Abstract
The trend of the critical corpus on Emeka Nwabueze’s plays reveals a progression towards truncated scholarship as opinions on them are mostly stereotypical, neglecting the philosophical issues that provide an insight into their universal value. There is need for a fresh insight on the plays devoid of prejudices from previous readings to discourage possible critical redundancy. This study adopted the historical-descriptive design and the theoretical framework was anchored on Phenomenology and Hegelian Dialectics. The phenomenological approach enabled an analysis and description of data not hampered by presuppositions; and the Dialectic method offered a platform for interrogating the opposing perspectives in the plays, to determine how they constitute a dynamic for meaning formation.The objectives of this study were to: (i) ascertain the comprehensiveness and balance of the critical corpus on Emeka Nwabueze’s dramaturgy, (ii) explore the possibilities of Hegelian Dialectics as a legitimate model for discovering the philosophical essence of the selected plays and (iii) analyze the selected plays phenomenologically in order to establish their universal values. The plays purposively selected for this study are Spokesman for the Oracle (1986/2011), Guardian of the Cosmos (1990), A Dance of the Dead (1991/2003/2007), When the Arrow Rebounds (1991/2005), Echoes of Madness (2001) The Dragon’s Funeral (2005) and Lachrymose (2014). This entailed the deconstruction and reconstruction of structures of ideological exchange and oppositions in the selected plays. The conclusion of this study is that a definitive dialectic structure, which clearly follows the Hegelian scheme of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis mediates the plots of the plays and represents the core of their dramatic essence.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study.
The volume of critical opinions on Emeka Nwabueze’s plays and the fact that so many of them are recommended texts in many Nigerian schools and have been widely performed on stage and screen is sufficient evidence to assume that many people are, or appear to be, fascinated by Nwabueze’s drama. Several factors are responsible for the popularity of the plays. The most obvious of these factors are the topicality of the play’s themes, the lucidity of their language, and the extraordinary engagement of their plot as well as the very imaginative character portrayals that connect with the reality of most readers and audience members. But it appears that many critics do not go beyond the surface meanings of the plays. It seems there are so many who do not really understand the thought embedded in the plays, despite their fascination with them. That is not to suggest that nobody understands the plays. After all, as Paulo Coelho says in Brida, “Nothing in the world is ever completely wrong… even a stopped clock is right twice a day” (77). However, there appears to be too much preoccupation with formalistic considerations, and little concern for the thought and the philosophical dimensions of the plays, among most critics. One gets disturbed by the critical implications, for scholarship, of some disingenuous and putative opinions that are put forward about some of the plays.
This study explores the dialectic philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel to interrogate the structures of the selected plays to reveal the dialectic oppositions in them, which provide an alternative dimension for the appreciation of the plays. This is without prejudice to the fact that many African critics
appear to be uncomfortable with the seeming derogatory sentiments about Africa attributed to
Hegel, one of the most influential figures of western philosophical thought.
The connection between Emeka Nwabueze’s plays and G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy is not readily obtrusive. But it is very fundamental and vital. The meeting point of the two is in the concept of “Dialectics”. It is this that connects their shared essences, for both Hegel and Nwabueze are interested in the sanctity of shared communal ethos and the infinite nature of change. This will be made manifest in the course of this study.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
As will be seen in the review of literature on the selected plays, much of the critical opinions on Nwabueze’s plays have been axiomatically stylistic rather than philosophical. There has been little effort to investigate the deeper philosophical attitudes that frame much of the plays of Emeka Nwabueze and provide some sort of consistent empirical insight for their discussion. The discovery of this intrinsic profundity requires more than just a casual reading inspired by preconceived interpretative norms. Ordinary meaning is usually apparent in a text but deeper meaning is mostly implied. These two hierarchies of meaning interplay to provide the holistic essence of a text. The responsibility of the critic, his obligation to the reader and to the text is to chart a hermeneutic course for the ventilation of the myriad strands of meaning inherent in a text that may not be readily apparent; to attempt a bridging of the indeterminate gap necessarily existing between the text and the reader by supplying what is meant, to the best of his knowledge and intellectual attitude, from what is said and what is left unsaid. The ability of the critic to fulfill this obligation defines his role as a guide in the negotiation of meaning.
The purpose of this intellectual enterprise, therefore, is to provide an alternative model of interpretation that would yield the deeper philosophical meanings in Nwabueze’s plays and thus expand the frontiers of critical activity on these plays.
Hegelian Dialectics is a philosophical model that captures the core of Emeka Nwabueze’s dramaturgy. This is so because the fundamental bases of the selected plays are anchored on a systematic contradiction of ideas and logical arguments that reflect a clear interplay of the Hegelian Dialectic triad of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
1.3 Research Questions
Arising from the above, this study sought to provide answers to the following questions:
1. Have the plays of Emeka Nwabueze received appropriate balanced criticism or have the critical opinions been regimented and stereotypical?
2. Does Hegelian Dialectics provide a valid model for interrogating the philosophical essence of
Emeka Nwabueze’s plays?
3. Are there yet undiscovered critical approaches that could be used to study the plays of Emeka
Nwabuezetobetter discover the universal values of the plays?
1.4 Objectives of the Study
In The Valkyries Paulo Coelho points out that “There is a question we must ask as we undertake something: why? (7). It is, therefore, important to state clearly the “why” of this study. The objectives were to (i) ascertain the comprehensiveness and balance of the critical corpus on Emeka Nwabueze’s dramaturgy, (ii) explore the possibilities of Hegelian Dialectics as a
legitimate model for discovering the philosophical essence of the selected plays and (iii) suggest the exploration of interdisciplinary, especially philosophical, approaches to the study of Emeka Nwabueze’s plays and other modern African plays for the discovery of their universal values in the global world.
1.5 Significance of the Study
There seems to be no record of a study that connects G.W.F. Hegel and Emeka Nwabueze. This provides an opportunity for originality. A fundamental significance of this research, therefore, is that it initiates an intellectual relationship between Hegelian Dialectics and the plays of Emeka Nwabueze and thereby expands the frontiers of knowledge. Expectedly, this will inspire more imaginative critical engagement withthe plays. According to Estelle Phillips and Derek Pugh ‘… the classic position of a researcher is not that of one who knows the right answers but of one who is struggling to find out what the right questions might be!” (56) So by asking the right questions, this study also hopefully inaugurates an inquiry into the adequacy of some critical frameworks that are employed in the evaluation of dramatic literature for the discovery of deeper textual meaning.
1.6. Scope of the Study
Emeka Nwabueze is a prolific writer. His dramaturgical stable boasts of nine plays. Seven out of this number: Spokesman for the Oracle (1986/2011), Guardian of the Cosmos (1990/1997/2012), A Dance of the Dead (1991/2003/2007), When the Arrow Rebounds (1991/2005), Echoes of Madness (2001) The Dragon’s Funeral (2005) and Lachrymose (2014) will be investigated in
the course of this work. These plays are, in the opinion of the researcher, sufficient to demonstrate the thesis of this research.
Apart from G.W.F. Hegel, several other philosophers, ancient and modern, have shown interest in Dialectics as a method of inquiry and as a philosophical notion for understanding socio- political relationships and historical development. These philosophers include Socrates, Epicurus, Aristotle, Spinoza, Liebniz, Karl Marx, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Hans- Georg Gadamer. Among all these, Hegel and Marx stand out because their ideas demonstrate a clear attempt to elaborate on Dialectics, in a comprehensive manner, as a phenomenon that determines the constitution of societies and the advancement of man. Gadamer, too, has done in- depth work in this regard. Gadamer’s idea about dialectics, influenced by Martin Heidegger, comes close to the Hegelian model. But his inclusion of the “fusion of horizon” segment in his version of the dialectical method, (Truth and Method 1960), is extraneous to the purpose of the present research. This study, therefore, considers Hegelian Dialectics as the most appropriate for the examination of the selected plays and will focus on it. G.W.F. Hegel, as previously mentioned, is a colossus in the field of philosophy. His writings transverse every field of knowledge and his philosophical views encompass a variety of philosophical ideas. T.Z.Lavine refers to the French Philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s declaration that “All the great philosophical ideas of the past century, the philosophies of Marx, Nietzsche, existentialism and psycho-analysis had their beginning in Hegel” (255). The present study, as already indicated, will focus on his Dialectics. His ideas on this popular philosophical method are captured mainly in his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Aesthetik (1879) and Philosophy of Fine Art (1886).
1.7 Theoretical Framework
At its most basic, theory can be described as a generalized explanation about the nature of a phenomenon. It provides a means for understanding and predicting principles and processes within some sort of organized and logical framework. Every meaningful research is anchored on a theory or a set of theories, for the purpose of lending credibility to the research and providing a basis for the interpretation of data and the comprehension of the results derived from such interpretation. Udo-Akang affirms the invaluable significance of theory in the research process, pointing out that it provides an analytical framework and a clear explanation of the issues involved in the research (89). In a similar vein, Linda Smith opines that “Research is linked in all disciplines to theory. Research adds to, is generated from, creates or broadens our theoretical understandings (112). But no single theory can be regarded as being arbitrarily sufficient for the explanation of a phenomenon to the exclusion of every other theory. OyiboEze rightly captures this truism, in his doctoral dissertation titled “A Comparative Analysis of Selected Plays of Wole Soyinka and Ola Rotimi”, when he says that “…every theory is partial. It is, therefore, tyrannical to insist on a single theory as a comprehensive and only reliable analytic tool” (63). The implication of this is that the researcher must be open to alternative theories and be prepared to accept or, at least, recognize their utility. On the other hand, a research that seeks to involve every applicable theory may never be successfully completed. There is, therefore the need for the isolation of a theory or set of theories from a myriad of other possible ones and the articulation of same into a theoretical framework to serve as a compass on the voyage of inquiry.
According to Miles and Haberman, the theoretical framework “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied-the key factors, concepts or variables- and the presumed relationships among them (18). It is an operational guide, a conceptual outline and policy that determines the choices and consequences made in the course of the research. It “has implications for every decision made in the research process” (Mertens 3). A comprehensive explanation of what a theoretical framework entails is offered by Catherine Ennis:
The theoretical framework is a structure that identifies and describes the major elements, variables, or constructs that organize your scholarship. It is used to hypothesize, understand, or give meaning to the relationships among the elements that influence, affect, or predict the events or outcomes you specify. The theoretical framework grows out of the research focus, guides the design of individual studies, and structures your research presentations… (129).
This study is framed by the theories of Phenomenology and Hegelian Dialectic. These will provide the intellectual lens for the examination of the research focus and will be employed in the collation and analysis of data for the entire study.
Derived from the Greek Phainomenon (the appearance of things), phenomenology is concerned with the description of things as they appear. The foundation of phenomenology was laid down by the German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). Husserl proposed a method of thinking that would prefer individual experience over scientific knowledge and presuppositions for the explanation of lived experience (19). Phenomenological research encourages the description of phenomena from personal experience. Thus the phenomenological researcher has a personal interest and intimacy with the object of research, and the research process becomes for him an experience devoid of any bias, prejudice, or preconceived notions from previous opinions
on the phenomenon of interest. Therefore, the goal of the phenomenological researcher is to perceive the given as it presents itself or appears to the senses, excluding every extrinsic intrusion that would impede his experience of the phenomenon as phenomenon. To achieve this, according to M.H. Abrams, “the phenomenological analysis of consciousness begins with an
‘epoche’ (suspension) of all presuppositions about the nature of experience, and this suspension involves ‘bracketing’ (holding in abeyance) the question whether or not the object of consciousness is real… (229). In his Phenomenological Research Methods (1994), Clark Moustakas recommends three other processes for data analysis in the phenomenological method: (i) Phenomenological reduction, which entails the subjection of the phenomenon solely to the sense perception of the researcher excluding every other matter that has no immediate connection to this personal interaction; (ii) imaginative variation, which attempts to understand the essence of the phenomenon by interrogating its inherent components and (iii) Synthesis, which implies the integration of the features of the manner and matter of the phenomenon into a unified affirmation that would capture the holistic essence of the phenomenon.
The phenomenological perspective enabled the researcher to recognize the critical opinions on the study plays and ‘bracket’ them off so that they would not interfere with a personal engagement with the texts. This personal engagement enabled a fresh insight into the core substances and philosophical essences of the play, and eventually yielded an integrated meaning, anchored on Hegelian Dialectics.
The dialectical philosophy is concerned with opposing perspectives and views and how these constitute a dynamics for meaning formation. Its method entails the deconstruction and reconstruction of the structures of ideological exchange to arrive at an amalgamated idea that
contains aspects of the oppositions while nullifying their individual arbitrariness. According to Lee Harvey;
The dialectical deconstructive-reconstructive process can be construed as a process of focusing on the structural totality or historical moment and critically reflecting on its essential nature. The totality is initially taken as an existent whole. The structure presents itself as natural, as the result of historical progress, that is, it is ideologically constituted. The critical analysis of the historically specific structure must therefore go beyond surface appearances and lay bare the essential nature of the relations that are embedded in the structure (31-2).
As already indicated in the scope of the study sub-section, the focus of this study is the relevance of Hegelian dialectics for the interpretation of the selected plays. The Dialectical Philosophy of Hegel is anchored on the principles of change and opposition.
Hegelian Dialectics recognizes the existence of a negative factor in every positive development. Development, for Hegel, constitutes in the overcoming of this negative factor by a positive element. He posits that rational activity involves the encounter of oppositions. For him, development is thus predicated on the adjustment of conflicts by a higher form, which includes elements of the opposing factors now reconciled. This idea of the unity of opposites or positive negation will provide a frame to investigate the value of opposition as a determinate factor in all of the chosen plays.
Organicism is another very important concept in Hegelian Dialectics. Here, the various expressions of the Spirit (geist), of all world activity are the expressions of a whole, of one organism, and isolated/severed units of this organic whole are achromatic and have neutral estimation with mere contingent existence. Therefore, the whole, the organism, is more important than any of the units no matter how significant such a unit may appear. The isolated individual estranged from the community/state is meaningless. It is the whole that gives meaning and substance to the individual. This idea is captured in Hegel’s theory on the state as an organizational unit. It shall be used to justify the tragedy of the major characters of When the Arrow Rebounds, The Dragon’s Funeral, Echoes of Madness, A Dance of the Dead and Lachrymose
Furthermore, in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy (1968), Hegel calls attention to the significance of history for the comprehension of phenomena. He makes a very important point about the reflection of a people’s philosophy at each point in time in their cultural products and systems (53). T.Z.Lavine offers a comprehensive explanation of the value of history in Hegelian dialectical philosophy;
The view of the significance of history which appears in Hegel’s metaphor is called historicism: historicism is the claim that the understanding of any aspect of human life must be concerned primarily with its history, its evolution, its genesis, or its roots, rather than with empirical observation of it as it is now. Historicism is of the view that adequate knowledge of any human phenomenon must be historical (217).
The above seems to contradict M.H. Abram’s idea of ‘epoche’ mentioned earlier. But Abram does not reject the recognition of previous experiences about a phenomenon. He recommends a recognition and conscious suspension of it for the purpose of unprejudiced mental clarity, which he believes would encourage a fresh insight into the nature of the phenomenon.
This aspect of the Hegelian dialectical philosophy, historicism,formed the basis for examining the tragedy that befalls the central characters of Guardian of the Cosmos, Spokesman for the Oracle, When the Arrow Rebounds and Lachrymose.
The combination of dialectic and phenomenologicalperspectives provided this study with the necessary framework for critical engagement that interrogated the interiority of the selected texts.
1.8 Research Methodology
The data for this study are derived from primary and secondary sources. The selected plays of Emeka Nwabueze were the primary source. Secondary sources were published materials in books, journals, libraries, dissertations and theses.
The selected plays were subjected to a conceptual content analysis to determine how their philosophical essence and tragic substance are framed by the Hegelian Dialectic Triad of Thesis- Antithesis-Synthesis. The historical-descriptive design is the adopted research plan for this study, while the documentation and acknowledgement of sources of information followed the MLA parenthetical style.
This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research
HEGELIAN DIALECTIC STRUCTURES IN SELECTED PLAYS OF EMEKA NWABUEZE
A1Project Hub Support Team Are Always (24/7) Online To Help You With Your Project
Chat Us on WhatsApp » 09063590000
DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION? CALL OUR HELP DESK:
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)
YOU CAN REACH OUR SUPPORT TEAM VIA MAIL: [email protected]
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)
