By
Obododimma Oha
I drew attention in another blog
article to the fact that human beings identify themselves as mentally superior
to other animals, (in fact, these other beings are known as the real “animals,” being an
animal being a metaphor in English for being irrational and badly behaved), but
humans also learn craft, its complexity, commitment/dedication, etc. from these
“lower” animals. OK; let us recognize that as intersubjectivity. But beyond
this, humans exhibit admiration for animals when it comes to appropriating
their names in constructing a social identity that suggests them as superior to
other humans. This is evident in many cultures, but in this essay I am
interested in Igbo culture, precisely its praise name tradition seen in title
taking, age grade construction of self-image through self-labelling, etc.
Very significant among the
onomastic identifications adopted by men who
pursue some goals in the Igbo society is the mimicry of animals in terms
of their naming. Of course, it was human beings that gave these names to
animals in the first place, based on the “laws” and conventions of their main signifying
system, language. They appropriate these names as a way of making other people
see them in terms of these animals so named, to process them as having similar
qualities. In other words, it has a strategic cognitive function in the affairs
of humans. Do we call this clear case of metaphorization an animalization
specifically? Well, it seems so! An animalization! Biologically speaking, are
humans not animals in the first place? Does it make a difference if in their
arrogance they put themselves outside the family of animals, just to maintain
their superiority, just as they have claimed to be the only creatures that have
souls on this galaxy and only they are entitled to mansions in Heaven, or that
only they have a creative language! Anyway, they, too, die, and, as we have
seen, they sometimes use the features, even names, of the so-called lower
animals to show off among their kind.
Of course, one is aware of the
fact that other humans, obviously pursuing particular goals overtly or
covertly, may give these animal names to some people. In that case, they may
aim at:
(1)
making the persons given the animal names feel
they are well-wishers;
(2)
making the people given such names lose their
heads in excitement and act as they would normally not do if they were in their
right senses or if they were their normal selves;
(3)
making those given such names do them a favour
or do more (what the Igbo identify as E too ogeri, o baa nsi, flatter a lady and she can defecate in her dress!);
(4)
working on the mind of the addressee generally,
to make him or her construct false images of self.
If the name is adopted by personal volition as a praise name,
it may be designed to:
(1) make others mentally see the bearer
in terms of the attribute of the animal from which the name has been copied;
(2) deceive others cognitively into
thinking that the bearer and the animal are same; i.e. generalizing through
similar nomenclature; a deceptive cognitive project!
(3) get some respect from the cognitive
comparison;
(4) just to bear a fanciful name,
carrying a swollen image;
(5) have a multiple self-hood, the
additional praise-name quite antithetical to real person; and
(6) to fulfill simple cultural
requirement, as in age-grade, peer-group or gang.
This is clearly a semiotic issue. Humans that elevate
themselves want to use animal label or identification for themselves! So, this
onomastic exploitation (for that is what it really is) is clearly in line with
the idea being the first and the last at the same time, being in the front and
wanting to be bringing up the rear! Clearly, human beings are semiotically
selfish! They want to be be the ones that give utterance to the world. Imagine,
they are even courageous enough to make God subject to their language – you can
adjust it to “a prisoner of their language.” Don’t they use masculine
pronominals for the Almighty? That suggests maleness! So, they recreated the
Almighty in their own image through their language?
It is important to
illustrate this animal metaphorization with some praise names:
Perhaps, one of the most common these days is Agụneechemba
(Agụ na-eche mba or simply Agụ), which means “The leopard that guards the
community. In some folklore, the giant cat, as known by the Igbo, is a terror
in the forest and can settle it by might. That clearly conveys the idea of
“Might is Right.” Clearly, this is a valorization of tyranny, of the idea of
“The jungle Is Me” (The State is Me) and cannot pass as a humane idea. I feel
that, in order to reinvent the name a bit, the appropriate added “na-eche”
(guards), to make it appear less threatening. In order words, they try to cover
up the frightening aspect. Indeed, “na-eche mba” is merely added as a qualifier
to “agụ” to mask the fear. We know that a leopard does not eat grass; it eats
meat. In Igbo discourse, the wild cat is alternatively called “Otagbue Orie”
(That which kills and eats). Its canines are for biting something to death!
Thus, Agụneechemba narrates the bearer analogically as being
a killer (you don’t mess with) like the large cat. The analogy does not end
with the frightening similarity of “killer,” but is extended/modified to being
a protective type. What an irony comparable to an extra-judicial murder that is
given some euphemistic perfume of acceptability. Murder is still murder,
whether done to protect a country (an empty space), or an ethnic group.
Agụneechemba may thus look like an innocuous nomenclature, but it hides a
knife; in fact, a dagger! The ego of its bearers may be massage and they may
imagine themselves on top of the world when interpellated as such, but the goal
of superiority they are pursuing is undermined by an allegation that they are
killers!
Also, the person that bears Agụneechemba may lack the claws
and may just be as humble as a sheep. And so, what makes him one. Simply money!
Maybe he has graded the community road and has donated money during a project launch.
His leopard guardianship of his community is his bulging pocket or his false
philanthropy. Well, as Agụneechemba, he may be waiting for a chance to pounce,
for another meaning of “iche mba” is “waiting (for a chance to devour the
community.” In that case, Agụneechemba is even ambiguous! It means one thing here
and means another thing there.
Another appropriation of the name and
therefore the frightening prowess of an animal is seen in the name “Edi”
(Hyena), as in “Edi of Okwe” that Oliver de Coque sings about. The hyena is a
dangerous nocturnal that scavenges. It is also in the cat family and can eat
anything bad. Anyone called “Edi” is clearly frightening us with the propensity
to kill and eat anything. It simply says: “I am a scavenger; don’t mess with
me.” It is obviously designed to frighten people, and is ironical as when being
bad means being the happening and popular guy in town.
To be identified as “Edi” is to
declared a night walker. Night is itself a metaphor for frightening and ugly.
One has the heart to come out and share the street with the night walker. It is
not only that he knows and sees his well in the dark, but also, if the rat
joins the lizard in dancing in the rain, when the lizard gets dry, the rat may
not. Shivering with cold, the rat will be a mess!
Some men have also tried to re-imagine
themselves as courageous, and have taking the praise name of “Ebule” (the ram),
a peculiar cultural association of the animal with endurance. The Igbo
associate the ram with courage and so the bearer of the name identifies safe as
courageous, even without paying some commission to, or at least, giving credit,
to the animal, the original owner of courage! Further, the bearer may just be
chicken-hearted like any other community member but now has to boost his ego
and play his trumpet before his kinsmen.
Further, “Ebule” may just be there to
represent the past, to help him to beat his chest about surviving some terrible
things in the past. The name may have a history and each time he is called
that, it is a history that is indirectly narrated; his memory that after all he
is worth something is tickled!
The last and very humorous type one
would like to examine is “Okeọkpa” or simply “ọkpa” (Domestic cock or rooster).
The rooster crows and is an ancient time keeper. And so the ancient time keeper
(seriously speaking) watches the regulation of our lives. But the rooster is
also a crazy lover and sex machine. It has to fight to win or impress some
females. It has to fight to establish dominance, to emerge a ringleader. It is
proud to be one, just as it is proud of its comb and proud to win some female
trophies! The hens do not know anything called “feminism.” The just follow him
and scratch the ground for worms. But Okeọkpa is conceited and full of false
pride, pride of being a leader, as it stands asides watching over the harem,
dying of hunger but looking out for aviators. It is hungry, very hungry, but
pride will not let him show it. Once in a while he scratches the ground, but
finds NOTHING.
The person who takes “Okeọkpa” as
praise name is also proud to be a sex machine but someone living in falsehood,
even though he does not know it. Obviously, young men would most likely take
the praise name, if they are frequently called one, even when the name has
negative connotations. Their exuberance may lead them into bearing it, same
ironical way that things ugly or bad command bizarre respect among them. And
same way the real rooster thinks of its importance, when it has none and is
even starving!
Igbo appropriations of animal names
in praise naming are analogical processes through which humans try to impress
others, show their superiority, but those identities could also be at their
expense. It is necessary to pay attention to what these names are saying and
the goals their bearers are cleverly pursuing.
Comments