“Dilemma of a Ghost” by Ama Ata Aidoo is a very significant and powerful play. This play is about a young couple who gets married without the knowledge of their family. The wife, Eulalie, is an American woman and her new husband, Ato, is an African from Ghana. The couple decides to move to Africa, in Ato’s home town. The play clearly displays cultural differences between husband and wife, and issues between Eulalie and Esi, Ato’s mother. As the play continues on, the theme of reconciliation is seen in different forms. One can see reconciliation in the difference of culture between Eulalie and her husband Ato. In addition, reconciliation is present in the relationship between Eulalie and her mother-in-law, Esi. As the play breaks down, the theme of reconciliation is clearly relevant using clear moments of understanding between cultures and characters.
The play begins in America with the joining of Eulalie and Ato. The young couple in love is going back to Ghana, Ato’s hometown. In the beginning of the play, the couple has a conversation about Africa and if they should have children. At the point, the first glimpse of reconciliation is shown. On page 244, Eulalie starts asking Ato about Africa and his culture before heading there. “… And all my people your people … Eu: And your gods my gods? Ato: Yes Eu: Shall I die where you die?” (Aidoo, p. 244). At this point Eulalie questions if Ato’s family is her family and questioning the similarities in their cultures and beliefs. This is where reconciliation is seen between cultures. Eulalie is trying to learn more about Africa before she moves there with her husband. This is a very significant part of this play. It shows the theme of reconciliation at just the very beginning.
In the beginning of Act 1, there is dialogue between two women. They are discussing children and whether or not they have them. Following this, Ato’s family floods with chaos over excitement upon his arrival. One thing leads to another and the discussion of marriage gets brought up. Ato breaks the news to his family that he is married, and the questions begin to overflood. They want to know who, what, where, when, and how. This follows another very important part of the play. Ato’s family begins to mock Eulalie’s name. “Hurere! Esi: Petu! Akyere! What does he say? The W: Hurere!” (Aidoo, p.250). This part of the play, Ato’s family is not very supportive of him and his decision to marry Eulalie. This is important because one can argue this is where it is unclear that reconciliation is transparent. Act one finishes up with the conversation about Eulalie, and her skin tone. The two women assume Nana, Ato’s grandmother, has died. After beginning to weap, the notice Nana is still there. Nana tells them to continue to weep, because her grandson has married an offspring of the slaves. This creates a confrontation between Ato and his grandmother.
127 our experts are availableright now
Act 2 again begins with the two women. The two women again bring up the idea of bearing a child. The conversation shifts about Monka. “Is not Monka the sauciest girl Born here for many years?” (Aidoo, p.253). Again the conversation continues onto the discussion of Eulalie. SHe was referred to as a “black-white woman. A stranger and a slave-” (Aidoo, p.253). After the discussion between the two women, you hear Eulalie enters the room. She has a cigarette, a bottle of coca-cola, and an ashtray. This part of the entrance sticks out because although she lives in Africa, her coca-cola and cigarettes symbolize her American roots. This entrance starts a monologue from Eulalie. The purpose of this monologue is about her lonesome. Her mother passed away, so in America she had no one. She talks about Africa, and her stereotypical thoughts. For example, she explains how she has yet to see a lion. Then she mentions his family, and how she has a certain feeling about Ato’s mother. “Ma, I’ve come to the very source. I’ve come to Africa and I hope that where’er you are, you sort of know and approve” (Aidoo, p.255).
This moment displays reconciliation for Eulalie between her and African culture. She is asking for her mother’s approval, and continue to adjust to her new culture instead of denying it. Right after this monologue, Ato approaches his wife as she gives a look of fear. They start discussing witch-hunting, and how Eulalie believes the drums she is hearing is this indeed. This moment is another point of reconciliation shortly after the monologue. Eulalie is clearly trying very hard to adapt and understand the way things work in Africa. This is reconciliation since she is adapting to his culture, and accepting it for what is it. According to Hamber and Kelly, reconciliation is defined as a significant cultural and attitudinal change. “Changes in how people relate to, and their attitudes towards, one another” (Hamber & Kelly, p. 4). This connects directly with Eulalie asking questions about Africa’s culture and drums. She is changing her attitude towards Africa, and gaining an understanding of the new culture around her.
The beginning of Act 3, is very important to remember, and significant in this play. There are two children playing hide-and-seek in the courtyard. The end up signing a song titled “The Ghost”. The song ends with “I don’t know, I can’t tell. I don’t know, I can’t tell” (Aidoo, p.257). This part of this play will be a significant argument towards whether or not reconciliation is clear in this play. The scene shifts to Ato making a sudden appearance, talking about the song and the love he had for it as a child. Two hours later, Esi makes an appearance at Eulalie and Ato’s. Ato confronts his mother to see why she is there, Esi explains her reasoning to be she is dropping of food for them since it is “almost unbuyable in the city” (Aidoo, p. 259).
This moment can be viewed as reconciliation. This is reconciliation between Eulalie and her Mother-in-Law, Esi. Eulalie is unsure why Esi brought food, and confused by it, but she thanked her anyway. This shows reconciliation for Eulalie to her mother-in-law since although this is all knew to her, she remains respectful to her new family- and is grateful for the visit and the food. Ato and his family begins to fight over Eulalie. They think she is strange, and that she has no consideration for the people around her. Ato is defending his wife as best as he can against his family. The act finishes up with Esi bashing her daughter-in-law, with no regard for what Ato is saying.
Act four starts six months into the future. The two women that make appearances are gossiping about Eulalie. The beginning of this act is very significant, and shows reconciliation between Eulalie and Ato’s family. “What a blasted mess! Well. (she shrugs her shoulders.) I suppose folks must have their customs” (Aidoo, p. 266). This quote is significant since it shows an additional point in the movement towards reconciliation for Eulalie. Eulalie clearly does not understand Ato’s family, nor customs. Yet she continues to make an effort in understanding it. This quote shows reconciliation between Eulalie and Ato’s family.
The scene continues on with the questioning from Ato’s family. They are talking about cleaning out her stomach, to help remove all the bad spirits. Ato’s family believes they are holding bad spirits from ancestors because they are controlling their birth. They are implying Ato and Esi should start a family. Instead of explaining to the family that they wish not to bring a baby into the world, Ato says nothing.
The fifth and final scene reconciliation is completely transparent. It begins with an argument between Ato and Esi. “Ha! And so you make them think I am incapable of having kids to save your own face?” (Aidoo, p. 271). Ato lacks to defend his wife, and allows his family to believe Eulalie is infertile. Ato fails to be the middle-man between his wife and his family. Eulalie gets so frustrated with Ato, she disrespects his family by calling them stupid, narrow-minded, savages, and bastards. Before she can finish her sentence, Ato slaps Eulalie very hard across the face. She holds her face, and the blackout starts.
The 2 women again make an appearance, judging the relationship between Eulalie and Ato. After this, Ato goes to his mother’s house in panic, explaining Eulalie is gone. He confesses to his mother that he slapped his wife across the face. “Esi: (exclaims coolly and nods her head) Is that it? (She paces round then turns to Ato.) My child, and why should your wife say this about us? Ato: I do not know” (Aidoo, p. 273). This is the moment where reconciliation unravels between Esi and her feelings towards Eulalie. Esi explains to her son, that he never knows anything. Their argument goes back to the topic of having a child where Ato finally confesses they are not pregnant by choice, not infertility. “No stranger ever breaks the law … (long pause)” (Aidoo, p.274). It becomes clear to Esi that her son is the blame for this, not Eulalie. How could Eulalie have done something wrong, without knowing what is right.
Ato fails to mend the relationship between his wife and family. Also, between his wife and culture. “Acknowledging the hurt, losses, truths and suffering of the past. Providing mechanisms for justice, healing, restitution or reparation and restoration (including apologized if necessary and steps aimed at redress)” (Hamber & Kelly, p. 4). According to Hamber and Kelly, acknowledging the hurt and the past is part of the definition of reconciliation. “There is a short silence, then clearly to Eulalie. Come, my child” (Aidoo, p.275). Esi is acknowledging what is happening between her and her daughter in law, and gives a step in the right direction by telling her to “come, my child”. This moment alone is reconciliation between the two characters.
All of these connections in the play, add up to the interpretation of reconciliation. It is evident the theme of reconciliation is shown throughout the play, and wrapped in the context of it as each act continues on. Reconciliation is an important theme in this play because there are critics who do not agree with this. While some may say reconciliation is not present in “Dilemma of a Ghost”, other will say the theme of reconciliation is transparent in this play. Two authors who disagree with the theme of reconciliation throughout the play are Lloyd W. Brown in his critique “Oral Tradition in Dilemma of a Ghost” and C.L. Innes in his critique “Motherhood in Ama Ato Aidoo’s Plays”.
On the top of page 583 in Brown’s Critique, “The dilemma tale usually poses difficult questions of moral or legal significance.” What the author means by this is that questions are usually asked, but not asked by just one party in this case. The author is talking about the 4th wall in that quote. The 4th wall in this play, according to Brown, has been broken. This is where the feature of dilemma is being utilized. It is expected the audience will take place in a debate in questions about moral or legal significance. Brown talks about this format to discuss the format Aidoo is using in this play. According to Brown, Ato plays a literal ghost. Brown considers Ato an actual ghost, who is indecisive about both worlds. “There they saw a “wretched ghost” debating with himself: he was trying to make up his mind which road he should take- the one leading to Elmina itself, or the one to the city of Cape Coast” (Brown, p.583). According the Brown, Ato is supposed to play the role of the bridge since he knows both cultures best, yet he fails in doing so.
One can agree with Brown’s point of view on Ato since it is evident that Ato is supposed to be the role of the bridge, but is unsuccessful in doing so. In act 5, when Ato explains he does not know why Eulalie would say what she did about his family, that simple phrase makes Brown’s point accurate. He never knows what to say, or when to say it, or how. Instead of being the “bridge” and mending the relationship between Eulalie and his culture/family, he never knows the answer to anything, and he fails to show each of the parties the other point of view. Although one can see where Ato fails to play the role of the bridge between his wife and family, it does not take away from reconciliation working itself through.
“We suggest that it is the process of reconciliation itself that builds stable and lasting peace” (Bar-Tal & Bennik, p. 12). Reconciliation in this play builds peace, assumably, by Esi and Eulalie gaining that connection on their own. From the beginning of the play to the end, reconciliation is a theme that worked itself out. Although Esi does not make as much as an effort as Eulalie does to reconcile at first, the two reconcile at the end of the play. This due to no help from Ato, who never does know. When Esi bring Ato and Eulalie food in act 3, this represents the love Esi wants to give her son and his new wife. Since Ato fails to mend the relationship and be the bridge, this scene ended up to be a complete mess for the two women. Two acts to follow Esi and Eulalie reconcile on their own after Eulalie’s slap in the face from her husband.
Another opposing argument of the clear theme of reconciliation is by C.L. Innes. In his critique “Motherhood in Ama Ata Aidoo’s Plays”. “The play ends abruptly and unexpected with a kind of reconciliation between Eulalie and her mother-in-law, in league against Ato after he has struck her for ‘shaming’ him infront of his family” (Innes, p.588). Innes says the ending of Aidoo’s play is a “kind of” reconciliation. Although it can be said the ending of this play was fast, it did not end abruptly. The ending of this play is not one that could be referred to as abrupt. If one is to read this play from the surface, the idea of this play ended unexpectedly would make sense. Yet when reading this play, the reader has to pay close enough attention to the little hints of foreshadowing seen throughout. Each moment where reconciliation is seen in this play, it does not jump out at the audience. It requires close attention to the plot, and attention to the shifting of the ideas and emotions.
Eulalie constantly reconcilies in this play. She is new to the culture and confused, and her husband fails to help her gain insight or knowledge. She struggles to form a relationship with her new family, yet she still reconcilies by accepting the culture and people for who they are. Esi does not reconcile, she always finds a way to say something bad about Eulalie. One example is in the beginning of the play when Esi and her family are mocking Eulalie’s name. “Hurere! Esi: Petu! Akyere! What does he say? The W: Hurere!” (Aidoo, p.250). The next moment is in Act 3 when Esi brought food to Ato and Eulalie. “Can not your wife herself go and see? AFter all, these are all women’s affairs. Or do not our masters, the Scholars, know what goes on their wives’ kitchen?” (Aidoo, p.259).
Following the comment about the wife being in the Kitchen, Esi mentions Eulalie throwing out the snails, asking her son if Eulalie’s taboo’s are now his as well. Esi clearly is not reconciling or making an effort throughout the play. Yet when Ato shows up to Esi’s house, when Eulalie is gone, Esi reconciles quite quickly. She understands Ato does not successfully build a bridge between the two. Also, she understands Eulalie can not be held accountable for her perception of his family since she is new to the culture and does not know any better. It should be noted Innes makes a strong point when critiquing the end of the play as abrupt. On the contrary, Innes point on Aidoo’s play ending fastly is evident, unfortunately.
Esi’s reconciliation happens very fast, and could have used more time. It seems as though there was no shift or effort. Esi’s reconciliation is nonexistent until her son slaps his wife Eulalie. According to Hamber and Kelly, the final moments in the play fit in the criteria of the definition of reconciliation. “Building positive relationships:Relationship building or renewal following violent conflict addressing issues of trust, prejudice, intolerance in this process, resulting in accepting commonalities and differences, and embracing and engaging with those who are different to us” (Hamber & Kelly, p. 4). Clearly, Esi does infact reconcile, but one can agree with Innes when it is stated the ending of ‘Dilemma of a Ghost” happened too fast.
According to Innes, the mother/daughter-in-law alliance is a common thread in the authors work as well. Innes uses many examples comparing “Dilemma of a Ghost” with other works by Aidoo and showing the common theme being utilized. “In two stories, ‘A Gift from Somewhere’, and ‘No Sweetness Here’, a child from whom mother bears special affection is the cause of marital anger and dissent.” Innes is using two other stories from Aidoo with the issue of an overbearing mother. He continues on to talk about another story by Aidoo titled ‘Something to Talk About on the Way to the Funeral’. “
‘Something to Talk About on the Way to the Funeral’ recounts the story of a mother who takes in the girl her son impregnates and deserts, and of the relationship between the two women: ‘Some people said they were like mother and daughter. Others that they were like sisters. Still even more others said they were like friends.’” This is significant to the argument Innes is making because it is evident that the theme of mother-daughter alliances are in other works of literature written by Ama Ata Aidoo. Like previously stated, it is a strong argument- that has its faults.
The author uses strong evidence to support the theme of mother-daughter alliances in Aidoo’s work. Though one can disagree with his critique on the play due to a lack of open mindedness. Clearly, there are multiple parts of Innes’ critique that are strong and are proven in the work itself. On the contrary, one could argue Innes’ reflection on Aidoo’s work is on the surface, with no deeper outlook. Like previously mentioned, the theme of reconciliation in “Dilemma of a Ghost” is one that requires attention. One can argue Innes did not pay close enough attention to the foreshadowing and constant moments of reconciliation seen.
Although both of these critiques have their own ideas, they have similarities as well. For starters, both of these authors agree that reconciliation is not evident in the play. However, Brown believes it is not evident due to Ato’s lack of mediation and failed attempt of being the bridge between the two cultures. Although it is evident Ato failed to be the bridge between the cultures, this did not stop reconciliation from working itself out. On the other hand, Innes believes reconciliation is not working because of the repetitive theme shown and the “imposed” ending. Again, the ending can be seen as fast but this does not stop reconciliation from working itself through.
Overall, the theme of reconciliation plays throughout Aidoo’s play. Throughout the plot, there are many connections which lead up to reconciliation. On the contrary of critiques beliefs, it is clearly argued and proven to be evident. Eulalie moved into a different culture, and country. She had a difficult transition, with no thanks to her husband. Her mother-in-law was able to come to an understanding her son was no help to the situation, and her daughter-in-law could not possibly make a mistake, if she is not aware of the rules their culture follows. All in all, reconciliation is a continuous, foreshadowed theme throughout “Dilemma of a Ghost” by Ama Ato Aidoo between culture and characters.
