A Journal ofWeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

THEATRE AS SOCIAL CRITICISM: ARE-EXAMINATION OFOSOFISAN'S NO MORE THE WASTED BREED.

Bernard Eze-ORJI

Dept. ofLing/Lang/Literaiy StudiesFederal University, Ndufu-Alike IkwoPMB 1010, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State

callobe(aj,vahoo. coinPhone +2348037494775 +2349091108021

Abstract

This paper setsout tojustify theatre as a veritable toolfor correcting and changing the societythrough criticism. By rereading and critically interrogating Femi Osofisan's play; No More theWasted Breed, a clear understanding of the platform of drama in theatrical performance forsocietal criticism with the aim ofchanging the status quo was actualted. Theatre is viewedas asocial institution whose existence within society is not Just desirable but essential. Theobservable influence of theatre on society made manifest through criticism is one that makestheatre an integral part of that society. Theatre as social criticism has been agitating for aproblem free society. It seeks to exert a positive influence by checkmating the excesses of thesociety through the use ofpotent tool ofcriticism and has shown moral evils in human attitudes,and moral degeneration, religious hypocrisy, and political injustice. It has appeared as ateacher, communicator, gadfly, philosopher, historian, social worker, literary critic andmoralist. It is only when there is a sereneand balancedsociety that theatre will be adjudgedashavingutilized thisplatform (social criticism) positively and meaningfully.

Introduction

Throughout history, someplaywri^ts have written primarify toentertain their audience while others have

written with serious purpose in mind, suchas to call attention to perceived injustice, tomake statements against war, corruption, orto raise moral or philosophical questions. Itis the intentbn of this paper to convince anydiscerning mind, theatre's socio-critkal rolein the society by rereading, interrogating andanatyzing Femi Osofisan's drama No Morethe Wasted Breed. The objective of thispaper is to present a clear understanding ofthe use of drama in theatrical performancefor societal criticism with the aim of

changing the status quo.

Theatre has a fot to do with societal

ills, is an inpeccable truth as confirmed by

-64-

Menander (336 BC), the Athenian Poet anddramatist who introduced new comedy. Itfollowed therefore, that theatrical comedydivorced itself from the myth and rituals ofDionysus, a characteristic of earlier dramas.Emphasis shifted fi^om Dionysian myths tothe ridicule of social events and common

people with their attendant topicalities.Theatre became more concemed with the

portrayal of (criticism) of socialimmoralities. Theatrical comedy wasnecessary at the time when moral decay andgeneral shift fi-om public interest toindividualism was the order of the day.

Drama expresses itself throu^theatre. Like music and dance, drama is aperforming art, beautified and glorified byother arts. Any wonder theatre is ascribed asthe melting point of all the arts. Drama andtheatre fi"om inception have served as mirror

A Joumal ofUjeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

through which the world could be examined.Like a mirror which reflects us and thecultural reality of our societies, theatrereflects societal ills and in some cases

proflfers solutions to problems. Althougjidramatic performance (theatre), reflects thepositive and negative sides of humanexistence, the primaiy aim of this paper is toshow case the potentials of theatre in therealm of constructively criticizing thesociety with a view to correcting theforeseeable evils. It is onfy then wouldtheatre have assumed its role as a form ormedium for social criticism Theatre's comic

nature was therefore, satiric - "having thequalities of wit, human irony or sarcasmused to expose societal vices or foify of thehuman nature" (Bamidele, 2001:7).

It involves the attachment of an

extreme didacticism to the criticism ofsociety. Therefore, the mood in satire comeswith a meaningful and purposefiil laughter.In satire, we are exposed to topical issuesinherent in the society in a ridiculous way atwhich certain morals are deducible at the

end. This is the major force with whichtheatre criticism fimctions in a society. Thisform of drama (comic drama) introduced byMenander was used as a medium througjhwhich the societal ills would be exposed. Hemust have been of the opinion that ridiculingsocietal ills would hel^ people see thefoolishness of indulging in them and he sawin theatre the potential for theaccomplishment of this noble goal

In most recent times however, otherplaywri^ts and theatre practitioners havecorroborated this view, most notable wasHenrik Ibsen (1828-1906), the fether ofrealism. He introduced the 'problem plays'which he used to x-ray societal problems ofhis times. Problem plays dramatisecontenqjorary social issues with thecharacters representing or speaking againstthe forces involved (Jacobus, 1976328).Theatre reflects a criticism of the evils of a

-65-

society. The theatre of absurd is basicallycomic in nature, but it is based on theobservable illogicality in human life, thepuiposelessness apparent to any pessimisticobserver of human existence, the seemingincongruous disharmony in life and thepretentious exhibitions by humans in a vainprocess to circumvent anguish, torment andhopelessness.

In feet, theatre of the absurd revealsthe absurdity of the human conditioa It is"the dramatization of inner sense ofabsurdity and futility of the human conditionand existence" (Nda, 2001:4). Whenabsurdity is reflected to the audience albeitcomicaify, the audience realize the need toreassess and reappraise themselvesindividual^ and discover to their utterdismay, that they are lacking moral values.This will Jok and conscientize them to sit iq)and be attuned to the demands of a sanesociety. Theatrical comedy as well asrealistic theatre calls for sanity, reason andmoderation for the general wellbeing andhappiness of the masses in the society. Thesocial nature of the theatre makes it an artform that is highfy popular and acceptable inmost cultures. This is also why it hasremained an institution that can be used for

critical appraisal of the society, formobilizing, enlightening, and in some casesfor conscientizing the people to take actionin resolving some of the problems raised inthe performance. This is where theatre fordevelopment (TFD) and agit-prop readilycome to mind.

Theatre and Criticism

The essence of theatre is the reaction

of the whole audience to the overall

dramatic or theatrical performance and thisevokes in the audience the feeling of eitherguilt or moderation and makes the theatre acriticizing art. Theatre is essential^ a socialcritfeism and criticism is a creative

activity...because of the outspokenness of

A Journal of Theatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. I April, 2015

the theatre, it often clashes with authorities(Osairyin 19833). Osanyin laments thatthird world countries whose situation iscritical, are those who detest social criticisniIt fblbws therefore, that when theatreen^toys criticism in its ejqjosition, it leavesthe audience to look inward and check

themselves. The audience forms anindispensible element in the theatre equationbecause theatre occurs onfy when spectatorsare present to interact wifti performers andidentify with the characters portrayed(Wilson 1991:15).

Thus, it establishes the feet that theaudience is and has always been therecurrent decimal in every theatrical event.This interactive and transactional

relationsh^ between the audience and thetheatre is an aflSrmation that theatre is a

social contract between its practitioners anddie society (Johnson, 200123). Dramatistsand social critics through their variouswritmgs have concerted to the position oftheatre as a medium for social criticism

althou^ they have not made overtstatements ftiat confirm this positioaHowever, their various works contain tacitagreements on this matter. So tong there isconcordance that besides entertainment, theplaywright's intention in conposing adramatic script for theatre performance is tomake a statement, create awareness amonghis audience, so long as they doubt not thattheatre is the medium throu^ which thisawareness fe created; invariabfy they haveaccepted the position of theatre as an avenuefor social critkism. In the words of

Barranger, *the playwri^ writes a play toe5q)ress some aspects of reality, someemotion and feeling connected withhumanity, some measure of e^erience,some vision or conviction about the world

and his society" (Barranger 1995:106).Social criticism then can be said to

be the act of objective evaluation.

-66-

exposition, or a critical assessment of thesociety - its norms, ills, values, sociopolitical and economic situations. Modemplaywri^ts have been engaged in usingtheir works (drama) as theatre to expose theills of the society in a bid to create a socialchange throu^ the criticism whichaccompanies such theatre performance.Social criticism as an art should expose,reflect, indeed magnify the decadent, rotteduhderbelfy of a society that has lost itsdilectbn to use art (theatre) in reflecting andexposing societal iHs (Soyinka 1981JII). Itbecomes the preoccipation of manycoiitenporary writers, critics to note thatsucii an exposition thus becomes thebackbone of any work of art. Socratesdefends his role as an artist thus: 'T am that

gadiy which God has attached to the stateand all day long and in all place, am feastingiporl you, arousing, persuading andreprdaching you" (Okafor 19833). Thisstatement by Socrates is rather metaphoricalsince theatre operates on the level ofsymbol, metaphor and dreams. His work ontheatfe like the one understudy could be hismeailing when he reproaches. In thisinstance, it is his work that reproaches hispeople - the aiidience.

Playwri^ts now fook inwards attheir societies for materials for their work.

Afiidan Playwrights have been concemedwith relating their art (theatre) to theirsocieties much more directfy, either torefldct social change or radical changethrdu^ the conduct of their plays ortheatrical performance (Etherton 1982317).A large majority of plays put ip forperformance have instanced and anafysedsdcial evils; Soyinka's Kongi's Harvest,Zulu Sofola's Operators, Rotimi's Man TalkWoman talk, Oyekunle's Katakata forSufferhead, Esiaba's Hangmen also Die,Tracie Ezeaju^-Utoh's Nneora, an AfricanDoll's House', Julie Okoh's Closed Doors',Ahmed Yerima's Hard Ground', Ola

AJournal of Weatre & Media StudiesVol.1. No. 1, April, 2015

Rotimi's Akassa You Mi; andEmekaNwabueze's A Parliament ofVultures. On this note, OIu Obafenrielucidates on the different social visionaryplaywrights who have used their art toredirect the society. He reveals inter alia:

The development of arevolutionary approach to artand theatre manifests itself inthe young playwri^t'scommitment to theemployment of revolutionarypotential of the theatre tosharpen social awareness,adapt a socialist akemativeapproach to the obsolescencethey find in the body politicsof the present recces forsocial change. Thisgeneratm of writers includeFemi Osofisan, BodeSowande, KoleOmotosho,James Iroha,EsiabaIrobi,EmekaNwabueze

, Alex Asigbo, Trade Uto-Ezeajugh, and many otherstoo numerous to mention.

They have a conviction thatsocial chan^ could come bythe theatre's ability to raisemass awareness as a positiverevolutionary alternative tosocial decadence.(Obafemi,1982:118-119).[Italics mine].Osofisan has with his revolutionary

style of theatre continued to deal withpungent contenporary social problems. Herejects the tragic vision in his predecessors -Wole Soyinka, J. P. Clark, Zulu Sofola -which he attributes to their harping iq)onanimist metaphysics. Osofisan rejects visionwhich opts for individual heroism He thinksit is bourgeois and tragic. About massrevolution, he says: *1 think it is inevitable,that Wole Soyinka arrives at these tragicconclusions because if you are always

thinking of individuals creating history,history will always look like a series oftragedies, the revolution itself is a mass ofpeople always doing things together '̂(Osofisan, 1982:7).

It is clear fi-om the foregoing thatOsofisan's styles gives credence to hisworks and it is throu^ social criticism thatOsofisan's main point of discourse in histheatre is realized. Some plays try to exposethe ills of the society without posting asolution to the problem Soyinka's OperaWoyonsi (1986), for instance about whichBbdunJey^ (197722), has this to say:"some critics have noted with justificationthat a major problem of Woyonsi is the feetthat fer too many issues are taken on in thissingle play to foe detriment of foe play'sdepth." Osofisan is well known for hisrufoless condemnation of comq)tionespecialfy in public oflSces and hisdenunciations of public hi^ handedness andbureaucracy. Also, Ogunleye has spokeneloquent^ about his intentions as aplaywright:

As to nty writing mainty forfoe stagp, let us say I wantdesperately to ^t close to foespectator, to each and everyone who I have trapped in foedarkness of half-li^t, topenetrate very cfosety andintimatety, like knife in foeribs. I want to make foespectator happy and yetuncomfortable. I want to tum

him open, guts and all, spice,cook him in foe filthy,sinking broil of our history. Iwant him washed inside out,in foe naked truth, and then Ispew him back again adifferent man I believe that,if we wound ourselves often

and painfiiDy enou^ with foereality around us, if we refuse

-67-

A Journal ofTloeatre & Media StudiesVol.1. No. 1, April 2015

to bandage our sensitive spotsshielding them from the hurtof truth, I believe that we canattain a new and positiveawareness (Ogunleye201228).To tow the above line, dramatists all

over Africa have tried in one way or anotherto portray their societies, its decadence, orits struggle for freedom, the issue of acute**political theatre or theatre of commitment,"(Oso&an, 1982:7), is portrayed in the worksof Ngugi, Rugendo, Fugard, Soyinka andother playwrights of note. He (Osofisan)believes that an artiste is feced with a task of

pointing out social ills, uncovering the harshrealities of life, such as exploitation andoppressiun, and class differentiation where aparticular class invariabfy enjoys the bestthin^ of life at the ejqjense of other class;and nnost inportantfy, suggesting possiblemeans ofeliminating these maladies.

Osofisan is of the opinion that art hasalways been a relentless chronicle of humane}q)erience, a mirror, portraying the starkrealities of its base society, projecting invarious forms and nuances the ascendant

moods, conflict, yearnings and aspirations ofits time. Society sippEes the essential rawmaterials with which the artiste (be it visual,literaiy, or performing) manufectures hisproduct It is left for such an artiste to giveback in performance that which he hasfound topical within the society he lives.Osofisan therefore urges writers to becommitted to their society and not shut theireyes to the problems and realities. "If awriter has a vision that is profound enough, Ipersonalty don't see how he can be anytogo&er than aim punches at the decadence." InNo More the Wasted Breed, he does not juststop at making comments, but tries to abideby his views. His aesthetic pre-occiqjation isto create art (theatre) that is cfose to thepopular mode in terms of clarity of language

-68-

and directness of purpose. He describes thisas:

A story that vrill be sin5)Ieinstruction, direct in message,but geared towards positivehuman value in the context of

our society. We should seizethe form and structure of

westem literature but changethe context to meet the need

of our society (Osofisan,1982:7) .Whenever a dramatist uses theatre

(drama) for social criticism, his closure oftarget, his criticism of situation and hissocial messa^ are contained in his methodof communication, his organization ofmaterials and symbols. Osofisan encourageshis audience throu^ his theatre: "to see thecontenporary socb-poKtical situation asneedful of a major transformation" (Sekoni1980:40). Osofisan ejqDoses thedehumanization that often acconpanies asystem that is riddled with excessivematerialism Again, Muyiwa Awodtya,a^in, thinks that Osofisan throu^ histheatre (drama) has ceaselessty foughtcorruption, oppression and injustice, and hehas been a dou^ty protagonist for socialequality in a classless and egalitariansociety. He further maintains that Osofisan'sdramaturgic bent:

is primarity concemed withman as a victim of historywithin the fiame work of the

socio-political system whichoppresses him He believesthat freedom from the yokeof oppression is possible andachievable not on the basis of

individual merit but by agroip effort throughcollective consciousness.

(Awodtya, 1986:13)

A Journal ofVjeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

Several theatre practitioners andsocial critics alike have noted Osofisan as an

artist, a doyen of theatre profession, aversatile playwri^t of repute, a committedartist, social commentator, and a socialcritic, one who uses his art as a means ofcriticism to effect the desired and illusive

social change in his society. It is within thispremise that his drama will underscore itsimportance as an exanple of social criticismby rereading and interrogating No More theWasted Breed.

Textual Analysis of the Play: No More theWasted Breed

No More the Wasted Breed reveals a

battered community walfowing in strife andpestilence. In the opening, we encounter thegods Otokun and Ehisu who are the cause ofthe human community's suffering becausethey (humans) have stopped sacrificing tothem. Bk)kun in order to save his onfy soncomes to offer sacrifice to the same godswhom he had earlier on derided. The fiiend

Salu^ finds him and encourages him afterBbkun had wanted to go back on thesacrifice. The custodian of the shrine of

Ehisu, Togun with the gods in siqjposedhuman fi)nn appear but onfy to identifyBbkun as the age long carrier who willdeliver his people. Saluga is a^inst this setiq) and speaks vehementfy against the gods'plan to use his fiiend for rituaLElusu out ofannoyance strikes him dead but onfy ^ts ashocker fi-om Bbkun who is now bold

enou^ to challenge the carrier history. Atthe end Biokun's argument sails throu^ asOfokun revives Saluga, Ehjsus out of shamewithdraws into the river. The river dries iqjwhile Bbkun's son ^ts well without thehe^ of the gods, signifying the oppressivetendency ofthe gods.

No More, is a solemn satire thatapproaches the problems of socbty fi-om anallegorical perspective. On the literal level,we are presented with an encounter between

-69-

the gods and the human beings they expfoitthrough their go-between, the priestSymbolicalfy, the gods represent the rulersand top government oficials and theworshipers, the ordinary citizens. No More,which is based on Soyinka's The StrongBreed, is a reversal and rejectbn of thescapegoat phenomenon which b Soyinka'splay, presents the carrier as a savbr andredeemer of society and as one whosesacrifice is regarded as a virtue, a strengthand service to humanity. In replacing tiieepithet 'Strong' with 'Wasted," Osofisanappears to be saymg that there is no strengthor sense of achievement m docilefy aBowingoneself to be exploited for whatever reasoaDomg so is rather, a mark of cowardbe anddefeatism.

Since the actbn is siq)posedfybetween the sea gods and their devotees,most of the events take place by the seaside.The gods took on human form and came outof the sea to questbn why sacrifices had notbeen made to them regularfy. They convinceBbkun that it is his ftimify lineage, who areexpected to present the sacrifice, to purgethe society 2md appease the gods. Bbkunaccepts the challenge but his fiiend Salugacauses him to become aware, ftiat bissacrifice will change nothmg Saluga isstruck down by the angry goddess, Ehisuand his suffering strengthens Bbkun'sresolve not to allow his femify to beperpetually e?q)foited any more.

The play e:q)bres the chamrelationship between the gods and the priestson one hand, and the priests and theworshppers on the other, and reveals thepower the stronger has on the weaker. Thegods as well as the priest are cornet and it ^the common people who pay for theexcesses of both groips. They must provideenou^ human and material resources tosatisfy the greedy priests as well as theirmconpetent, impotent and unrighteousgods. For instance, m carrying out the

A Journal ofTljeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April,2015

cleansing rites, the safety of the life of thecarrier is not guaranteed. Encouraged by hisfriend and conpanion, Sahiga, Biokunrejects the role because he realizes that he isonfy a pawn in the hands of the gods andtheir allies - their priests. He also discoversthat his fether fost his life as a carrier and his

mother was stoned to death for breaking ataboo attached to the carrier ritual

At the time the play opens, thepeople are groaning under severe femine,many are grief-stricken because of the lossof dear ones through pestilence and flood.Biokun, a strong advocate against tradition,in desperation, finds himself oflferingsacrifices to Olokun, the god of the sea inorder to save his onfy son from death. Helaments: '1 who have always mockedsuperstition, I have gone back on niy wordsand come to tiie shrine of Olokun"(Osofisan, 19833). He is still by the seasidewhen the gods suddenfy appear in humanform and he^ Togun, the priest, to convinceBiokun that he is the carrier of his

comraunily by virtue of a mole-shapedbirthmark on his chest.

It is apparent that another sacrifice isneeded; this time to appease the ^ddess,Elusu. When Sahiga, Biokun's close fiiendfirst arrives by the waterside, Biokun isashamed at being found to have offeredsacrifices to a god he did not initial^ believeia Salagu, however, reassures him saying"in times like this it is quite normal thatsome of us should break." Apart from theoutbreak of diseases, the flood has causedthe fishes to flee and "no dares put a canoeout on the raging water." Food therefore, isin short sippfy. This is the situation, whichthe gods and their priests ejploit to getBiokun to see the honour in being the one toperform the cleansing rites. The appearanceof the gods is explained as being necessarybecause "the message was that ur^nt."Ignorance is not accepted as an excuse.

-70-

The ^ds are never satisfied andthough Togun confesses that he hadforgotten about the need for the rites, thepunishment is meted out to the wholecommunity. As he had said; "we are biddento continuously sacrifice to this totem,celebrate it, as a token of gratitude and arenewal of allegiance." Though Biokunaccepts to play the role, Sahiga questionswhy "chest moles" and no "fet cheeks" or'Yound belfy" like that of the priest wasregarded as the mark of the chosen one? Heaccuses the gods of being "cannibals." Forhis insolence, he is struck down but hisprotest cannot be denied:

...why is it always us whogive our lives? Why is italways the wretched, never awealthy man, never the sonof a king, who is suddenlydiscovered to bear the mark

• of destiny at differentmoments, and pushed on tofulfill himself in suicidal

tasks. Why? (Osofisan1983:105).

To these questions, Togun - the priest hasno answers. Salu^ has no more fear of thegods, even from the ground he still shoutsthe truth that they are "gods who feed ontheir worshipers." He is prepared to die forhis ri^ts. With Sahiga dead, Ehisu urgesTogun to prepare Biokun for tiie ritual butshe receives a shock. The new Biokun no

more fears the gods. He accuses thembhmtfy, that all that matters is that they havetheir food no matter how many lives are fostin the process. He went on to accuse them ofperpetrating femine and poHutioa They arethe cause of human suffering. Theypermitted the slave and merchant sh^s totraverse their waters and cart away humanresources and the best of the proceeds fromthe land. The white raiders did not sacrifice

A Journal ofTheatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

to the African gods and nothing happened tothem so why should Africans sacrifce to thesame inconpetent and passive gods?Biokun's contention is that the goddess hasremained silent, unconplaining and ask nosacrifice of these white slave masters.

Instead she ask too much of the poor masseswho remain on the shore, bow to their whitemasters and gather fet. He says:

You ask no sacrifice of them,no token of allegiance,they're rich and few, thebeloved of your priest Butwe're numerous and

nameless, like the sands ofthe beach, we're wretchedand ejqjendable, a wastedBreed (Osofisan 1983:105).

If the shores are now depleted andconstant sacrifices lacking, the gods shouldfook to the real cu^rits for restitutioaOlokun accepts the truth in Biokun'sargument, urges Ehisu to revive Sahi^.When she, EIusu hesitates, he does sohimself Biokun's words make the godsrealize that they had been unfeir to thehuman society. Defeated, they retreatgradual^ to the depths of the sea and theirprogress is marked by a correspondingrecession of the flood. There is immediate

rejuvenatioa Human beings have triunphedin the fight against the gods. What wasneeded was their awareness of their r^htsand autononty, and the ineffectiveness andpowerlessness of the gods. With thisawareness they are able to assert theirindependence and be free from oppressionof the gods. Osofisan therefore, rejects boththe belief in the infellibility of the gods andan acceptance of martyrdom, as earlierarticulated in Wole Soyinka's The StrongBreed.

-71-

Social Criticism in No More the Wasted

Breed

Femi Osofisan like Socrates in the

ancient Greece,believes that an artiste whois a social reformer should not sit on thefence when there are critical issues ofnational inportance that need to beaddressed. Therefore, to respond and justifythat in times of social unrest or crisis, one,especialfy dramatists, should contribute tothe great social concem of making the worlda just and an e^litarian society, devoid ofinjustice and oppression from hi^ify placedindividuals in the society. Osofisancontributes with the play of this paper,which probes and reproaches the socialstructure that is pervasive of the naturalorder. It is his quota to the nation building asa dramatist. The play probes and criticizBSthe very essence and nucleus of tiie societywith its scathing theatrics.

His works ^ beyond thedramatization of the anarchy and socialvices that characterize the political, privateand public life of contemporary Nigeria, andthe evils that plague the society. Ademesosupports this position when he avers that:

Femi Osofisan has a devoted

attachment to, and anextravagant admiration forthe use of music and song toenrich his drama, other thantheir aesthetic fimctions,music and song often becomethe medium of social

criticism on the state of

Nigeria society (Ademeso2006:67).

He transposes the compt Nigerianpolitical hierarchy through Ehisu and hergod Ofoku- The message of the play isenmeshed in critical statements on the

society and it is so prodigiousfy portrayed inthe play. No More the Wasted Breeds doesnot ejpose the decadence of the

A Journal of Theatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April 2015

contenporary urban and rural Ni^riansociety, but also makes biting satirical andcritical statements with the hope for areformatioa

In his ejpositbn of societal vicesand ills, Osofisan does not onfy use pungentsatirical language, but uses his charactersmetaphorical^. The Ife priest of Orunmila,the priest of Olokun and the "Aafe" of theIslamic religion, are metaphors for religiouscharlatanism and criticisni In this play,Osofisan ejposes the hypocrisy and deceitof priests and their mediators as they cheatand defi^ud their gullible followers, sincethey are priests their behavior are expectedto be moralfy above board and desirous, buttheir dealings with their subjects portraythem as worshppers of mammon rather thanGod. They pretend, cheat and deceive then-subjects. Osofisan is of the opinion that wedo not need any religious or extra-humanejqjlanation for our predkament nor do weneed to sacrifice to the gods for anyinterventioa For this reason, he demystifiesthe gods to an irrelevant status in the play.

Furtheimore, to Osofisan, solutionsto societal problems lie not in any religbn orgod but in Nigerians themselves who shouldfook inwards for solution to their problems.This is because our problems are not divinebut human, therefore, it is needless seekingdivine solution, but rather we should seekhuman sohitbn to human problems. Hecontinued, that we can in fiict control thespiritual world, that our leaders use religionas slide to escape from the realities ofsolving the material problems of oppression,injustice and comption in the Nigeriansociety. Elusu, the goddess of inland watersin No More the Wasted Breed, is a metaphorfor cruel, selfish and oppressivegovernments that exist in Nigeria. To hernothing matters if not the people'spropitiation and "sacrifice of sweet smellingfoods." But Saluga questbns:

-72-

Saluga: Why is it us whogive our lives, why is italways the poor who arecalled to sacrifice? ...never a

wealthy man, never the sonofa king...

Saluga continues with his reproach of thegods, this time more satirical in his questionofthe carrier phenomenoa

Saluga: And who decidesthat chest-moles are the mark

of identity for carriers? Whynot fot cheeks like yours? Ora round belty? That I thoughtwould have made a more

juicy meal for your cannibalgods.

Saluga concludes that the gods are alwayson the side of the oppressors. Osofisan'sworries by implication, is that the variousinterest groips in Nigeria are not united andtherefore, would continue to suffer frompolitical, economic and socialmarginalization and oppression, unless theyunite to fight the present injustice, for thereis no resolution without revolution. Theatre

as a performing art form offers thisopportunity as No More the Wasted Breed asexplicated. Osofisan however, registers hisdream of an ideal society that exists withoutsipematural influence, using his work. NoMore the Wasted Breed when he

cate^rically states that:I believe in a just society andI believe it is possible,because it is men who make

society not gods. I think godsare manufectured by men tojustify their wicked act ofexploiting the people(Osofisan, 1992:9).

He is therefore, more people oriented in hisplays. He is more concemed in a shift in

A Journal ofWeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

inportance, showing an interest in anegalitarian society in the masses, who arethe victims of an unjust and unequal socialorder; his plays reveal a Marxist inclinationand dispositioa

Conclusion

The paper has established that goodtheatre is that which is on the side of the

people, a theatre of commitment, that whichwithout making mistakes, injustice, andweakness, gives people courage and urgesthem to hi^er resolves in their struggles fortotal Hberation from oppression, from badurproductive and dehumanizinggovernment That theatre is a means forsocial criticism has been unequivocal^made manifest in No More the WastedBreed. The play has therefore, shown thatdrama indeed reflects one or more aspect ofintense economic, socio-political, culturaland ideological struggles of the society asseen in the works of dramatists thus showingthe class power structure that shapes oureveryday life.

This paper has articulated that artistescreate for so many reasons: to heal andrestore the life to a sick and battered

humanity, to create a new vision for growth,renewal, re^neration and edification of manfor a wholesome life and a better society andto mobilizB a collective conscience for a

particular desired objective. Dramatherefore, has served as a tool through whichthe playwright advances his vision of theworld. He hopes that the message soadvanced will have a positive influence onthe members of the society and the people soinfluenced, will pursue the playwright'svision which, after it has beenconrnmicated to them, becomes theirvision. This they do individualfy in order topurge the society of its maladies. Akomayestates that since society is enslaved to itselfit is in continued need of salvation. This act

of salvation is not a mass act; it comes about

throu^ the vision of dedication ofindividuals who doggedly pursue theirvision in spite of the opposition of the verysociety they seek to save (Akomaye1992:100):

By inplication, the eradication ofsocietal ills using theatre as a medium forsocial criticism needs individual wilL It is onthis background that the paper advocatesthat the playwri^t's message be preached toa large, unbiased audience. If majority ofpeople in the society share the committedplaywright's vision of the society, theirindividual willingness to change the societywill surety chan^ for better, and theatre, themedium throu^ which the vision reachesthese individuals would have served thepurpose ofa social critic.

-73-

References

Ademeso,Adebola. "Hie Drama and Theatreof Femi Osofisan: An Exploration,"In The English Compendium.VoL3&4. Adeleke F. and OgunpitanSteve (eds.) Lagos: LASU Press2006.

Akomaye, Oko. The Tragic Paradox.Ibadan: Kraft Books Ltd. 1992

Awodtya, Mityiwa. "Osofisan'sExperimental Theatre." In The

Saturday, 12'\P.13 1986Bamidele,01anrele.Cow(?f/y.- Essays andStudies. Ibadan: Sterlkig-Hordeifl^ublishersLtd. 2001

Barranger, Miltyr/ie Theatre: A Way ofSeeing. New York: Wordsworth Pub. Coy1995

Biodun, Jeyifo. "Drama and the SocialOrders: Two Reviews" inThePositive Review, University of Ifeand Ibadaa NO.l. 1977

Bode, Osanyin. "Committed Theatre: AComerstone of Nation Building."Nigerian Theatre Journal.Vo\.\,NO.l. 1983

A Journal ofTloeatre & Media StudiesVol. 1. No. 1, April, 2015

Effiong, Johnsoa Play ProductionProcesses. Lagos: Concept Publications Ltd.2001

Etherton, Michael The Development ofAfrican Drama. London: HutchinsonPublishers. 1982

Jacobus, Lee. The Bedford Introduction toZJrawa. New York: St Martins Press. 1976Obafemi, Olu. "Revolutioiiaiy Aesthetics inRecent Nigerian Theatre" in African TheatreToday, Eldred Jones (ed.). New York:Heinemann Educational Books. VoL12.

1982

Ogunleye, Fohike. 'Thespians and Cineastesas Engineers of the Nigerian SouT' OAUInaugural Lecture Series. NO. 246. Ile-Ife:OAU Press ltd. 2012.

Okafor, Chinyere. "Apology on Socrates'Defence: Creating New Awarenessthrou^ Shock Drama: The Exampleof Osofisan's Once Upon Four

-74-

Robbers. Nigeria Theatre JournalVoLl NO.l

Osofisan, FemL Morountodun and OtherPlays. Ibadan: Longmaa 1983Osofisan, FemL "And After the Wasted

Breed." In On Stage. Villa Schild(ed.) Wol^ng; Daring Go'Tliingen.1992.

Ropo, SekonL "Afiica: Westem" in Journalof Common Wealth Literature, VoL XV,N0.2 Andre Gurr and Alastair Niven (eds.).London: Hanzell Publishers Ltd. 1980.

Soyinka, Wole. "Foreword" Opera Woyonsi.London: Rex Collins ltd. 1981

Ubong, Nda. "Rationalism on Trial A Studyon the theatre of the Absurd." PhD

Seminar, Dept. of Theatre Arts.University ofCalabar. 2001.

Wilson, Edwin. The Theatre Experience.NewYoik: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1991