Now, now, now
yesterday I was lucky. I eventually got a chance to attend the "East
Africa at 50: A Celebration of Histories and Futures" conference at the
University of Nairobi. You see my work itinerary could not allow me to be there
for the opening day on Tuesday. Please do not ask me about the nature of my
work. I am not proud and I am not willing to divulge details now.
My failure to attend
the conference on the opening day means that I missed a life time opportunity
to listen to the 1st keynote address my Euphrase Kezilahabi. Kezilahabi is the
Tanzanian guru credited for having broken ranks with traditional Swahili verse.
You recall usawa wa vina vya kati na vya mwiso? Mizani? Kiitikio/kibwagizo? Mishororo?
He has written what we call in literature free verse as opposed to bound verse
– yake ni shairi huru/guni. You may not understand but this is a big deal for a
literary fan like me. He is also famed for having a plethora of texts such
as:
- Rosa Mistika -1971
- Kichwamaji -1974
- Dunia Uwanja wa Fujo -1975
- Gamba la Nyoka -1979
- Kichomi (poems) -1974
- Mzingile - 1991
- Nagona - 1990
- Karibu Ndani - 1988
- Rosa Mistika – 1988 among many others
Now you understand why I am disappointed for
having missed the opening day of the conference. It is litotical for me to say
that I am bitter.
But
I am fortunate because yesterday I got the chance to attend the conference and
present my paper titled “The Vulgarities of Language and Cultural
Aestheticism”. More fortunate because the 2nd keynote address of the
conference was given by Susan Kiguli, The chairperson of the department of
literature at Makerere on the subject of “orature”. Even more fortunate because
the evening was crowned by some serious intercourse between Kezilahabi and Prof
Kithaka wa Mberia. The Swahili discourse of the evening was nostalgic for me
especially because I have a soft spot for Kiswahili. It was part of my academic
pursuit at the university up to 2nd year until ... a story for
another day.
Reminiscing away in Malindi 2012 |
- · Redio na Mwezi (poems) – 2005
- · Maua Kwenye Jua la Asubuhi (play) – 2004
- · Kifo Kisimani (play) – 2002
- · Bara Jingine (poems) – 2001
- · Mchezo wa Karata (poems) – 1997
- · Natala (play) – 1997 among many others.
This is why I am boasting for having been party
to such a highly inspired session with all the scholars from the world over.
Kithaka and Kezilahabi’s experiences demonstrate that most writers share one
thing in common – disavowal for poor politics/bad governance. For instance,
Kithaka says that his name is symbolic of the bush because whilst growing up,
his mother’s hut was full of herbs as a result of the lack of hospitals or
dispensaries. This is what makes him to have constant altercations with poor
leadership for failure to equitably distribute resources throughout the
country. He attributes poor leadership as resulting to marginalisation.
It
is thus obvious that bad governance is to blame for the socioeconomic
stratification of the country. Kithaka wa Mberia contends that the writer as
the voice of social consciousness must have heightened senses – sight, smell,
hearing, taste and touch (visual, olfactory, auditory, gustatory and tactile
for the academician). The writer must have the ability to ask why? Why is a
young girl a prostitute? Why is a young man a robber/mugger? Why are people
violent? Why do we have beggars? Why is there poverty and destitution? In his
concluding remarks, he reckons that these issues have to do with poor governance.
The
other aspect emerging from Kithaka’s observations was the fact that in Kenya we
do not have tribal clashes but political clashes. On this I concur with him
because I have always argued that Kenya has two main tribes: the rich and the
poor. Whoever thinks otherwise is grossly mistaken or mis-educated. Acts of
social degeneration et al are a resultant effect of impoverishment of human
beings – dehumanisation and destitution of people by a few selfishly and
economically empowered individuals. J M Kariuki once upon a time described
Kenya as “a nation of 10 millionaires and 10
million beggars”. Reckon that!
Now
you know why mine is the cry of a lone academician. I am moaning the death of
my academic career because the administrative demands from my employer are
non-academic. I am continuously feeling frustrated, demoralised, impoverished
and destituted academically. Consider this post my act of ventilation. I would
love to conduct research, read my novels, engage in literary discourses, and
banter with my students about emergent trends in the world of academia. But
this appears to be the least concern of the TORs at work.
I
am ceaselessly engaged in non-academic tasks that are slowly taking a toll on
me. If I choose to publish and not perish then, the assumption of my employer
is that, I choose to abscond on a lot of the duties before me administratively.
On the contrary, I believe that if my energies are channelled into my
academics, my students will be a happy lot. Why? I will be a self-actualised scholar,
knowledgeable and able to disseminate requisite information to my students. I
will be able to attend conferences, to write research papers, to skilfully mentor
my students and to inspire them to become better than me. Or even to
blog/tweet.
However, now you definitely
understand that my choices are limited. If I choose to be faithful to the
nature of my work, I will become grumpy, disappointed/frustrated with my work,
I will not publish, I will probably never attend a conference and I will be the
worst lecturer to my students – an unknowledgeably dejected one. I will be
unable to challenge them, I will recycle information/notes, and I will not keep
up with emerging trends in my area of specialisation. In a nut shell, education
will die a natural death.
Therefore, mine is
the cry of a lone academician. No one wants to support me, not unless I am
willing to compromise and adhere to the demands of the nature of my work. I
feel stunted, malnourished and suffocated as a scholar. I am venting out because
I am worried of the consequences of the choices that I have to make. Now that
you are in the know could you please tell be if I should be a scholar and an
enemy of my duties or I should be a good employee and an enemy of academic
growth? What would you suggest I should choose?
Choosing between forced and false options is still unjust. We have to fight against the contradiction, for the sake of not just ourselves, but the soul of the academy and the academic health of our society.
ReplyDelete