My views on khat...not cat

As both Klein and Carrier depict a simple shrub consumed as more than just a narcotic stimulant, they both paint a rather complex image out of its symbolism and levels of value within cultural, economical and social constructs. Klein speaks specifically to the remarkable “taking on” of khat as a traditional marker within the Somali community and especially its Diaspora in the UK. Oddly enough, as Klein describes, khat usage has only been a recent phenomena in Somali culture, and somehow moved to becoming part of what the UK Somali Diaspora see as a link back “home.” It is this imagined sense of khat as belonging to their ancestors that Somali men seem to be drawn to. However, Klein goes on to describe this to be only a singular role of the plant, as it not simply some representation of this imagined home, rather Somali women describe it as a means for men to cope with the angst of losing dominance and traditional roles they once held back home. As a coping mechanism it has turned into an addiction and is no longer simply a social pleasure. The khat consumed in the UK by Somali mean is usually stronger (Kenyan variety) and taken in much larger quantities.

To focus on Klein’s main argument(s) one should see that this divergent view of khat and what it does as so much as it represents to Somali men and women has caused a rift within the Somali community. This has translated into a focus on why it is so readily available domestically, but more importantly internationally. As the argument can be made (as Klein examines) that it is a ploy to “let them kill themselves.” I bring this into play because it speaks to the skewed Diasporic image that is being projected by this culture outside of Somalia. Klein, just as Carrier is doing, is trying to solve the question of how and why chewing khat has developed these social interactions which seem to be tied directly into norms and practices which shape the Diasporic community so differently than the one in Africa. As I’d like to intwertwine Carrier’s discussion with Klein, it is important to note that Carrier’s examination takes on approach based on economic valuation of the plant. The varieties and variations in presentation of the plant are attributed to the monetary value which is also intertwined with cultural aspects of Kenyan ancestry. As Carriers develops the readers understanding of how and why khat is so valued (higher profit yield than traditional crops such as tea and coffee) he is also setting up the discussion of why certain strains of the plant will attract certain buyers, not only for their potency (or lack thereof) but the attachment one has with its roots (literally). It came to my understanding through both texts that they are presenting a completely new image of an object. As Klein writes Appadurai’s exchange being the basis of value, is debunked here… as it does not really apply. It is not so much in the exchange that khat comes to be valued (either monetarily or culturally) it is in the source of the plants origins that Klein describes buyers become loyal to the purchase of one kind over another. It isn’t even in the narcotic effects of the plant, but more so how the plant’s life is symbolic of certain cultural and ancestral parts of these people’s lives. There is much to be had in the Klein piece about the economics of khat distrubution, from producer to middle man to retailer to buyer, but this to me is all background information, important indeed, but what was more noteworthy to me is the idea that this singular plant can facilitate so much. It divides, and at the same time brings people together.

Question 1: As cocaine is heavily policed, due to its detrimental effects on whites, why is a substance that is clearly being abused (by Somalis) not treated with the same importance?

Question 2: As khat is something highly regarded, socially and used to enhance one’s productivity, then why is it not working outside of the country?