Akkerman 1
When Progress is Not Welcomed
In our modern society, most people would agree with the statement that progress and modernity are good things. In fact, we tend to look down upon people who are less developed and educated than ourselves, just like Michael looks down on the villagers in Achebe’s story called “Dead Men’s Path.” When Michael’s character is described in the beginning of the story, this is what is said about him: “He was outspoken in his condemnation of the narrow views of these older and often less-educated ones” (183). In “Dead Men’s Path” conflict arises when Michael, who is a modern-minded new headmaster, wants to bring his modern ways to a village where people still live according to traditional African rules. He tries to do this without showing respect towards the people in the village and their ways. Michael’s view makes sense in that way that we are naturally programmed to want to get ahead, as that is exactly what made our species successful during evolution. If we were not biologically programmed to be progressive, we would still be living in caves wearing bearskins for protection against the cold. But are there only advantages to modernity, and no disadvantages? And do traditions not have any points? Or are they useless old-fashioned rituals that we’d better get rid of sooner than later? This is a conflict that is as old as human existence; probably there were also people opposed to using fire when it was first discovered. One thing is very clear though: arrogance will not solve any conflict. First of all, people will feel attacked by people who obviously think they are better than them, and don’t even try to hide it. Michael is not hiding his views: his wife is even infected by his “denigration of ‘these old and superannuated people in the teaching field who would be better employed as traders in the Onitsha market’” (183). When a new headmaster comes to town, and he and his wife display this kind of attitude, it is not going to make him popular. Imagine a new mayor coming to power in your city, telling you that everybody should use a BlackBerry from now on, because he is going to change the existing, backwards system. If you were perfectly content with your plain cell phone or landline, you are not going to be happy. Why change something that is working well? And who is he to tell you what to do? Second, when innovations are to be made, decisions regarding these innovations should always be made with all parties involved. There is nothing wrong with innovations in themselves, but there can be many things that are wrong with the way they are introduced. Micheal’s way of thinking is a clear example of how not to do it: “I was thinking what a grand opportunity we’ve got at last to show these people how a school should be run” (183). This shows how Michael is only thinking about how to impose his style upon other people. He is already assured that his way is the best way, and doesn’t even consider keeping the villagers’ ways in mind. He doesn’t even consider that traditional ways can have very good points and values, which could be an enrichment to even an innovative way. Traditions often stem from human needs, which is why they emerged in the first place. For example, if we look at the roots of marriage, which is an age-old tradition, we will see that it came from the human need for an intimate, faithful partner which is present in most human beings. It would be foolish not to consider the human needs at the roots of a tradition, which in the case of the villagers could be the need for a connection to their ancestors. If the villagers’ needs would have been addressed to by Michael, by involving them in his plans, the situation would have been more peaceful. Next to this, when confronted with a dissident, one should at least listen to his reasons and answer with respect. A conversation will not develop when the other is laughed away. Michael displays great disrespect in the conversation with a village priest with whom he has a conflict. In this conversation Michael is arguing with the priest about a fence he put up in order to keep the villagers from walking in the school’s beautiful flowerbeds, which according to the priest and villagers is crossing a path that is used by the spirits of ancestors. When the priest points this out to Michael, his reaction is: “’The whole purpose of this school,’ he said finally, ‘is to eradicate just such beliefs as that. Dead men do not require footpaths. The whole idea is just fantastic. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas’” (184). What is the priest supposed to answer to this? Obviously, Michael is not open to a real discussion, or a solution to the problem that can satisfy both. When there is no respect, there is not going to be a solution. There is more likely to be the start of a war. In the end of “Dead Men’s Path”, the sure outcome of dealings with a lack of respect towards others is shown clearly: “Two days later a young woman in the village died in childbed. A diviner was immediately consulted, and he prescribed heavy sacrifices to propitiate ancestors insulted by the fence” (184). The answer of the traditional villagers to Michael’s attitude is loud and clear: when you insult us, we will insult you back. I think it is logical to answer like this, when somebody disrespects a person’s traditions so much. “Eye for an eye” is a proverb that has been around for a long time, and these days it is still all too often the way the world works. After all, it is clear that arrogance in no way helps to make the transition from old to new easier. When one wants to make changes that will affect other people, the best way to go is still and will always be communication. Come with an open mind, listen to other people, and try to bring the old ways together with the new in a peaceful way. Who said that older ways don’t have anything good to offer? Preserving tradition can actually be good for promoting culture and diversity. If it is taken more seriously by the great powers in this world, it could even prevent wars. If only Michael would have known this, the “tribal war situation” (185) that developed in the end of the story might not have happened.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “Dead Men’s Path.” Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing. Ed. X.J Kennedy, and Dana Gioia. 5th compact ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 183-185.