Thoughts on Death and the King’s horsemen
The play Death and the King’s Horsemenhas been touted as a “classic tale of tragic decisions in traditional African culture,” by its publishers as is written on the back-cover of the book, however, the events surrounding Elesin Oba, the deceased king’s chief is anything but a “tragic decisions in traditional African culture.” There are “tragic decisions” in the play as the cultural and traditional norms of the Yoruba have thrust into Elesin’s life and he is compelled to fulfill a cultural command. The play shows in a remarkable way what can happen when culture/traditions come in direct confrontation with personal opinion in this case by Simon Pilkingses as he stands between Elesin’s executions of a cultural expectation.
Wole Soyinka has warned about what he calls “pervasive mentality,” the kind of approach that brings about a cultural clash and he was particularly cautious of what he also called “reductionist tendency.” He was clear in stating that the play was not one between different divergent cultures/traditions and that the dilemma facing the English officer is simply an “incident” and the confrontation a “metaphysical.”
Elesin Oba is expected to commit a ritual suicide to join his deceased king. This ritual suicide is central to the Yoruba way of life and is believed that a suicide by the chief horseman prevents death and misery descending down on the whole community. It is precisely because of this belief that the mother of the market says, “to prevent one death, you will actually make other deaths? Ah, great is the wisdom of the white race.” After the European District Officer hears about the upcoming suicide ritual, he promptly arrests Elesin just to prevent the ceremony from taking place. The district officer wasn’t a firm believer of tradition and his views of the rigidity of the English certainly lend credible evidence to that claim.
In reading Elesin predicament, we are reminded about the issue of female genital mutation and the problems that can come about as a result of attempts to define what is acceptable and what is not. Female genital mutation is a very complex issue and regrettably many Western writers/journalists have very recently termed it, by ignorance or design, as a religious belief and attributed to Islam, however, this is quite false and unfounded. Female genital mutation is practiced in many non-Muslim cultures whether it is in India or Nigeria. It is a cultural custom and not a religious one.
The great American thinker Ralph Emerson said in Self-Reliance that, “Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other” and recent modernization efforts in Nigeria are good case in points. Aristotle would have supported the district officer’s actions. Aristotle believed that reason and rationality should always precede any action and it’s hard to justify the suicide ritual on lucid terms. He believed that, “nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses.” Furthermore as a pupil of Plato and indirectly as a disciple of Socrates, Aristotle understood the consequences and dangers that can come about when a society clings to tradition to subvert reason. He also believed that one should be able to critically challenge common-held beliefs and traditions without fear of reprisals. In this Plato’s famous narrative the myth of the cave played a crucial role in his views and it Is hard to imagine Aristotle endorsing the suicide ritual in light of this.
In my view, there should never be any moral constraints on what is acceptable and tradition even though it should be challenged, should never be “corrected,” especially by those who ridicule other peoples’ traditions on the grounds that they don’t stack up their own views. Tradition is not as fluid as most people imagine and it is important to how people function and go about their business on daily basis and any intrusions aimed at “correcting” will not only invited negative reaction but is also goes against reason. Thinkers and social theorists should be able to present their ideas concerning social topics such as the reach of tradition but they should never set out to correct them. Once equipped with a credible rational reasoning on why certain aspects of a particular tradition are wrong, then a society will have to make a choice and it should be a choice they alone should make and not one done so at a gun-point. In this the male quoted in Nussbaum’s judging Other’s culture offers to explain how difficult it is to change tradition. Like Aristotle, Kant rejects tradition on the grounds that it impedes rational approach and defines a standard of morality that he believes is independent of tradition. However, in my view to bring about set criteria that can solve the complex issues of tradition and is flat across the board is quite ridiculous and dangerous and it is precisely this approach of placing moral constraints on tradition that proves risky and almost always counterproductive.
Soyinka’s play is a timely reminder of what can go terribly wrong when tradition and personal opinion collide and the dangerous of interpreting culture and tradition. Elesin deserves our sympathy on many fronts throughout the play, but it is his reaction and the way responds to both the cultural/traditional duties he must fulfill and the orders of the district officer that shed light to the peculiarity of his character. As Soyinka pointed out any attempts to hype up the play and its intended message or to flatten the fundamental message of the play into a simplistic clash between East and West is quite unfortunate. It is a tale of human struggle and an incidental metaphysical one at that too and that should never be lost on the reader.
