Why Prof Ochieng’ was a trailblazer in many ways

The late Professor William Robert Ochieng’. [PHOTO: COURTESY/STANDARD]

By PETER NDEGE

The passing on of Professor William Robert Ochieng’ provides an occasion for assessing this great intellectual contribution to the development of Kenya’s historiography, the very history of historical writing in Kenya, in at least three fundamental senses: the critique of appropriate sources, methodologies and theories.

Ochieng studied history at a critical moment in the development of history as a discipline in Africa. This was between the mid-1960s and early 1970s when the first generation of nationalist or Africanist historians such as Cheikh Ante Diop of Senegal, Kenneth Ownuka Dike and Ade Ajayi of Nigeria, Francis Agbodeka and Adu Boahen of Ghana, S. M Kiwanuka and Samwiri Karugire of Uganda, Isaria Kimambo and Arnold Temu of Tanzania, and indeed our own Kenyan pioneer historians, Bethwell Allan Ogot, Gideon S Were and Godfrey Muriuki, had successfully challenged and debunked colonial historiography on account of its Eurocentricism and racial arrogance.

 European colonial historiography dismissed Africa as a continent without history. Africans were considered a people lacking in historical consciousness and, in the words of Hugh Trevor-Ropper, “semi-barbaric people gyrating in an obscure corner of the globe”. Trevor-Roper further argued that Africa is a dark continent and that darkness does not constitute a subject of history.

  Colonial historians

European colonial historians therefore claimed that Africa’s great achievements, which were represented by the ancient Egyptian and Great Zimbabwean civilisations, among others, were the works of people of extraneous origins claimed to be the Europeans themselves or Hamites. The latter were said to be the accursed descendants of Ham, one of the mythical Noah’s sons whose tragic story is found in Genesis, The Old Testament. Secondly, colonial historiography emphasised the activities of European missionaries, explorers and administrators at the expense of Africans.

Thirdly it exclusively prioritised written records, as the quintessential source for the writing of history.

These were said to be lacking in much of Africa in spite of hieroglyphics in ancient Egypt, Ge’ez in Ethiopia, Arabic in all of Eastern Africa’s coastal towns and the Trans Saharan trade routes in West and North Africa, and rock paintings in many parts of Africa. The pioneer Africanist historians were engaged in an intellectual battle, which they gallantly fought and partly won.

Among their achievements were that they proved the possibility and viability of authentic African history based primarily on oral and other sources such as ethnology, linguistics, and archaeological and archival sources.  Ochieng’ belonged to the second-generation historians. Like Ogot, his mentor, he used oral sources to trace the origins, migrations, settlement and economic, social and political achievements of the Abagusii of Western Kenya.

In this seminal work on the Abagusii, Professor Ochieng’ also demonstrated the multi-ethnic origins and composition of Kenya’s communities.

He found out that the Abagusii clans derive from and share genealogical origins with many communities such as the Abalogoli, Abakuria, Abasuba, Luo, Maasai, and Kipsigis.

The anvil on which the Abagusii, like all the other Kenyan communities, were forged was inter-clan, communal or inter-ethnic interactions, notably through inter marriage and trade, and adaptation to the diverse cultural and biophysical environments. Like Ogot and other pioneer Africanists, Ochieng’ emphasised the African perspective of the past which portrayed Africans as real agents, heroes and architects of their own past and as communities who actually share a common cultural background.

This contradicts latter-day allegations by Kenyan politicians of ethnic purity among Kenya’s communities. As is well known, this assertion by our politicians is aimed at their own self-preservation through the age-old colonial policy of dividing and ruling, not leading, Kenyans. Secondly, Ochieng’, like the other Africanists, contributed immensely to positive changes in the teaching of Kenya’s and Africa’s history. Today the coverage of history in Kenya goes well beyond the voyages of European explorers, the European discovery and conquest of Africa and the history of the British Empire and Commonwealth.

This is the type of history, which discouraged many people from taking the subject in secondary and high schools in colonial and immediate post independent Kenya. It was difficult for African students to identify with and be fascinated by this type of history.

Unfortunately, this is the type of history, which policy makers and educationists in Kenya believe is still being taught in our schools and universities. It is easy to understand why parents and individuals in the ministry of Education always discourage students from taking history. Perhaps this is also why a former Maseno University Vice-Chancellor Prof Fredrick Onyango told Ochieng’ to his face that he would not miss him as he would easily get his replacement from the nearby Luanda market.

The history curricula have been so broadened at all levels that the study of history now covers interesting themes such as the making of Kenyan communities; their economic, social and political accomplishments prior to the establishment of colonialism; African peoples adaptations to the colonial situation; their heroic struggles against colonial economic, social and political oppression; and the post-colonial or post-independence achievements and challenges of nation building.

History of science

Students of history also study the history of other African countries as well as of the rest of the world. As well, they study environmental, medical, political, economic and social history. Our natural scientists are invited to take courses on the history of science and technology. History teaching and research have become quite multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary.

The discipline’s intellectual frontiers are increasingly being broadened. There are many more published works on African and Kenyan history than ever before. As Chair of Departments of History in Kenyatta, Moi and Maseno universities Ochieng’ contributed immensely to the revolutionary changes in the history curricula.

Thirdly, Ochieng’ should be remembered as an accomplished teacher and publisher. He taught history at the University of Nairobi and Kenyatta, Moi and Maseno universities in Kenya and at Syracuse, Stanford and West Virginia universities in the United States of America. He successfully supervised many students. As chair of the Post-Graduate School in Moi University, he secured local and overseas scholarships and teaching assistantships for many students, including this writer.

He did this through his good relations with international academic organisations such as the German DAAD and overseas universities where he taught. He wrote and edited many books, including The First, Second and Third Words, respectively, which are collections of short and very thought-provoking essays on many aspects of Kenya’s experience;

A History of Kenya, the first book on an integrated history of Kenya, History of Modern Kenya, which was written in honour of the “Father of Kenyan History”, B. A. Ogot; Themes in Kenya’s History, which covers very interesting aspects of Kenya’s history that require detailed research; An Economic History of Kenya; Decolonisation and Independence in Kenya; and shortly before his death, History of Kenya Since 1963, whose chapters critique aspects of Kenya’s post-independence governance.

Further, he edited many issues of the Kenya Historical Journal, including its special issue on Mau Mau. He was the founder member of the Historical Association of Kenya, and at the time of his death was involved in the establishment of the Western Kenya Historical Association. All these efforts show that there is still a lot to be researched and written on Kenya’s history. Fourth, Professor Ochieng’ lived within the expectations of History as a discipline. He was imaginative, creative, a master of very good prose, and quite combative. His works inspired many younger scholars to pursue studies in History.

Locked horns

As an intellectual combatant Ochieng’ locked horns with fellow intellectuals like Ali A Mazrui, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Okot p’ Bitek and Taban Lo Liyong. He articulated his ideas very clearly and bravely. In doing so he was inviting these individuals and all of us to public debate to interrogate conventionally accepted views in order to think about other possibilities. Like the philosopher of Science, Thomas Kuhn, he believed that knowledge production must be premised on challenging existing paradigms and establishing new ones.  This requires formulating new theories or reformulating old ones. Ironically it is in this task that Professor Ochieng’ and Africanist historiography have exhibited limitations.

Professor Ochieng’ eschewed the use of theory in historical thinking and writing. He simply wrote about the past as he thought, “it really happened”. He castigated Ngugi’s Marxist novels. Likewise the theory-inclined scholars thought that Ochieng’ was never a committed scholar.

Others thought that Ochieng’ was subjective. But to be fair to him it can be argued that like every practising historian, Ochieng’ believed that although objectivity is a desirable goal, it is impossible to attain.

He always argued that the best way to do so was to avoid commitment to any theory: Modernisation, Marxism’s variants such as underdevelopment, dependency and articulation of modes of production, and Postmodernism.

He shared this belief with Ogot and Muriuki. He was unlike his contemporary, the late E. S. Atieno Odhiambo who was very comfortable with theory and philosophy. Other historians like Vincent Simiyu and Eric Masinde Aseka continue to be fascinated with and handle theory quite well.

The major challenge here, which is why Ochieng’ was reluctant to imbibe the theories mentioned above, is the formulation of theories which are endogenous to Africa. Ochieng’ was averse to importing and toying with these theories because they are foreign and have no relevance to the African condition. 

Be that as it may, Africanist historians, literary critics, novelists and social scientists will be engaged in the quest for a theory, which is adequately explanatory of the African condition for a very long time to come. The relevance of theory in scholarship is an unending debate.

Ochieng’s reluctance to adopt any theory or formulate his own led to other limitations in his works, something he shared with other Africanist scholars: ambivalence towards change and failure to make history and other social sciences practical and capable of providing solutions of African problems such as economic exploitation, poverty, civil wars, dictatorships, and human rights abuse generally.

For those who believe that the role of scholarship is not simply to explain but to change society, this is a major omission on the part of most of our scholars. This is so despite the counterargument that to explain is to diagnose, which goes a long way towards ameliorating our malaise.

One would even argue that scholars are by their nature not policy makers unless they are called upon to do so by the powers that be. This has not been possible in Africa where political leaders arrogate to themselves all knowledge and power. But what happens when one is co-opted by the political establishment the way Ochieng’ was during the last phase of the Moi regime?

Was he given the opportunity to influence governance? Ochieng’ died before writing about his experiences in State House. Being a historian he was probably aware of the folly of getting deeply involved in palace intrigues having learnt about Cicero’s tragic fate in ancient Rome.  Scholars’ problems are often deeper than is assumed. Their intellectual orientation is much influenced by their academic upbringing, which in the case of Africa is essentially colonial and characterised by oppression. As the educationist, Paulo Friere argued, “The pedagogy of the oppressed” usually emphasises the maintenance of the status quo. Colonial education in Kenya was meant to legitimise the colonial situation which was characterised by political oppression, economic exploitation and the disparagement of African culture.

This did not change with the attainment of political independence in the late 1950s and 1960s. Alliance High School, which Ochieng’ and many other Kenyan intellectuals and leaders attended, was the citadel of colonial education for Africans and the centre per excellence of producing the elite who would inherit leadership positions in independent Kenya.

Intellectual heritage

So was the Nairobi campus of the University of East Africa, which was a constituent of the University of London. At independence, Kenya, like other African countries, inherited colonial political, economic and social structures, including education.  Ochieng’, like many intellectuals of our time never completely shed their colonial intellectual heritage.

Not even Ngugi despite his Marxist literary orientation. He simply transformed from a liberal to a Marxist. Both are western theories. But Ngugi went further. He opted to write his novels in his language, KeGikuyu in the belief that African thoughts are best expressed in their mother tongue. Ochieng’ thought this was preposterous. He never wrote Kenyan history in Dholuo or any other indigenous Kenyan language. The language debate remains unresolved even as the UNESCO General History of Africa series, one of whose volumes has an excellent chapter by Ochieng’, have been translated in Kiswahili, courtesy of the Republic of Tanzania.

Economic, cultural liberation

Like the nationalists who fought for political independence and ignored economic and cultural liberation, Africanist scholars’ struggles were confined to changing only certain aspects of colonial education rather than the entire structure and substance of scholarship and education.  Our schools and universities are still largely colonial. Most of our scholars therefore share Ochieng’s intellectual limitations.

But many like us who were very much inspired and encouraged by him really wish to emulate him and share his achievements. We should endeavour to do so with the awareness that scholarly pursuits are, to paraphrase Nelson Mandela in this context, a long and seemingly endless walk to intellectual freedom.  Ochieng’ was a trailblazer in many ways. Let us proceed from where he left. This will be the best way to remember him.

The writer is professor of History, Moi University. [email protected]