After debating in class what was really meant behind "clash of cultures" I began wondering - what is so wrong with that? Many definitions of clash deal with a physical battle between two separate things. In this sense, the battle would be between the English Colonials and the Yoruba people. If this clearly is a story that deals with the two, why is focusing on their differences such a bad thing? AFter thinking about this, perhaps it is because the differences are completely noticeable without ever having to be defined. When I first read the play and was coming up with my own idea of how it would be portrayed, the production had the two cultures at completely different ends of the spectrum. The Yoruba scenes were played in the thrust portion of my stage to show openness, but the English scenes were performed behind the proscenium to present a stereotypical classic style of doing drama. I even wanted the English people to be painted in a way that they resembled clowns. But then the author's notes have a way of haunting the reader/producer. I didn't want to present a clash of culture.
While reading the theory of Post-colonialism, it talks about Soyinka specifically wanting to discuss the differences between cultures (red flag?). However, it goes on to discuss that he also focuses on survival, and when reading Death and the King's Horseman I believe that survival is key in what Soyinka is writing about. It's easy for one to be distracted by the clashing of the two cultures (and perhaps it's purposely written that way), but Soyinka even goes as far as to point survival out in his play. I think one of the most pivotal scenes in the show is the 4th scene in which Olunde finds Jane and they begin discussing Olunde's father's decisions. "I thought all that at the beginning. Then I slowly realised that your greatest art is the art of survival. But at least have the humility to let others survive in their own way" (Olunde, pg 53). It is in this scene where the physical barriers are torn down between the two cultures (as we see Olunde as a bridge between the two), but it is here where we see the true clashing of cultures as they are compared throughout the scene. Soyinka makes a very poignant juxtaposition of the cultures where we see ideal English colonial/Western perspective explicitly challenged and defeated from multi-cultural perspective.
I believe that Olunde is the pure example of survival. I think Soyinka, whether or not he meant to, created the survival out of the two cultures. That is not to say that the original Yoruba culture is in anyway wrong, but I think that it's impossible to imagine a non-european influence Yoruban, but we get close to that with Olunde. Another example, it got brought up in class the idea of natives playing the orchestrations at the Prince's reception - I tried to make a point of this but the conversation got distracted away into another area of thought, but would that not be an example of survival, and celebrating the blend (the positive idea of clash) of cultures, even though power is still unfair. I'm starting to get lost in thoughts, creating more questions and answers than I have the time to make sense of. I will end this saying that I believe survival is key and whichever route a producer of the play has to deal with the clashing of cultures is fine, as long as the end result is still a gut-wrenching understanding of BOTH cultures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a response to both Zac’s and Jackie’s blogs.
Although I still agree with Soyinka’s request to not chalk up the dramatic events of “Death and the King’s Horseman” as a simple cultural clash, I still completely agree with Zac. It does come down to a cultural clash, but it more heartedly comes down to understanding both sides of the cultural clash. Jackie puts up a good quote in her blog “Was it Elesin’s Fault?” She quotes Elesin saying “I do not need your pity nor the pity of the world. I need your understanding.” I feel that these two lines support the deepest of an audience’s reaction: it does not come down to who is wrong or who is right in their beliefs, but understanding why these beliefs exist and why the characters ultimately push their agendas against each other. Zac quotes Olunde, “Have the humility to let others survive in their own way.” I wish it were that easy, Olunde, but in doing so, one side would feel as though they are failing their belief system, which I think Olunde could understand is the worst kind of failure. Just as Jane cannot ask the Yoruba people to stop their rituals included in their belief system, the Yoruba people cannot stop the British from shifting their ideals. Knowing that both sides are absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time is what makes this play so intriguing. However, I must also stand by Jackie in saying I don’t know if I can defend some of the actual events that take place in conjunction with their beliefs; as people tend to exploit other’s beliefs in order to gain power.
I think you're both touching on the very complicated question of survival and what it requires in this play in really perceptive ways. Soyinka writes elsewhere some interesting theory about not just survival but conscious and courageous acts of will that bridge the divisions between two worlds and make possible the survival of the world at the same time that they sacrifice the something of the people acting. He says that the "first actor," Ogun, committed such an act of will in bridging the world between the humans and the gods.
Post a Comment