Season of Migration to the North as a National Allegory

National allegory, although controversial, is an important paradigm in post-colonial theory. Although there are many ways of understanding novels, national allegory is useful way in works like Tayeb Salih's Season of Migration to the North. Salih constructs the novel as a national allegory, making parallels between the life of Mustafa Sa'eed and the history of Sudan. As the novel progresses, however, this allegory becomes complicated and contradictory, as the other characters each shows different sides of Sudan. In this paper, I will argue that even though these differences may seem to deconstruct the idea of a unified national allegory, when the novel is considered as a whole, the differing fates of these characters represent the fate of a nation that is in transition with an uncertain future.

In the novel, Salih presents the life of Mustafa Sa'eed as a national allegory. Jameson describes national allegory as the idea that in "third-world literature," "the story of the private individual destiny is always an allegory of the embattled situation of the public third-world culture and society" (Jameson, 69), meaning that a story is a national allegory when the fate of the protagonist matches the fate of the nation as a whole. Although whether this paradigm applies to all "third-world literature" or whether "third-world literature" should even be considered a category (Ahmad, 4) are debatable points, the national allegory is a useful way to understand novels such as Season of Migration to the North.In this novel, as Saree Makdisi notes in his article "The Empire Renarrated," Mustafa's year of birth is 1898, the same year as "the battle of Omdurman, which signalled the final collapse of Sudanese resistance to British encroachment" (Makdisi, 811). The battle of Omdurman occurred years after the English commander Kitchener began to occupy Sudan. Throughout his occupation, he was met with opposition from the Sudanese. The battle of Omdurman ultimately crushed this opposition (Shillington, 1491), leaving thousands of Sudanese dead, while the British and Egyptians suffered only a few casualties (Johnson, 1493). Furthermore, Makdisi remarks in a footnote that "if one keeps very careful account of the dates and time frames of the novel..., it emerges that Mustafa disappears...in 1956, the year of Sudan's independence" (Makdisi, 813) Makdisi thus notes Mustafa's "life coincides with the period of direct British occupation of the Sudan" (Makdisi, 813). If viewed as a national allegory, his life not only parallels Sudanese history, but actually represents it. Thus, his life becomes an allegory for the fate and history of Sudan, notably Sudan under British imperial rule.

The trajectory of his life reinforces this idea. He goes from Egypt to England, the two colonizing powers that have exercised control over Sudan. When in Cairo with his European foster parents the Robinsons, a Mustafa explains that he "felt as though Cairo...was a European woman just like Mrs. Robinson" (Salih, 25). This comparison creates a parallel between Egypt and Europe as colonizing forces. Because Mustafa's life is an allegory for the history of Sudan, his journeys to Egypt and England are important because they represent the relationship between Sudan and its colonizers. Mustafa does not escape these powers. He spends most of his adult life succeeding in these countries and in many ways struggling and warring against them. Many times he describes his mind as a "sharp knife" (Salih, 26), suggesting that his mind is the weapon he is using against his colonizers. Through his superior intellect, he will break through the system and overcome those who dominate Sudan. Later when he is going to London, he states that the city is "another mountain, larger than Cairo" (Salih, 26). This statement suggests that London is another obstacle to overcome, another colonizer to overthrow. Makdisi argues that Mustafa is ultimately "trying to symbolically "reverse" the history of modern European colonialism" (Makdisi, 811). He completes this task, Makdisi argues, through "inflicting pain and suffering on British women. Just as imperialism had violated its victims, Mustafa violates his, and his unwitting lovers become sacrifices in his violent campaign" (Makdisi, 811).

But in many ways, London overpowers him, and his resistance is crushed just as Sudan's was, most notably when he meets and marries Jean Morris. He spends every night with her "warring with bow and sword and spear and arrows" (Salih, 34), only to be met every night with defeat when she will not succumb to him as the other European women did. Furthermore, he is ultimately imprisoned for several years after murdering her. At his trial he claims that he is "a colonizer, [he is] the intruder whose fate must be decided" (Salih, 94). He discusses how "when Madmoud Wad Ahmed was brought in shackles to Kitchener after his defeat at the battle of Atbara, Kitchener said to him, 'Why have you come to my country to lay waste and plunder?'" (Salih 94) This line refers to the English defeat of the Sudenese in the battle of Atbara in April 1898 (Collins and Deng, 9). This battle occurs in the same year as the battle of Omdurman and is also part of the final push of Sudanese resistance. Mustafa Sa'eed continues this resistance in his own life, but moves it from a Sudenese to a British battlefield. Just as "it was the intruder" who calls Sudan his country to "the person whose land it was, and the owner of the land bowed his head and said nothing" (Salih, 94), so too does Mustafa want to be the intruder among the British and disrupt their lives and land. As Seikaly argues in his article "History in the Novel," this represents his desire to avenge Ahmed's "humiliation following his defeat in battle" (Seikaly, 94). And thus, his actions represent a continued rebellion against British colonialism.

Yet, although his trial represents his revenge against the British colonizers, this revenge only leads to defeat, just as Sudan's resistance led to defeat. He is ultimately imprisoned and is still under the control of the colonizing power just as Sudan is throughout the course of his life. Furthermore, as is later discovered in the novel, he describes that although dominating Jean Morris is his "destiny" "in her lay [his] destruction" and that he was "an invader who...would not make a safe return" (Salih, 160). Despite his desire to metaphorically liberate Sudan through his conquests of women, he ultimately becomes a victim. His life thus represents a Sudan under colonial rule; in spite of resistance he cannot truly inflict much damage on his British colonizers. And due to his resistance, he actually becomes a sacrifice, just as the thousands of people of original resisted the British in Sudan.

Furthermore, even when he leaves, he retains a part of Britain through maintaining his secret room. Although he seems to represent a resistance against the colonizer, British culture seeps into his identity, just as British culture became part of Sudan in many ways. Seikaly describes Sudan as "caught in a struggle against a culture, from which, ironically, it also adopts" (Seikaly, 138). This statement can arguably also be said of Mustafa Sa'eed, thus reinforcing his allegorical nature.

Finally, Mustafa dies in the year of Sudanese Independence, his end representing the end of Sudan under colonial rule. And yet, although he dies, his legacy continues, just as the Sudan's colonial past does not truly end with its independence. Mustafa Sa'eed continues to exist in a number of ways. First of all, the narrator is often disturbed by Mustafa's memory, and old acquaintances of Mustafa such as the retired Mamur seem to often cross paths with the narrator, bringing up the memory. This theme reflects that just as Mustafa cannot be forgotten after his death, colonialism cannot be forgotten even after independence. Another way Mustafa's existence persists can be seen in his widow's fate. She explains that "After Mustafa Sa'eed...[she] will go to no man" and then with a voice "like the blade of a knife" says that if she must marry another man, she will "kill him and kill" herself (Salih, 96). Describing her words as like the blade of knife recalls the way Mustafa Sa'eed describes his own mind. Thus, even after his death, Mustafa's resistance and violence lives on through his wife. His influence on his wife represents the lasting influence the British Empire has had on Sudan. Makdisi, for example, describes this event as representative of the "painful memories of colonialism" (810). Even after independence, this influence remains and it has irrevocably changed the country, just as Mustafa's influence on Hosna irrevocably changes the village. If Mustafa represents colonial Sudan, this lasting influence on the village suggests that independence is not as clear cut as it may seem. Thus, because his fate represents the fate of Sudan, he can be seen as a strong national allegory.

But other characters, namely the narrator, can also be seen to represent Sudan. The narrator's life follows a similar trajectory to Mustafa Sa'eed's as they both study in England. This similarity also suggests that the narrator can be seen as a national allegory, just as Mustafa Sa'eed can. At the same time, their fates are very different. The narrator does not rebel like Mustafa does, and never feels truly integrated into British culture like Mustafa. If their fates are different, one may wonder how they can both possibly represent Sudan, and whether this causes the national allegory as a whole to unravel. But in fact, Mustafa Sa'eed and the narrator represent Sudan in different time periods and conflicts. While Mustafa represents the colonial Sudan, the narrator represents Sudan in a state of transition. When the narrator returns to his village, he feels lost and not immediately at home and dwells on the many objects around him, touching the palm tree in his family's garden and listening to the birds singing around him. He eventually convinces himself that he feels "a sense of stability," that he is "not a stone thrown in the water but a seed sown in the field" (Salih, 5). And when he talks to his grandfather about the past, his "feeling of security is strengthened" (Salih, 5). The fact that his is returning from England evokes the idea of Sudan after the independence. Just as he is attempting to search for his roots after an existence in England, Sudan is seeking its roots after its existence as a British colony. Makdisi argues that throughout the novel, the narrator "tries to convince himself that... colonialism can simply be shrugged off" (Makdisi, 809). Thus, he becomes representative of Sudan attempting to shrug off colonialism in the same way, the result of which is uncertain.

Because each character represents a different aspect of Sudan, creating a complete picture of the nation may seem difficult. Thus, rather than simply looking at the characters within the novel as allegorical, we should consider the novel as a whole to be an allegory, as many of the passages indicate. Although Jameson's definition of the national allegory implies that the characters, not the stories as a whole, are allegorical, the complicated situation in Sudan cannot is difficult to sum up solely in the stories of individual characters. Thus, looking at the work as a whole as a national allegory becomes relevant in this case. Through passages in the novel we can elucidate the current state of Sudan. One issue in Sudan is the tension between tradition and progress and whether colonization changed Sudan. Throughout the novel the narrator and the villagers seem to deny that colonization has had any lasting impact on Sudan. The narrator discusses how the Europeans "had come to our land" and asks if that means "that we should poison our present and our future?" (Salih, 49) This statement suggests that the possibility that the past can be separated from the future and that the impact of colonialism can actually be forgotten. He believes that "once again we shall be as we were-ordinary people" (Salih, 50) and "their coming was not a tragedy as we imagine, nor yet a blessing as they imagine" (Salih, 60), thus neutralizing an institution that has actually had a tremendous impact on the country. Even when the narrator begins to realize the extent of these changes, the villagers maintain their denial. His friend Mahjoub argues that "the world hasn't changed as much as [the narrator] think[s]" (Salih, 100). And yet, when Hosna murders Wad Rayyes, the fact that the village, and Sudan as a whole, has changed irrevocably becomes difficult to deny. Makdisi describes that "if Hosna, as Mustafa's wife, had become in some measure Westernized through contact with him, Wad Rayyes, on the contrary, represents the extreme side of traditionalism" (Makdisi, 819). Thus, the novel becomes a national allegory because it reveals the conflict between tradition and change and that even the staunchest tradition cannot undo the changes that have occurred in the country. This idea highlights the uncertainty of the country's future.

Hosna's murder and suicide reveal another important theme of this allegory, which is Sudan's complicity in their colonization and the conflict between complicity and rebellion, which again suggests the uncertainty of this transitional period. The villagers seek to cover up Hosna's crime and make an implicit pact never to speak about what actually happened. But if Hosna murdering her new husband becomes a metaphor for the continued influence of colonialism, then the villagers have become complicit not in preserving tradition, but rather in hiding the crimes of colonialism. The fact that the theme of complicity runs through the novel reinforces this idea. The former Mamur says that the English "sowed hatred in the hearts of the people for us, their kinsmen, and love for the colonizers, the intruders" and "they will direct their affairs from afar...because they have left behind them people who think as they do" (Salih, 53). Mustafa Sa'eed argues that "the schools were started so as to teach us how to say "Yes" in their language" (Salih, 95), again highlighting the importance of complicity. Even Mustafa Sa'eed is suggested to be complicit. An Englishman says that Mustafa "played...an important role in the plottings of the English in the Sudan during the late thirties. He was one of their most faithful supporters" (Salih, 56). Although this statement is clearly not true, it does call into question Mustafa's rebellion. Although he takes revenge against the English for colonialism, he uses the metaphor of colonialism in his relationships with women in order to accomplish this end. Thus, perhaps he arguably becomes complicit in sustaining colonialism. This complicated problem becomes an allegory for post-colonial Sudan and the ways the country perhaps maintains the vestiges of colonialism through complicity is impossible to avoid.

Looking at the whole of the novel as an allegory can also explain the strange mirrored relationship of Mustafa Sa'eed and the narrator. The narrator cannot forget Mustafa Sa'eed, just as Sudan cannot forget its colonial past. He states that "Mustafa Sa'eed has, against my will, become a part of my world...a phantom that does not want to take itself off" (Salih, 50). But the relationship between the two characters becomes more than suggested here, and they ultimately become doubles of a sort. For example, there are many parallels between the two characters. They both study in England, only to return to Sudan. When Mustafa dies, he puts the narrator in charge of his wife and children, suggesting that the narrator has effectively taken Mustafa's place. The narrator even begins to fall in love with Mustafa's widow. Probably the most telling scene, however, is when the narrator walks into Mustafa's secret room and thinks that he sees Mustafa, but in fact he finds himself "face to face with [himself]," staring into a mirror. Scenes such as this highlight the parallels between the two characters. If considered part of the national allegory, this mirroring suggests a connection between the colonial past, represented by Mustafa Sa'eed, and Sudan in transition, represented by the narrator. Just as the narrator cannot escape Mustafa Sa'eed, neither can Sudan escape its colonial past. The similarities between the two characters perhaps even suggest that life in Sudan has not changed much since the time of colonialism and that the possibility of returning to the past is uncertain.

The end of the novel also ultimately reveals Sudan's uncertain future. Again the parallels between Mustafa Sa'eed and the narrator are highlighted, as both characters end up in the Nile river. Although Mustafa drowns, the narrator survives. But he is left, as Makdisi describes, "trapped between north and south and east and west, his screams for help...absorbed by the immensity of the Nile" (Makdisi, 810). Makdisi argues that the novel "lacks any firm conclusion or resolution" (Makdisi, 815). Although the narrator survives, just as Sudan survives, we do not know how this future occurs. Considering national allegory can provide a reading of the parallel fates of Mustafa and the narrator. On one hand, Mustafa dies, and with him colonialism dies. And yet, just as colonialism continues to have a lasting influence, so too does Mustafa's memory remain alive, creating an uncertain future for the independent Sudan. The narrator's fate makes this future even less uncertain, depicting Sudan as trapped between worlds and floundering, thus ending the national allegory with no sense of closure or direction.

Season of Migration to the North can thus be seen as a complicated national allegory for the fate of Sudan. The lives of the two main characters represent Sudan in different periods. Mustafa represents a colonial Sudan, whereas the narrator represents Sudan in transition between colonialism and independence. Ultimately, the work as a whole should be viewed as a national allegory, representing Sudan's struggles involving the clash between tradition and progress as well as how the country faces the vestiges of colonialism. Finally, the parallel between Mustafa Sa'eed and the narrator suggests a parallel between colonialism and the transition to independence, that the two are perhaps not so different and thus that the fate of Sudan is left open and unresolved. National allegory is useful in this analysis because it provides an interpretation of the both the characters and the work as a whole. Although national allegory is controversial when applied to the entire body of "third-world literature," it can be a useful paradigm, especially in countries that are in transition and whose futures are uncertain, just as Sudan's was when Tayeb Salih wrote Season of Migration to the North.

References:

Ahmed, Aijaz. "Jameson's Rhetoric of Otherness and the "National Allegory." Social Text 17 (1987): 3-15.

Makdisi, Saree S. "The Empire Renarrated: "Season of Migration to the North" and the Reinvention of the Present." Critical Inquiry 18.4 (1992): 804-820.

Jameson, Frederick. "Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism." Social Text 15 (1989): 65-88.

Johnson, Amy J. "Sudan: Omduran and Reconquest, 1881-1898." Encyclopedia of African History, Volume 1. Ed. Kevin Shillington. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2005. 1490-1492.

Nwaubanl, Ebere. "Sudan: Mahdist State." Encyclopedia of African History, Volume 1. Ed. Kevin Shillington. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2005. 1492-1493.

O'Collins, Robert, and Francis M. Deng. The British in the Sudan, 1898-1956. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1984.

Salih, Tayeb. Season of Migration to the North. New York: Michael Kesend Publishing, Ltd., 1989.

Seikaly, Samir. "Season of Migration to the North: History in the novel." Tayeb Salih's Season of Migration to the North: A Casebook. Ed. Mona Takieddine Amyuni. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1985. 135-141.