Attempting to “preserve our culture” is an unnecessary and wasteful exercise in futility.

I recently came across an article in the March 16, 2024 edition of the Daily Graphic written by one Francis Osabutey. The headline was “Asamoah Boateng bemoans imposition of foreign cultures”. The article began as follows:

The Caretaker Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Stephen Asamoah Boateng, has bemoaned the imposition of foreign cultures on citizens. He described the situation as unacceptable, and a sociological crime which needs to be frowned upon.

While admitting that the world had become a global village and, therefore, the infiltration of other cultures was a common phenomenon, Mr. Boateng said imposing cultures on others was tantamount to the extinction of a race or a people. “It is sad that we have concerted to trade our culture for others, especially our young generation who have resorted to copying other cultures on social media.

“Culture as a way of life gives each and everyone a well-respected identity, and to continue to exist with a unique identity, we must preserve our culture as a prestigious heritage,” he added. Mr. Boateng was speaking at a forum in Accra last Thursday to commemorate this year’s national Cultural Week on the theme: Cultivating cultural capital: Nurturing Ghana’s legacy for Africa’s renaissance.”

I decided to write this article because, on numerous occasions, I have been dismayed by what appeared to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “culture” by large sections of the Ghanaian populace. These particular words, coming as they are from the Minister of Culture I thought, required the initiation of a discussion on the topic, his thoughts on the so-called “imposition” of foreign cultures on ours, and his describing such so-called impositions as a “sociological crime”. These words are quite inflammatory and, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to stand without serious scrutiny.

I will address what I disagree with about the Minister’s language further down in this article, but first, I would like to ask him (and, by inference, my fellow Ghanaians) a few questions:

1. As a person of Ga origin, I find that these days, when I am wandering the streets of Accra, I can barely conduct any business in the Ga language. On multiple occasions, I have been confronted by Twi speakers who are surprised that I do not speak Twi. Indeed, fellow Ghanaians have had the temerity to ask me, "Ah, but how can you be a Ghanaian and not speak Twi?” I hope the Minister of Culture is equally offended by this prevalent attitude, now across almost all of Ghana, that even non-Akans must speak Twi to function in Ghana. This is, clearly, a great example of an attempt to impose one culture on several others, and is right within his jurisdiction. Would the honorable Minister consider this attitude a good example of a “sociological crime” being committed right in his backyard? If so, I hope he will vigorously implement policies to protect all Ghanaian languages from being overrun in this manner. I sincerely hope his desire to mitigate this “sociological crime” does not apply only to cultural activities that come from outside Ghana.
2. The current dominance of Twi across all aspects of Ghanaian life is such that on many occasions when I have tried to follow developments in Ghana, I find I cannot because the official attempting to explain the policy chooses to use the Twi language instead of the official language of English. This used not to be the case. I recall that during the days of Kwame Nkrumah, the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation used to broadcast the news in multiple Ghanaian languages. That appears not to be the case any longer, at least from the news clips I see on YouTube. I hope the culture minister is equally upset and offended by this development and will push to reintroduce the routine use of English or multiple Ghanaian languages in all government communications.
3. Adinkra symbols are a wonderful and amazing expression of the culture of the Akan people of Ghana. However, there also are equivalent Ga and Ewe symbols and perhaps others of the other Ghanaian ethnic groups. The Akan, creative people that they are, are a plurality in Ghana, and their right to have a major influence on Ghanaian society must be welcomed. Yet, in almost all official situations where Ghanaian symbols are used to supposedly represent Ghana (a multiethnic country), they are invariably, Adinkra symbols or Akan language presentations (Akwaaba at the Airport in Accra, of all places, for example). The walls surrounding the Ghana Embassy in Washington, DC are plastered with them. A similar situation appears to hold inside Jubilee House in Accra, the seat of the Ghana government. I suspect that most Ghanaians, Akan and non-Akan alike, are so used to, and have become so inured to the ubiquity of Akan symbolism as representing Ghana that the now dominant role of Akan culture in Ghana relative to others (and using the Minister’s logic, I would say its “suffocation”) of other Ghanaian cultures, is barely noticed. Let me say it again: adinkra symbols are wonderful symbols deserving to be revered, but when they are treated as synonymous with all of Ghana, that is the very definition of “imposition of a foreign culture”, certainly relative to the other ethnic groups in Ghana. This must be the very behavior the Minister decries. I hope the Honorable Minister is aware of this now if not before, and he plans to take a more multi-ethnic and multicultural approach to the use of Ghanaian symbols and verbiage in Ghanaian official settings.
4. Finally, on the issue of allowing foreign cultures to corrupt ours, it appears we are very selective regarding which of these we find outrageous. We appear, in some instances, to go out of our way to invite such. A recent phenomenon I have noticed is that the Asantehene is often now being addressed in some quarters using the honorific “His Royal Majesty”. I am no student of Ashanti royal practices, but I mostly grew up in Kumasi, so I am no stranger to some of those practices. The Ashantis (as do most Ghanaian Kings/Chiefs) have their own honorifics for the Asantehene and in Twi (which makes sense) and I do not ever recall the Asantehene being referred to by this honorific (Your/His Royal Majesty) in the past. It is European and specifically, of English origin. Indeed, even if the original Twi word translated to “His Royal Majesty”, why not keep using that Twi word instead of, perhaps forcibly, translating it into English? Let me be very clear. This is not meant as a criticism of the Asantehene. It is aimed at the sycophants in the media and government who may, perhaps, think they are somehow elevating his status by addressing him using the titles of the English royalty. It is the writer’s opinion that it detracts from his role as the supreme guardian of Ashanti culture. Can you imagine King Charles ever being referred to in the British press as “Englandhene” or Nana Charles except perhaps in mockery?

Before continuing with this write-up, let me be very clear. The above points are not meant to be an anti-Akan or anti-Twi rant. I think the Twi-speaking groups in Ghana who have managed to successfully turn Twi almost, if not completely into Ghana’s lingua franca are to be congratulated and not castigated. It was not my intention to do so here. They are not to be blamed for the successful propagation of their language. They developed a Twi learner’s app, for example, when the rest of us were asleep at the switch. The emphasis on the Twi language here in this paper just happened to help me raise some relevant issues and pose some relevant questions to the Minister. In other circumstances, if, say, I was writing similarly about Europe or international business I well might have used the example of the dominance of the English language in those spheres.

Coming back now to the title of this essay, I wish to return to the proposition that any attempts to “preserve” a culture are doomed to failure. Culture means “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.” This includes everything people do (and how they do it), from waking up in the morning until it is bedtime at night. It encompasses their marriage traditions, their death and dance rituals, the relationship between the old and young, the foods they eat and how they are cooked, what they deem as sacred, and what activities, if any, may call for punishment and the degree of it, etc., etc. Nowhere in this definition does it say culture must be “immutable or never changing”. Indeed, it takes very little appreciation of the vicissitudes of life to understand that in the transmission of anything, some things will get lost. It is therefore absurd for anyone to suggest that such transmission should be whole and complete, generation after generation; that even portions found to be no longer serving the people should be retained regardless. And that new ideas and practices that could be adopted to enhance the culture should be rejected, because and especially because they are of foreign origin. That is the surest path for any culture to atrophy.

The writer proposes that it does not serve a people’s long-term interests to treat their culture as some shiny museum-like piece kept under a glass jar behind locked doors and subject to modification, if ever, only by a self-appointed few. For a culture to survive it must be dynamic, not static. A dynamic culture is in a state of constant interaction with the masses of its adherents. They should be free to modify it, regardless of where the impetus for the modification comes from. The interesting thing that the keen observer would note about the more successful and enduring cultures, or aspects of them, is their fluidity and malleability. The English language, perhaps the most successful aspect of English culture, is always changing. Indeed, unlike the French language which the French have sought to build walls around, new word entries are being constantly added to dictionaries of the English language, and with enthusiasm and pride. The Ghanaian word “Dumsor” has now made it into the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. No English person appears to be complaining about the corruption of their language by this act! That is one aspect of foreign cultures I hope we can learn something from and adopt. The absence of innovation in our languages is what often leads most educated Ghanaians to speak a language where, oftentimes, more than half the spoken words are in English.

Furthermore, nobody can impose a culture on another person. Nobody can make you eat pizza or sauerkraut if you are inclined not to. Nobody can make you dance the waltz if you only dance to the calypso. As some foreign leaders have demonstrated on occasion, they choose to communicate in their own languages, using interpreters even when they understand and can speak the other language fluently. Those who complain of “imposed cultures” are duty bound to provide us with concrete examples (outside of the slavery era or during periods of war, such as in Ukraine right now) where one person or group of persons, successfully and for long, “imposed” their culture on another.

Ghanaian youth do not have to use Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok if they do not want to. Too often, those who use the term “imposed” use it to mean that sections of our society have adopted certain cultural traits that they are personally (or as a group) unhappy with. But they also do not want to admit that these Ghanaians have chosen to adopt these cultures or cultural traits in whole or in part freely and voluntarily, exercising their freedom of choice. It is easiest and best to brand them as mindless dupes of foreign interests. Indeed, the way those who decry this “infiltration” process often prefer to stop this “free choice” process is for them to try and impose their views of what ought to be our culture, on the rest of us using the power of the law or religious mysticism when they can. They decry outsiders imposing their cultural traits on us but have no problem imposing their views of what our cultural habits should be on the rest of us. They, not surprisingly, miss the raw, unfiltered irony inherent in their positions.

The final and supreme irony in all this is that major aspects of what passes for modern, so-called Ghanaian culture, are not originally from this part of the world at all. Cocoa, the symbol of the Ghana economy was smuggled in from outside. This smuggler who “imposed” this crop on us is now a national hero! Corn and cassava, the main components of most of our dishes, are from the Americas. Rice, the major artillery in our so-called “jollof wars” with Nigeria is not original to Ghana at all. The cloth for our “Ghanaian” attire was inspired by Indonesians, and designed, fabricated, and exported to us by the Dutch. Current Ghanaian music has always mostly used imported Western instruments. We have indeed adopted and adapted these to fit our lifestyles, which is what all cultures do.

One is left to wonder, therefore, what and which “original culture” we are constantly being hectored to save or protect. Indeed, even the old, old tradition of pounding fufu with mortar and pestle, with the pounder’s sweat oftentimes an unappreciated ingredient, is now being abandoned, I hear, in favor of some off-site mechanized contraption! The writer maintains that we ought never to have attempted to wage this “let’s preserve our culture” battle. It was lost long before most of us and our parents were born and was never necessary in the first place in the writer’s opinion. Perhaps it is time to turn our attention to the more pressing needs that currently bedevil our dear country and to adopt and adapt to whatever new cultural habits (regardless of their origins) that would allow us to compete more successfully in the 21^st Century. I think we can all agree we are not doing so well with the culture we have now.