Analysis of Festus Iyayi’s violence using Marxism

 

INTRODUCTION

Theory with its many inflections seems not to have a single universally agreeable definition. Bearing this in mind, one is therefore not taken aback when Fredrich Nietzsche defines theory as:

All concept in which an entire process is semiotically concentrated elude definition, only that which has no history is definable (in Kaufmann, 2000:516)

 

The sheer absence of a singularly acceptable definition of theory may be largely due to its contested nature and its methodological consciousness, as there is no firmly upheld unilateral truth in theory, there are always inter and intra-practitioners contestation and departure. Hence, within a Marxist school for example, there are different strands and sub-schools of the same literary theory. Reinforcing this surge of disagreement. Dobie avers:

The literary canon, once accepted as a fixed cultural heritage to be passed down from one generation to another is no longer a stable body of texts that all readers agree upon. Instead, it is now a conflicted, disputed set of materials that stay in flux. (Dobie, 2012:xviii)

 

To Cater David, the thorny issue of unanimity in the definition of theory becomes disturbingly alarming that he resigns to leave it hanging when he declares thus:

The problem is that defining what counts as “theory” and what one means by “literary” is no easy task. Most critics and theorists have grappled bravely with the problem but have finally given up, declaring that it does not matter anyway. (Cater, 2006:13).

 

Inspite of this obvious contentious nature of ascribing meaning to theory, some definitions will guide us here, though caution must be exercised to hold sway on any of the definitions below as varying degree of meanings are provided by these definers and theorists. Theory according to Payne, is “where the intellectual juices are flowing (in Eagleton, 1990:82). While (Eagleton, 1990:27) sees theory as “just human activity bending back upon itself, constrained into a new kind of self-reflexivity. And in absorbing this self-reflexivity, the activity itself will be transformed.” In his own submission, Ferdinard Saussure (in Harris, 1997:8) considers theory as ‘’the object is not given in advance of the viewpoint… far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object.” But to Hartman (1980:242), “theory itself is a text; it does not enjoy a privileged status.”

For us to appropriate the multiplicity of meanings by the definers and theorists above, it is instructive to say that theory posses its own framework of reference, its criteria for judgments and conclusions and to a large extent it is very inexhaustible in its domain of operation. The domain of theory never closes; it goes and comes back, what you may describe as the realm of reflection and reflexivity. Thus, theory could be seen as an endless process of seeking interpretation of texts.

That is why theorists and schools of thought have in common the fact that they challenge “common sense” notion of what literature is. Theory often question our assumptions about ‘great literature’ and propose different ways to analyze and evaluate it. This may have informed Hans to submits thus:

Clearly, in the first instance a theory must attempt to explain something. Its proponents may believe that it does this successfully but other may not [   ].... It is also therefore in the nature of theory that not only does it have some complexity but that it is also often difficult to prove or disprove (Han, 2001:14)

 

In an attempt to arriving at some conclusions, some arguments ensued within the domain of literary theory, which, reveals the unending intellectual and cultural investigation of who becomes the master code among the coordinates of theory – author, text, reader or the context? Providing clarification to this, Foucault in his essay “What is an Author”, labels some theorists as the “founders of discursivity” (in Rabinow, 1984:183). In his words, Freud and Mark, for example, are initiators of discursive process that had ignited a world of ceaseless possibilities for a wide range of issues. He states:

 

They have produced something else: the possibilities and the rules for the formation of other texts. In these sense, they are different for example, from a novelist, who is, in fact, nothing more than the author of his own text. Freud is not just the author of the interpretation of Dreams or jokes and their relations to the unconscious, Marx is not just the author of the Communist Manifesto or Capital; they both have established an endless possibility of discourse. (Foucault, 1984:183).

This Foucaultian “endless possibility of discourse, or simply put as discursivity” concurs with divergent and sometime interwoven nature of literary theory. Thus, the author was killed in Roland Barthes ambitious essay, “The Dead of the Author (1967) as Barthes lucidly put it:

A text is not a line of words releasing a single “theological meaning (the message of the Author – God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from innumerable centres of culture (Barthes, 1976:146)

 

While his contemporary, Michael Foucault in his 1969 essay “What is an Author?” examines the notion of the author in literature investigating the relationships between the author and the text. He therefore finds that there are authorial functions that have remained despite the “disappearance” of the modern author. He calls “the author-function”, a concept that would become importance in post-modernist literary criticism.

It is apt to say here that the essence of comparing Barthes and Foucault’s essays is an attempt to demonstrate if any of the coordinates of theory stand out as a master code or a final vocabulary. Thus, it is very apparent that the discursive process is ongoing and we cannot categorically validate or invalidate any conclusion that holds sway on any of the grids.

In view of these diverse strands in methods and conclusions of theory usually embedded in its methodological consciousness. This paper therefore deploys Marxism to investigate how theory has greatly impacted through its arguments and generalizations on thematic pre-occupations of Nigerian fiction writers in general. But in this study, focus will be shifted mainly to its elucidatory influence on the central thematic thrust in Festus Iyayi’s violence. Can we briefly examine Marxism as a literary theory before attempting its significance or impact on Iyayi’s major gist in violence?

Marxism: An examination of its basic theoretical arguments

Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and social conflict. It employs material interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation. Marxist theory has been applied to diverse subjects and has been misconceived and modified during the course of its development, resulting in numerous and sometimes contradictory strands that fall under the rubric of Marxism.

In other words, Marxism generally focuses on the class relations between the dominant and repressed classes in any given age and also may encourage art to imitate what is often termed as “objective” reality. In the words of Dobie, Marxism is seen as: 

The basis of a system of thought that sees inequitable economic relationship as the source of class conflict. That conflict is the mechanism by which western society developed from feudalism to capitalism, which, according to Marxism, will eventually give way to socialism. (Dobie, 2012:54)

In Buzuev’s view, Marxism was:

born as the result of historical progress, and primarily through the development of capitalism and the exacerbation of its antagonistic contradictions, through the growing political maturity of the proletariat, its industrial and political action against the bourgeoisie (in Buzuev and Gorodnov (ed.), 1987:17).

 

The emergence and popularity of Marxism was made possible by its founders – Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895). In an attempt to situate the historical background of Marxism, Dobie declares thus:

Marxism has a long and complicated history, (although it is often thought of as a twentieth century phenomenon, partly because it was the basic of the Soviet Union’s social governmental system. It actually reaches back to the thinking of Karl Heinric Marx, a nineteenth century German philosopher and economist. (Dobie, 2012:84 – 85).

 

Also, the invaluable contribution of Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895) cannot be erased in the evolutionary trend of Marxism. It is in view of this that Dobie’s submission below provides a useful insight:

When Marx met the political economist Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895) in Paris in 1844 and they discovered that they had arrived at similar views independent of one another they decided to collaborate to explain the principles of communism (which they later called Marxism) and organize an international movement. These ideas were expounded in the communist manifesto (1848), in which they identified class struggle as the driving force behind history and anticipated that it would lead to a revolution in which workers would overturn capitalists, take control of economic production, and abolish private property by turning it over to the government to be distributed fairly. With these events, class distinction would disappear (Dobie, 2012:85).

The theory pride itself to have produced an array of practioners and apostles whose contributions have further expanded its scope and operation. Carter (2006:56-68) highlights some of its notable figures to include; Terry Eagleton (1943-), Fredric Jameson, Raymond Williams (1921 – 1988), Louis Althusser (1918 – 1990), Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940), Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937), Georg Lukas (1885 – 1871), Betolt Brecht (1898 – 1956), Theor Adorno (1903 – 1969), Lucien Goldman (1913 – 1970) and Pierre Macherey.

For a clearer analysis and appreciation of its tenets in examining Iyayi’s Violence, it is pertinent here to explain some of its key terms as they are unambiguously defined by Dobie(2012) below:

Commodification – “an attitude of valuing things not for their utility (use value) but for their power to impress others (sign value) or for their resale possibilities (exchange value) (P. 88)

Conspicuous Consumption – ‘‘the obvious acquisition of things only for their sign value and or exchange value’’ P. 89)

Dialectical Materialism – “the theory that history develops as a struggle between contradictions that are eventually synthesized” (P.85)

Material Circumstances – “the economic conditions underlying the society. To understand social events, one must have a grasp of the material circumstances and the historical situation in which they occur” (P. 87)

Reflectionism: “associated with vulgar Marxism – a theory that the superstructure of a society mirrors its economic base and by extension, that a text reflects the society that produced it” (P. 85)

Superstructure: the social, political and ideological systems and institutions – for example, the values, art, and legal processes of a society – that are generated by the base” (P.89).

Having explained some of the theory’s terminologies, it is imperative to delve into its salient arguments. Marxist theory submits that the irreconcilable struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie was the main socio-economic pre-condition of the emergence of Marxism. That the proletariat characteristically mounted a fierce struggle in support of their economic demands for higher wages and a shorter working day and political demands for political emancipation. This was traced historically thus by Buzuev:

For instance, the insurrectionary workers and artisans of Lyon in France (in 1831 and 1834) demanded not only higher wages but also the proclamation of a republic in France. In Britain, the chartist movement of the 1830s and 1840s openly set out to achieve economic and also political aims. Chartism was the first broad and truly politically organized revolutionary movement of proletarians (in Buzuev and Gorodnov (ed.), 1987:18).

 

The theory also emerged not only as a summary and appreciation of the cultural and intellectual achievements of mankind, but also as an expression of certain economic and socio-political tendencies in the development of bourgeois society, a society which is historically transient and which is doomed to extinction. In Marxist reading of a text, the proletariat is destined and not any other social class to scuttle capitalism and creates a socialist society. In buttressing this assertion, Buzuev also gives justification why such vision is attainable:

First, the proletariat in capitalist society is not attached to any form of property. Proletarians do not own anything except their hands…. Second, the proletariat is subjected to cruel exploitation. The bourgeoisie gets most of its wealth by robbing the proletariat. This position of the working class in society makes it the most resolute fighter for socialism…third, the working class is linked with machine production… fourth, the development of capitalist production inevitably creates a situation in which the working class fuses into single revolutionary army opposed to the bourgeoisie. (in Buzuev and Gorodnov (ed), 1987:31 – 32)

 

At this level, the view of V.I. Lenin is also important to the understanding of Marxism. In the communist Manifesto , Marxism was for the first time presented as a consistent programme for transforming the world. Lenin wrote of Marxism thus:

With the clarity and brilliance of genius, this work outlines a new world – conception, consistent materialism, which also embraces the realm of social life, dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, the theory of the class struggle and of the world – historic revolutionary role of the proletariat – the creator of a new, communist society (Lenin, 1987:48)

In sum, it is also reassuring to recognize that Marxist critics do not always agree with each other’s reading of a given text. If your interpretation differs from that of others, it is not necessarily wrong, because no single Marxist reading of a work results even when the same principles are applied in the same manner. Marxism lends itself to combination with other schools of criticism, giving it even more possibilities for variations. Giving his nod to this assertion of its diversity and overlapping nature, Dobie asserts:

In some ways, Jameson and Eagleton are typical of the mixture of schools in literary criticism today, for instance, it is not uncommon to find psychoanalytic ideas in the writing of a feminist critic or post colonial notions of influencing a Marxist… the borrowing back and forth may make it difficult to define discrete schools of criticism, but in practice, it makes the possibilities for literary analysis all the richer (Dobie, 2012:86)

 

With the examination of Marxism’s basic tenets and its analytical procedures, it is apt now to apply its postulations to assess its influence on the central thematic preoccupation in Festus Iyayi’s violence.

This part aims to assess the aesthetics, candor and embellishment the use of theory have over the years infused to the analysis and criticism of Nigerian fiction. Here, Marxist mode is used to assess its influence on Iyayi’s central motif in violence, as an example of what theory does generally to the interpretation and textual analysis of Nigerian fiction.

In the first instance, Nigerian fiction is a product of its historical evolution, therefore its existence largely resonates an aura of events and happenings in the course of its development. Reflecting on the nature of African literature, in which, Nigerian fiction is a subset, Jude declares thus:

The African novel has been mostly deployed by writers in trying to expose the abnormalities and irregularities inherent in the neo-colonial establishment which as it has turned out, merely replicates the apparatus of colonialism. Thus, the novel has not only been employed to characterize the abuse of power by the rule elite class, it has also addressed the concomitant problem of political anarchy, corruption and such endemic social ills, as unemployment, poverty and prostitution (Jude, 1995:25)

 

This assertion of Jude above provides an insightful reflection on the precarious and pervasive disillusionment that engulfed most African states shortly after their independence. Lending his voice to the pitiable state of most African societies, in post-independence era, the soviet critic Plekhanov seems to have echoed most African writers when he states that:

The function of art is to assist the development of man’s consciousness, to improve the social system. The writer’s primary concern is with social justice as a means of maintaining peace and harmony in society (Plekhanov, 1979).

 

It is therefore based on Iyayi’s conviction to make a strong case for the hoi poi loi in the Nigerian society that his first novel emerged. Thus, his concern for the poor in society seems to reflect his artistic vision as reiterates by Plekhanov’s advocacy above. It was therefore not surprising when he demonstrated this concern in the interview he granted Afolabi Taiwo on November 23, in the sun News. He clearly declares such avowed commitment:

Violence is about injustice in the society itself. When you deprive people of their basic rights and the opportunities for self – fulfillment, that society has to change in favour of those who have been violated (Iyayi, 2004).

 

Using the Marxist perspective, Iyayi portrays the huge disparity between the fortunes of the elite, who constitute the ruling class and the misfortune of the masses, the wretched of the earth. This distinct socio-economic classes leads us to Iyayi’s central theme of injustice in violence. The novelist, a human right activist and multi-award winning writer has always demonstrated a commitment to the cause of the common man. An erudite scholar yet radical, Iyayi in his novels and public fora takes up the fight for the emancipation of the proletariat. Thus, his Marxian posture in all his novels including violence is not unsuspecting but clearly shows his romanticism with the Marxist ideology. Violence therefore succinctly approximates Marxist conceptualization of socio-economic cleavage between the haves being represented in the novel by characters such as Idemudia, Adisa, Osaro, Patrick and the Jimoh family, and the haves- not reflected in the characters of Obofun and his wife Queen, the judge, the army (Gen. Igreki), and the political class (commissioner). The import of critical effort giving focus, direction and beauty to the novel cannot be undervalued, as the clear class difference in the novel’s characters remind us of Marxian doctrine of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

For Iyayi’s novels, critics might not stress themselves too much in identifying his ideological stand point. Like Soyinka, Iyayi also believes that injustice is the basic precondition for living as human beings. In the interview he granted Post Express, he asserts thus:

Life is more serious than that. God is the search for truth. I am a Marxist. And Marxism doesn’t mean you should not believe in God or religion. But use religion if you believe it for the betterment and uplift of society and man. After all, there are many priest who are Marxist, even in Nigeria – self definition and self – clarification are necessary, otherwise you become or you are like a blunt cutlass. But note: I am not religious even though I believe as I have said before, that religion can be used for the common good(Iyayi,1997).

In a similar interview he granted Tony Afejuku, Iyayi articulates his disenchantment with the political ruling class that has denied the Nigerian masses their fundamental human rights. Therefore, Iyayi’s violence could be seen as a truthful portrayal of the miseries of the working class. The novelist mirrors that the proletariats are not just disadvantaged, suffering class: The hard economic condition drives the proletarians to a sort of revolt for their emancipation. This seemingly injustice as captured in his assertion below in the interview with Tony Afejuku:.

My attitude to life and society is straight – forward. I believe in justice, freedom for the individual and the group. I believe that justice is the basic precondition for living as human being, any condition which denies you justice, denies you humanity and so we have a responsibility to seek justice not only for ourselves but also for our neighbours and even our oppressors. I can’t stand when I see people suffering from injustice. It upsets me. And a man must say the truth, no matter what. How many years do not live? To live a vegetable, to copulate? Life is more serious than that (Iyayi, 1997:11)

Arguably, Iyayi has consistently shown a philosophy for those in love with life- advancing civil liberties and human rights. This is apparently demonstrated in violence, the novelist could be likened to the Defence Counsel in the play within the novel, where his radical stance against the forces of oppression and exploitation approximates a Marxist call for the overthrown of the bourgeoisie. The title is also instructive and very revealing, violence usually connotes physical violence, but in violence, Iyayi redefines it as a continual, demoralizing structure that eliminates hope, pride, self – esteem, health and the ability to live independently. Having to always rely on meager wages for labour, the working class is made to face not only physical violence but also physiological violence as their self – esteem is violently dented.

Idemudia in the novel concludes that “his unfinished education, his joblessness, his hunger, his poverty, all these… were different forms of violence” P. (243) exerting on him. The control on the superstructure of the society of the text by the capitalists such as Obofun and Queen and their accomplices from the government makes it extremely difficult for the poor to live a decent life. The use of all tricks and strategies of coercion, manipulation, bribery, sexual inducement on the part of the bourgeoisie to cow and induce the proletarians were all futile as Idemudia refuses Queen’s temptations through the offer of bribe and sexual enticement. This could be seen as a dismissal of capitalist hegemony as idemudia’s non compromising posture indicates.

This now leads us to another argument of Marxist thought of proletarian consciousness. In violence, the clash between management and labour or simply the friction between socio-economic classes, which are two parts of a whole that struggle against each other, not just physically but also ideologically results into confrontation. This is what Marx called dialectical materialism. This scenario is replicated in the conflict that ensues in Iyayi’s violence between the labourers led by Idemudia and his co-workers as the exploited, while Queen and Mr. Cleride, the capitalist expatriate represent the exploiters. This conflict over the demand in rise for their wages culminated into a strike and demonstrates the proletarian awareness of the ultimate intention of a classless society where all is treated fairly and equally.

This proletarian consciousness is shown in the novel. Iyayi goes beyond the recognition and condemnation of evil in the society by stating and laying down, as Olu Obafemi has appropriately put it:

The dialectical processes of bring about change…. Through proletarian consciousness and collective mass action against the dominant bourgeois hegemony (Obafemi, 1990)

 

Therefore, one could submits that this consciousness of the poor largely informs Iyayi’s character, Idemudia to declares that “I am not going to give up I am going to continue to struggle to fight” (P. 184). In addition, the use of language, character and characterization also point to the growing consciousness of Marxist philosophy embodied in the text. The implication of this is to a large extent a very positive one, as it helps in the textual analysis, which eventually enriches the work and creates better readers and critics alike for the readership of Nigerian fiction.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the central place of theory in the analysis of Nigerian fiction, as its elucidatory influence cannot be underestimated in the examination of textual make-up, authorial intention, reader’s perceptions as well as the contextual colouration of Nigerian fiction. The deployment of Marxism to the analysis of Iyayi’s violence is a clear attestation to the aesthetic import of theory on thematic concerns of Nigerian fiction, as this can also apply to other theories not discussed in this study. The study also recognizes the utilitarian value of theory as a product of critical ability and therefore acknowledges its contribution to the richness of literary analysis in the Nigerian fiction. The paper therefore surmises that theory and the interpretation it provides can only be temporary, tentative and cannot be seen as a final code (conclusion), it can still be reinterpreted.

REFERENCES

PRIMARY TEXT

Iyayi Festus. Violence. Lagos: Longman, 1979.

SECONDARY TEXT

Agho Jude. Standpoints on the African Novel. Ibadan: SamBookman Educational and Comm.service,ibadanpress 1995.

Barthes Roland. “The Death of the Author” (ed.) Lodge D. and Wood, N. Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. London: Macmillan. 2001

Bertens Hans. Literary Theory: The Basics. USA: Routledge 2001.

Buzuev Vladimir and Gorodnov Vladimir of Social and Political Knowledge: What is Marxism-Leninism? Moscow: progress Publishers, 1987.

Carter David. Literary Theory. Harpenden: Pocket Essential, 2006.

Dobie Ann. Theory into Practice: Introduction to Literary Criticism USA: Michael Rosenberg 2012.

Eagleton Terry. The Significance of Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.

Foucault Michel. ‘What is an Author’ (ed). P. Rabinow The Foucault Reader. New York: Pnatheon Books 1984

Hartman Geoffrey. Criticism in the Wilderness. Yale: Yale University Press, 1980

Lenin Vladmir Karlmarx Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1997. Vol. 21

Nietzsche Fredrick. “On the Genealogy of Morals” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. W.Kaumann (ed). New York. The Modern Liberary, 2000.

Payne M. “Criticism, Ideology and Fiction” in Eagleton Terry. The Significance of Theory. Oxford: Blackwell 1990

Plekhanovi Georgi. Art and Social Life. Moscow: progress Publishers. 1977.