The Dilemma of Existing

Amongst the manifold dilemmas that imperialism spawns, the heftiest is the one that the colonised woman goes through. This blog will be discussing the ideas of domestic/“native” patriarchy but more importantly, drawing attention to the ideas of positionality. Then it is important to clarify that I will not speak much from my own perception but will be building on the ideas coming from the texts and the discussion that followed.

Kenyatta’s role in Kenyan freedom is uncontested. His efforts against the British aided the transformation of it from a colony to an independent nation. Even as President, he pushed for the liberation of many sectors of society that were previously off-limits for the native population. The most notable amongst these was the opening of some schools to the public that were initially reserved for white children exclusively. His voice was undoubtedly amongst the loudest ones against British tyranny.

Amongst his reservations with the rule was the British attack on certain customs held close by the Kenyan people. The initiation of their children was an important part of the Gikuyu life. It was a communal process that they were referring to as irua. Nevertheless, Kenyatta, in this text, puts this custom on a pedestal as if the entire nation would collapse without it. No doubt the custom was held dear by the people since it was a symbol for adulthood, and it brought them together. Nevertheless, Kenyatta describing it as something that the moral code of the tribe is bound up with raises the question of his positionality to speak for the bodies involved.

Redirecting the argument back to my very first line, the greatest dilemma is indeed for the colonised woman. Whether it’s Algeria’s veil, India’s satti or Kenya’s irua, resistance has taken the greatest toll on women. This can be interpreted in two distinct yet related ways.

First, it must be acknowledged that the British involvement in the customs of the natives is highly questionable and does nothing more than to confirm the native’s “backward” patriarchy and “primitiveness”. The dilemma here is whether the colonised should embrace the customs that are oppressive. The question of whether the English were right in interfering with native customs is hence raised. Indeed, one can argue that European involvement was unnecessary and defending many customs was crucial for the resistance. However, the women of these countries are left at the mercy of “native” patriarchy.

The question here is difficult to address. Colonised women have been stuck between whites trying to “save” them from men native to their land and the same men reinforcing patriarchal values on these women to resist the oppressors. Moreover, colonial practices of intervening have produced negative results. An increase in the practice of Satti after British involvement is a prime example of this. Hence, no matter what the circumstances are, the freedom permitted to these women is always dominated by a clash between men.

The second dilemma facing colonised women if of their agency. A white man “saving” native women or revolutionaries defending many customs in the name of resistance, both exclude taking the agency of the woman into account. Kenyatta’s account carries the characteristic of speaking on behalf of the other. A characteristic that led to Western anthropology coming under great fire by Eastern scholarship. Amongst all the discontents of the process of decolonisation, the limited freedom granted to women is almost always ignored. On one hand, their community is labelled “barbaric” and “primitive” for practising their customs. On the other, the forms of resistance available to them underpin deeply rooted patriarchal ideas native to their community.