Facing Mount Kenya, Anthropology, and the Forging of Identity

Kenyatta on the cover of the first edition

Identity has always been, and always will be, something every changing. This can range from how we identify as an individual, to how a nation identifies as itself. In 1938, Jomo Kenyatta, the future first president of Kenya, wrote an anthropological text called Facing Mount Kenya which was intended as the first anthropological text written on the Kikuyu by a Kikuyu. Kenyatta was frustrated how European anthropologists wrote, and therefore attempted to determine, what Kikuyu culture was, but he had other motives in writing Mount Kenya. His book was an attempt for Kenyatta himself to formulate the identity of his own people, and establish himself as an influential representative of the Kikuyu.

Anthropology and Empire in Kenya

Mt Kenya was a key feature in the geography and local belief

Empire was more than just armies from Europe arriving in Africa, extracting resources, and ruling over the African populace until independence after the Second World War. I discussed this in a previous World History post about colonialism and imperialism. In the words of Helen Tilley, Africa became a 'living laboratory' where informal agents of empire, (including missionaries, merchants, and anthropologists), helped shaped language, culture, and faith - often with aid from local allies. Although identities existed prior to colonialism, they were far more fluid before the arrival of colonial rule. Different ethnicities married, traded, and communicated, and colonial era sources from Kenya indicate that circumcision could determine your identity. It was possibly for a Kikuyu mother to have one Kikuyu child and one Masai child as a result; Kenyatta himself in Facing Mount Kenya would proudly state that his grandmother was a Masai. However, European colonialists interpreted identity and culture in rigid categories - you were one thing and only one thing. This is especially true for anthropologists. Ostensibly for 'scientific research' anthropologists, relying on local agents from the cultures which they studied, aimed to 'understand' cultures while assisting colonial rule. It was not uncommon for anthropologists to criticise colonialism, but not because they disagreed with colonialism. Instead, they viewed their work as assisting colonial rule - their research was seen as allowing an understanding of colonised cultures to be presented to officials who could then rule more effectively. It is no coincidence that colonial officials became amateur anthropologists - such as C.W. Hobley and H.R. Tate in Kenya. Their work forged rigid boundaries and categories steeped in Orientalist views - Africans were seen as being conservative, homogenous, and rooted in superstitious. This increased after the First World War when British policy wanted to preserve 'traditional' culture, so anthropologists became the determiners of what 'tradition' was. This was even criticised by members of the colonial government. Secretary of Native Affairs of Tanganyika, Philip Mitchell, in 1930 would criticise anthropologists for assuming the static nature of society, ‘People…and customs and customary law are in a state of continuous development’.

Kenya was a unique case in the British colonial empire. It had both a large white settler population, while also encouraging 'indirect rule' for different ethnicities, referred to as 'tribes'. The polarising nature of Kenya as a colony meant that a variety of Kikuyu, and other ethnicities, lived very different lives. While some lived in what is seen as a 'traditional' villages, others moved to the cities, like Nairobi, to work in the new urban, capitalist economies. These Kikuyu were often criticised as being 'detribalised' as they had forsaken 'tradition' for an urban life. Before the First World War Christian missionaries had played an influential role in educating rural Kikuyu, so we also saw the emergence of Christian Kikuyu communities. A push and pull atmosphere emerged as missionaries, after even 1918, tried to enforce Anglo-Christian ideas onto communities who had mixed their own culture with Christianity. It would be primarily urban, Christian educated Africans who would form the first nationalist groups in Kenya - such as the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA). Another major part of life in Kenya was tenancy in the 'White Highlands'. Central Kenya had fertile land, so white settlers, and later some South Asians, would oust Africans from their land, and many were forced to squat on white farms or became labourers for white farmers. Over 12,000 square miles of fertile land was expropriated for white settlement creating a large, often unemployed, rural population. The growth of cities were linked to this - from 1938 to 1952 Nairobi's population doubled as rural communities moved there for work.

Jomo Kenyatta

Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s

Jomo Kenyatta was born to a rural Kikuyu family in the 1890s, and lived in what could be considered a 'traditional' Kikuyu life. That is until 1909, when he joined the Church of Scotland Mission at Thogoto, learnt English, and lived away from his rural home in the 'Kikuyuland'. The Scottish Missions remained zealous in their desire to convert Kenya to Christianity, so Kenyatta's education was filtered through a religious lens - in Mount Kenya he would refer to the Kikuyu god, Ngai, in similar words to how missionaries referred to the Christian god. Kenyatta, like many other Kikuyu, would blend his own beliefs with that of Christianity - despite being educated and raised by missionaries he chose to go through the irua initiation ceremony at aged 13 which missionaries loathed as it involved circumcision. After leaving school he would move to the cities and become involved with the KCA in 1922. Although anti-imperialist, the KCA had a conservative view towards women, and particularly irua, which Kenyatta would clash with. Women had to undergo irua, which included clitoridectomy, if they wished to enter adulthood, however, female genital mutilation can cause serious health problems, and even death, for women. In 1929 the 'Circumcision Crisis' broke out. The Thogoto Church at Nyeri hoped to wipe out irua by refusing communion to anyone supporting the ceremony - the church lost 2,250 out of 2,500 members. The KCA argued that irua was an integral part of Kikuyu culture so had to be defended at all costs, whereas Kenyatta viewed it as dangerous and that with 'proper education' could be eradicated. Kenyatta's progressive attitude towards women would unfortunately end here. Regardless, in 1929 the KCA had hopes that Kenyatta could represent them in London, hoping that having a voice in the capital their grievances could be aired. In 1929 Kenyatta made his way to London.

Bronislaw Malinowski

London would prove an influential time for Kenyatta. In the capital he managed to broaden his horizons engaging in everything from political debates to acting to (much to the chagrin of the KCA) living with prostitutes. He could easily meet anti-imperialist thinkers and activists in London, and he quickly built up ties with a wide range of anti-imperialists including the left-wing of the Labour part and even Gandhi! He was at home everywhere - historian Martin Meredith described him being equally at home in a theatre and a working-class pub. An important contact he made, which would forge some of his legend during the independence movement, was with Trinidadian Marxist George Padmore. A journalist and author, until the 1930s he worked as a recruiter for the Soviet Union - he would discuss communism and anti-imperialism with African anti-imperialists, like Kenyatta, and help them to the Soviet Union where they would be trained in political theory, organisation, and even armed rebellion. Kenyatta spent some time in Moscow but soon left. He disliked the USSR's criticisms of nationalism, and George Padmore viewed him as a reactionary, especially due to his attitude towards women. Kenyatta returned to London and enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1933. There he would meet anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who would later write the introduction to Facing Mount Kenya. Malinowski was one of the most influential colonial-era anthropologists, but by the time he met Kenyatta he had become increasingly critical of empire and imperial anthropology. Kenyatta wanted anthropology to challenge colonialism, so he made common ground with Malinowski. In 1938, he managed to bring together his essays on Kikuyu culture and write the first text on the Kikuyu by a Kikuyu: Facing Mount Kenya.

Facing Mount Kenya

Kenyatta aimed to challenge notions that the Kikuyu were backwards and incapable of ruling themselves which had been presented in anthropological texts written by colonialists. To achieve this he presented a lived experience of Kikuyu culture, economy, politics, and faith in order to show that they were not too dissimilar from what Europeans knew, or show that they were not 'savage' as previously thought. For example, Kenyatta discussed fondling by young lovers called ngweko which had been heavily criticised by missionaries as being lustful and sinning. Kenyatta instead argued that there were many rules as apart of ngweko, boys could not fully undress girls as an example, with there being a deep social stigma for violating these rules. He even went as far as to criticise British courtship as there were no confirmed societal rules as the Kikuyu had. Europeans were not the only intended audience for Facing Mount Kenya. Kenyatta was keen to make sure that he would be an influential figure in the KCA or any future anti-imperial organisations, so he wanted Facing Mount Kenya to position himself in this role. For one, Kenyatta was keen to distance himself from, and outright denounce, 'detribalised' Kikuyu who were hiding in Nairobi and trying to forget their own heritage. He emphasised his own rural childhood and upbringing; he proudly stated that his ‘grandfather was a seer and a magician…I served a kind of apprenticeship in the principles of the art’. 

A common theme in colonial writing was an emphasis on Africans being locked in superstition - C.W. Hobley stated that there were over forty thahu, (curses), that he equated to sin. Causes for someone to contract a thahu could range from incest to a dog dying in a village (which Hobley stated was the worst one), and the wasting effects of the curse was due to the guilt of the individual with it. We see an Orientalist approach to this - with over forty curses being caused by things as innocuous as broken pots you get the impression that the Kikuyu were perpetually fearful of being cursed. However, Kenyatta hardly mentions curses in his text, and states that ‘a curse from a dying father or mother is the most dreadful thing that can be befall a son or daughter’. A far cry from a dead dog. Instead, Kenyatta tried to show that Kikuyu belief in thahu was as much grounded in rationality as Christian views of sin.

From Bantu Beliefs and Magic

One homogenous feature of Kikuyu culture was irua – circumcision. Irua was both the most central and controversial aspect of Kikuyu culture during the colonial period. How one was circumcised determined your cultural identity (whether you were Kikuyu, Masai, or Kamba), it served as a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, and, according to African-American anthropologist Ralph J. Bunche, irua created a strong bond between those circumcised at the same time. This bond, sometimes referred to as a rüke, could supersede family loyalties. Irua ceremonies were also a large communal affair with possibly days of celebrations happening. However, thanks to high mortality rate during childbirth, constant pain, and other health risks an interventionist colonial state wished to eliminate the practice. Irua consequently became a focal point for nationalist discourses. Kenyatta viewed support for irua as being integral to legitimacy among Kikuyu nationalists, so his earlier criticisms were soon abandoned. He even downplayed the seriousness by stating that his own mother had no issues giving birth, and he would compare the operator to a 'Harley Street surgeon' - something Malinowski would criticise him for stating in the introduction. 

Furthermore, Kenyatta would homogenise the actual ceremony itself. All communities performed irua, but each one would modify the ceremony in their own way. The ‘central pillar’ of the Kikuyu home was, in reality, highly flexible. Kenyatta would say it was a great taboo for males to see female circumcision, and that the collecting of sticks, which were used in the ceremony, from a specific tree was highly gendered. Boys were meant to shake the tree branches and girls pick up the fallen branches. In contrast, Bunche made no reference to the gendered stick collection, and the local chief, Koinange, even threatened to remove his daughters from the ceremony if Bunche was barred from viewing it. Koinange, in private, admitted to him that ‘it does [not do] the girl any good to be circumcised…Most people accept circumcision blindly as an old custom’. Meanwhile, colonial official and amateur anthropologist C.W. Hobley was immediately allowed to view the ceremony and take photos. Different ideas of community in the form of irua were ignored in Kenyatta’s account – to appear as a people ready for self-rule fluidity of culture was ignored.

Moreover, Kenyatta silenced alternate ideas of home and community throughout Mount Kenya. Kikuyu society was patriarchal but women played an important role in local communities – Koinange implied this by suggesting that girls were capable of deciding whether to be circumcised or not. However, Kenyatta only stated his own opinion on irua, no women’s opinions were mentioned. Female agency is entirely silenced in Kenyatta’s account – Padmore did view Kenyatta to be fairly reactionary with his views and Bruce Berman also described him as a ‘conservative reformer’ for this reason. Homosexual identity is entirely erased. Particularly in pre-colonial times there was the practice of mugawe where male religious figures would occasionally cross-dress, or engage in same-sex relations. Christian missionaries, and later colonial officials, rigorously enforced anti-homosexuality laws and attitudes which continue to this day. Kenyatta went as far as to say that due to there being less of a taboo towards sex and the existence of ngweko, it ‘makes it unnecessary’. The only identity Kenyatta was unwilling to erase was ethnic – he proudly admitted that his paternal grandmother was a Masai – but even then, he downplayed the fluidity of this identity. Mount Kenya erases different ideas of the home in favour of just one – Kenyatta’s.

Conclusion

Facing Mount Kenya shows how identity can be changed and shaped, how it is never fixed. Mount Kenya helped solidify Kenyatta's role in the nationalist movements, and he became the head of the Kenya African Union (KAU) in 1944. The KAU would be the most influential nationalist movement in Kenya, and Kenyatta himself would be called 'the Hero' and 'Great Elder' for his role in it. Although Kenyatta would have little to do with the Mau Mau Uprising he was arrested by the British as a possible scapegoat, and as he was seen as the most influential figure in the nationalist movement. When Kenyatta became president of a newly independent Kenya it was his vision of Kikuyu society which would continue on throughout the independence era - for better or for worse. Facing Mount Kenya shows how identity is never fixed and can be used for various reasons.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Ralph J. Bunche, ‘The Irua Ceremony among the Kikuyu of Kiamba District, Kenya’, The Journal of Negro History, 26:1, (1941), 46-65

-C.W. Hobley, Bantu Beliefs and Magic, (London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1922)

-Jomo Kenyatta, Facing Mount Kenya: The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu, (London: Secker & Warburg, 1938)

-Louis Leakey, ‘The Kikuyu Problem of the Initiation of Girls’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 61, (1931), 277-285

-Bruce Berman, ‘Ethnography as Politics, Politics as Ethnography: Kenyatta, Malinowski, and the Making of Facing Mount Kenya’, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 30:3, (1996), 313-344

-Martin Meredith, The State of Africa: A History of the Continent since Independence, (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005)

-Derek Peterson, Creative Writing: Translation, Bookkeeping, and the Work of Imagination in Colonial Kenya, (Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2004)

-Thomas Spear, ‘Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa’, The Journal of African History, 44:1, (2003), 3-27

-Helen Tilley, Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870-1950, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.