DISTURBING THE STATUS QUO

 

A generation that is afraid of questioning the tradition will live incognito. In each epoch, there comes with it the norms and ethos which define the era. This is facilitated by the dynamicity of the nature of man. In most cases, it is inevitable to tow the line since, as Aristotle said, either a god or a beast can live alone. Hegel said that history is made by an individual who is imbued by the world spirit (Weltgeist). This spirit was equivocated to spirit or mind which possessed an individual, be it an artist, sculptor or even a charismatic leader. Renowned figures in their own eras in the history of the world are said, according to Hegel, to have moved or made a great impact in the societal history. I am damn sure, and I agree with Hegel, that in each generation, there is that one figure that becomes inspirational and everyone wants to be associated with him or her.  This is well elaborated in Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit. We will not dwell much therein.

So, in each generation, we find structures set out as norms, yard stick or even the measure by which the society ought to live by. So deep they are part of us that the gut to question or even interrogate them seems abominable. The sad thing is that, in as much as they may be queer or illogical, they are spiced up with prejudice and even superstition or attached to the ‘divine’. It is true, if you want to control people, just give them something to believe in, and make it mysterious and unfathomable. Let me cite a common example, “Leaders are ordained by God”. This is the most illogical phrase that I hear from people when they are not ready to own up their taste of bad choice and especially when it comes to taking the blame. I always ask myself, ‘why on Earth (or even in heavens) would God ordain a dictator, a bloodthirsty individual to sit on the earthly throne after anointing him or her?’ That is just but a wild thought anyway. 

It is in the human capacity to make good informed choices. The only limit that man has is self. This limit is self developed from the inadequacy that he realizes in himself and thusly communicate it to others. It is common to hear someone acknowledge the limitedness of man’s capacity to become better especially when he employs and embodies ‘apparent’ as a scapegoat to becoming a better self. When it comes to choices, and it is in the nature of man to choose what is good as asserted by Aristotle, man will always bring with his choice the aspect of’ apparent’ since he is not convinced that he can make a choice greater that the limits he have set for himself. Apparent is that which appears to be but not the actual or totality of the thing in question. When we choose, we go for that good we see in the choice after questioning and deliberating on several other options and settling for one. 

In the Confessions, Augustine dares to question the very change when he inquires seeking to understand where boyhood goes when one becomes a man. This is a very earnest desire to question the tradition of ‘a boy becomes man, matures’, that is, a boy grows. Many of us are afraid of disturbing the status quo and in the process; we live what we do not understand, just sailing through life. We are not ready to deal with new truths. We get too comfortable with what we are given but never are we bothered how it came to be so. The best approach is to employ Descartes’ methodic doubt. It is in doubt clarity is sought and truth is found. Would one doubt everything? That is the best way. Will this doubt mean discarding the norm and living without even a code? No, that would be demolishing the ground on which to stand on during your inquiry. Would it then make sense to ‘eat your cake and have it’? This would prove a difficulty if we go to semantics. Thus, it would an exhortation to look into the various beliefs that we hold and those which make a tradition, and especially that which is communicated as indubitable, since there are so many careless errors which are pumped into our ‘life’. I agree with Hegel that this world spirit can embody an individual or a nation and through their actions, a change is made in history. 

It is the action that brings changes since change in itself is an act. It is also through acting that man realizes himself as Jean-Paul Sartre would put it. But in choosing, come with it the result, the outcome and more precisely, the consequences. The consequences are feared and move man not to choose. At man’s disposal lie two choices at any given time. It is taking either that man expresses his freedom (for Sartre, ‘apparent’ should not come into picture since, at the end of the day, we will make that choice anyway and we become the sum total of our choices). It is the same reason that Galileo has to die for questioning the tradition which would have made other traditions to be probed further. It is unfortunate that even after a great man losing his life for righting a wrong, we still live that wrong today.  Do we not hold that sun rises from East and sets in the West? Does that not imply that the Sun moves? Would this not imply that Dhu al-Qarnayn (it is believed that this is Alexander the Great) who travels from east to west and reaches a swamp where sun sets be valid and true? Or even what cost Galileo his life that Joshua ‘stopped’ the sun? 

Let us take another example which is familiar to everyone. Kenyan national anthem both Swahili and English translation differs greatly. Were it to deliver a univocal message or reminder, then it would render more confusion that unison. The first stanza starts thus, “Ee Mungu nguvu yetu…” and it is loosely translated as, “O God of all creation….” Did I say it is loosely translated? Pardon me for that because it is not even close to a loose translation. All this is purposed by the education that we get. We are trained to think the same, to follow the same model and to keep the tradition perpetual. This makes a generation incognito, voiceless and under guise. We just pass through life just as mechanical as we can, afraid that disturbing the status quo would render us in deep trouble. We forget to make choices or we make ‘apparent’ choices which would bear lighter implications and sometimes, we tend not to choose at all. Jean-Paul Sartre reminds us that even when we choose not to make a choice, we are still choosing not to choose and which it is a choice in itself. We live in bad faith, a living condition that man chooses in order to minimize pain and suffering as Sartre puts it. We forget that life is not a hospital where we get treated and discharged but a hospice where the limitedness of our lives is reminded to us. 

Thus, making a choice to understand the essential of life is of paramount importance since, after we understand the reason of our belief in the laid down traditions, we resolve either to disturb the peace or retain the status quo. When we do that, we cannot whine that leaders are ordained by God but we take direct responsibility to acknowledge our bad or good choices without an ‘apparent’ coming in between.

-Kanogo Maina, 2020