On Absentee Parenting
For Whom,
Araap Musee
How a country learned to subcontract its children — and was astonished by what came back.
We begin where the man ends.
Kiptangus stands at the lip of a grave dug into the red earth of the home his father built, and he finds that he cannot weep. The eulogy is being read, and he listens to it the way one listens to a stranger’s curriculum vitae. The list is impressive. School fees never once late. A permanent house, tiled and wired and fenced. Twelve head of grade cattle. A title at the church and another at the cooperative, each earned across thirty years of mornings that began before the sun. The mourners under the white tent nod. It is a fine summary of a successful man.
And it is, Kiptangus understands with a cold that has nothing to do with the morning, an invoice. Every line is a payment. The eulogy for his father is a statement of account, because provision is the only thing anyone gathered here can truthfully say of him. Ask them what the man laughed at, what he feared in the dark, what he believed when no one was funding the belief, and the tent would fall into a silence longer than the prayers.
This is the answer to the question the man shouted his whole life without ever knowing it was a question. For whom, Araap Musee, for whom — for this. For a son who can recite his assets and not his character. He chased life so hard, so far, for so long, that he became, to his own blood, a line of credit with a face.
He became, to his own blood, a line of credit with a face.
Then the phone vibrates against Kiptangus’s thigh, through the dark wool of the funeral suit. He does not need to look. He knows the sender. It is the bursar at his own son’s boarding school, reminding him that second-term fees fall due on Friday. Three generations stand at this graveside: the man being lowered into the soil, the man standing over him, and the boy at home with the house help who will, in his turn, stand exactly here. The cycle is not a theory Kiptangus once read in a newspaper. It is buzzing in his pocket, live, over his father’s open grave.
To understand how a man comes to bury a stranger and call him father, we must walk backward — past the title and the cattle and the tiled roof — all the way to the ninety days.
Because ninety days is all his mother was ever given. The law calls it mercy: three months of maternity leave, fully paid, and then the salary that built this house required her back at her desk in Nairobi. Her husband, by the same law, was granted two weeks. When that lopsided arithmetic was once challenged in court as discrimination, the judges upheld it, ruling that the mother’s three months and the father’s fortnight were not unequal but merely different in purpose. So let us be clear about what the statute itself has decreed: the mother is the one who stays, and the father is the one who returns to chasing life. The absent man on the touchline is not a failing the law regrets. He is the law’s own design.
And the mother? She is a teacher, a secretary, a clerk at a counter. On the ninetieth day she faces a choice that is not a choice. Keep the infant at her breast and lose the post that pays the rent and the fees, or surrender the infant and save the overtaxed payslip. There is no third door. She does not hand her baby to a stranger because she is cold. She hands him over because the alternative is hunger, and she has run the figures a hundred times in the dark.
The stranger she hands him to is Tina, and Tina is ten years old.
Tina left a classroom in Kakamega she will not see again, the tenth of eleven children in a homestead where subtracting one mouth and adding five hundred shillings a month is not cruelty but survival. A blessing, her parents call it, and inside the brutal logic of their poverty they are not wrong. She was released the way you release a heifer to a buyer: as relief. So a child of ten is set to raise a child of one, in a city she cannot name, for a wage that flows past her to Kakamega and never once rests in her own small hands.
The household that took her knows she is ten. It does not blink, because in the transactional home the only question ever asked of labour is its price, and a ten-year-old is the cheapest formation money can buy. The law forbids her very presence in that kitchen — no child under thirteen may be employed, and the Constitution promises her a desk in a free school instead of a sink in a stranger’s house. But the statute was drafted for factories and chimneys, and it left a hole the exact shape of a home: there is no minimum working age for domestic service at all. The one sector that swallows children like Tina by the thousand is the one the law forgot to guard. She is, at once, illegal and unprotected. And the men who understand this act in the cold confidence of impunity, because the courts, by the country’s own admission, almost never come.
I will not narrate what is done to her. To dramatise it would be to join the crowd that uses her. It is enough, and it is the whole indictment, to say it plainly: a ten-year-old girl, slapped by an exhausted mistress and exposed to far worse by men who have correctly calculated that no one is counting, is the instrument by which a Kenyan household manufactures its “family values.” The same household that will scrub its son clean on Sunday and deliver him to a pastor to be lectured on purity, while the child in its kitchen is violated on Tuesday.
This is the first hand that forms Kiptangus, and from it he learns, before he can speak, the foundational lesson of his class: that the closest bond is a contract, and contracts lapse. Tina will be gone by his second birthday, poached by a neighbour for three hundred shillings more, and another stranger will take her place, and another after her. By two he is at a daycare that opens before dawn and closes after dusk, spending more waking hours in institutional keeping than in the company of the two people who made him.
And here a quiet amputation is performed. Tina spoke Luhya; the girl who replaced her spoke Kamba; his parents perform their class in English. So Kiptangus never receives his grandmother’s tongue, and this matters far more than sentiment. The mother tongue was the cable along which the proverbs travelled, the riddles, the stories told at the fire, the entire moral grammar of the ridge. Sever the cable and “family values” have no wire on which to arrive. Kiptangus is not raised without values. He is raised without the means of ever receiving his own people’s.
At six the metal trunk is packed for the first time — far too early, and not out of any necessity — and Kiptangus is sent away to board at Kapsimotwa Preparatory School, where he will live out the whole of Class One through Class Eight. From the age of six, home is no longer the place he lives. It is the place he visits in the holidays. His de facto parents are now teachers with sixty other children in the class — underpaid, overworked, and frequently fighting undisclosed battles of their own — paid to teach arithmetic yet silently expected to manufacture men, torn between pedagogy and parenting, with the time, the means and the authority for none of it. No teacher, however gifted, can raise the character of a child posted to his chalky hands by a parent he will never meet. This is where the word stops being a pun and becomes the literal arrangement. The father is no longer a parent. He is a payer. A PAyRENT: a quarterly transaction with a surname.
I must be careful here, because the dormitory is not the villain, and I would be a hypocrite to pretend it is. I was a barefoot herdsboy on the plains of Mogobich, in Kapundi, Uasin Gishu, from the age of four. I did not sit in a classroom until I was ten, at Chemenei Basic School, and I did not see the inside of a boarding house until I was eighteen, when I left the plains for Kapsabet Boys — and by then the work was already finished. My grandmother, Opot Tera — stoic, unlettered, immovable — had spent those years pressing into me the whole social, cultural and family pedagogy of our people, so that the school which received me at eighteen got a man already made and merely educated him. That is the distinction the modern parent has mislaid. The danger was never the boarding school as such; it is the age at which the child is surrendered, and whether anyone troubled to form him first. The smallholder who sells a cow to send a fourteen-year-old to Kapsabet is making a sacrifice, and surrendering a child whose character is already set. The urban professional who boards a six-year-old whom no one has yet formed is making a convenience, and handing the institution a blank slate to become the boy’s only maker. The first is sacrifice. The second is disposal, dressed in a good school badge. The villain is not the school. It is the provider-script: the inherited conviction, half missionary and half migrant-labour economy, that a father’s entire duty is the fee, and the rest will see to itself.
What scraps of his conscience the school does not claim are handed to the chapel and the holiday camp. The men entrusted with his character are chaplains and camp preachers who theorise about chastity and purity in a register that has never once met the realities of that house or this decade. Formation, like laundry, has been outsourced to a vendor with no knowledge of the facts.
From Kapsimotwa he passes, on the strength of his marks, to Alliance High School, Form One to Four — the most coveted gate in the republic, and another four years away from anyone who shares his blood. And on the visiting day the script stands fully exposed, because the visiting day is, in practice, mothers’ day. It is the mothers who come — stretched, overworked, and present nonetheless — while the fathers are away chasing life. For whom, Araap Musee? For the very boy you are not visiting.
At thirteen or fourteen, somewhere in this same stretch, Kiptangus is also sent to the Menjo. Among us Nandi, the seclusion was never about what the body endures there — of that we do not speak, and need not. It was the red line drawn across a life, the crossing from boyhood to manhood, and the men who walked a boy over that line mattered more than anything else in it. I went to the Menjo at nineteen, old enough to understand exactly what I faced and what was being asked of me. The Motiriot, the teacher who received us, was a revered man, a mentor in what it meant to belong. What was endured was the least of it. The teaching was the whole.
What is delivered to the Menjo today is a boy of thirteen who cannot follow a sentence in his own mother tongue, who hears the word Suiyee and cannot tell whether it names an animal, an object, or some craft come down from the sky. He is pushed across into “manhood” by a Motiriot who is, at his best, half-inebriated through most of it — haggard, unkempt, foul-mouthed — and we have talked ourselves into believing that this man, uncultured as he is, is the cure for the father who was never there. He is not. A drunk teacher cannot bestow what a present father failed to give. And here is the whole bitter sum of it: this country has a great many fathers. It has very few dads.
This country has a great many fathers. It has very few dads.
By now the dormitory is Kiptangus’s family and the television is his elder. He has not lived inside a real household since the age of six, so the only family he has ever studied at close range is the one on the screen, and the values he carries are therefore soap-opera values: the melodrama, the theatrical betrayals and reconciliations, the wealth forever mistaken for love. Over all of this settles the most toxic layer of them all. The men broadcast as the nation’s winners are politicians flaunting an opulence with no visible labour behind it, hurling insults at one another, and being rewarded for both with power and applause. From them Kiptangus absorbs the true national syllabus of success: not work but theft rebranded as hustle, not restraint but volume, not service but self. The farmless thieves who steal with a pen are not the cautionary tale. They are the men he watches winning, nightly, in colour.
Then Pwani University, and one more move away — though by now the move means nothing, for there is no home to leave. He is handed his degree in his early twenties, fully formed: by Tina and the house helps who followed her, by Kapsimotwa, by Alliance, by the chaplain and the screen, and by not one single person who loved him.
This is no figure I have invented. I once shared a corridor at the Technical University of Munich with a fellow Kenyan, a young man reading for his doctorate. He had been handed to day-care at two, to kindergarten at four and five, to boarding from six to thirteen, to high school until seventeen, and to university at eighteen — the full length of the conveyor, without a single gap. When I met him he was twenty-nine, near the summit of everything his schooling had promised, and he told me, quite without drama, that he had never known his parents. The very people who should have given him his mother tongue, his family’s values, his respect and his honour and his integrity, were strangers to him; he met them at his graduations, and each time they went their separate ways once the photographs had been taken. I set this down because it is the rebuttal to the only defence the system has left — that the results speak for themselves. They do: the conveyor does not fail to produce achievers. It produces achievers who never knew their parents, and files that under success.
Let me say plainly where I stand in all this, because I have refused it, and the refusal is what taught me how rare the option is.
Ednah and I decided early that we would keep no house help. I had been that barefoot herdsboy; she had been a house help herself after high school. We both knew, in the body, what it costs to be the child pulled out of class to raise someone else’s. We would not become the obstacle between another Tina and her schoolroom. But I will not dress this as pure virtue, because it was not. We could refuse only because we had somewhere to refuse into — our children could go to their grandmothers, and now and then a mature, post-school relative could come and stay with us. We still held a fragment of the village in our hands. That is the whole point, and the bitter one. We made a choice that most Kenyan parents simply cannot make. The system has bulldozed the village and now demands that each family rebuild it single-handed, from nothing, in a rented flat in a city, and only the fortunate few who kept a grandmother within reach can answer the call.
And the wider community has not merely shrunk; it has switched sides. On the plains where I herded, a boy idling when he should have been minding the cattle could expect correction from any adult who passed, for the discipline of the village was a single shared instrument and no one thought it an intrusion. Today, let a stranger so much as caution a child kicking his ball through a neighbour’s window, and Mama Kamamii descends — not to thank him, but to shriek that he is molesting her child. The village has not only stopped raising other people’s children; it now guards its right to raise none. Society has appointed itself spectator, and looks on, arms folded, while the family is dismantled by its subcontractors.
This is the scourge, and it is not located in any single handoff. It is in the architecture. The old village distributed the care of a child among the committed: many hands, overlapping, accountable to one another, sharing a tongue and a code. The modern chain distributes that same care among the contracted: every hand present, and not one of them committed — the ten-year-old, the daycare, the pastor, the overstretched teacher, the glowing screen.
Every hand present, and not one of them committed.
Kenya has industrialised the outsourcing of formation, and then it stands astonished at the output. But commitment is the one input that no invoice can buy, and it was always the only one bearing any load.
So we return to the graveside, where Kiptangus stands over the man who provided everything and was present for nothing, his own phone buzzing with the fees of the son he is raising in the identical way. He came to mourn and found he could only audit. The cycle does not need a villain; it needs only a busy generation that mistook provision for presence, and a statute that blessed the mistake. Kiptangus will go home from this funeral, and he will pay the bursar on Friday, and one Saturday years from now he will stand on a school touchline, the only father among the mothers, and shout at a sky that does not answer.
For whom, Araap Musee.
For whom.
No comments:
Post a Comment