Fence has
existed since the dawn of man. There is nothing wrong with fence/fencing as it
is the singular identifier of unique ownership and or spatial security of a
tangible immovable asset. Igboland is not different in displaying this unique
and positive index of human advancement. The purpose of this piece is to draw
out the spectre of transformation haunting fence/fencing in Igboland since the
end of Nigeria-Biafran War into a negative attribute that is currently scouring
the social-scape of Igboland. It is important to stress that this
transformation is mutating simultaneously in urban and extra-urban areas of the
nation.
Introduction
Fence is part
and parcel of humanity wherever ‘solid’ earth exists either as land surface or
ice. Fence (awarawa/mkparata) justifies boundary (oke) which in
its demarcation defines right or share of ownership (oke). One doesn’t
need to be an expert in property law or geography to appreciate both legal and
spatial idiosyncrasies of private and communal ownership. Fence doesn’t in
essence conflate security of ownership with its defence ab initio all
things being equal. Nevertheless boundary (oke) with or without fence (awarawa/mkparata)
expresses its essence in the respect others give to it i.e. to its rightful
owner(s). This is the case in the conventions, constitutions and laws of many
communities of Igboland. This respect was widely accepted almost without
blemish until the end of Nigeria-Biafra War. There is no suggestion that infractions
or disputes did not arise in the past, however it is the position of the writer
that rule of law was entrenched that arbitration and resolution followed their
course successfully as parties accept binding conclusions. Resolutions
seamlessly ties with justice in those cases exhibiting different socio-economic
context.
Typology
Boundaries come
in different shapes and contexts in Igboland so are the fences that express
them. Of course fence define boundaries on land, their spatialisation equally
say something about the underlying social, cultural, religious, economic and ontological
environment. One thing that is undisputable in Igboland is that linearity is
not precedent in boundaries rather is just a part or aspect of it. Whether it
is on inner land enclosing homes or outer land of gardens and farms complete
quadrangles are rare. The reasons behind
these are complex however it is a simple replication of complexity revolving
around ownership as a (dynamic) negotiated reality over time between one and
one, all and all, one and all and all and one were applicable. Anyone who has
partaken in annual demarcation of communal (farm) land will be in the best
position to appreciate the non-trivial nature of compressed negotiation over
time and space. Demarcation is complex, methodologically advanced, high valued
and labour intense contrary to views shared by those who dismiss it as
primitive and irrelevant.
Linearity of
bounded space in quadrangles is shows youth, vigour, imposition, genocide,
forceful dispossession and or violent overthrow of erstwhile owners or
cultures. Take a cursory look at the sub-national boundaries of United States , Canada ,
Australia , parts of North
Africa and Southern Africa for further
knowledge and note that even irregular parts of these lands abut mostly seas
and oceans. Contrast them with many parts of Africa, Asia, South America and Europe .
Fence on inner
land was usually made of clay with average height of 4 feet maximum and covered
with palm fronds which are replaced seasonally. These fences are not social
barriers and do not infract social space because umunna/umunne
freely communicate over it in clear unimpeded vision. This could enclose
individual or communal holdings. Abandoned settlements (okpulo) testify
to these spatial artefacts as well as many current settlements where internal
conflicts have not dismantled them.
Personal and
communal land boundaries are hardly quadrangles but irregular and indented
bounded spaces mostly defined with sacred (Ebubeagu/Ukpoh) and
boundary plants (Aboshi/Okpukpu Nkita). As stated earlier, linearity is
intrinsic but doesn’t completely define boundaries even on donated plots.
Colonial
interaction and advent of non-agricultural economy intensified complete
linearity of boundaries/fences. There is nothing wrong with new ideas and
innovation however emergence of quadrangle plots and boundaries took effect
mostly on donated and public lands such as schools and churches. It is
significant that these spaces are not fenced in most cases while their boundaries
are deemed ‘sacred’ due to their public functions.
On inner lands Ogaranyas
in various communities transformed their abodes with the new construction
technology without hedging their bets on fences. A cursory visit decades ago to a select few
mentioned by Oriental Brothers in one of their epic songs observed majestic
country homes with ease of visual and physical access. Late Dr K O Mbadiwe’s
Arondizogu palatial home at its opening in the 1960’s had similar bearing.
Nevertheless post-war oil economy and foreign remittances introduced and
intensified linearity with height of cement fences on individual/private plots
in Igboland rising to megaliths and fortresses fastened with coarse-looking
‘gates of hell’. Of course with
complicated dimensions and impacts!
Mutation of
Confusion
The last 2
decades has seen huge increases in the erection of high cement fences around
private and public plots in urban and extra-urban areas of Igboland. My
attention is focused on extra-urban areas. At times one wonders the wisdom of
hugging non-portable immovable good by those deemed very smart. Nevertheless
these wouldn’t amount to much in themselves because contrary to European
obsession with rights, there is no taste for visual pollution. The crux of
these new privatisations of space is the motivation based on perceived fear of
all sorts. It is significant that potential offenders for erectors of high
fences include but not limited to close relatives within the same kindred and
the same community.
While visual and
physical limitations of communal space are acknowledged, the major problem for
communities is the resulting gradual degradation of extra-urban areas social
space emphasised by these fences (and their owners). The symbolic role of these
fences is a strong message to keep out; the space is off-limit. It is a
standing and perpetual symbol of enmity and apartness. This plays out
beautifully in communities where distant households are easily accessible than
prison-fenced fortresses within proximity. You only need to take a look at your
community on Google Map to observe spatial patterns and suggest unique
processes that gave rise to unique spatial experiences. Therefore these fences
are not only defensive but reinforce daily projections of offensive on the
public.
Kindred and
communal relationships are transforming not as a result but on impact. The
isolation projected by the off-limit homes is perceived as a partial
renunciation of the community which strengthens over time. Isolation is not
cool, not sexy and not evidence of advanced development. As an outcome the
social space is balkanised and fragmented where erstwhile cohesion becomes
scarce commodity. The supposed identity
of fence as symbol of affluence is rather myopic, deranged and absurd. On the
contrary high fence exudes of fear, insecurity, fatalism, conflict, uppity and
distortion of class consolidation.
Implications
There are
positive and negative dimensions of high walled enclosures in extra-urban
areas. Since these are mostly motivated by fear, the usually absent owners may
extend their fear by creating employment locally in engaging young men/women on
security duties. This means that income,
spending and saving is enhanced in the local economy as the number of these fortresses
increase. Mind you, there is no statistics on the role of high walls on crime
prevention in extra-urban areas. Of course there is no correlation to Nkwashi
uzo anaghi achu mba agbara.
On the negative
side most of the fortresses have low occupancy ratio at any given time of the
year except during seasonal returns. For those residing in these large
‘prisons’ one can only imagine the psychological impact of staying in isolation
in a large enclosed space. This is stark when one considers that as time
proceeds only the weak and vulnerable will hold the forth. In case of emergency
there is no evidence of how successful rescue can be executed be it fire,
burglary, health complication and etc. Most of these tightly enclosed
spaces/homes were not designed with attention to the elderly and those with
disability. Just a show of wealth!
In a place where
the state doesn’t exist, tearing of social fabric in the form of high-walled
enclosed homes doesn’t/wouldn’t encourage rush of assistance from the outside.
Anecdotal evidence has confirmed this experience in many communities in the
last decade. It is difficult for victim to extract themselves and the good
willed outsider cannot go in to rescue. Catch 22!
While there is a
positive correlation between high-walled enclosed homes and high-income
ownership, it is also evident that as current patterns indicates that these fortresses
will be no more than holy sepulchres in the coming generations. Unless communities are transformed into poles
of economic development and improved economic activities dependent on high
occupancy ratio. The current trend of increasing urbanisation of family life is
likely to create local ‘absented’ properties.
This has the potential benefit of opening occupancy to some umunna
in need on the condition that ownership cannot be contested. Another option is
the continuation of intergenerational ‘war by other means’ by the children who
choose to reside in situ with their increasing delinkage from umunna
in their perception of fear and or seeing umunna as lightweight,
underclass and inferior.
Conclusion
Transformation
of built environment in Igboland has seen remarkable changes in the last 2
decades. Increased attention to high-walled homes in extra-urban areas is
rather a reflection of individual preferences that manifest their fears, insecurities
and vulnerabilities rather than their defence. Privatisation of space and its
boundaries can peter out in few generations but indications show that the trend
and its impact may continue positively and negatively. Obviously delimited
social space in extra-urban areas doesn’t bode well for strategic community
cohesion as it equally indicts institutions under whose watch these ugly
experiences emerged. Nevertheless cohesion will increases irrespective of fence
height so far high walls of human (umunna) suffocatingly
embracing hearts and minds are broken down.
No comments:
Post a Comment