»
: ' I I . . 73-96 GIAZIERj Jack, 1943- CONFLICT AND ODNCltlATION AMONG THE MBE^ OF KENYA.• University of-California, Berkeley, Ph.D., 1972 Anthropology
I- • University Microfilms, A XEI^ Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1972- ^
JACK GLAZIER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVTID
•• 0 %
/ I#
^ -
. I THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFIIAIED EXACTLY AS -RECEIVED. >l' r
i >■ ff
ConflJ.ct and Conciliation among the Mbeere oT Kenya By Jack Glatier A.B. (Butler University) 1965- . M.A. (University of California) 1968
N- DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in
Anthropologyi:
t A in the
f- GRADUATE DIVISION
of lihe UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY s Approved:
i • • •
o. ....
Coomlrttee in Charge
r
- r r 9
f
t
f
PLEASE NOTf
Some pages may have indiStinet print FiImed as received
University Mi.crofilms, A Xerox Education Company
■■■
A
/ 7
'7 V -i- ■
: f Acknowledgements
In the course of graduate studies, field
work, and the preparation of this dissertation,' I
have accumulated many scholarly debts which cah be
acknowledged here but can be repaid only through
. V further anthropological endeavor. Initially, I
wish tO'.jthapk the Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley; for the award
of an NIH Training Grant (Np. GM 1224) which made-
possible both'my graduate education a‘nd fieldwork.
My sincere thanks go to Professor George M. Foster,
Director of the Training Grant Program during the
period of ray Support; thanks are also due to
Mrs. Gerry Moos, secretary for the Traineeship
Program and Mrs. ^Virginia Raphel, graduate 'secre
tary, for their assistance in administrative matters
during the period pf graduate school and research.
In-Kenya, I. received the kindest cooperation
of Professors B. A. Ogot and Alan H. Jacobs, both
of the Institute of African Studies (formerly the •* *'** Institute for Development Studies). To them I am
■grateful for their assistance in securing my
, appointment as 'Visiting Research Associate of the : 4*^ -ii-
Institute. The various associates of the Institute
including .Stanley Mwaniki, Jurg Mahrier, and Tom
Weisner, both informally and in seminars, provided
stimulating critipism and.discussion of'key ideas
V presented in this study. i also wish to thank
Alan Jacobs for first suggesting .Mbeere as a
research site. ‘ .
Once in the field, the people of Mbeere
gradually took me into' their confidence during the
» A particularly anxious and difficult-period of
changing land tenure. Patiently., they-baught-me
kimbeere language and custom. Those who greatly ..
helped me are too numerous to name. In the
■(difficult days of struggle with a new language and
t’ new way of. life, my wife and I were'aided for -brief • • i - . periods by the following assistants; -Steven Meruti,
Jonathan. Mwaniki, Gerald Njiru, Dunstan Mugo,
. ' Catherine Ngungi, Caramelina ciaina, arid, for a -
Monger period, David Kariuki.
During the writing up stage, I was
assisted ’with helpful c'fiticism from Professors - » ' ■ I William AShack and Carl G. Rpsberg, Jr. To
.Elizabeth Colson, I owe a special debt of gratitude
for'her numerous letters of. comment,- criticism.
'f-i .. - 4. - -iii-
and encouragement during the period of, fieldworl^.
Both in the research and writing of this work, she
Brought to bear criticism that- was both cogent and
-pdhetrating, enabling me to develop and re'fine
major points of argxmient..
Just before my departure from Kenya, David
Brokeneha arrived to evaluate the special Rural
Development Programme for. Mbeere. It was a welcome opportunity to talk with another
anthropologist on the spot about matters which had
consumed my attention for "a year. As I was writing
up my material, frec^uent exchanges, especiallyV ' ’ -I* concerning land and |Land tenure, between Brokensha
and myself were very profitable.
I also wish to thank Bjorn Moe and the
Eastern Province Planning Team-for permission to reproduce their excellent maps of Mbeere.
My wife, Phyl, experienced with me the joys and frustrations of living and doing research in rural Kerfya.. She actively participated in the research, particularly in those areas of special■ «> concern to ;^eere women who, according to Mbeere custom, did hot wish to discuss such matters with a man.In addition, she undertook a collection of .
•, X . - i -iv-
>■ Mbeere folklore, which I have drawn upon, in pursuit
of her own scholarly interests in that field. Most
especially, I am grateful to her both for criticism
of my writing and ideas and for her o^ numerous
insights into Mbeere life. She brought to the field
work the creativity of an artist' and the discernment
.. of a litetary critic and, by sb doing,' helped me to
see relationships which otherwise might have
escaped me.
Finally, I wish to thank Oberlin College-for
financial assistance in the final typing and dupli
cation of this manuscript.
Y r Jack Glazier Oberlin, Ohio
May 26, 1972
K '
•» -V-
Note on- kimbeere/Kikuyu Orthography and Pronunciation
^ The transcription of Kimbeere words and
texts follows the standard orthography of Kikuyu as
it appears in Benson's Kikuyu-English Dictionary
(1964).Kimbeere and Kikuyu are very closely
related, separated for the most part by phonological
and minor lexical differences; grammatical differ-
• ences between the two languages are not significant.
A high degree of mutual intelligibility exists
between Kimbeere and Kikuyu. s g. A seven vowel sygtem characterizes both
Kimbeere and Kikuyu; a, e, _i, o, and u appear and,
in addition, two other forms, i and u, occur.
These vowels are pronounced approximately as follows:
'v ■ a father e re^ht ^ • i greet.' o ought u boot i b^. u boat
% Consonant sounds are similar to those in English, but a b?ief word is necessary concerni,pg
the Kiitibeere/Kikuyu c, ;yi, and ng'. C is normally
pronounced in Mbeere as English although one may
hear a ch version in parts of Kikuyuland. is 5- -Vi-
usually Voiced as in that, but agaj.n, vqiceless ^
o' -*■ 5 ' may occur.Finally, ng' , the velar ipasal,' is pro
nounced as the n£ in singer, apd■it should be
distinguished from initial in Kimbeere pro
nounced virtually as one sound, the hard, £ of get.
Phonetic differences within Kimbeere exist
between administrative Locations. To the north.
* ■ in EvuTOre Location, for example, v is more . prevalent\:han b, although the situation is
reversed as one moves southward through Nthawa and
into Mavuria (official spelling)J In the latter
■ area, people are more apt to say kabiu (knife),'
mubiriga (clan), etc. People in-Evurore, on the ' .V other hand, tend to say kaviu, muviriga, etc. My
, fieldwork was carried out in both Mavuria and
Evurore Locations, with greater time spent in the
latter area. For that reason, Kimbeere terms, which
appear in this work will- be as they are used in
Evurore, except.in those instances where I give
Kimbeere texts -recorded in Mavuria.
. Finally, official government spelling of
.the group and territory is Mbere, but-the people
themselves pronounce the word by dravJing out the V jnj^dle vowel, as in "Mbeere".I have .selected the -vii-
. ■ one brief reference to Mbeere uses that form.I am using, the word Mbeere to refer to the territory and to the people, either in the singular or plural. The Bantu prefixes, mu- and a-, referring to one . V Mbeere or to two or more, respectively, have been dropped for convenience. I do, however, use the > term I^imbeere in reference to the language of Mbeere. V- y L' .as- -viii- . LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES V • Maps 1 1. Mbeere in Relationship to the Lands of the Kikuyu, Embu, and Meru ...... 21 2, Population 302 3. Locations and Sublocations . . 303 4. Altitude 304 5. Land Adjudication305 Tables 1. Comparative Censuses of Mbeere'1939-69 . . . . . 27 2.Incidence of Polygyny 62 P 3. Multiple Garden Holdings205 4. Number of Registered Land Cases Mbeere Divisional^ ' Court January, 1959 to August, 1970 ...... 237 5. Land Disputes in Nguthi Between Groups within a Moiety and Between Groups From Different Moieties270 ■ is> i. .',r - \ - n \ ■ . 9^ TABLE OF CONTENTS V Acknowledgements Note on the Orthography and Pronunciation of Kimbeere/Kikuyu Terms i '...... V List of Maps and Tables viii -f I, INTRODUCTION 1 The problem, its investigation, and • the research setting ...... 1 a) The problem 1 b) The investigation of the , problem and the research setting jf'. The ethnographic conte^ct 18 The administrative organization of / Mbeere ...... S3 /■ Physical environment, population, and economy ...... 25 Ethnographic and historical research in Mbeere- ...... -...... 29 r‘' II. MBEERE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION32 r Moieties 32 Descent arid descent groups 40 Parish and homestead; organization and I. composition ...... 50 Marriage and bridewealth60 The age organization 72 ' . 'Si III. CIRCUMCISION CEREMONIAL 84 • ■' The physical operation in its historical setting...... 85 The ideology of circumcision . . . . . 88 Changing age at circumcision . . 106 The ceremonial complex of circumcision110 a)Opposition of the parental descent groups of the initiate: a processual view ■ . . 112 b)Secular sources of conflict expressed in the circumcision ceremonial ...... 121 • c)One Mbeere circumcision: an illustration , , 128 d)Men vs. women 147 Summary and- conclusions154:■ IV. THE OATH IN LITIGIOUS CONFLICT: AN APPEAL TO SUPERNATURAL SANCTIONS T ...... ■159 An oath-taking procedure: litigation and ritual ...... 169 Conelusion iT 197 ; r V. LAND AND LITIGATION 202 Rules of land tenure 203 Land consolidation in Central Kenya and its delayed extension to Mbeere . . . 222 The anticipation of land consolidation, increasing land disputes-? and the failure of the oath ...... 231 \ 9^ ‘ :‘w a) The process of land con -■V solidation v'in ^Mbeere 231 b) The anticipation of land consolidation and,changing ■I land disputes . . , , . 233 ■c). The use of the ‘’oath in settling land disputes ' 240 d) . Analysis of recent land disputes and the ineffec tiveness of the oath . . 249 e) Recent land disputes: a case study from Nguthi 259 VI. CONCLUSION 292 Appendix 301 Bibliography 306 •i -1- . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The problem, its investigation-, and the research setting a) The problem . Studies of conflict in the context of ritual •f.' i , and ceremonial are well established in anthropology and have particular relevance to the African field; most notably Gluckman (1955, 1963, 1965) and Turner (1957, 1968), as well as Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940), Evans-Pritchard (1948), and Wilson (1957, 1959) hav^g examined the role of conflict in ritual and ceremonial. , Conflicts expressed.in rituals studied by these scholars are of one particular kind — those emerging from,a conflict of values or social principles. Ritual action is seen as tempo- . rarily harmonizing relationships by calling on •, people to affirm their collective loyalties to commonly held interests or values? conflict is thus temporarily masked under a veil of consensus. Gluckman has distinguished conflicts which can only be submerged in ritual from disputes which can be settled through secular, judicial processes. Thus he -2- ^^eserves the term "conflict" for discrepancies between . structural principles, values, loyalties, and moral duty and self-interest.These he sees as leading to redressive ritual (1965:246-247); C3luckman then uti lizes terms such as quarrel, strife, and dispute for • tensions whose resolutions lie in secular judicial or legal proceedings (1965:109).I shall term this flatter category of disputes litigious or.legal conflict. This study concerns itself with the analysis and comparison of two types of conflict in their re lationship to ritual and ceremonial activity, The f theoretical framework derives from Gluckman's work in ■ this field.The first type of conflict I term struc tural conflict for it arises from individuals' adher ence to legitimate but contradictory values or principles. The conflict lies ^thin the very ordering of society, Beca.use people who are in such conflict may each refer to socially acceptable but mutually contradictory values (which lead the actors into opposition), litigation or other forms of secular dispute settlement cannot be used to resolve • the conflict; each individual acts in a socially- sanctioned manner so neither is legally guilty of wrongdoing. Rather,’ neither is guilty, but their ■ « -3- .. gpherence to contradictory social values is the source of interpersonal and social conflicts,leading them into disagreement. Or, an individual may face claims upon him that are mutually conflicting, yet imperative; he is then lead into inevitable wrong- doing, no matter what his course of action. Structural conflict is thus endemic in a society and * ■ . leads individuals and groups into unavoidable strife. Temporary mitigation of structural cohfliet occurs in ritual and ceremonial activities which bring to- gether those individuals and groups (in conflifct) on the basis of interests which they share. As they collectively affirm loyalty to shared interests, the underlying conflicts which divide them on other secular occasions are for the ritual moment expressed, . then shrouded, only to emerge once again, during social crises,.to be again expressed and submerged in further ritual action./ The second type of conflict analyzed in this study I term litigious conflict'(here I depart from Gluckman's terminology). Unlike structural conflict, litigious conflict arises when parties in dispute make reference to single social principles or values which them^ives are nqt. contradictory. Legal -4- V . ■/Mechanisms may then be brought into play to adduce evidence and to resolve the controversy. Litigious . conflicts, in which one party may emerge as the winner, arise over theft, adultery, land holding, or in any dispute over the control of scarce resoufces or over a violation of customary law. Litigious conflicts in Mbeere traditionally give rise to * ^ » ■ ritual activity, namely, oath-taking. Through oath taking rituals, the Mbeere invoke mystical forces both to punish litigants who lie and to effect r