If only we had not conceptually and categorically separated the human social world from the world of animals, we may have actually learned something about “natural survival” — for even animals are social. The notion which the West currently entertains — “survival of the fittest” — is at best mechanical and antisocial. It has nothing to do with the social realm of training and punishment for those who infringe upon expectations of animal-decency.

Have humans fallen lower than the animals with the aid of their principle : “survival of the fittest”?

It appears they have.

random notes to self

. I’m looking at the question of whether Marechera was an “African” writer. Well, he was an African who went to live in Britain in his early career. He didn’t make his home there because he considered those who helped him “hypocritical”. Yet his writing was influenced by the British context he found himself in. So, who was he? Hypothetically — he was reacting to some of the same things in British intellectual life which Toulmin is also railing against. That is one part of it. The other part is that his expectations were formed in an African context and were more idealised than that of jaded British intellectual contexts. And I don’t think I am wrong, either, that European intellectual constructs (stemming from the 17the century but not necessarily infusing through Africa in the same way ) have an effect on genre as well as expectations of particular literary genres.

It gets a little complicated here (as I need to do some more in-depth research) but the form of the novel, which is not of African origin, implies a certain consistency of character, which is not present in the opportunistic and feel good approach of African oral histories (which are ad hoc and attempt to make the protagonists look good from a retrospective, historical point of view). Characterological discipline is also a feature of Toulmin’s representation of the 17th century ideal human — not subject to eruptions from nature or meaningful intrusions of one’s physical context, which would make one’s character less than ‘rational’, less than fully consistent over time. One of the problems that Marechera appears to have is maintaining consistency of character throughout the novel. Actually, at the end of BLACK SUNLIGHT, which his editors compelled him to continually rewrite but were never satisfied with, he finishes with subtle suggestions that his female character simply can’t be emotionally reached by him any more, that meanings are ample anyways, and that he himself in metaphysically naked, emptied of meaning and posibly a bit suicidal. So– in effect, he is saying that he hasn’t been able to exert that discipline of consistency and rationality to his characters, which would be required of the next great African novelist which Heinemann was looking for. I am seeking to investigate this matter further — “why?”

(Of course one of the reasons this is all a little more complicated than I have stated in the paragraph above is that there have been African novelists who have pleased their European editors. Again, “why?” I have to read more of these novels — but so far I have found that they do not seem to me to have the sharpness of intelligence and capacity for great intellectual heights as compared with the better parts of Marechera. So, why?

And the question all boils down to what degree Marechera was an African writer. When he received his Heinemann award, his speech went on an on, was convoluted, and considered inappropriate for length and the confused quality of his subjects, which did not seem to his audience to relate to the matter at hand. Here is the case of an “oral history” being derided for not being European enough. — Is there a psychological and social chasm between African and European ways which is greater than we conventionally suppose? And is is caused in part by the differing effects of intellectual history which have an impact on a society’s emotional conditioning processes?

From Stephen Toulmin’s COSMOPOLIS


The chief girder in this framework of Modernity, to which all the other parts wree connected, was the Cartesian dichotomy. [...I]t was seen around 1700 as having indispensable merits. As such, it was taken to justify a dozen further dichotomies. To summarize: human actions and experiences were MENTAL or spontaneous outcomes of reasoning; they were performed, willingly and creatively; and they were active and productive. Physical phenomena and natural processes, by contrast, involved brute matter and were MATERIAL; they were mechanical, repetitive, predictable effects of causes; they merely happened; and matter itself was passive and inert. [p108, Stephen Toulmin, COSMOPOLIS]

Treating the feelings as mere effects of causal processes takes them out of our hands, and relieves us of responsibility: all we are rationaly responsible for (it seems) is THINKING correctly. [p41, Stephen Toulmin, COSMOPOLIS]

The early 17th century [...] saw a narrowing of scope for freedom of discussion and imagination that operated ona social plane, with the onset of a new insistence on “respectability” in thought or behaviour, and also on a personal plane. There, it took the formof an alienation quite familiar to the late 20th century, which expressed itself as SOLIPSISM in intellectual matters, and as NARCISSISM in emotional life. [p42, Stephen Toulmin, COSMOPOLIS]

agency and ideological assumptions about thinking and free choice

Capitalism bad tree good has some remarks about agency and feminist thinking on her site. It has made me wonder whether talking in terms of “agency” might be a fairly useful way to approach my thesis. One always has to deal with various counterveiling western ideologies, however: the ones which pronounce each and all of us 100 percent free. From the latter point of view, some of us are at the top because we have made good decisions. (The funniest manifestation of this reverse attribution of cause and effect which I have ever found was in The Bulletin’s characterisation of dead tycoon Kerry Packer as having such manifest power that even his two word questions resonated with all levels of profound meanings, according to the article, this is so unlike the multiworded outpourings of ordinary PhDs. The writer has made the unfortunate — but common — mistake of reading power as “intelligence”; a lack of power as a corresponding lack of intelligence. But, the effect is almost simply funny.)

This ideology of “how things work” tends to go on to proclaim that those who find themselves at the bottom of society are there because of their own bad decisions — having arrived there from a position of being 100 percent free to choose. We are manipulated to believe that all of one’s fate has 100 percent to do with one’s own choices.

Even though this kind of an assertion doesn’t sound logical on face value, it is the one which most Westerners will defer to if they have to make a moral judgment, let’s say about the lack of support rendered to those in the third world: “People suffer because they must have made bad decisions due to lack of intelligence on their parts”. Conversely: “Those who are wealthy must have made excellent decisions and are replete with the wonderful brainpower which caused their success. So, all of their thought processes must have been ‘naturally selected’ as the correct ones.”

If this way of thinking outline above could be overturned, not only would our collective and individual thinking power increase and become more efficacious,we would be able to understand more. Other effects would be that we would become more comprehending, as well as more humane.

The tragedy of my shame

These days, (and much to my chagrin!), I find that my thought processes are just not as effective as I had hoped they might be. They fail to cut through various material substances like a knife through butter. As much as I sit here, generating Alpha waves, I am unable to move any right winger via my efforts. My thoughts remain, as they have always been, unintelligible to those who are not myself. “Why, Deity, doth thou condemn me to such a fate?” I scream out, decrying the injustice of the universe. My thought processes reach no-one and yet they are the most brilliant alpha waves this universe might have ever known! So, I scream out louder, and add to my screams the refrain: “These thought processes have all been achieved by watching AMERICAN TELEVISION. No less!!”

And yet, and yet … No matter how hard I might protest and perpetuate my long and piteous screams, the glory of my alpha waves appear to go unnoticed. Yet they are All-American alpha waves, aren’t they?

If one assumes that the world –at least the social world – always operates upon the basis of rationalist principles, then, in principle, one will not need to ask a person to explain themselves concerning anything. The observer already “knows” just by looking at a person what motivates their behaviour. One employs logic to discover the meanings of said behaviour — one does not ask, for one need not ask. Asking — as well as other idiosyncratic forms of social behaviour — is redundant. So, the brought up within a western ideological system and educated within this system, has no need to engage too carefully or for too long with his or her fellow human beings. All of the requisite “answers” are already at his or fingertips. In fact, one barely needs finger tips! One has merely to observe, but not for too long, to draw the regular conclusions that the other person is “seeking his own self interest”. Thus does a form of education actually train one NOT to see, rather than to observe and contemplate the genuine intentions of the other.

Who was Dambudzo Marechera, and was he, in a true sense, an African writer? My interest in this African writer has a personal root and cause, for which I am not altogether sorry. I, myself, grew up in the same place as he did, within a decade and a half of Marechera’s generation, in the Rhodesia that became Zimbabwe, I was on the other side of the fence no doubt, as a white, and relatively privileged in the context of my upbringing. Yet earlier privilege is not a defence against violent forces of upheaval, hence those historical forces which tugged and tormented Marechera are not unlike the ones I, too, have felt.

To understand a writer of the idiosyncratic nature and style of a Marechera, it helps to have had similar experiences to those he had. I was born into a privileged context as a white colonial, yet this “privilege” was hardly privilege at all except in a relative sense. From a material perspective, I had more than Marechera was ever to receive within his minor village of Lesapi. I was given three square meals a day and the aspects of violence visited upon me by parental authority were rare and inevitably sporadic. I had no knowledge – or very little – of the affairs of the world: In effect, I grew up within a protected bubble of social good will, cushioned by a good measure of what I now suspect to be the effects of Victorian moral strictures designed to protect women and children. There was also the effect of media sanctions against the kind of reportage which would undermine morale in the Rhodesian fighting forces, so the aspect of life in general appeared rosy to me, during my first sixteen years of life, all the way up until migration to Australia in 1984. Apart from that, I and my family lived a relatively Spartan existence – a family sized coke on the weekend was a rare treat, and was not guaranteed for every Saturday’s barbecue, in any case. Compared to Marechera’s life, which started sixteen years before mine, my condition was a life of luxury. Marechera was born in 1952, in his small African village, facing rural impoverishment and the realities of politics and social struggle. I was born into the suburbs, which I was free to roam without danger or threat of reprise: I was protected from the sorts of situations which might have done me harm; yet I was allowed to roam freely – very freely indeed. Victorian morality might have reigned supreme as my external limits, yet directly I was given very little guidance about life or good behaviour: All in all, it appears that I was expected to learn these on my own.

My life and Marechera’s resonate on quite a number of levels, yet all that I have written thus far will have served to give the opposite impression. Marechera, it must be said, was born in 1952. His first book was House of Hunger and all of his subsequent writings – bar Black Sunlight – were published posthumously. Marechera died in 1987 as a result of an AIDS related illness. He was but 35. His earliest novel and selection of short stories, House of Hunger, was well received and Marechera earned himself a joint Guardian literature prize. Perhaps ironically, the income he attracted from this book was very minimal, and did not allow Marechera to live on the proceeds, in a way which would have given him economic reprieve. What followed after publishing and European (particulary German) cultural acclaim of this book, was a decline back into relative – and at times extreme – poverty. Marechera continually stuck to his guns, and refused to try to make a living by any other means than writing – even when he was homeless and living in office buildings at night, or more literally on the streets. This “no compromise” stance is understandable to me, although I fear that critical appraisals now emerging will not always be able to make sense of it.

I understand Marechera’s position as one of alienation – and in this, he has mirrored my own cultural exile. I believe the metaphorical concept which best encompasses the experiences of “the lost generation” of Zimbabweans is “a clash of tectonic plates”. Marechera has said (mindblast) that the nature of his problematic situation as human being and homeless writer, “writing away his life” on a Harare bench, has more to do with the differeneces between his original culture and “the West” [] . The nature of the historical disruptions which afflicted him are perhaps rarely experienced so cataclysmically – after all, the third world has less weight of traditional force to anchor it, unlike the older cultures of the world. Alienation is the result of too much change, too quickly. Historically compelled cultural disruptions can tear apart the web of one’s being – leaving one to depend on only that little which one still manages to have faith in – In Marechera’s case, his writing.

Yet there is more to him than this – as there is always more to find out about a lucid writer of autobiographical fiction. Education was the key for betterment to many a black peasant, forced to eek out a living on the land. Ideologically, it was sold as such, by well meaning colonial arbiters of power. Marechera’s fortune turned when he was discovered to be unusually gifted, academically. He chose not to turn back from the sphere of learning, but to advance himself in his own way, no matter what hit him. This determination persisted even despite the “soul rupture” caused by shifting ideological frames. The Western ideological frames are not that of Zimbabwe or colonial Rhodesia. One may be gifted – even unto earning a scholarship at Oxford, as Marechera did – but this not only doesn’t make one automatically accepted; one does not feel that one communicates within a context not of one’s own deep mental-warp – an effect of cultural conditioning.

The Western warp of culture isn’t that of those born and ingrained with differing cultural controls and attitudes. The Western warp – despite its rationalist appearances – is still a warp. One is culturally conditioned by it, just the same as those of African origin are conditioned by their own experiences. Thus, to experience one’s sudden emergence into the West is to experience something akin to natural disaster for one whose skin is already quite raw from doing cultural battle. To experience the cultural shift of historical tectonic plates through one’s immersion in a foreign culture – even such a one as Oxford University culture – is to experience ontological shudders of an earthquake raging against human systems of ideas; tearing them asunder.

Marechera and I – he was closer to the fault-zone than I – have both experienced the effect or the aftershocks of cultural disordering through having to learn our historical lessons too fast. The metaphor of boxing now becomes more appropriate. Indeed the mixture of metaphors for the sake of this unusual depiction of context should not be deemed as negligent: As we have both been hit by Left and Right, we have resorted to the notion that “the personal is the political” as one of the remaining truths which we would be unwilling to readily give up. I was hit by the Right then the Left then the Right. (I almost remained standing.) Marechera was (closer to the fault zone) hit by first the Right then the Left then the Right then the Left. (He fell.)

Marechera grew up in a kind of “ghetto”. I grew up in relative luxury (though not, perhaps, the sort of “luxury” one brought up in the West would find desirable. I stood, only because the shock effects on me were actually diminished as compared to those experienced by Marechera. His poverty was due in part to pre-industrial traditions of living off the land, as well as not having a means to by which to advance oneself – unless one was very lucky, or was gifted, and, even in those cases, a clear escape was hardly guaranteed. Right wing colonial strictures had limited Marechera’s prospects, too, making education the only golden opportunity which might lead to improvement of one’s lot. (The class system, largely based upon race, only made concessions for a golden few.) Marechera did what all the odds would have made seem impossible: he made good his escape to Britain only to find that his treatment there was not entirely objective, but more along the lines of the warp of Western culture – he felt he was treated as a token black person, an “Uncle Tom”. He returned to Zimbabwe in due course. There’ he found his book, Black Sunlight, had been banned for blasphemy and elements indicative of corruption. Although he remained in Zimbabwe for a time, he finally decided to leave – at which point he found that his avenue for departure had been blocked, and that he had no choice but to remain within Zimbabwe. Here he lived the life of a bohemian tramp until he died. He was a victim of a “fault-zone” of too great proportion for human survival. He died in that which had probably by 1987 become a cistern of disease, due to a governmental failure to maintain facilities – Harare’s Parirenyatwa Hospital, 1987.

In 2006, I first read Marechera’s writings. They seemed immensely vitalized and full of insight. I, too, had been hit by the left and the right, but the punches had been relatively feeble. In 1997, I had been harassed out of my job, due to my Zimbabwean origins. A year or so later, my father, mustering up all of his religiosity in order to exhibit his “tough love” had told me, “See! You cannot be an intellectual because you cannot even speak properly!” – He’d taken the effects of the left-wing abuse as a sign that I was intellectually out of my depth in normative society. I had, by this time, a humanities degree, whereas his was only a high school certificate. Having experienced similar shockwaves to those experience by Marechera, I have firm recourse to the belief in education: If this doesn’t save humanity – nothing will! Just as Marechera’s views have derived from experiences of violence and extremity, I have also been a participant within the selfsame lost generation. From such a position, I am able to fully respond to, recognize and applaud his efforts.

On Gaydom and other facets of my nefarious existence

It struck me on the back of the head last night, as I stood still for long enough to pause for thought, that Mike is quite unlike some other men — untamed and perhaps untameable.

I’m not a tamer of men, and thereby I have acquired one of the least calm and compliant of men, also one of the most lively.

I have been receiving though me email of late the effusive outpourings of one Christian Carter, who advises women on how to get and keep a man. I roar with hilarity at some of the content of these well-meaning commercial communications. This solutions he conveys are at best a compromise between two differing species of human being. One is advised, for example, to contrive to surprise a man and “keep him guessing”. This mechanistic recipe for improving one’s leverage will assuredly lead to a marriage made in heaven. (Or, at least a relationship made on Earth.)

Oh, but doesn’t it cross any of the poor, benighted minds, that if one first contrives to be unpredictable and interesting when one isn’t, the next likely even will be discovery of who one really is (a person who contrives “relationships” on the basis of technical knowledge). The event of one’s discovery for what one is cannot lead to a happy outcome hereon after.

I don’t find that I’m another species from Mike — he and I are actually quite similar. So, unlike what most women do with their men, once they’ve “captured” them, I do not tame him. If he is militantly arrogant and wrongheaded at times, this is who he is. I can be “worse” — I am untamed, too. Neither of us has need for Christian ideals.

The Sun

Nature is not undifferentiated. So there should be no way of speaking which does not go on to speak  about very specific aspects of nature. After I have forged connections with one place, I am fond of all its aspects.   Only in the place that I have forged connections  do I have bonds. Elsewhere these emotional bonds do not exist for me — I might feel repelled by certain aspects of which are not “mine”. Never have I liked the meloncoloured sun. It’s not for me, and more than that, I wasn’t born with its rays touching me,surrounding me — so much more to me is it an emblem of my alienation. A mercury white sun is more my pleasure.

Men gnaw on chicken bones

What I certainly want to get away from in my critical paradigms, especially with regard to Marechera, is the kind of decontextualising of ideas which would lead to others readers inability to experience the emotional highs and lows of his writing. It has been my personal experience that much of the time, emotional highs and lows — as well as (eventually) one’s actual sense of them — are often quietly eliminated from Western consciousness because everything that happens to an individual is considered to be theoretically (if not actually) a result of their own “choice”.

According to a Western (and possible industrial Eastern, to some degree) bourgeois bias, everything comes down to choice, then. One can proceed to analyse Marechera’s writings on the basis of his “choices” and come up with some very weird psychological analyses. For example, I have read an interpretation of Marechera’s story about being punched in the mouth by some soldiers as an expression of the desire to be punched in the mouth by others. So, if not in reality then in writing and thus in fantasy, the autobiographer is seen as making “choices” about what happens to his character. African autobiography then, is seen as a desire (a choice!) to create a new emotional reality, rather than as a retrospective or figurative attempt to depict how one arrived at one’s present condition. This, too, is a bias of an all too Western reading.

If one does not accept that choices are in fact very limited, then one does not understand the writing of this body of autobiographical works. One cannot merely impose a reading of good versus evil, rather: “Men gnaw on chicken bones.” The restriction of choice is one of its points. Features of race and exile both restrict choice. But these are just for starters: the human condition as a material condition also involves a restriction of choice. When one appreciates this, one can also appreciate the emotional gravity of a writer typing his life away on a Harare park bench. Failing this, one is likely to glibly attribute such an economic and personal condition to “choice” — thus drawing conclusions about eccentricity of character, but missing the broader lesson of the writings in their application to the greater social sphere and historical effects at large. But this is to misunderstand the social role of this African writer as a prophet and poet for his time.

This touches on the core of the problem which Toulmin criticises. One is understood as a rational, free and autonomous individual when certain groups in society do not actually have the political and social power to embrace the freedom which underlies the idea of complete, rational self-responsiblity for all of one’s own actions. What I’m trying to say about Marechera, is that one has to contextualise — to see what he was up against — in order to see how much he fought being a victim of circumstance. Otherwise, the readings of him are kind of silly — like the typical effete bourgeois reading of Beckett: “He’s showing us to ourselves! –NO, he’s ISN’T you idiot — he’s making a critique by showing you to yourselves. In effect, he’s taking a risk and critiquing you to show you what you have become.

A critique might be funny, but the critique should not lose it’s teeth because you accept your situation as a victim of circumstance. And Marechera was the exact opposite of a victim of circumstance in so far as he pursued his writing no matter what it cost him. In the broadest scope of rationality, he was highly rationalist in trying to make the very best out of his circumstances, as he experienced them. Only within the narrower scope of Western rationalism, however, was he a masochistic clown who courted danger — presumably because (if one ignores the concrete nature of his circumstances, including neurological conditioning), he “chose” to!

The following are notes to myself.

Given that is it a feature of our developing eroticism to choose as targets those who are in our constant proximity (hence, I argue, the Freudian “family romance” which Hattie speaks of earlier) (hence also Anne Frank’s infatuation with the male in close proximity to her within her narrow confines of hiding), the role of European modernist ideology has limited the target of eroticism to “that which is not nature” — ie. it Cartesian dualism kills an animist impulse in us.

The psychic undercurrents of the British novel

I read a book today which analyses gendered character structures through the lense of psychoanalysis and the English novel. Patriarchal dynamics framing the narratives are herein considered to have been historically contingent and socially constructed.

According to the writer, even the novelists of the early 18th Century who may have believed in the ideology of the narrow and autonomous individual, did not see this ideology as socially as well as psychologically unproblematic. Instead, it produced enormous strains within the context of gender relations. Often the cost for a man being a totally “free” and “autonomous” individual was his own psychic rupture. One cannot fear and oppose the society of women and yet continue to have uneffected and harmonious relations with women. Preoccupation with women as “mothers” can be one side of an overall tendency towards resentment against women for their sexuality. In seeking to make himself entirely separated from his origins and his community, the male protagonist often creates newer psychological tensions, which he may not be able to adequately resolve.

In Western society, the autonomous and free “individual” is the ideal. From our critic’s psychoanalytic perspective, however, belief in this ideal is the result of fictionalising one’s realities. Yet, the expectation of encountering the autonomous individual can still remain a feature of social life just as the ideological notion of the autonomous individual can remain an ideal — yet the ideal is taken for the entirety of reality. As much as one may be trained to perceive the individual through a rationalising lense ( as if this is all there is to life), in the broader scope there are hidden psychic undercurrents which can only be ignored to one’s peril.

Novelists, however, can unwittingly, intentionally, or half-intentionally betray their intuitive sense of those psychic undercurrents which are capable of building or undermining subjective feeling-experiences of one’s selfhood.

As it turns out

As it turns out from an article I have just read, we can be neurologically conditioned by our early childhood experiences. These are, in fact, what give us our culturally defined identities. American children, for example, are usually actively encouraged by their parents to see themselves in the best possible light. Chinese children, by contrast, are culturally trained to endure the ongoing glare of moral criticism — especially when they do something wrong and such criticism intensifies.

I find it interesting to consider what my own (and also Marechera’s?) cultural conditioning might have been. I was not given the encouragement to see myself in the best positive light — or even positively. Instead, I was given room to roam, a sense that I had permission to go out far and wide and discover what I could about the world. I was subjected to sudden and violent attacks from either of my parents — although mostly from my father. Since these had no predictability about them, I learned to weather them as one would endure a storm, rather than learning a coherent moral lesson from them. I think the “morality” I learned from these experiences was “beware of storms!” In any case, I was far from positively reinforced to think well of myself. My relationship with the natural environment and my excitement with is what led to my sense of self-identity.

If our parents are largely responsible for creating our cultural selves through emotionally evocative action, then my parents taught me that nature was my real parent, and that social life was exciting, sometimes necessary, but unpredictable. They taught me that society’s judgments for or against one result from a season of emotional accumulation of thoughts and feelings which have as little to do with you personally, as a human being, than do the seasons. They taught me freedom, independence, and a dislike of being emotionally expressive — for this was never validated.

They taught me to delight in mastery within education, and to laugh in a pitying but trustful, open spirit at those who were still learning and were (thus) the real comedians of the world.

This was how I grew up in early childhood.

And after this, my parents taught me that I thought too fast and that my ideas were best kept to myself, being too difficult to answer. They taught me that if I would express to strong an emotion, I would be attacked and chastised. They taught me not to express my real thoughts and feelings. They perceived me as various negative archetypes– yet they refused my explanations on my own terms and discouraged communication.

So, I learned in early adulthood, to repress most of my feelings and ideas.

In adulthood began the really violent attacks. They put up a brick wall of sheer hate, which only seemed not to be there at times due to routine and vague civility. I learned that what I really thought didn’t matter but that I would somehow have to find a way to make it on my own.

And then, much later, I learned that all my thoughts were wrong, that I had taken the wrong philosophical path, and that I deserved to be punished until I figured out the right one.

That was when my parents taught me lessons about how limited human reason is, how human connections are not always healthy, and that society makes judgments based on sheer ignorance at times, causing the sick to attack the healthy.

 

Ideology and perspectives

What is so perplexing is a reading of the critical reviews of Dambudzo Marechera?! Even some of his best allies seem not to understand him most of the time. Other reviewers approach him from a kind of formalistic perspective, thus succeeding in hitting the nail on the head by furnishing their articles with quite a number of concrete facts, yet missing the overall spirit of Dambudzo (as I personally understand him) by the misappropriation of bourgeois notions and ideas — applying them to someone who was neither originatively nor philosophically bourgeois. The main misunderstanding of his spirit appears to be by those who perceive him to be victim of some kind of madness and bereft of personal and intellectual discipline.

My feelings here are that they must be wrong. I feel that he had chosen a path of Dionysian creativity, which suited his character as one who had been damaged by life and was making the most of who he was capable of being, given his recognition of the fact of the emotional damage, which presumably could not be furnished with a “clean slate” as per the still dominant cultural hegemony of 17th Century rationalism. Therefore, he did not choose the path of Appolinarian self-discipline and rationality: this did not suit his condition, nor did it suit his situation, which was that of a political and social outsider. One does what what can with what one has, according to Marechera: “Men gnaw on chicken bones.” No doubt he intended to turn his political and social outsider status to his advantage by celebrating his wounds, thus dramatising them and added aesthetic, subjective form and ornamentation to them. Thus, what he felt he lost in terms of Appolinarian stature, he would make up for, in terms of aesthetic ownership as well as self-development in knowledge. He would thereby become “The Black Insider”.

If there was a seed of actual madness and psychological disorder in Marechera, then it seems that he already recognised this as well as actively chose to embrace it as material for artistic and intellectual explorations of his self within the existing social dynamics. What else could he do in order to redeem himself? One has to understand the level of oppression and cards stacked against him which he faced. From this perspective, his embrace of waywardness, thereby authenticating it with will power, was an act of boldness rather than “undiscipline” and “childishness” (how many of his bourgeois critics like to paint him). Rather, to the degree which he attempted to embrace his defects in order to try alchemy on them, he really deserves our respect rather than our criticism.

The lesson which his choices convey are certainly not lost on those who have experienced similar hardships — if for all that, less intense. His communication, to those with similar experiences, is heartwarming. To those who still embrace the 17th Century Rationalism which Stephen Toulmin criticises, this form of expression which Marechera chose, was nothing short of loss of one’s control over one’s emotions: but Marechera willingly chose this appearance of lack of control in order to artistically critique the hierarchies of bourgeois rationalism which would never have allowed him to win on his own terms, only as an “Uncle Tom” — and he knew it!

Particularities of gender and race produce lower elements within the prescribed hierarchy of rationalism which cannot be reintegrated into the present thought-systems of bourgeois rationalism without fundamentally changing them. Having awareness of this, Marechera didn’t even try to make bourgeois-rationalist “self-discipline” work for him. His applied discipline was in the form of political resistance along the lines of second wave feminist ideas: “the personal is the political”.

Modernism and its affect on the psyche: like the skyscraper

I think it was Soyinka who said that Africans perceive their political problems as having a concrete nature, whereas Westerners are lost pretty much in abstractions.

This is the nature of Modernism and its affect on the psyche: like the skyscraper, it lifts the individual “off the ground”, unrooting them from concrete concerns as well as (at times) from a concrete orientation towards life. Henceforth, evil in the world is traced to abstractions, some main ones being: prejudice, racism, colonialism, sexism, etc. Their is a divorce from the concrete, the particular. Which is not to forget that the premoderns have issues with mythologies e.g. witchcraft, to which they often attribute political problems concerning their own individual condition.

Yet, by “discovering” malaise in these sources, one does not necessarily come to terms with that malaise in the actual concrete contexts wherein there is actual prejudice, racism, colonialism, sexism, etc.

I, for instance, have been treated very contemptuously just because of my “colonial” origins. Perhaps various people reassured themselves that they were coming to terms with colonialism by judging me hastily and with a sense of real dislike. But this just exemplifies a failure to come to terms with the actual concrete manifestation which colonialism was: It’s not a person, it’s not an identity — it was an historical event. Abstractions do not act; people do. How does someone behave in a “colonial” fashion? They try to dominate another with their ideas (and if need be with their punishments or with their law) — and this is exactly what my contemporaries were trying to do to me! Those who have most been able to understand me as a person — not just as a lable, such as “colonial” — appear to be those to whom racist prejudice (in the practical, actual sense) has actually been directed. It is these who grasp, more than others, that the application of a label on to a human being can do more harm than good.

When I tried to get help due to various forms of workplace and domestic abuse, I was ignored by most of my contemporaries to whom I had turned for assistance. I still believe this situation of receiving no help when I need it most would reproduce itself today, with the present set of Western friends and colleagues whom I have. There is something about Western culture which is very isolating, “encapsulating”. It is as if each person is invisibly restrained — and contained — by a glass cubicle, allowing them to look out at the world; allowing them to observe only so much (for the “individual” must not be permitted to roam). The Western individual looks out at the world and observes it, but cannot do anything about what he or she observes. They are not permitted to act in the world because of the glass container which encapsulates them. This container is called “my business”. Other people’s containers are called “other people’s business”. The twain tend not to meet.

In my culture of origin, a concrete situation which is harmful is more likely to be understood as such. One is not yet so ideologically divorced from the concrete that one cannot tell when a fellow human being is experiencing a harmful situation. One may still be prevented from acting — but usually by concrete limitations, rather than by abstract notions of individual separateness.

When Westerners act out their anti-racist ideologies, they often do more harm than good. Because of their high-Modernist abstractions, they are often if not generally unable to tell when a situation is truly prejudicial or not. Instead, they rely too much on lables of identity (and these lables tend to have connotative meanings, too, smuggled in or surreptitiously attached). A black person can be a victim of racism, according to Western logic — but a white person surely cannot. Black people are also (on the basis of connotation) victims, not aggressive, neither cheeky nor outrageous, calm (and suffering, to boot). White people are calm and dominating and rational. They are (by virtue of their lable, being their white skins) definitively NOT victims. Therefore, they cannot be helped as a way of alleviating their victimhood. It is only “minorities” who are victims.

So, if I start screaming, and you think you hear me somehow through the thick veneer of your many and varied shaped glass cubicles, be sure to lock me up.

I was never a victim, and by virtue of my skin colour, you think you know it. And Marechera was never a victim of your compensatory (but still inadequate and unseeing) prejudices.

But it is not colonialism which causes the “schizophrenic ” splintering of personality, rather it is the splintered cultures of post-industrialism, which do this. The schism between tribalism and colonialism is at at least understandable as a concrete and hence objective phenomenon. Not so much the cultures of post-industrialism and the senses of self which they give rise to — for here there is no longer any common marker (least of all a concrete one) by which to measure how far one has departed from a coherent and unified self.

meaning of Black Sunlight

What else does Black Sunlight mean? It means enlightenment coming from an unexpected source. It means a negative dialectic –Cf. House of Hunger where all of Marechera’s essence, his black dust, was scientifically examined and discovered to be “negative”. It means “Rotten Sun” (Cf. Bataille) — the surreal and unconscious and beaten down political and social “underside” of life examined for its fecundity. There is no attempt to correct a “sunspot” blemish on the face of rationality. As Lyotard points out, there is some rottenness at the core of the Enlightenment which led us to the atom bomb and to the instrumentalising of human behaviour into a machine-like phenomenon. Marechera, though, his metaphors — including the cabbage leaf — are all organic, rather than mechanical; thus marking him off as a pre-Modernist. It is the Modernist sensibility, by contrast, which valorises the mechanical — aka “rational” — features of human behaviour and thinking processes. Did Marechera attempt to amend the blemishes with regard to this? Did he even try?

One should put aside one’s Westernised squeamishness for just one moment. This should enable one to consider that when, in The Black Insider, Marechera appeared to refer to himself as “a savage” , he actually meant that, and in an not-uncomplementary way. “The savage” is constantly shocked by what he experiences of civilisation because it does not live up to what it pretends, but as Marechera implies (referencing Candide ), his naive non-Western self discovers that all is not well with civilisation, and whether or not he admits this to himself, his recourse is to tend his own garden. In Marechera’s sense of “savage” — meaning an naive person, who has yet to learn about how civilisation actually works (by contrast with how we are educated to believe it works) — I , too, would consider myself a “savage”. But this designation is based upon an a posteriori judgment about How Life Works, based upon my own experiences as well as what I consider Marechera to mean, when he dynamically positions “the savage” in a naive stance with regard to “sophisticated” or “cultured” Society. Certainly, I am inclined to limit my a priori notions of what “savage” “actually” means, in order to find out what Marechera means by it. It would appear that, like Voltaire, he makes his mark ironically — especially in this instance. How sad it is that Westerners apply a conceptual cringe to terms which have become distasteful under “postcolonialism”. The Marecherian meaning of this word is in danger of being lost, as a result of this moral/cultural cringe on the part of Westerners. Yet, Westerners, verbally and epistemologically narrow as they are, are seemingly also ahistorical and have (apprently?) forgotten that in very many historical instances, words and weapons, and well as words as weapons, have been turned against those to whom they originally belonged. This tactic is constantly employed by Marechera. Rifles and weapons caches can be reappropriated — and the Christians reappropriated “the cross” in order to spread a counterveiling message to that of domination and submission. Similarly, Marechera reappropriates the term, “savage”, to speak of an innocent, who has yet to discover all the travails of manipulative “Civilisation”.

His term “Black Sunlight” speaks of an inversion of “civilised” conceptual baggage.

you live under a Modernist system and do not know it

One of the effects of a narrow rationalism which presumes certain ontological a prioris but not others, is that it limits knowledge.

When I first came to Australia, I had a lot to say, but little did I realise that what I had to say would rarely be taken at face value (leading me to the later conclusion that every element of speech is always highly subjective and in need of interpretation rather than mere acknowledgment). Instead, I found that much of what I wanted to share with others had to be filtered by a sort of cautious cirumspection, because instead of being regarded by others as informative or interesting, my attempts at communication were instead regarded as various specimens of thought emanating from my ego, for the purpose of a kind of mechanistic social leverage of some sort.

I was very surprised at this. I found that if I communicated positively, that was taken as a sign of my willingness to affirm the status quo and get along with it. If I communicated negatively, even to the point of tears, this was taken as an indication of my determination to appeal to the system to stop punishing me, or to exert tactical leverage against the dominance of others to make them refrain from dominating me. My tears were simply not understood as being human emanations — tears of frustration. Rather, they had suddenly become mechanised tears, instrumental tears, tears with a will and purpose of their own, supposedly emanating from my ego, rather than from the frustration I was feeling with the present context I was experiencing.

In a system which interprets all behaviour as being instrumental to some purpose or other, we tend not only to lose our spontaneity but to lose our humanity, too. Behaviourist ideologies and social darwinistic ideologies abound under Modernism, because humans are “scientifically” regarded not as those who seek quality in life or even know how to discern quality from non-quality; rather we are thought (when thought of at all) as being “animals”, merely.

So, tears of frustration do not compute — or if they do, these are considered meaningless within a mechanistic and “scientific” system (of behaviourism and dominance and submission).

This has been the strangeness of my experience under Modernity. I am classified as a thing and not as a human (in the holistic sense), certainly rarely as a subject at all. My emotions are reactions are considered somehow unreal — or, as I stated, simply irrelevant to the real goings on of the practical world.

This is what I meant when I said that Modernist methodologies derive in a circular fashion from a priori postulates. Once my position has been defined within the system as it functions, all of my behaviour and reactions can be interpreted solely on the basis of this a priori — my formal identity within the functioning system. My tears under Modernism, then, can never be tears of frustration, but are always emanations from the role I’m forced to play, in order to justify my position or to attempt to improve it — but never, ever, are they present just because the situation I am in is causing me to feel unhappiness.

Never, ever, are they present just because the situation I am in is causing me to feel unhappiness. Such an understanding of humans and human behaviour would be all too pre-Modern. Yet, even a categorising and rationalist Modernist can ask and learn about humanity. A neurological conception of each person as being a subjective unit of motives and desires, biologically and hence ontologically separate from The System as it currently operates, would be a starting point for regaining a sense of pre-Modernist subjectivity. A posteriori reason (as Toulmin indirectly suggests) may also help to modify harsh a priori categories of categories as “types” — in his own terms, whenever we use our experiences to modify what we have taken to be true because of historical legacies, we also indicate how reason alone does not suffice us.

One book that changed your life?

Probably any of the Just William books, which celebrated mischief and naughtiness.

One book you have read more than once?

Various Neechy books, and Frankfurt School books, and instructional manuals.

One book you would want on a desert island?

I more interested in a dessert-island. I would like mine as a chocolate fudge sundae, with plenty of cream and bitter chocolate flakes. On a desert island? Marechera’s poetry book, Cemetery of the Mind.

One book that made you laugh?

Quite a few including Ecce Homo.

One book that made you cry?

Black Sunlight. I think that if you understand the ending and draw a few autobiographical conjectures or more, you could end up crying.

One book you wish had been written?

I’d like to see the book which links Stephen Toulmin’s ideas about the rationalistic overdrive of Modernity to the autobiographical experiences and subjectivities of those who have lived though various historical and philosophical stages of human development and alteration (normally spanned by centuries), in one lifetime.

One book you wish had never had been written?

Various books by that foolish ideological pontificator against women: Larry Christensen.

One book you are currently reading?

COSMOPOLIS by Stephen Toulmin

One book you have been meaning to read?

NEGATIVE DIALECTICS T Adorno.

***Extra Categories added by Her***

One book you wish YOU had written

All of them.

Books you read but wouldn’t want your family to know that you read

They can know what I read, as actually it’s over their heads to understand books (most books in general!)

Me taggem no one.

Of course, for the High Modernist — one who is habituated to thoughts patterns which promote “certainty” (even if this is at the cost of accuracy!) — Modernism is already understandable as an a priori category of logical thought. One does not need to turn to the history of ideas to understand it. One may gesture in that direction, though, and this implies that one does not think that that a High Modernist (totally theoretical) explanation actually suffices, even to explain Modernism itself.

One can theorise about what Modernism is, but if one does not question and reflect upon what Modernism is, then one only has a Modernist explanation for Modernism – one divorced from context and from the possibilities of human ambiguities, social nuances, and above all, uncertainty.

Modernist approaches to Modernism feature a high degree of posturing towards epistemological certainty. Those who do not ask questions, but instead, neatly slot a person or an idea into a category of some sort, are guilty of Modernist posturing. One cannot presume to know whether a thing is good or bad or indifferent unless one questions it deeply — and one should never presume to know something one hundred percent (as Kant said, we cannot know the thing “in itself”). A healthy attitude towards the world implies a certain dollop of skepticism, then.

Yet, Modernist thought processes are not those of skepticism but of certainty.

There are a number of ways in which Marechera critiques the rationale of Modernism. He speaks of one being unable to see around corners if one is only looking for straight lines or looking back to their origins (a critique of linearity of logic or historical interpretation). He says that the irrefutability of 2+2 = 4 is a refutation of human spirit, because such truisms would continue to be true even if humanity ceased to exist — this knowledge is demoralising.

Apparently, Toulmin sees Modernity as having led to divisions of nations, races and gender in such a way that institutionalises oppression. I haven’t reached this part of his book yet, if this is what he discusses. Certainly, I would consider that most of my contemporaries have a blind spot concerning oppression in terms of gender and race. Whilst they may protest to the contrary, their non-actions (failure to attend effectively to these oppressive situations) speaks for themselves. My contemporaries are often full of moral rhetoric against such conditions of racism and sexism, but they are unable to see their own defects — as a colonial I am categorised as “evil” in the minds of many of my contemporaries, and yet their categorisations of people has generally tended to make them far more prejudiced deep down, than my organically pre-Modernist training had ever allowed me to be. This blind spot is a product of Modernist ahistoricism, I believe.