1. Summary: Decolonising the Mind
Summary: Thiong’o’s “Decolonising the Mind”
Kenyan-born Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s 1986
book Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of
Language in African Literature can be thought of,
in part, as a continuation of Martinique-born
Frantz Fanon’s earlier anti-colonial book, Black
Skin, White Masks (1952). Each of these books
can be considered both colonial and post-colonial,
colonial because they examine the effects of
teaching colonial children foreign (European)
languages/cultures at the expense of native
languages/cultures, and post-colonial because they
both argue that these effects are harmful to the
colonized regions.
Thiong’o’s general argument in this
selection is that a national culture must include that

2. nation’s literature expressed in that nation’s native
language. In other words, Thiong’o argues that the
English (Spanish/French/Portuguese/etc.) language
ought not to be the language of education and
culture in areas where it was used as an implement
of colonial domination. He opens this selection by
arguing “the language of African literature cannot
be discussed meaningfully outside the context of
those social forces which have made it both an
issue demanding our attention and a problem
calling for a resolution” (1126). “Those social
forces” can be understood as colonialism and the
desires and struggles of African people to reclaim
their economies, politics, and cultures from the
colonial chokehold. Thiong’o traces his interest in
the discussion of the language of African literature
through his childhood education in Kenya and his
participation in a number of conferences on the
subject, including his participation at the 1962
conference “A Conference of African Writers of
English Expression.” He explains that only
African writers who had published in English were
eligible to participate in the conference which had
as its initial point of inquiry, the question “what is
African literature?” (1128). Considering this

3. question in light of his English education and with
the benefit of 26 years, Thiong’o explains why
African literature must not be conceived of in
European (or other non-native) languages.
Thiong’o argues, “language was the means of
spiritual subjugation” of the colonized by the
colonizers and therefore cannot express the
inherent African-ness that an African literature
must express (1130).
In explaining how language was used for
spiritual subjugation, Thiong’o looks to his own
education. He describes Gikuyu as the language
for his peasant family’s communication with each
other, with the community at large, and as their
means to share culture, namely through orature.
As a child growing up in this community, his
language remained unified until he went to school
and was taught to elevate English language and to
devalue Gikuyu. Thiong’o argues that language
“is both a means of communication and a carrier of
culture” (1133). Each of these characteristics has
three aspects. Language as communication is 1)
the language of real life, 2) speech which mediates
human relations, and 3) written language which

4. imitates speech. Language as a carrier of culture is
1) “a product and reflection of human beings
communicating with one another in the very
struggle to create wealth and control it,” 2) “an
image-forming agent in the mind of a child,” and
3) the transmitter of “those images of the world
and reality…through a specific language” (1134).
Until his English education, Thiong’o claims these
six aspects were harmonious in his native Gikuyu.
Thiong’o argues that colonialism’s real
goal was “to control…the entire realm of the
language of real life” (1135). To do so, colonial
powers consciously elevated English and
consciously devalued Gikuyu. In school, Thiong’o
(and other similarly educated children) were taught
to use English exclusively, but this language could
never adequately express the experience of a
Kenyan child since it developed to express the
experience of the English. English as language of
communication for Kenyans thus failed to allow
full communication. English as language of
culture also failed Kenyans because “the colonial
child was made to see the world and where he
stands in it as seen and defined by or reflected in

5. the culture of imposition” (1136). English
literature, even at its most innocuous, taught as
reflecting universal humanism, reflected that
“universal” humanism from a specifically English
position. Even when texts were translated into
English, the literature was Euro-centric and the
resulting education was alienating. Because
English literature, even when written by Africans,
cannot express African culture (because culture is
inextricably tied to its native language), an African
literature must be written in African languages.
Thiong’o states that English literature
syllabi at African universities were almost
identical in their coverage of the English cannon
and inclusion of ancient and modern European
drama. Although Thiong’o writes specifically
about African colonies, given the scope of
European colonialism and the formulaic language
subjugation, I believe his argument is applicable to
other areas of colonialism, including the
Caribbean. Saint Lucian-born Derek Walcott’s
Omeros comes to mind as an illustration for
Thiong’o’s argument. Written almost completely
in English, Omeros is loosely based on Homer’s

6. Iliad and Odyssey and is set on St. Lucia, an island
with a long history of colonial rule vacillating
between French and British rule.
Looking at the first review on the back of
my copy of Omeros, it seems that part of its
critical acclaim is due to Walcott’s ability to
imitate the great European and British literary
tradition. Michael Heyward of The Washington
Post Book World writes that “what justifies the
title of Omeros is a sense of unbridled imaginative
scope, that feeling of amplitude and sensuous
inclusion which we find in
Homer…Lucretius…Shakespeare…or
Whitman...which Walcott can summon as much as
any poet now living” (Walcott back cover). This
reviewer seems to find Walcott’s (and perhaps any
poet’s) talent lies in his ability to summon other
canonized writers. This way of valuing a text
seems similar to the way Thiong’o describes the
colonial system culling of the educated colonized
by valuing, above all else, a student’s mastery of
English language.
Although Walcott’s poem is mostly written
in English, he does slip into French occasionally.

7. In these instances, the French is presented, and
then a translation from the French into English is
presented within the poetic structure. It seems that
in these instances, the French may be closer to
what is being expressed than is the English. This
is fascinating to me as both languages are
European, non-native Caribbean languages.
Analyzing this language use in light of Thiong’o’s
essay, it seems that, somehow, French is closer to
the culture than English. Despite its critical
acclaim, perhaps Walcott’s poem is an example of
what Thiong’o wants to avoid in terms of
developing an African literature.
Works Cited
Thiong’o, Ngugi wa. “Decolonising the Mind.”
1986. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd
Ed. Eds.
Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 2004. 1126-1150. Print.
Walcott, Derek. Omeros. New York: Noonday
Press-Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1990. Print.

8. Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this
page.
Printable version
PBworks / Help
Terms of use / Privacy policy
About this workspace
Contact the owner / RSS feed / This workspace is
public