CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Graffiti writing is an enduring practice that is regarded to be as ancient as human communication (Christen 2003; Teixeira, Otta & de Olivera, 2003; Jena 2012; Daly 2013). Teixeira et al (2003) trace the origins of graffiti to Lascaux in France (15 000 BC) and Serra da Capivara National Park in Brazil whilst Jena (2012) and Daly (2013) trace it to biblical times with reference to the writing on the wall by an invisible hand in the book of Daniel, chapter 5. They point out that in spite of its longevity, textual graffiti only got widespread recognition following its proliferation in the urban space around the 1960s and 1970s. The term graffiti can be defined in a number of ways depending on the ‘loaning’ language onwhich the definition is based. For instance, when the term is defined from the original Italian verb graffiare (‘to scratch’) the term assumes the meaning ‘little scratchings’ (Whiting andKoller, 2007:4). Whiting and Koller (2007) go on to point out that the first collection of graffiti was scratched onto glass. Noting the narrowness of this definition they go on to rightly point out that in contemporary societies graffiti is no longer just scratched. Technological advances have however seen the introduction of more effective instruments of writing graffiti such as the magic marker and the spray-can. In Nigeria most graffiti writers use simple tools such as the pen and the pencil, contrary to (Chitauro-Mawema’s (2006) observation that faces are the most used in graffiti writing. Inscriptions written with pens and pencils nevertheless have the problem of fading with time to the point of natural erasure.
When defined from its Greek root, graphein implies drawings or scribblings on flat surfaces (Whitehead, 2004). In this light, graffiti can be taken as a pictorial or written inscription on a publicly available surface. These definitions however do not capture transgressive elements associated with the practice. Graffiti writing is a practice that is referred to as a norm violation. This is because the scratching and writings are predominantly inscribed on both public and private property without permission. Resultantly, graffiti writing is mostly associated with notions of illegality and rule-breaking. In the Nigeria context, graffiti is mostly written on a wide array of surfaces which include precast and brick walls (henceforth referred to as durawalls), roadside signs, as well as inside the toilet surfaces such as on walls and toilet doors. There are, however, instances whereby some can be written on classroom walls (both interior and exterior) and corridor walls.
It is important to appreciate that textual graffiti is rarely an individual and isolated practice. In most cases walls are literally covered by contributions made by a variety of participants. Usually this may entail a situation whereby one or more participants may respond to a contribution made by other participants. This gives rise to a situation whereby individuals participate in discourse communities necessarily involving the construction and negotiation of meaning (Litosseliti, 2006). The construction of discourse brings to the fore the importance of the context in which it (discourse) is used. Context in this case is taken to include the totality of the socio- economic as well as political environment, at all the three levels. The social aspect of context can be taken to also include cultural aspects that inform the social construction of discourse as well as the structuring of power relations in and through discourse. A better appreciation of any discourse necessarily entails a consideration of contexts at local, national and international levels. The relationship and interaction of these various contexts entail that graffiti writers engage in discourse constrained by what they bring into the process of negotiation of meaning. This, therefore, means that the prevailing social and gender orders in which graffiti is constructed is important in determining its nature and essence. Participants are involved in continually negotiating and constructing discourse in accordance to the social milieu. It is then appreciated that graffiti writers are faced with a variety of options in the construction of discourse. Following Bartolomeo’s (2001) observation that there is a distinct language reserved for members of the graffiti culture that may only be acquired through participation or repeated exposure to its culture, the research submits that the making of choices by participants in graffiti is by no means haphazard. It is instead a systematic process which makes graffiti a distinct form of communication. The systematic nature of graffiti was noted by Ley and Cybriwsky (1974:491) who observed consistencies in the form, quality and location of graffiti practiced by black youths in New York and Philadelphia. Regularities are a manifestation of an underlying system governing graffiti practices. The research, therefore, is an exploration of regularities in discursive practices of Nigeria texts graffiti.
In Nigeria, graffiti is written in three major languages, namely, Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo. However, characterizing graffiti as an anonymous practice does not necessarily entail that people do not construct schemas about people who write it. The texting process might be an anonymous one, but inherent contestations of power and control over such linguistic resources as mainstream discourse involves the attribution of the practice to particular segments of society which are stereotyped to be most likely to engage in it. Therefore, the inscriptions, in this light, can be taken as representing a particular social category which screams ‘I am here, I exist, I have something to say’ (Deiulio, 1978:517). What is said can also be used to provide insights on segments of societies that are most likely to have said it.
