Embittered by the Mau Mau’s audacity to

challenge his rule, he is no longer simply indifferent to the African population, but

vehemently despises them.

“Previously he had not thought of them as savages or otherwise, simply because he

had not thought of them at all, except as part of the farm - the way one thought of donkeys

or horses in his farm…” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 86).

Here we see Howlands’ actively subscribing to the racist colonial rhetoric on

black Africans, and thus he becomes a more overt manifestation of the British

colonizers. His actions as D.O further this notion, as seen in the instructions he gives

Jacobo, who is now his assistant: “Just keep an eye on the sons. Arrest them for anything -

curfew, tax, you know what.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 88). The image of the black Jacobo being

subordinate to the white Mr Howlands serves as an overt statement of the hierarchy

between them, furthered by Jacobo obediently referring to Mr Howlands as ‘sir’.

Jacobo’s status as the accomplice of the British rule is escalated and he uses this position

of relative power to further his own goals of revenge against Ngotho and his family.

The first explicit death in the novel is at the hands of a British soldier, when

Njoroge witnesses the murder of one of his favourite teachers, who is suspected of being

Mau Mau (Ngũgĩ 2012, 111-112). The death is especially traumatic, as the teacher Isaka

is not hostile towards the British, to begin with, but attempts to appeal to the assumed

shared Christian values between himself and the soldiers. “Where had he left his

documents? Satan had made him forget them at home. But the white soldier knew better.

Isaka was a Mau Mau.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 111). Like Howlands against Jacobo, the white

soldier resents Isaka’s appropriation of English culture, but unlike Howlands, the

21

soldier punishes Isaka with this mimicry, using Jesus against him. “‘Come this way and

we’ll see what Jesus will do for you.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 111).

From the perspective of the main protagonists, the British colonial rule sets up

an oppressive framework, that Ngotho and his family are trapped within. Unable to

advance within the system, they attempt to rebel in various ways, but are violently

stopped by the laws of the land. “The white man makes a law or a rule. Through that rule,

he takes away the land and then imposes many laws on the people concerning that land

and many other things, all without people agreeing on it first as in the old days of the

tribe.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 82). The laws are set in place to further subdue the African

characters, who in turn attempt to further rebel against the hostile environment with

tragic consequences.

Land

In Weep Not, Child, the topic of land ownership is the centre of conflict, not just

as a means of survival, but as a question of identity. In the beginning of the novel,

Ngotho tells the Kikuyu creation myth of Gikuyu and Mumbi, wherein Ngai, the God of

creation, bestowed the land to the Kikuyu people and clans “This land I hand over to you.

O Man and woman - It’s yours to rule and till in serenity sacrificing - Only to me, your God,

under my sacred tree…”(Ngũgĩ 2012, 24). This sets up land ownership as a divine and

fundamental aspect of Kikuyu culture, which the characters echo throughout.

As the patriarch of his family, Ngotho’s main goal and purpose is to provide for

his wives and children and in the start of the novel, he seemingly lives up to this ideal,

having enough excess to provide his youngest son Njoroge with an education (Ngũgĩ

2012, 12). Ngotho is very traditional in the sense that he believes in the prophecy of

Mugo wa Kibiro, that the white men will return to England, and he will once again

return to his ancestral land. This reverence of the prophecy shows Ngotho’s belief in the

divine right he as a Kikuyu has to the land he lives on and tends to. However, when Mr

Howlands makes it clear that he is going to stay permanently in chapter 3, Ngotho finds

that he is forced to be more proactive in reclaiming his land and his authority. This

matter becomes more pressing when his veteran son Boro clearly challenges his

authority and urges him to take the Mau Mau oath: “He would not take the Mau Mau oath

at his son’s hand or instruction.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 77). As the novel progresses, Ngotho is

22

seen gradually stripped of his authority as the patriarch of his family, leading him to

attack Jacobo during the strike. “For one single moment Jacobo crystallized into a

concrete betrayal of the people. He became the physical personification of the long years of

waiting and suffering – Jacobo was a Traitor.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 62). Ngotho’s resentment of

Jacobo also stems from the fact that it is his land that Ngotho’s family lives on. The

attack on Jacobo forces Ngotho and his family to leave Jacobo’s land, leaving them more

destitute than ever. Following the state of emergency, Ngotho murders Jacobo and is

subsequently imprisoned, tortured and dies as a result. This continuing failure as the

patriarch of the family is represented in Ngotho’s seemingly diminishing masculinity

relating back to his loss of the land.

“Was he a man any longer, he who had watched his wife and son taken away

because of breaking the curfew without a word of protest? [...] He came back to his seat, a

defeated man, a man who cursed himself for being a man with a lost manhood.” (Ngũgĩ

2012, 89)

His second eldest son defies him by not only joining the Mau Mau, but also

pressuring his elder to join. Ngotho resists not due to his own moral direction, but out of

pride and respect for the traditional order (Ngũgĩ 2012, 77). Later in the novel, after

murdering Jacobo, Ngotho is castrated at the hands of his jailers (Ngũgĩ 2012, 128).

They have physically and metaphorically stripped Ngotho of his last shred of status as

the patriarch. On his deathbed, he laments this loss in front of Boro “You too have com

back - to laugh at me? Would you laugh at your father? No. Ha! I meant only good for you

all.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 135). His quest to return to his own land ends in failure and leaves his

family to fend for themselves.

Boro, being the now eldest son after his brother’s death in the Second World

War, returns home cynical at the status quo. His father notes that he is ‘changed’ on

numerous occasions and is alienated from his family. He opposes the white rule of their

land, being the first to articulate that Howlands’ ownership of their ancestral land being

unjust:

“I grew up here, but working (here Ngotho looked all around the silent faces and then

continued) ... working on the land that belonged to our ancestors…”

“You mean the land that Howlands farms?” Boro’s voice was cracked, but clear.” (Ngũgĩ

2012, 26)

23

Though very embittered and opposed against the white rule, Boro had very

contradictory motivations in joining the Mau Mau, as seen in the discussion he has with

his lieutenant:

“Don’t you believe in anything?

No. nothing. Except revenge.

Return of the lands?

The lost land will come back to us maybe. But I’ve lost too many of those whom I loved for

land to mean much to me. It would be a cheap victory.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 112).

This ambivalence is carried on from the rootlessness Boro has been subjected to

after his return, having no job to return to, and more importantly, no land he can claim

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 26).

Like his father, Boro views the land as the birthright of his people and his culture. Along

with his brother who lost his life in the war, Boro has had the very land and soul of his

people stolen by the white colonizers.

As mentioned before, the character of Mr Howlands functions for a stand-in for the

British presence in the novel, but when it comes to the theme of landownership,

Howlands interestingly takes on the prevalent African values, subverting them into his

own. Like Ngotho, he is a veteran of the First World War, and has lost a son in the

Second World War (Ngũgĩ 2012, 32). And like Ngotho, his reaction to this trauma is to

focus on his farm and the land.

“Mr Howlands lost all faith - even the few shreds that had begun to return. He

would have destroyed himself, but again his god, land, came to the rescue. He turned all his

efforts and energy into it. He seemed to worship the soil.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 32).

As mentioned, Mr Howlands’ identity as a settler takes precedence over his

identity as a British citizen and as a settler, he identifies more with the land itself than

the people in it. This reverence of the land as something divine creates a strange

dynamic between Howlands and his surroundings, where he identifies the land itself as

his reason for being, and sees it as an extension of himself. Contrasting with Ngotho and

Boro’s views of their land as being an inheritance from the god Ngai, Howlands has a

more pantheistic view of the land as God itself, as seen in the quote above. Even so, his

reverence of the land is more reminiscent of Kikuyu world views than English ones,

lending him an air of ambivalence according to Bhabha. In Bhabha’s view, the cultural

24

exchange goes both ways between the colonizer and the colonized. In Howlands’ case,

he is not only taking over originally Kikuyu lands, but Kikuyu values as well.

In lieu of British ideals or colonial mindsets, Howlands does not see the land as

something to colonize or civilize, in fact, he does not particularly care about the people

living there and how they fare. This is especially clear in his relationship with Ngotho

“Ngotho was too much a part of the farm to be separated from it.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 31). In

this quote, Howlands does not view Ngotho as belonging to any ethnic group or race,

but to the land he farms, and to Howlands himself. That is why when Ngotho then joins

the strike, Howlands’ reaction is so violent and hate-filled. It is an act of rebellion at

Howlands’ position of power in the hierarchy of colonial rule, but more so, it is an act of

rebellion against what Howlands perceives as the natural and divine order. Howlands’

goal to preserve his dominion of the land continues throughout the novel. His final

words before being killed by Boro are: “This is my land.” (Ngũgĩ 2012,140).

In summary, the theme of land ownership is presented as a question of identity,

rather than of law. The characters each struggle claim ownership of what they see as

their rightful place of belonging. This struggle proves fatal for both Ngotho and Mr

Howlands, who are both killed in the name of preserving their claim to the land and

Boro is forced into exile after avenging his father’s death.

Mau Mau

In Weep Not, Child, the Mau Mau movement do not feature as directly as the

colonial British rule. They are not characterized as an unambiguously righteous

organisation, and except for an unnamed lieutenant in chapter 12, they are not

represented by any one character. The first mention of them happens in chapter 9

during a discussion between Njoroge and his schoolmates.

“The homeguards with their white masters. They are as bad as Mau Mau.’ ‘No. Mau

Mau is not bad. The Freedom boys are fighting against white settlers. Is it bad to fight for

one’s land?’” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 79).

“’I like K.A.U and fear Mau Mau’” (Ngũgĩ 2012 80).

In the first part of the novel the Mau Mau are given an air of mythology, as the

younger and more naïve characters describe the leader, Dedan Kimathi as a magical

figure “That’s the point. Dedan can change himself into anything - a white man, a bird, or a

tree. He can also turn himself into an aeroplane. He learnt all this in the Big War.” (Ngũgĩ

25

2012, 74). However, as the novel progresses, and the situation turns more dire, the Mau

Mau become more tangible and provide a last resort for the character of Boro. However,

they also provide the colonial government with ample justification for committing

violent crimes against the Kikuyu, as seen with the death of Teacher Isaka (Ngũgĩ 2012,

111-112).

As mentioned, Boro returns from the Second World War to a community he

cannot place himself into. Without having any land or work to return to, he grows more

hostile towards the colonial powers that have placed him in this situation

“When the war came to an end, Boro had come home, no longer a boy but a man

with experience and ideas, only to find that for him there was no employment. There was

no land on which he could settle. Even if he had been able to do so.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 26).

This relates back to the actual historical roots of the Mau Mau, wherein many of

the members had a background in the British army as askaris (Ochieng 1985, 125).

However, these sentiments are not echoed by his father, and so Boro comes to resent

Ngotho for his placidness in the face of the colonial system, in this case: Ngotho’s

employment at Mr Howlands’ farm.

“’How can you continue for a man who has taken your land? How can you go on serving?’

He walked out, without waiting for an answer.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 27)

Boro’s antagonism towards his father is thus a challenge to his authority at the

helm of the family, as seen when he attempts to pressure Ngotho into taking the oath

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 77). Boro’s own motivation for joining the Mau Mau movement is however

very ambivalent, as seen in the dialogue with his lieutenant.

“Boro had always told himself that the real reason for his flight to the forest was a

desire to fight for freedom. But this fervor had soon worn off. His mission became a mission

of revenge.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 112).

Here it becomes clear that his motivation is not just to reclaim the land that the

British have stolen from his family, as is articulated in chapter 2 (Ngũgĩ 2012, 26-27).

This further shows how detached Boro is from the community surrounding him, as he is

no longer concerned with the struggle for his land and by extension, his heritage. This

disconnects him from his culture at large, leaving him rootless and concerned only with

his own need for revenge for his fallen brother. His involvement with the Mau Mau,

however, has consequences for Boro’s entire family, as seen in the second half of the

novel.

26

As mentioned, D.O Howlands is not above framing the family for even minor

offences (Ngũgĩ 2012, 89). This becomes startlingly clear with the incarcerations of Kori

and Njeri, which again leads Boro to blame his father’s cowardice. “They have taken my

mother and brother away!’ Boro slowly repeated. […] ‘Curfew…’ And then turning his voice

to Ngotho, ‘And you again did nothing?’” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 90).

Displaced by the British powers and alienated from his own culture, Boro’s anger

is directed solely at the colonizers and their cronies. However, this displacement from

having fought in a British War also influences Boro in terms of his soldiering skills “Boro

had learnt to be a good marksman during the Second World War.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 140). In

killing Howlands with the same techniques he acquired in the war, Boro has come full

circle as a weapon used by the British, now towards the British. As Orwell wrote: “There

is one thought which every white man [...] thinks when he sees a black army marching

past. ‘How much longer can we go on kidding these people? How long before they turn

their guns in the other direction?” (Ochieng 1985, 125).

Religion

This section focuses on the characters’ religious influences observed through the

concept of hybridity. As mentioned before, the concept of the hybrid in postcolonial

theory refers to the individual as being beyond the boundaries of the binary oppositions

colonizer /colonized underlining the fact that such being must be of “superior cultural

intelligence through the advantage of ‘in-betweenness’, the straddling of two allures and

the consequent ability to ‘negotiate the difference’” (Hoogvelt 1997, 170).

It can be argued that the characters in the novel of Weep Not, Child are

constricted by religion as a result of colonialism. Njoroge, for example, could be argued

to be situated between two religious forces, namely Kikuyu’s spiritual beliefs and

Christianity, and thus he navigates between these realms.

“O, mother, you are an angel of God, you are you are you are. Then he wondered: had she

been to a magic worker? Or else how could she have devised his child’s unspoken wish, his

undivulged dream? (Ngũgĩ 2012, 1)

Njoroge, grateful for having the opportunity to go to school, wanders between

the two traditions. His rationalization of God and religion could be argued to exist in an

27

interstitial space, where there are no boundaries or hegemony between the two; he

explores and exercises religion in such a way that can only be understood in the light of

colonialism.

Njoroge is defined as a highly devoted person, as he actively makes a connection

of his religious beliefs and the events going on around him. This is exemplified by

analyzing one specific scene from the first part of the novel (Ngũgĩ 2012, 1). Njoroge’s

mothers and father discuss the strike that is about to happen. Ngotho is not sure

whether to join the strike, and doubtful of his decision he communicates the events of

the meeting to his wives, which result in a family quarrel over what is the best decision

for the family. Njoroge, knowing about this encounter, worries about the future and asks

the Lord about the denouement of this event.

“In his bed, he knelt down and prayed. ‘God forgive me, for I am wicked. Perhaps it

is me who has brought uncleanliness into our home. Forgive me my sins. Help my father

and mother [...] He wanted an assurance. He wanted a foretaste of the future before it

came. In the Old Testament, God spoke to His people. Surely he could do the same thing

now. So Njoroge listened, seriously and quietly [...]” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 56-57).

Njoroge’s religious beliefs go beyond a mimetic process that was ever present in

colonization, but wanders through the realm of the hybrid, according to Bhabha’s

conceptualization.

Furthermore, his relationship to religion goes beyond obedience and belief in

God, he reflects what he has learned from the preacher. He seeks for a better

understanding of what religion consists of and the ways it can be incorporated into the

events around the village and the country. As he does so, he engages in conversation

with Mwihaki and discusses the veracity of the preacher’s words.

“Do you think what he said was true?’

‘What? He said many things .’

‘That Jesus will come soon?’

Njoroge started. He too was thinking about what the old teacher predicted about the

world.

He had been impressed because it all looked so true, war, diseases, pestilence, insecurity,

betrayal, family disintegrations- Njoroge had seen all this [...]

‘I don’t know,’ he at least said.

28

‘Dear Jesus,’ she murmured to herself.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 100).

As seen in the last quotation, there is a need for the character to seek, not the truth, but

a way to comprehend what is happening to him, however, he is critical of the pastor’s

approach.

Moreover, by creating a comparison between Njoroge’s discourse before, during

and after the rebellion and his personal and family experiences, it can be argued that

Njoroge’s faith diminishes as the story continues. The development of the war and the

tragedies that befall his family generate a gradual disbelief in God. For example, the

previous quote, as it has been discussed, shows a character who tries to comprehend

the events around him in relation to his faith. On page 52, however, Njoroge speaks

about the righteousness and equality that should exist in the world.

Njoroge comes to place faith in the Bible and with his vision of an educated life in

the future is a belief in the righteousness of God. Equity and justness are there in the

world.

“If you did well and remained faithful to your God, the kingdom of Heaven would be

yours. A good man gave a reward from God: a bad man would harvest bad fruits. The

tribal stories told to him by his mother had strengthened this belief in the virtue of toil and

perseverance. [...]” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 52).

This serves as a juxtaposition to where his faith has ceased:

“O, God- but why did he call on God? God meant little to him now. For Njoroge had now lost

faith in all the things he had earlier believed in, like wealth, power, education, religion.

Even love, his last hope, had fled from him”. (Ngũgĩ 2012, 145)

Once his education is also taken away from him, Njoroge ceases to rely on

religion to bring perspective, knowledge or even hope to his life. For him, religion is no

longer important. After the horrors that he and his family have endured, there is no

hope left in young Njoroge.

Njoroge's relationship with religion, to conclude, is considered to be in an

interstitial space, and his character could be considered to be a hybrid due to the way in

which he negotiates and navigates both Christian religion and tribal faith without falling

29

into a binary opposition. There is no hegemony reigning in these latter two. He accepts

and is oblivious to the fact that one cannot exist if the other one is present, but he

merges these two traditions becoming part of Bhabha’s hybrid.

Contrary to Njoroge, whose beliefs arise often and are negotiated discussed and

questioned by both of the characters, Njoroge’s elder brothers, Boro and Kamau, have a

different conceptualization of religion.

For Boro and Kamau religion comes in a second plane, as they are more worried

about the future of Kenya and the political situation developing at that moment.

Traditions, as it has been mentioned before, are an intrinsic part of the African

community, and so is storytelling. One particular night their father Ngotho narrates the

story about the creation of the world and the rise and fall of the Kikuyu land brought

upon the white man.

Ngotho narrates how at the beginning of time, Mukuyu, God’s tree, appeared at

the foot of Kerinyaga, or Mount Kenya. At this time the first man and woman (Gikuyu

and Mumbi) were created and the creator god, Ngai, promised the land to the two

(Ngũgĩ 2012 23). Ngotho later surmises that the reason for the occupation of the British

may be a form of divine punishment, as it features in other Kikuyu legends:

“But maybe the children of Mumbi forgot to burn a sacrifice to Murungu. So he did

not shed His blessed tears that make crops grow. The sun burnt freely. Plague came to the

land. Cattle died and people shrank in size. Then came the white man as had long been

prophesied by Mugo wa Kibirio, that Gikuyu seer of old.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 25).

To this story, Boro is enraged from the passive attitude of his father. He thinks

that faith, religion, and superstition will not free the African man.

“As he listened to this story, these entire things come into his mind with a growing

anger. How could these people have left the white man to occupy the land without acting?

And what was all this superstitious belief in a prophecy? In a whisper that sounded like a

shout, he said, ‘To hell with the prophecy.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 27).

Boro’s characterization contrasts Njoroge’s, accentuating the latter’s hybridity even

more. At first, Boro’s approach to religion sets him apart from the other characters, but

as the reader moves forward on the narration we learn that his attitude is, in fact,

ambivalent, for example when Njoroge asks his brother Kamau about Jomo:

30

“(Njoroge) do you think it’s true what father says, that all the land belongs to the black

people?’

‘Yes. Black people have their land in the country of black people. White men have their

land in their own country. It is simple. I think it was God’s plan”

[...]

Who is Jomo?

‘Boro called him the black Moses.’

‘In the Bible?’

‘I don’t know.’

‘I think I’ve heard about that in the Bible’” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 46).

According to Kamau, Boro refers to Jomo as the black Moses, however, the reader

cannot know if the brother actually made a comparison between these two. Njoroge

however, makes the connection right away. From this fragment emerges the discussion

about the intermingling of faiths. On the one hand, Boro despises the British rule and

the occupation of them in the Kikuyu lands. This attitude emerges from the oppression

of the African people, on the other hand, waving a high level of ambivalence, he makes a

comparison between the biblical character and the insurgent Jomo Kenyatta. In the

same manner, the speech of Kiarie is built with the same ambivalence: the rebellion asks

for their land back, argue that God was the one who has sent Jomo to liberate their

people from their oppressive hand.

“He told them how the land had been taken away, through the Bible and the sword.

‘Yes, that’s how your land was taken away. The Bible paved the way for the sword.’ For

this, he blamed the foolish generosity of their forefathers who pity the stranger and

welcomed him with open arms into their world.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 61).

They condemn religion for being the one that ‘paved the way’ and at the same

time, they hail God for having sent Jomo (although it is not clear which god they refer

to). It can be argued that the speech of Kiarie is embedded with both ambivalence

towards the colonized and mimicry of their political ideology.

This could be seen to be part of the colonial influence that is embedded so deeply

that he is unable to see the incongruity. Kamau, appears to conceive religion in a

different way than his brothers, even though there are not so many references or

31

indications as to how he really thinks about religion. The reader can infer that for him

religion does not stand for oppression, and he embraces both traditions. Like Njoroge,

Kamau thinks about religion as a way to express his discontent with the white

occupation in Kenya, if God placed each race on different continents, then why should

the white man occupy the land that was meant for the black man? (Ngũgĩ 2012, 46).

His religious belief is kept within that frame of understanding and he is enraged that the

white settlers have taken away their territory. However, his religious standpoint is not

further elaborated in the narration but it is important to remark the differences

between the three brothers, as each represents a facet of the colonial/postcolonial

consequence in relation to their religious beliefs.

Mr Howlands’ relation to religion, as his conceptualization of previously

mentioned part, breaks with the stereotype of the settler as a missionary and as

doctrinaire. Mr Howlands, in fact, is rid of any religious connotations, and thus it is

reflected in the narration. For him the most important thing is the land that he is taking

care of, that he is cultivating, the land is his muse, his woman and if there were a god,

then his god would be the farm he has created. This sentiment intensifies when the

rebellion starts to unfold, driving the character into a zealous and defensive mode:

“[...] it was no good calling on the name of God, for him, Howlands, did not believe in God.

there was only one god for him - and that was the farm he had created, the land he had

tamed. And who were these Mau Mau who were now claiming that land, his god? [...] He

had been called upon to take up a temporary appointment as a district office. He had

agreed. But only because this meant defending his god. If they claimed the only thing he

believed in, they would see!” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 86).

Mr Howlands’ relationship with the land and god could be compared with

Ngotho’s. The most important thing for both of them, to defend their land and to be able

to have it back, is what drives both of the characters. Their religion in this sense

becomes the love and care they have for their land.

The narration of Weep Not, Child exemplifies the multifaceted construction of

religion in colonial Kenya. Through the characters and their different approaches to

religious beliefs and traditional rituals, the reader is able to understand and to observe

how each character navigates between religious identities.

32

Education

Education plays a very large role throughout the novel. The novel starts off with Njoroge

receiving the news from his mother that he will be sent to school. While the main way

education is viewed in the novel is through Njoroge, we also get a glimpse of education

through the characters of Kamau, Mwihaki and Stephen Howlands. Kamau is doing an

apprenticeship to become a carpenter and Mwihaki and Stephen are both in school.

Throughout the novel, we closely follow Njoroge’s progress through school where he

consistently does well. He progresses from grade to grade and eventually makes it to

high school.

Njoroge has an extremely high regard for education. He sees it as the primary

way to move up in the world. “The vision of his childhood again opened before him. For a

time he contemplated the vision. He lived in it alone. It was just there, for himself; a bright

future” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 3). This idea that education will provide a bright future is

something that Njoroge believes in throughout the novel until just before the end.

Njoroge’s idea of the bright future that education can bring grows over the course of the

novel. While at first, he is happy just to be learning as he becomes older he starts to

dream of eventually going abroad to study. At the start of the novel, the future that

Njoroge is talking about is the idea that education will make one rich. Njoroge believes

that “Jacobo is as rich as Mr Howlands because he got an education” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 4).

Eventually, Njoroge starts seeing education as more than just a bright future for himself

and starts seeing it as the path towards a bright future for Kenya. This is first brought

up by his brother Kamau who, quoting Jomo, says “Education is the light of Kenya”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 40) and further argued for by Jacobo when Njoroge reveals to him that he

is going to high school: “I hope you do well. It such as you who must work hard and rebuilt

the country. Njoroge felt something jump in him. He saw himself rebuilding the whole

country.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 101). After this Njoroge starts to believe in the idea and shares it

Mwihaki in chapter 13 when trying to instil hope in her about the future. Njoroge also

starts to believe that education is also the way out of the current political situation

when he says “Only education could make something out of this wreckage” (Ngũgĩ 2012,

91).

In the novel receiving an education is a prestigious undertaking. Both for the

individual receiving it but also for the family who is sending them to school, and the

33

surrounding community. This can be seen when Njoroge gets accepted to high school

“The news of his success passed from hill to hill. In spite of the troubled time, people still

retained genuine interest in education. [...] Somehow the Gikuyu people saw their

deliverance as embodied in education.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 116). Njoroge parents also use his

education as a potential way for them to move up in the world. Njoroge’s mother sees

the education of her children as the crowning achievement of her motherhood. But also

uses it as a way to try and gain more prestige over the wife of Jacobo and Mr Howlands,

and would go on to say “It did not matter if anyone died poor provide he or she could one

day say: ‘look, I’ve a son as good as and well educated as any you can find in the land.”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 16). Njoroge’s father Ngotho sees his son’s education as a way to gain back

his land, and while he recognizes the importance of education, he still believes that

owning land is more important. (Ngũgĩ 2012, 40-41). But at the same time just like his

wife, Ngotho does gain a sense of pride from having one of his sons in school and

compares himself as now being more equal with Jacobo (Ngũgĩ 2012, 12). Lastly,

Njoroge’s brother Kamau sees Njoroge’s education as something that will help out the

entire family and he goes on to say “I could be rich and then we could all help you in

school. Your learning is for all of us. Father says the same thing. He is anxious that you go

on, so you can might bring light to our home” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 40). Njoroge becomes aware

of the demands that are put on him as he is attaining an education:

“He knew that for him education would be the fulfillment of a wider and more

significant vision- a vision that embraced the demands made on him, not only by his father,

but also by his mother, his brothers and even the village. He saw himself destined for

something big, and this made his heart glow” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 41).

Education or more specifically the school itself becomes a Third Space in the

novel. It is already a space where European ideas are merged with Kenyan culture. The

result is that the children in the educational system become hybrids. But it also acts as a

place where both the cultures of the coloniser and colonised can meet on an equal

footing. This can be especially seen during the meeting Njoroge and Stephen have in

chapter 14 at Siriana Secondary School. While both boys had been aware of each other

before this meeting they had never before communicated or interacted due to social

hierarchy boundaries. Now that they are both school boys they are on equal footing.

“Njoroge saw he was not afraid of Stephen. Here in school Stephen was a boy. Njoroge

could not be afraid of a boy.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 120). Within this school, they are free to talk

34

and share ideas with each other which in turn allows both boys to gain a greater

understanding of each other as well as each other’s culture. The boys talk about their

fears, insecurities and home which draws them closer together. “They felt closer together

by a common experience of insecurity and fear no one could escape” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 122).

The school is not only a place where the colonizers’ culture meets the colonized

cultures, but also a place where the different tribes from Kenya come together. Similarly

to how the school is a place for Njoroge and Stephen to come to understand each other,

it also acts as a place for Njoroge to come to understand the different tribes of Kenya.

“Here again, he met boys from many tribes. Again, if these boys had met him and had tried

to practice dangerous witchcraft on him, he would have understood. But instead, he met

boys from other black communities who were like him in every way.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 119).

Siriana Secondary School in the novel becomes a Third Space, as it allows for the

transgression beyond the colonizer and the colonized, and beyond the difference in the

Kenyan tribes. It becomes a place where many can meet, talk and bond as equals. But

most importantly it acts as a place where all the different people who live in Kenya can

learn from each other.

Education in the novel still remains a colonial construct. The schools that Njoroge went

to where all forms of missionary schools. Even when the Kikuyu people try to form their

own school they were shut down by the government (Ngũgĩ 2012, 75). England is also

seen as the centre of learning in the novel. The characters see going to England to learn

as the highest level of education one can achieve. Interestingly in several parts in the

novel the idea of England being the centre of education gets confused with the centre of

education being anywhere but in Kenya, as seen in the discussion between Njoroge and

Kamau about Jacobo’s eldest son:

“People say that because he has finished all the learning in Kenya, he will now go far away

to…’ England.’ Or Burma.’ England and Burma and Bombay and India are all the same

places. You have to cross the sea before you can reach there’. That’s where Mr Howlands

comes from? Yes.’ I wonder why he left England, the home of learning, and came here”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 4-5).

English is also seen in the novel as the language of the educated. When Ngotho

asks the question as to why Kenyans had no education before the colonizers arrived the

answer that was given is that old Kenyans did not know English (Ngũgĩ 2012, 39).

35

What Ngũgĩ expresses in the novel is that education is an excellent tool for self-

improvement for the youth of Kenya. It can be argued that Njoroge’s experience of

education is a direct reflection of other students of his generation. Ngũgĩ in the novel

does at one point say that “Education for him (Njoroge red.), as for many boys of his

generation, held the key to the future” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 51). But what also becomes apparent

with the novel’s end in mind is that education is the solution to the problems of the

future. Njoroge uses education as a kind of shield to hide from the troubles happening

around him. He is somewhat innocent and ignorant of the current political reality. When

he finally gets dragged into this brutal reality, he is unequipped to cope with it. After his

time in the internment camp, his beliefs crumble around him and he has trouble keeping

a job as a store clerk. Njoroge’s great plans for the future with his education disappear

and he gives up on life. It doesn’t seem like Ngũgĩ argues that education, in the end,

leads to failure; but more than the political situation in Kenya at that time was

destroying people’s lives, dreams and hope. Not even the power of self-improvement

through education is saved from the political situation.

The analysis has examined the characters’ interaction with the main themes of

the book mainly British rule, Land and the Mau Mau, religion and education. Through

the theme of British rule, it becomes apparent that the characters are heavily oppressed

and the strict framework makes it hard for them to move up in the world. The land is

closely connected with the characters sense of identity and how they relate to each

other outside the strict social hierarchy. But while the Mau Mau is also closely

connected with the land question within the novel, they are treated somewhat

ambivalently, although providing the Kenyan characters with a sense of vigilante justice.

In the theme of religion, the combination of Kikuyu mythology with Christian values

provides a multifaceted colonial discourse, which the characters use in their search for

meaning. As an extension of this theme, education plays a central role in the novel and is

the main way characters can better themselves. However the political situation in Kenya

shown in the novel is so dire, that self-improvement through education becomes almost

impossible.

36

Discussion

In this chapter, we will discuss the construction of hegemonic colonial power in the

novel through the themes presented in the previous section. In addition, the intricate

subaltern relationships between the different groups that stem from hegemonic power

will be delineated, also in relation to the themes observed in the analysis. The

discussion will be carried out under the theoretical framework of Antonio Gramsci’s

notion of hegemony and the subaltern and Homi Bhabha’s concept of the hybrid,

mimicry and ambivalence in an attempt to answer our initial question: how is colonial

Kenya constructed in Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s Weep Not, Child?

Structures of Power: Establishing Hegemony

Gramsci’s notion of hegemonic power is built upon the idea of consensual ruling.

Although there exists a ruling class that dictates and sets the notions of what is right,

allowed and expected, governance is actually the result of “political leadership based on

consent of the led, a consent which is secured by the diffusion and popularization of the

world view of the ruling class.” (Bates 1975, 352). As a consequence, the subaltern

groups find themselves embracing and internalizing the hegemonic values around

which power is established, thus contributing to their own governance. The binary

nature of the system makes it extremely difficult to break free from, since it is based on

a pervasive mindset that establishes a clear-cut division between the hegemonic power

and the subaltern groups while enticing the ruled group to recreate and perpetuate the

values promoted by the ruling class. This way, there is no desire to achieve

independence from the hegemony, but rather become closer to the ideals sponsored by

it, thus remaining within this binary mindset.

Taking this notion as a point of departure, it is safe to assume that in Weep Not, Child

there exists a clear, dominant hegemony imposed and enforced by the colonizer, often

referred to in the novel as ‘whites’, ‘settlers’ or ‘Europeans’, which rules both by force

and ideology. As it has been elucidated in the analysis, there are some key elements

around which this hegemony is built, and through which the colonizers exert their

power over the subaltern groups in the novel.

Given the colonial context of the novel, it is also important to recall two basic

mechanisms that regulate and allow for the existence of this hegemony: mimicry and

37

ambivalence. As it has been explained in previous sections, ambivalence is born as a

result of the multifaceted relationship that the colonized subject, in this case the

Kenyans, experiences in relation to the colonial power. While there are some characters

that outright reject the presence of the coloniser and meet it with hostility, as Boro for

example, there are others who go through a more nuanced process articulated between

opposite poles of acceptance and rejection, the main example being Njoroge and his

stance regarding education. It is through mimicry, however, that the hegemonic power

exerts the strongest influence. When the colonial subjects accept and interiorize the

alien values imposed by the colonial hegemonic power, they are, both and at the same

time, confirming the grip of colonial rule and singling out the alienness of the values

enforced upon them.

Education as a Tool of Control

As it has been made clear in the analysis, education in Weep Not, Child is a central aspect

of colonization and hegemonic power. From the very beginning, it becomes evident that

the English language and all that relates to it are indeed the path to culture, knowledge

and education. Njoroge accepts this without further considerations, and proceeds to

pursue his education with unflinching resolve.

Education, being managed and arranged by the colonial missions, has a very specific

meaning and a very specific set of implications: it is one of the main pillars around

which hegemonic power is built. The fact that Njoroge does not question the origin or

intention of his education proves that it is indeed serving the main purposes of

hegemony, that is, that of consolidating a common perspective of the world favourable

to the ruling class, the British colonizers in this case, thus ensuring their control over

the subaltern groups.

While, as it has been argued in previous sections, Njoroge remains within the realm of

the hybrid for the most part, there are still events in the novel that mark him as a

colonial subject, vulnerable to the processes that colonial hegemonic power entail and

make use of. The first event, related to the English language, takes place when Njoroge

starts learning English and Mr Howlands´ daughter visits the school:

“‘Good afternoon, children.’

‘Good morning, Sir.’

38

Lucia felt like crying. Had she not taught the correct thing over and over again? She had

been let down. The visitor was explaining that since it was after lunch, after twelve o’clock,

they should talk of ‘afternoon’, and since she was a woman, they should call her ‘Madam.’

‘All right?’

‘Madam!’ shouted Lucia almost hysterically. She could have killed someone.

‘Yes, Madam.’

‘Good afternoon.’

‘Good afternoon, Madam’

But some still clung to ‘Sir’. It had come to be part of their way of greeting. Even when one

pupil greeted another, ‘Sir’ accompanied the answer. “(Ngũgĩ 2012, 50)

Here, the reactions of all the characters involved in this short exchange shed light on the

different conceptions of language and correctness that govern the mindsets of the

characters. On the one hand, Lucia becomes embarrassed at the mistakes of the

children, since it is a European they are talking to, and thus respect should be shown at

all times. What Lucia perceives as a breach of decorum, the children are unable to

acknowledge or even realise, since they are just repeating what they have come to learn

as a general greeting. This is important for two reasons: first, Lucia’s reaction reveals

the underlying but ever-present division between the ruling class, here the Europeans

or colonizers, and the subaltern group, here the Kenyans or colonized. Second, the fact

that the children use the word ‘Sir’ indiscriminately suggests a form of mimicry, thus

making evident the fact the children are, in fact, participating in a hegemonic process

designed to perpetuate their subaltern condition. As Bhabha writes: “Almost the same

but not white: the visibility of mimicry is always produced at the site of interdiction.”

(2004, 128).

Another relevant moment that puts into manifest the inner workings of

hegemony also takes place, precisely, ‘at the site of interdiction’, that is, at school.

Shortly after Njoroge starts attending Siriana Secondary School, he is struck by the

presence of white teachers and the way they relate to Kenyan students and other, non-

white teachers:

“Though he had never come into real contact with white men, if one had met him and had

abused him or tried to put him in his place, Njoroge would have understood. He would

have even known how to react. But not when he met some who could smile and laugh. Not

39

when he met some who made friends with him and tried to help him in his Christian

progress.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 119)

Without going any further, one could assume that, Siriana high school being the

embodiment of the Third Space, all the individuals there are brought to the same level,

regardless of their previous status within hegemonic relationships. Njoroge’s first

impression of his teachers, however, is soon marred by reality:

Many people believed the harmony in the school came because the headmaster was a

strange man who was severe with everyone, black and white alike. […] He tried to bring

out the good qualities in all, making them work for the good name of the school. But he

believed that the best, the really excellent, could come only from the white man. […] He

was automatically against all black politicians who in any way made people feel

discontented with the white man’s rule and civilising mission (Ngũgĩ 2012, 126).

In this single passage, the hegemony of the white man is finally exposed as an

undeniable reality. Under colonial rule, there is no place for equality, since the white

man will always and indisputably be the superior entity from which excellence

emanates, while the subaltern groups can only aspire to become as close as possible to

the ideals imposed by the colonizer. It is in this aspiration, this eagerness to attain that

which has been established as a goal by a foreign power that the flaw of colonial

discourse is revealed, since “mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence; in order to

be effective, mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference.”

(Bhabha 2004, 122). In other words: in pursuing an education, Njoroge is bound to

never be fully successful due to the only determining factor he cannot change, that is to

say, his blackness.

This is revealed to be the case when his meteoric career as an exemplary student

becomes thwarted when he is wrongly accused of belonging to the Mau Mau and

brought into an internment camp, where he is repeatedly humiliated and tortured.

From then onwards, his faith, both in God and in education, shrinks almost to

nothingness when the future that was promised to him through education is taken away

from him. Having nothing more for what to live after Mwihaki declines escaping the

country with him, he becomes suicidal and his self-image is forever destroyed: “You are

a coward. You have always been a coward.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 147).

40

Mau Mau as the Rebellious Subaltern

Subalternity is by no means restricted to a specific group of individuals or a particular

ethnicity. In Weep Not, Child, there are, in fact, several subaltern groups that interact

with each other and relate to the colonial power in different ways. From the beginning

of the novel it is made clear that Europeans, Indians and Africans are part of this

hegemonic relationship, however, they relate to themselves and each other in different

ways. As an example:

“The Indian shops were many. The Indian traders were said to be very rich. They

too employed some black boys whom they treated as nothing […] The Indians

feared Europeans […] But some said this was a cunning way to deceive the white

women because […] the women would be ready to pay any price whey were told

because they thought an Indian who feared them dared not cheat about prices.”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 7).

While the Europeans are on the top of the chain, the Indians are also perceived to have

power over the Kenyans, and even within the black people, there exists a dissension and

division, as it can be seen in the relationship between Ngotho, the dispossessed black

man whose land was taken from him, and Jacobo, the colonial subject in possession of

the two elements of prestige status: land and education.

The way the subaltern groups relate to each other is also conditioned by the

influence of the hegemonic power. If Indians are portrayed as exploiters and deceivers

and practicing a weird culture that makes them unlikable and unapproachable (Ngũgĩ

2012, 7), power relationships among black people are also marked by the looming

presence of the colonizer, as the colour bar example shows in the Interlude: “Black

people had no land because of colour bar, and they could not eat in hotels because of

colour bar. Colour bar was everywhere. Rich Africans could also practise colour bar on the

poorer Africans…” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 69).

As a result of this divisiveness among the different subaltern groups, the

opposition to hegemony is weak and fragmented. While the novel shows a general

discontent towards colonial rule on the part of the subaltern groups, the insidious and

pervasive nature of hegemonic processes contributes to this fragmented social

landscape in which the colonized struggle with themselves and each other: “There are

some people, black or white, who don’t want others to rise above them. They want to be

41

the source of all knowledge and share it piecemeal to others less endowed. It is the same

with rich people.” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 20).

It is precisely as a reaction to the presence of the colonizer that the Mau Mau are born.

In terms of hegemonic relationships, the Freedom Boys of the Forest, as they are

referred to the first time they are mentioned in the novel (Ngũgĩ 2012, 74 ), could be

read as non-compliant, as their main goal is to drive the occupying forces out of the

country and take it back for the black people on their own terms.

While this in itself may seem an obvious reaction to hegemonic power, the fact

alone that there is a group that exists in direct opposition to the colonizer is also an

indication of the faulty machinery of hegemonic processes. In terms of characters, Boro,

the main Mau Mau representative in the novel, stands in stark contrast of his brother

Njoroge. Having been initiated into the Mau Mau by means of taking the oaths, his

development throughout the novel brings him further and further from the typical tools

the hegemony makes use to integrate individuals in the colonial mindset.

From the beginning, Boro’s attitude towards the British invaders is clear, as it

can be seen after Ngotho reveals that Mr Howlands’ land belonged originally to his

family: “As he listened to this story, all these things came into his mind with a growing

anger. How could these people have let the white man occupy the land without acting?”

(Ngũgĩ 2012, 26). Anger is indeed a very fitting word, for it seems to mark Boro’s

development until the final confrontation with Mr Howlands: “Mr Howlands thought him

mad. Fear overwhelmed him and he tried to cling to life with all his might.” (Ngũgĩ 2012,

140).

In a way, the Mau Mau can be read as both a colonial product and result of

colonial intervention. As a result, they are too, in a way, a consequence of the hegemony

and hence they are marked by it. The quotation above, for example, shows how Boro

makes use of the skills he acquired in the war, war to which he was sent by the British.

Even if the Mau Mau stand in direct opposition against the colonial power, they too are

shaped by it, as is the land, the people, education, religion and everything once under

colonial rule.

42

Disillusionment with Colonial Kenya

The result of the oppressive hegemonic rule of the British is that the characters are left

either dead or severely disillusioned. This can be seen in the intermission of the novel,

wherein Jomo Kenyatta is arrested. The arrest is a turning point of the novel wherein

the Kikuyu population realises that the British government will not allow any

insurgence from them. By removing their one legal representative, the African

population is left without any means to fairly oppose the restrictive government. It is at

this point that the Mau Mau become a key player, and as we have seen in the analysis,

this has dire consequences.

The Mau Mau can be viewed as the result of a severely disaffected Kikuyu

population in revolt against the oppressive British colonial rule. This is the case that

Robert Ochieng argues in his historical accounts of Kenya’s development, and likewise it

can be seen in Weep Not, Child. As previously mentioned, Boro finds himself drawn to

the Mau Mau, first as a means to freedom and independence, but later defines his

motivations and purely for revenge. In this sense the Mau Mau function as a last resort

against the antagonistic British rule.

To Njoroge, the protagonist of the novel, the death of his father and his brothers’

exile leaves him to provide for the family. However, without the means of education,

which were stripped from him due to his supposed affiliation with the Mau Mau, his

only possibility is to stay subservient to the racial hierarchy, by working for an Indian

shop owner (Ngũgĩ 2012, 137-138). Thus his family’s struggle for independence has

been for naught, as Njoroge is still at lower tier of the colour bar, and furthermore, his

dreams of betterment through education are similarly deemed null and void.

This becomes fervently clear in the last chapter of the novel, where Njoroge

abandons all hope he had for Kenya:

“‘Yes, we go to Uganda and live -’ [...]

‘Don’t you see that what you suggest is too easy a way out? We are no longer children.’ she

said between her sobs.

‘That’s why we must go away. Kenya is no place for us. Is it not childish to remain in a hole

when you can take yourself out?’” (Ngũgĩ 2012, 144).

Njoroge poses the option of leaving the country and with it, their childhood

ideals, but Mwihaki, on the other hand, decides to stay in Kenya, reasoning that she still

has a duty towards her mother. This exchange shows two very different views on what

43

the mature thing would be and poses an interesting dilemma for the colonial subject. Is

it better to persist in fighting against the hegemonic system, or to leave it behind in

search of a different society? Ultimately in Ngũgĩ’s novel, the answer is an ultimately

pessimistic view of life in a colonial system. Njoroge realises after his suicide attempt,

that escaping the system is in itself an impossible task, and he and Mwihaki decide to

carry on with their lives, despite the surrounding hostile rule of the British. However, as

the novel was published shortly after independence, this choice could be seen as a sign

of the persistency of its subaltern protagonists.

Conclusion

Throughout the analysis and subsequent discussion of the novel we have examined the

question of how colonial Kenya shapes the lives of the main characters. We have done

this by looking at the main themes of the novel British rule, land and the Mau Mau,

religion and education. The British rule poses a strict legal framework that denies the

family of Ngotho any access to a better life. This is further emphasized in the second

part of the novel, wherein the oppression worsens with the insertion of the state of

emergency and the Kikuyu characters are violently persecuted.

The theme of land in the novel is presented not as a question of legality, but of

identity. It is through land ownership, that both Mr Howlands and Jacobo are able to

assert dominance in the community. Furthermore, both Boro and Ngotho suffer from

the loss of land: Boro in his sense of rootlessness, which leads him to join the Mau Mau,

and Ngotho’s loss of land leads him to commit desperate acts of violence in order to

uphold his authority as the family patriarch.

The Mau Mau are treated with an ambivalent respect in the novel. Through the

mentioning of real historical figures like Dedan Kimathi and Jomo Kenyatta, the novel

references the organisation as a historically true and relevant movement, but for the

characters themselves, the Mau Mau provide a sense of vigilante justice, and for Boro

especially, a method of vengeance.

Education plays a central role throughout the novel. What Ngũgĩ shows us

through Njoroge’s education is that it is an excellent way for the youth of Kenya to move

up in the world and better themselves. The schools in the novel act as a Third Space

wherein the colonizer and the colonized can meet on an equal footing. But education in

44

the novel acts as a solution for the problems of the future and Njoroge is unable to cope

with the problems that are happening around him. In the end, not even education is

spared from the political situation in Kenya.

Religion plays a large role in the identity of the characters, as it relates to the

coloniser’s cultural hegemony. Even so, the characters appropriate the Christian values

and imagery, merging it with their own struggle for freedom. This can be seen in the

moniker given to Jomo Kenyatta as ‘Black Moses’, or how Njoroge prays to a Christian

God for deliverance.

As we have seen, the British hegemony over the Kenyan population inevitably

results in the emergence of subaltern groups that both allow for the colonial power to

rule and at the same time expose it as the foreign imposition it truly is. Education and

religion, as framed and presented by the hegemonic power, are the main elements that

enable Europeans to rule by promoting a worldview favourable to the ruling class that

the colonial subjects deal with in terms of ambivalence and mimicry or outright

opposition. Although hegemony has in itself the key to its own downfall, it affects the

country in such a deep level that the colonial presence can be felt even long after the

colonizer's departure.

Weep not, Child by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o shows what Kenya was like at the end of

the British empire. The novel underlines the impact of the colonial rule in Kenya and the

ways in which individuals negotiate their religions identities during the Mau Mau

rebellion. As the sun set on the British Empire and the light start to wane the novel itself

becomes darker and darker. The hopes, dreams and aspirations the characters once

held at the start of the novel are all but a distant memory by the time the novel ends.

The harsh colonial rule, violence committed by and against the Mau Mau and personal

vendettas strip all the characters of what they hold dear, leaving them disillusioned and

broken.

45

Works Cited

Abrams, M. H., and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Eleventh

edition, Cengage Learning, 2015.

Aguilar, Mario I. ‘African Conversion from a World Religion: Religious Diversification by

the Waso Boorana in Kenya’. Africa, vol. 65, no. 04, Oct. 1995, pp. 525–44.

CrossRef, doi:10.2307/1161131.

Ashcroft, Bill, et al. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. 2nd ed, Routledge, 2009.

Bates, Thomas R. ‘Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony’. Journal of the History of Ideas,

vol. 36, no. 2, Apr. 1975, p. 351. CrossRef, doi:10.2307/2708933.

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 2004.

Dr. ATIENO-ODHIAMBO. ‘A NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF AFRICAN TRADITIONAL

RELIGION IN WESTERN KENYA’. Journal of Eastern African Research &

Development, vol. 5, no. 2, 1975, pp. 119–22.

Easthope, Antony. ‘HOMI BHABHA, HYBRIDITY AND IDENTITY, OR DERRIDA VERSUS

LACAN’. Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 4, no.

1/2, 1998, pp. 145–51.

El Habib Louai. ‘Retracing the Concept of the Subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak:

Historical Developments and New Applications’. African Journal of History and

Culture, vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 2012. CrossRef, doi:10.5897/AJHC11.020.

Elias, Camelia. The Way of the Sign: Cultural Text Theory in Two Steps. EyeCorner Press,

2011.

Fazan, S. H., and John Lonsdale. Colonial Kenya Observed: British Rule, Mau Mau and the

Wind of Change. I.B. Tauris, 2015.

46

Green, Marcus. ‘Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s

Concept of the Subaltern’. Rethinking Marxism, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept. 2002, pp. 1–24.

CrossRef, doi:10.1080/089356902101242242.

Hoogvelt, Ankie M. M. Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: The New Political

Economy of Development. Macmillan, 1997.

Ikas, Karin, and Gerhard Wagner. Communicating in the Third Space. Routledge, 2009.

Open WorldCat, http://site.ebrary.com/id/10258104.

Klages, Mary. Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed. Continuum, 2006.

Lal, Anil, and Vinay Lal. ‘The Cultural Politics of Hybridity’. Social Scientist, edited by

Robert J. Young, vol. 25, no. 9/10, 1997, pp. 67–80, doi:10.2307/3517681.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʾo. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature.

J. Currey ; Heinemann, 1986.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʾo, and Ben Okri. Weep Not, Child. Penguin Books, 2012.

Ochieng’, William Robert. A History of Kenya. Macmillan Kenya, 1985.

Ritzer, George, editor. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

2007. CrossRef, doi:10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x.

Sandgren, David P. ‘Twentieth Century Religious and Political Divisions among the

Kikuyu of Kenya’. African Studies Review, vol. 25, no. 2/3, June 1982, p. 195.

CrossRef, doi:10.2307/524217.

Websites

Ingham, Kenneth, and Simeon Hongo Ominde. ‘Kenya’. Encyclopædia Britannica, 28 Nov. 2017, https://www.britannica.com/place/Kenya/Kenya-colony. ‘Kenya Timeline’. theCRAWFURD.dk, http://crawfurd.dk/africa/kenya_timeline.htm. ‘Mau Mau Uprising: Bloody History of Kenya Conflict’. BBC News, 7 Apr. 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12997138.

47

Nguli, Peter. ‘Politics of Death: How Dedan Kimathi Was Captured’. STANDARD Digital, June 2013, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000085217/politics-of-death-how-dedan-kimathi-was-captured. Rowe, John A. ‘Jomo Kenyatta’. Encyclopædia Britannica, 6 Mar. 2017, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jomo-Kenyatta.