Ngugi wa Thiong’o was not always known by this name. Born in Kamiriithu, Kenya, in 1938, he was baptized as James Ngugi—a name given to him under colonial rule. However, as he became more conscious of the impact of colonization on identity, he discarded “James” permanently. Today, he is recognized as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, a writer whose works deeply explore colonialism, culture, and resistance.
James Joyce, on the other hand, was born in Dublin, Ireland, in 1882. A master of literary experimentation, he is best known for his unique use of language and modernist storytelling. Among many of his works, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man stands out as a powerful exploration of art, identity, and personal freedom. Joyce passed away in 1941, leaving behind a legacy that continues to shape literature.
Both Joyce and Ngugi examine what it means to be an artist, but their perspectives are shaped by their vastly different cultural and historical experiences. By comparing A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man with Ngugi’s Homecoming, we can see how their views on art, identity, and society both align and diverge.
The Artist as an Outsider
For Joyce, the artist is an outsider by choice. His protagonist, Stephen Dedalus, consciously distances himself from family, religion, and national identity in pursuit of artistic freedom. To him, society is a restrictive force, and true creativity requires breaking free from its expectations.
Ngugi, however, sees the European artist’s outsider status not as a rebellion but as a reflection of a fractured society. He argues that European artists often work in solitude, not necessarily by choice, but because their world has become increasingly alienating. Unlike Joyce’s Stephen, who embraces his isolation, Ngugi suggests that this detachment is more of a symptom than a solution.
The Artist’s Guiding Principles
Joyce presents the artist as someone who follows only “the laws of his own imagination.” Stephen Dedalus believes that art must be entirely personal, free from external influence. For him, true artistic expression comes from self-mastery and independence.
Ngugi acknowledges this Western ideal of artistic autonomy but challenges whether it is truly desirable. He questions whether complete isolation is the best path for an artist, suggesting that detachment from community may reflect a deeper societal issue. In contrast to Joyce’s vision of the artist as a lone genius, Ngugi emphasizes the importance of connection, arguing that artists do not exist in isolation but within the fabric of their people and culture.
Culture, Politics, and the Artist’s Role
Joyce’s artistic rebellion is deeply intertwined with Ireland’s struggle against colonial rule, religious control, and cultural oppression. His rejection of these institutions is both a personal and political act—an assertion of artistic and national independence.
Ngugi, writing from a post-colonial African perspective, takes this idea further. He sees art not just as an individual expression of freedom but as a force that carries collective responsibility. In many African traditions, storytelling, music, and literature are deeply tied to the community and liberation movements. Unlike Joyce’s artist, who often seeks personal freedom, Ngugi’s artist plays a role in shaping and serving society.
The Core Difference:
Both Joyce and Ngugi value artistic imagination and freedom. However, while Joyce embraces solitude as the price of artistic purity, Ngugi questions whether that solitude is truly necessary—or even healthy. He argues that artists have a role beyond their own self-expression: their work should serve, reflect, and connect with the people around them.
In the end, Joyce presents the artist as an independent visionary, while Ngugi recognizes that no artist exists in a vacuum. Art, in his view, is not just about the individual—it is deeply rooted in community, history, and shared struggle.