By
Obododimma Oha
The metaphorization of the nation-state is a worthwhile concern. Metaphor, which is often associated with literary discourse and literary imagination, compares one thing with another. As an expression of an analogy, not only is it ancient to language and typical of human signification, it also stimulates thinking about the speaker’s brand of logic. That makes it a very interesting and indirect way of perceiving speakers and the ways that they look at issues. In that case, considering how people look at a nation-state in their time or the ways they present themselves is particularly interesting.
Often, individuals express patriotic feelings towards nations and nation-states, sometimes hypocritically. It would be good to examine the metaphors that they deploy in displaying or suggesting their patriotism. It is also worthwhile to examine metaphors that other people challenging the nation-state deploy. In this regard, this short essay examines Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s metaphorical reference to Nigeria as a “zoo” as well as some other representations of a violent nation in that discursive tradition.
The Nation-state as a Zoo
Thinking of a nation-state as a zoo may appear unfriendly because it is decivilizing. Such a metaphorization invites us to think of the nation comparatively with the real zoo where (i) animals are kept against their will; (ii) the movements or actions of the animals are greatly controlled; (iii) the animals do not live in the confinements out their freewill; (iv) the animals are kept at the pleasure of humans who consider themselves superior; (v) the animals may be kept for financial gains or for amusement; and (vi) the animals may be denied their rights. Therefore, that a nation-state that just emerged from colonization and its members that were put together against their will by the colonizer have no right to think of being reformed, re-structured, or re-imagined in membership, already speaks of the zoo semiotic and gross injustice. In that case, colonisation is being subtly justified; the colonizer was not an intruder and thief. The colonizer must have been sent by heaven and should have continued the colonization!
Also, the idea of deprivation of rights to the animals in the zoo is disturbing. The animals are considered inferior and can never do what they like, what more having the condition reversed, so that the zoo keeper enters the cage to be locked in and watched and used for amusement! That reminds us about Jonathan Swift’s funny story in “Journey to the Land of Houynyms” in which horses are amazed that there is a place where despicable humans (yahoos) sit on horses and ride them! How could despicable yahoos ride horses and claim to be masters? The horses wonder. But animals in confinements in zoos have learnt to swallow their rage. They can wait to vent that rage at the slightest opportunity! Similarly, some groups in the postcolonial nation-state can rise to the top of leadership but others cannot. Those others are inherently incompetent and can never be allowed to lead.
One may be bothered that some animals are meant for the cages and cannot be equal to other “animals” who become zoo keepers. But it is really animals confining animals in cages, the former only hoping for a continuation of opportunity. This greatly puts to question that idea of “nation” as being imagined. Was it not Benedict Anderson and many other scholars that directed our thinking to that idea of all communities being imagined, banishing the notion of any community as being natural? So, there is no made-in-heaven nation-state as bush people think. We agree and disagree, peacefully, unless we want trouble and are not civilized. Further, it is difficult to say one thing in the classroom when something else obtains around! For instance, if a lecturer cannot see plagiarism in social life near his or her very nose and condemn it, why punish students for falling victims, or why teach only what is far and only found in books?
The Violent Nation-state as a Game Reserve
Apart from the metaphorization of some nations as zoo because of prevalent inequality and mistreatment, we also have other interesting options. For instance, there is the metaphorization of a nation-state founded on rationalised injustice and violence (like government disobeying the courts or orchestrating violence) as greatly uncivilized and disorderly, something one may not find in a normal zoo where control of space still speaks of civilization. An alternative is, therefore, the game reserve where this animal can kill and eat that animal and that animal has killed and has eaten those animals. A game reserve grants freedom, but also allows for more violence. Maybe the violence and bloodshed are also entertaining to some visiting animals!
But there is something disturbing about the game reserve semiotic. It is that the game reserve is a natural context, a state-of-nature context that exemplifies the food cycle. In the game reserve, any animal could be killed or could die any time! Nobody cares or feels any thing. If there is anything to worry about, it is that the killer could be killed any time, too. And the killing continues!
But one thing about the game reserve is that, even though killing is normalized, is a game or sports and one could die any time, killing is normally for food. No animal there shoots another animal and buries the body or leaves it lying about. Killing is necessary and is for food. So, those “inferior” animals are still high up there, even higher than the so-called superior homo sapiens who shoot other animals, including their parents and other relatives and load the corpses carelessly upon a truck! Killing is a game for humans armed with sophisticated guns! So, they belong to the GAME reserve and shoot other animals for trophy!
I am excited at these and some other ways that these metaphors invite us to think of the postcolonial nation-state. Indeed, we need to think about the nation-state and some of its funny ways.
Comments