Things Fall Apart Essay Teaser

Thesis: In exploring the sudden shift in plot development between the second and third parts of Things Fall Apart, Achebe seeks to address the many facets of the missionary movement of the West during the Afro-European conflict by exploring the ideological, social, and physical effects of the missionaries.

Achebe reflects the complex relationship between the Igbo and the Europeans by dividing the conflict into two parts—the first is represented in Part 2 of Things Fall Apart and the second in Part 3. Part 2 pits the Igbo against the Christian ideology, while Part 3 pits them against the aggressive European colonizers themselves. The conflict in Part 2, if it can even be called that, is more akin to a “cold struggle.” That struggle significantly effects only Okonkwo, and though Christian converts are frowned upon by the Igbo, the clan remains intact and relatively healthy. The author states, “Mr. Kiaga, despite his madness, was quite harmless. As for his converts, no one could kill them without having to flee from the clan, for in spite of their worthlessness they still belonged to the clan” (Achebe 155). This sentiment is shared by most of the clan, including Okonkwo, who wishes at most to cut Nwoye out of his life. As such, the conflict remains dormant and stagnant, illustrating the hope that Achebe places in a civil resolution. The issue in Part 3, on the other hand is succinctly summarized in Obierika’s conversation with Okonkwo:

“How do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us? The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart”

Things Fall Apart pg. 176

The second wave of Europeans exploit the clan’s vulnerability and sow seeds of discontentment, anger, hatred, and ultimately violence within the most volatile. Their aggression, highlighted by the fire-and-brimstone Reverend James Smith is a stark contrast from the sentiments displayed in Part 2.  This distinction allows Achebe to explore the entire conflict from multiple angles, refraining to speak unfavorably about the Christian ideology in Part 2 and condemning the actions of the Europeans in Part 3. Indeed, Achebe almost seems to extoll the religion of the Europeans, as shown in Nwoye’s conversion. Nwoye reflects, “The hymn about brother who sat in darkness and fear seemed to answer a vague and persistent question that haunted his young soul…He felt a relief within as the hymn poured into his parched soul” (Achebe 147). In a novel often frequented by dark themes such as death emotional turmoil, this passage provides one of the few hopeful moments the novel offers and stands out as a result.

---

This paragraph mainly serves as a segue into the main point of the essay, which argues that Achebe only begins condemning the approach of the Europeans in Part 3 through his portrayal of James Smith. Therefore, I wanted to make a distinction in the opening body paragraph which sets a clear distinction between the type of conflict in Part 2 and the type of conflict in Part 3. The conflict in Part 2 is purely an ideological one: it prompts no directly harmful action from either side, and remains calm because both sides choose to handle the matter relatively civilly. Once the Europeans change their approach in Part 3, however, the tension turns violent and the story ends abruptly. I chose the passage explaining Nwoye’s emotional turbulence leading up to his conversion because I believe that the author wanted to show the real merit of the Christian ideology, and the tone of the passage is unlike any other in the book. It is the most extreme example of the “harmlessness” of the Part 2 missionaries, and it is Achebe’s attempt to state beyond the shadow of a doubt that no ideology is inherently superior to the other, and there is value in seeing the merits of other beliefs. He makes it clear, however, that the aggressive stance of the Europeans in Part 3 is just about the worst way one can go about the ideological diffusion. The induction of James Smith into the missionaries’ church and his subsequent aggression is the root cause, Achebe says. Obierka tells Okonkwo that their trust was betrayed by “the white man…and his peaceable religion”–a sentiment felt by nearly every civilization which came under British rule. This insider perspective, I hoped, would highlight the distinction between itself and the previous claim, and allow the reader some more context for the arguments to follow.

If you guys have any suggestions on how to improve the structure, commentary, or anything else in the essay, please let me know in the comments. I always appreciate the chance to improve wherever I can.