Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
We seem to be at odds here, but perhaps not. Could the "answer" be that any culture contains the seeds of both its salvation and its destruction? And that it's down to the people who lead, happenstance and perhaps just sheer dumb luck at any given time which trajectory it takes?
|
I would agree with that. That the Ibo society was very vulnerable is clear. Okonkwo very much wanted to be the leader but he was incapable of giving the kind of leadership which could transform it {and it needed transformation}.
Certainly Obierika had doubts of the wisdom of tribal traditions. Uchendu had more than doubts--he saw the sorrow that came from accepting them without thought.
The problem is that Okonkwo was admired. The tribe didn't really seem to have much time for a reflective person. Obierika didn't go beyond thinking about things and Uchendu was too old and bitter to attempt anything. And the women, of course, simply lived in a perpetual Stockholm Syndrome.
So on more reflection, I think that practical realism about human nature would indicate that I'm being too sanguine in my coda. Yes, the possibility of salvation coming from themselves was there, but there just wasn't time for a natural social evolution. Okonkwo was the popular charismatic leader and he acted unthinkingly from a reflex of tribal tradition. How likely to gain influence were thoughtful, sensitive people like Obienkwo? How many would actually take the time to note the moral inconsistencies in their society?
A little quote from Frazer in
The Golden Bough comes to mind:
"The inconsistency of acting on . . . opposite princples, however it may vex the soul of the philosopher, rarely troubles the common man; indeed he is seldom even aware of it. His affair is to act, not to analyse the motives of his action. If mankind had always been logical and wise, history would not be a long chronicle of folly and crime."