The Working Class as Economic Scapegoats: An Appraisal of Sumaila Isah Umaisha’s ‘Glasshouse’
By Paul Liam
Abstract
Literature examines the sociopolitical and economic conditions of society and how they impact the overall development or underdevelopment of the people. Nigerian writers have for decades thematized the poor living conditions of ordinary people occasioned by social and economic inequalities aided by failed leadership and misgovernance. The worst and often ignored form of evil perpetuated against the working class is executed by corporate institutions. Using the framework of social realism and textual analysis this paper examines the role of corporate establishments and executives in fostering a culture of repression against the working class to achieve their economic goals. Through an appraisal of textual evidence found in Sumaila Isah Umaisha’s debut novel Glasshouse, the paper asserts that to avert the negative impact of economic meltdown and government policies on businesses, corporate actors use their employees as scapegoats through targeted retrenchment exercises designed to save cost. Furthermore, the paper argues that such inhuman corporate survival strategies compromise the dignity and well-being of employees and their families who endure psychological and emotional trauma. The paper concludes by positing that for sustainable development to be achieved the working class must be protected by laws and corporate establishments must be held accountable for their actions.
Introduction
BERTENS (2014) asserts that “literature offers the most profound insights into human nature and the human conditions that are available to us” (26). Bertens’ postulation illustrates the representative agency of literature to extricate the intricate social systems that govern human experiences and facilitate a deeper understanding of society. Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958) is an illustrative example in this regard, it offers profound insights into the traditional social structures of precolonial Igbo society. As Eagleton in Hashim (2022) notes, a “literary text is a reflection of social, political and historical contexts in which it is produced.” This presupposes that literature is a reflection of the social and political realities of a society within the historical contexts that surround their production. It can also be inferred that literature examines society and the ideologies that control the interaction between humans and the environment.
Udenta (2018) highlighting the intricate connection between literature and social reality, argues that “realism is the adopted ideoaesthetic mode of narration in contemporary Nigerian fiction” (79). This simply implies that the fulcrum of contemporary Nigerian fiction is premised on the representation of the social realities of Nigeria. This understanding is based on the precepts of Marxism. Thus, Udenta makes a case for the imperative of Marxism as the theoretical basis for any worthwhile inquisition into the nature of contemporary Nigerian fiction. Consequently, it is based on the foregoing that this essay attempts a social realist reading of Sumaila Isah Umaisha’s Glasshouse with a special focus on examining the intricate representation of the socioeconomic and political dilemmas faced by the working class in a capitalist driven social economic order.
Sumaila Isah Umaisha’s novel Glasshouse (2022) is set against the background of the existential and socioeconomic challenges bedeviling Nigeria’s development. The protracted crisis of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and economic meltdown continues to strangulate socioeconomic development forcing many businesses to cut down on their expenditures and citizens calling for prudence in the management of the country’s resources. This situation was made worse by the government’s abrupt deregulation of the oil sector and removal of fuel subsidies leading to unprecedented inflation and high cost of living. As a result, several businesses shut down because they could no longer sustain their operations. This dire situation was caused by the poor economic policies of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari which was inherited by the new government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who upon assumption of office on May 29, 2023, declared the removal of fuel subsidy even before setting up an economic team that would manage the economic policies of the country, further plunging the nation and citizens into deeper economic woes. It is against this premise that the management of “Major Farm”, a giant fictional agricultural-based company located in Kaduna resolves to cut down on their operational experiences. It is either Major Farm managers take the drastic decision of restructuring or face the inevitable doom that awaits them ahead so the chairman, Alhaji Abubakar Saleh during a management meeting mandates the farm’s managing director Mr. Bulus to take charge in deciding what is best for the farm.
Before exiting the meeting, the chairman set the context of the situation by positing thus: “‘The new government’s economic policies portend a recession. With the increase in fuel prices, for instance, everything will go up in price. And the situation will eventually bear down on our operations. We must, therefore, take precautionary measures that would enable us to roll with the punches…’” (17-18). Alhaji Saleh’s remark reflects the threats to businesses posed by government policies which is the current situation in Nigeria. It also set the fire that would threaten the livelihoods of the poor workers of Major Farm, sending a wave of confusion and scheming among the workers in a bid to survive the axe of retrenchment. It is, however, the contributions of members of the management team that are instructive to this appraisal, they provide constructive insights into the nature of corporate management systems and how such systems are designed to work against the interests of the worker. The Marketing Manager, Isah Danjuma is the first to speak, he highlights how the company had previously increased prices twice on all their products in the last three months. He further argues that because prices are a strong deciding factor in a competitive market, a new price increase was out of the question. Danjuma asserts: “Therefore, a further price increase is not advisable as it might prove counterproductive to our efforts at ridding out the tide” (19). Mr. Bulus, the MD, proposes cutting down the workforce, to which Danjuma responds by saying that it is not necessary to do that. However, it is Alabi Jimoh, the accounts manager’s intervention that speaks to the core of the issue by philosophizing about the need to expedite actions in stemming the doom that awaits them if they fail to act fast. Jimoh opines that: “‘We are earning well, more than even bankers. Salaries, allowances, and bonuses have been regular. Should we wait for the recession to come and destabilize this before we turn it back? I don’t think that is wise as it would be late then’” (20).
Mr. Bulus interjects by asking whether the company should cut back on staff, to which Jimoh responds by saying, “Hard choices must be made ‘” (20). He then adds that: “It may sound callous, but that is a reality we cannot run away from. Half measures cannot fix the impending problem. Of course, would be nice to keep the entire staff. But let us not forget, there will be a price to pay” (20). The MD agrees with Jimoh’s treatise about saving costs by cutting back on staff rather than counting down on the salaries of management staff. Obiora, the GM, however, expresses reservations about Jimoh’s suggestion arguing that putting people out of jobs was not the best solution to the problem. He further argues that farming requires many hands and laying off staff would compound the company’s productivity and goes ahead to propose alternative measures: “We can explore the other alternatives. A marginal increase in prices won’t be a bad idea. We could also put off some of the projects and cut back on operations that have no direct bearing on income generation. This is my view” (21). This suggestion doesn’t go down well with Mr. Bulus. He ends up setting up a retrenchment committee to be chaired by Jimoh, with the mandate to develop modalities for ‘releasing ten percent of workers across the board’.
By portraying the internal dynamics of corporate institutions, Umaisha highlights the greed that often influences corporate decision-making processes which are always tilted towards favouring the management team and comprising the workers. The implication of the above references is to demonstrate that in the face of visible alternative measures, corporate organizations insist on retrenchment as the most viable means of cutting back on operational costs. Even in the face of superior reason such as advanced by Obiora, corporate lords like Jimoh insist on laying off staff. It is always about the selfish desire to retain their salaries to sustain their luxurious lifestyles while the worker who does the actual labour suffers in pain barely able to take care of his family. Below, I shall examine the broader implications of Umaisha’s textualization of oppressive conditions of the working class.
Struggle for power and economic control
UMAISHA’S representations above highlight the power struggle between the elite class and the working class. Members of the elite class whether in corporations or governance speak against the interest of the members of the working class. For example, it would cost less to nothing to adopt Obiora’s suggestion of exploring alternative means rather than laying off staff, but Jimoh expressing the sentiments of corporate greed kicks against this suggestion and is subsequently appointed as the chairman of the retrenchment committee to protect the interest of the organization and its management team. What is also striking is the seeming powerlessness of the working class who are often excluded from decision-making progress because their opinions don’t matter. It is this type of social anomaly; the imbalance in power relations in society that drive writers like Umaisha to produce textual responses that seeks to interrogate the rationale behind such social norms. Egya puts it better when he opines that: “Writers, if we look closely since the classical period, are naturally among those who pride themselves as being antagonistic to all kinds of oppression. They interrogate the establishment, and social norms that, in their views, contravene the ideals of humanity” (19). Egya’s position essentially encapsulates the imperative of Umaisha’s representation, it is an interrogation of corporate oppression of the working class by corporate and government establishments.
They are made to rely on intermediaries, the benevolence of conscientious members of the elite class who have attained the same social status to be fit to speak among their peers, and to advocate on their behalf about issues that affect their development. Capital institutions or corporations seen the worker as a burden rather than an integral resource critical to the actualization of their goals. This explains the disregard accord to workers in the text. For instance, the Farm Manager, Abdulwaeed Ojo in defense of the workers had enthused: “We should be thinking in terms of getting more hands to push up production rather than sacking the very people that draw in the money we are trying to save. You don’t solve a problem with another problem. And I see this action as a mistake that will not take long before we start counting the cost…” (73). In response, Mr. Bulus chides him for speaking up for the workers: “Don’t derail the meeting, please. We have passed the stage of considering whether downsizing is necessary or not. You weren’t at the meeting when this was discussed, but I’m sure you are aware the committee’s assignment is to find modalities for the exercise. Please, don’t draw us back” (73). Mr. Bulus’ hard stance suggests that the workers don’t matter in the equation of things, they are disposable assets, scapegoats only useful for securing their interests and ensuring the company’s maximizes profit to the detriment of the people responsible for making the money.
Another instance of the glaring disregard for the dignity of the workers in the text is captured in the committee’s secretary, Zaynab’s explication of Jimoh’s contemptuous disposition towards the workers. Zainab reports that at one of the committee’s meeting, Jimoh had proposed that “lucky dip” should be used to determine the workers that should be retrenched from the company’s employment. Zainab opines: “he said we should decide the fate of each staff by the toss of a coin; head for sack and tail for retain” (72). This action manifests the disdain with which most corporate executives’ holder their employees. It explains why in the face the wanton suffering and hunger in the land, federal and state governments offer food palliatives rather than strengthening economic systems that will empower the citizens live dignified life. The political elites budget billions of dollars for their expenditures while frowning at the Nigerian Labour Congress’ demand for a new wage that reflect economic realities of the working class. The rich are content as long as the working class remain impoverished and incapable of demanding for accountable governance.
Members of the working class are therefore in a constant struggle for power and economic control with the elite class albeit without knowing that they compete for economic resources. Their oppressors are determined to ensure that they remain perpetually suppressed. Umaisha by textualizing the relations between workers and corporate elites takes both a political and critical position in the sense that his representation is a critique of the social injustice created by economic and social inequalities obtainable in the society. He seems to invite the reader to examine the relationship between the ruling class and the proletariat who conditioned by social restrictions are always at the mercy of their employers. Bertens (2014) provides a more elucidating thought on this assertion when he posits that: “Literary texts always have a political dimension in the sense that on closer inspection they can be shown to take specific stances with regard to social issues, either through what they say or through what they do not say—through the elision of certain things or topics” (97). Umaisha’s textualization of the repressive conditions of the working class in juxtaposition with the fascist corporate elites in the Glasshouse is an admittance of taking a political stance.
The working class as economic scapegoats
THE point has already been made with regards to how corporate elites are ever willing to compromise the well-being of the working class to achieve economic sustainability. Umaisha’s representation of this reality can be understood from the strong opposition that greets the various considerate attempts by Obiora, Zainab, and Ojo to dissuade other members of the Major Farm management team led by Mr. Bulus and Jimoh from carrying on with the retrenchment of workers as the only solution to averting the company from going into recession. Why is it difficult for Mr. Bulus and Jimoh to realize the inimical implications of their actions on the economic, psychological, and emotional well-being of the workers even in the face of less vindictive alternatives? Umaisha’s portrayal accentuates the greed of corporate establishments driven by profit maximization.
It also reinforces the notion of this exercise that the working class in most contexts are regarded as tools of production employed by capitalists to accelerate their ascension to wealth. And when the chips are down, they are used as economic scapegoats to save companies from imminent collapse. Cutting back on staff is considered the most economically viable means to cut down on operational expenditure. However, the staff who survive such corporate attrition are not safe either as they invariably inherit the workload and duties of their former colleagues without commensurate remuneration. It is akin to slavery where the slave works for odd hours to enrich his master in exchange for meager food just enough to keep him alive. In worst-case scenarios, they owned salaries for months while the elites and their offspring luxuriate in opulence. The children of the elites attend the best schools while the slave workers struggle to raise half-witty children who end up competing for the same economic opportunities as the better-educated children of their oppressive slave masters. The cycle of poverty of the working class never ends, it continues sometimes for several generations.
Another angle in Umaisha’s depiction of the class struggle in the text is the intra-class struggle among the working class who fight one another to remain or favoured in the house of oppression. For example, the news of the retrenchment on Major Farm leads to a deluge of confusion and scheming among the workers in a bid to survive the retrenchment exercise. Habu and Garba go as far as seeking the service of a marabout to invoke spiritual protection to save them from being fired. Paradoxically, while struggling to save themselves, Garba and Habu imply that they would rather contend with their colleagues losing their means of livelihood. This suggests that the disempowered worker is susceptible to greed and self-preservation while the elite class often speaks for the collective. For instance, in all of Jimoh’s aggressive advocacy for retrenchment speaks for the need for the management to maintain their salaries and bonuses which he says is better than those bankers. The working class however are incapable of collective reasoning and action. Why are Garba and Habu not able to seek spiritual protection for all the workers on Major Farm but for themselves alone since this could have been an option if indeed the marabout had the power to save them? This depiction indicates the mental poverty social dislocation inflicts on the citizen disabling him or her from taking rational actions in the best interest of their kind.
Umaisha’s portrayal of the workers’ determination to keep their jobs at all costs reveals the social strife that forces people to embrace whatever means of survival that is available to them even if it is shrouded in indignities. On hearing about the news of the proposed job cuts by the management of Major Farm, workers who were on sick leave, maternity, and annual leave all abandoned their leaves to return to work as survivalism set in. The narrator relays that: “The situation was so tense those on sick leave had cut it short and resumed work, while those on annual and maternity leave frequented the office” (32). The irony of the workers’ eagerness to save their oppressive jobs is that some of these corporations were built with embezzled public funds by corrupt individuals whose efficient leadership in public service should have provided better wages and economic opportunities for the workers. Major Farms happens to be one of such enterprises set up by public servants who kidnap the commonwealth of the people to develop industries where ordinary people are further exploited. The owner of Major Farm, Alhaji Ahmed, and five others were indicted by the Financial Crime Commission for embezzling public funds which he had concealed by entrusting the management of the affairs of the farm to a proxy, his best friend and business associate, Alhaji Saleh who fronts as the owner of the farm. This further shows the unity of the elites in shortchanging the poor masses and the country. one friend steals the money and transfers it to his friend to front as a legitimate business and they thrive together until their crime is discovered. But the proletariats are more often than not incapable of uniting to achieve a common goal unless instigated or championed by a truant member of the elite class. This is the nature of the sociopolitical and economic realities remarkably thematized by Umaisha in the Glasshouse.
Conclusion
UMAISHA’S Glasshouse is a scathing commentary on the dysfunctional sociopolitical and economic realities of Nigeria. It currents of realistic reflections are ever present today as it was ten years ago. It projects the dehumanizing conditions of the workers and the greedy machinations of the ruling elites problematized through their acolytes acting as executives in various public-funded private corporations scattered across the length and breadth of Nigeria. Thus, this paper has attempted to establish the parallelism between the textual representations in Umaisha’s work and the social reality by highlighting the commodification of the working class confined to the servitude of capitalist corporations. Therefore, to achieve an egalitarian society, all the stakeholders including the government must resolve to promulgate and implement laws that must ensure the protection of the rights, dignity, and economic agency of the working-class people of Nigeria. Corporations must be stopped from further exploiting the vulnerable folks whose only crime is that they belong to the underprivileged socioeconomic ladder of society.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart, William Heinemann Ltd, London, 1958.
Bertens, Hans. Literary Theories: The Basics, third edition. Routledge, New York, 2024.
Egya, Sule E. Power and Resistance: Literature, Regime and the National Imaginary. Sevhage Publishers, Makurdi, 2019.
Hashim, Nasir. “Postmodernity In Umaisha’s Glasshouse.” Leadership Newspaper. 2022, https://leadership.ng/postmodernity-in-umaishas-glasshouse/#google_vignette. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Udenta, O. Udenta. Crisis of Theory in Contemporary Nigerian Literature and the Possibilities f New Materialist Direction. Kraft Book Limited, Ibadan, 2018.
Umaisha, Sumaila Isah. Glasshouse. Kraft Books Limited, Ibadan, 2022.
* Liam, writer and culture critic, is a postgraduate student of the Institute of Strategic and Development Communication, Nasarawa State University, Keffi
