Neil Carrier presents an argument for reading the value ascribed to khat/miraa not as product of exchange as Appadurai and Simmel have put forth, but rather as a cumulation of variables both social, cultural, and geographical/biological. Carrier provides back up with Weir's findings that Yeminis high value placed on miraa is linked with the social and cultural importance of attending the 'qat party'. He continues with an explanation of the geographical and biological variables by which miraa is distinguished by - including the age of the tree from which it comes, which season the tree was picked in, the manner in which it's packaged, the quality of taste and texture, and the amount of side effects chewing it produces. Cultural determinants of value include the link of the old trees to the Meru ancestors. While traders exploit the difference and distance in knowledge between producer and consumer, as Appadurai suggests, manipulate value to glean profit.
For an explanatory essay, I felt the paper was well written. It read like an anthropological ethnography, which is not exactly my favourite type of literature, as it tendst to make me feel colonially voyeuristic, but I suppose it set up a useful base of knowledge about value and miraa with which to argue against the assumption that Weir via Carrier brought up: the assumption that Yeminis spend much of their income on miraa because they are physically addicted to it. It also sets up a cultural/historical basis of understanding about the historical roots localized value for Klein's argument against khat as a long standing tradition of Somalis. I'm also reminded of other substances that Canada and the U.S. view as illicit such as Peyote, and the lack of socio-cultural understanding of its use when framing and creating such legal restrictions against it.
It seems that Klein picks up where Carrier leaves off. Klein, in 'so-what?' fashion brings khat into the frame of social controversy, and writes that the social problems associated with khat in the Somali diaspora in the UK are linked not with the plant itself, but with the fact khat's relatively short history in Somalia plus intermittent khat bans in Somalia have prevented the production of in-built harm reducing customs. Carrier proves this by explaining the history: the need for khat to be fresh when it arrives, and the distance and camel travel to Somalia from Harar in Ethiopia made import of it difficult, and thus the psychoactive compounds had decomposed by the time it got to them. The myriad changes and overthrows of governmental power and their different approaches to the illicity of khat. The paper also states that community opinions on khat are deeply divided (prohibition, banning, alleged stronger varieties in England than in Somalia), but fails to produce evidence of such variety. Instead we are presented with UK Somali campaigns for khat ban which include worries about unfair gender roles being encouraged by khat use, as well as worries that racism lies at the bottom of UK lax laws.
This paper raises some interesting questions for me about myth and tradition. Carrier states that UK studies on khat have neglected to examine khat as a new Somali tradition and have instead accepted it as ancient. I'm reminded of the recurring myth of the inherent and perpetual ancient-ness of cultures of colour when viewed through a white lens. I can't help but wonder if the idea that things like Indigenous non-European cultures can only exist in the past, or are inherently non-current is somewhere lodge in these UK studies' assumptions about the tradition of khat in Somalia. Although Carrier never once addresses this, I think it might have helped push his argument. The inherent purity, ancient-ness, simpleness colonially associated with Indigenous non-European cultures again is a theme that keeps rearing its simple-minded head throughout our readings this semester and here I am again jabbing my finger enthusiastically at it, ha. Is it true that there are only small amounts of other kinds of literature on value and objects?
Ok, that was not my real question for this week. My real questions are:
1) How has widespread British colonial administration affected the way we see illicity? (I'm sticking to this made up word for now)
2) For real, what is the division in the UK Somali community on khat? Did I miss this in the article??
Hi Kenji,
ReplyDeleteYour second question: From my reading of Klein's article, a main issue is the role of qat use as detrimental to the psychological and material well-being, versus the neutrality/beneficial elements of its use for enabling collective/community diasporic identity construction. This is framed by Klein as a gender issue to some degree. Further complicating this is those in the comunity who want to ban the use of qat due to its supposed harm for well-being of already vulnerable persons (psychological trauma, unemployment) and the failure of the Uk government to ban something which is harmful, thereby enabling the continued detrimental effects of excess qat usage and the continuation of Somalis and "second class citizens" in the country. This, generally, was my reading of the tensions regarding qat.
Hey Kenji,
ReplyDeleteAs Laurel addressed, I think that a large part of the split on khat use in the UK has to do with a gender divide. While not the sole determinant, it seemed to me that Klein had highlighted this less as an objection of women and more so as a interest on behalf of males. This having to do with a lack of employment for newly arrived males (and thus more leisure time), and just a general restructuring of gender roles. Perhaps the underlying message has to do with this modifications, wherein male parties are attempting to hold onto cultural "traditions", while the females are embracing their new roles... this would work with Kleins greater interest of whether khat as seen as part of a "tradition" or not
Hey Kenji,
ReplyDeleteyour second question, its hard not to sound repetitive or redundant as both answers above are more than adequate, but if I may add a quick note to them:
I think that it is a gender specific argument...where the women are at the forefront of the debate, waging war on the use of this stuff... but it's not whats destroying their lives...The restructuring (as mentioned above) of traditional roles is not even the root of this "problem" its so closely tied to the cultural dissimilarities between what Laurel mentioned as "second class" citizens vs. the rest of society. What UK society (en mass) see as problematic, is in fact the presence of immigrants, not what's killing them, if anything that's an upside. Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I see these women are heated about, and not so much just the khat, but the reason why they can't get it out of the hands of the men they care so much about.
Hi Kenji,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your second question (as the above responses already point out) the articles have suggested that the division between khat in U.K. society is largely gendered. Put simply, as the breadwinners in U.K. society, most women are anti-qat. They see the use of qat as dysfunctional, while proponents (mainly men) see qat chewing as a way of culturally integrating their traditions.
I was also struck by the questions surrounding myth and tradition, but moreso in the way Axel Klein framed them. Klein suggested that qat doesn't have a historial tradition in Somalia because the drug was only introduced in the 1970s. Still, many Somalis argue their use of qat is related to tradition and culture. Why does Klein bring up this point of "qat has limited history and tradition" when clearly Somalis believe otherwise? I interpreted it to be Klein suggesting that Somalis can't really claim they use qat because it is part of their tradition and history. That's how I interpreted the interesting/ confusing issue of myth, tradition, and qat.
hey thanks folks. i think i was mainly confused because klein didn't explicitly state that women were divided from men on the issue, and i was unsure that i should make that assumption.
ReplyDeleteas a side note: i'm a bit stunned about the overwhelming avoidance of my first question and the resolve to risk sounding repetitive by continually posting answers to my second.