From Chris Uchenna Agbedo
Public Forum
Prof. Wole Soyinka, the Nobel laureate and literary icon, has once again stirred the waters with his recent dismissal of certain Nigerian social media users as ‘barbarians’. The term, historically laden with notions of cultural superiority, rekindles memories of past instances where Soyinka labeled dissenting voices with equally charged epithets. This term joins a historical procession of such disparaging terms as ‘moron,’ ‘imbecile,’ ‘halfwits,’ ‘besotted,’ ‘fascists,’ ‘slugs,’ ‘millipedes,’ that Soyinka has employed to stereotype dissenters of his views on topical issues.
This piece examines the evolving pattern of Soyinka’s lexicon that drives the cart of ‘linguistic barbarism,’ a narrative of stereotypical framing that has tended to characterise his discursive interactional engagements with those who challenge his perspectives. To this effect, I seek to unpack the interplay between Soyinka’s caustic discursive preferences and the cultural context of elders’ authority, how his deliberate deployment of expletives aligns with a cultural narrative that venerates the rights and privileges of the elder generation, and determine the extent to which the slender frame of anecdotal allusions to a typical Ezikeoba Igbo adage may suffice as a leverage to bear the burden of excusing the Nobel Laurate’s rhetorical excesses.
‘Linguistic barbarism,’ as a term, draws its roots from the historical notion of barbarism as framed by the Greeks, which traditionally referred to the absence of culture or civilization. When applied to contemporary language use in this context, it implies a deterioration or debasement of linguistic standards and expression. At its core, linguistic barbarism denotes a departure from established politeness that characterises normal linguistic expression, and a general erosion of the standards that traditionally govern effective communication. In the context of contemporary discourse, linguistic barbarism manifests in various forms, including but not limited to grammatical infelicities, spread of misinformation on digital platforms, coarsening of language in public dialogue, rise of soundbites, memes, and clickbait journalism. The evolutionary undercurrent of its contemporary usage underscores urgent concerns and renewed advocacy for the quality and precision of language in the face of modern communication challenges. Linguistic barbarism holds profound implications for public discourse as it challenges the effectiveness of communication in conveying complex ideas, fostering understanding, and maintaining an inclusive dialogue. The impact extends beyond individual expression to influence societal narratives, political debates, and the quality of intellectual exchanges. Iconic figures and literary giants cast in the mould of Nobel Laurate, Prof Wole Soyinka, who decry linguistic barbarism often emphasize the responsibility of individuals, particularly intellectuals, to resist its corrosive manacles of encroachment threatening to gnaw away the decent imprimaturs of thoughtful and impactful discourses. This involves upholding linguistic standards, promoting critical thinking, and actively engaging in the preservation of language as a tool for meaningful and respectful communication.
Perhaps, as a prefatory remark, it seems pertinent to state from the onset that while being celebrated for his literary brilliance and fearless critiques, Prof Wole Soyinka has faced moments where his use of uncouth language became a low point in his public discourse. The Nobel laureate, known for this peculiar linguistic trademark, had on occasions, crossed linguistic red lines, prompting reflection on the tension between passionate advocacy and the need for civil discourse, thus challenging the balance between bold expression and responsible communication. In essence, his literary prowess has been a double-edged sword, with flashes of what some might want to describe as acerbic language that tends to overshadow the substance of his arguments. In an era where public figures are scrutinized for their words, even a literary giant like Soyinka is not immune to the consequences of rhetorical excessiveness. Acknowledging these moments of linguistic impropriety invites a clear examination of the challenges faced by public figures navigating the fine line between provocative discourse and maintaining a dignified tone. Whether directed at political adversaries or fellow intellectuals, these lapses in decorum have sparked controversy and raised questions about the appropriateness of such language from a figure of his stature. While some argue that Soyinka’s linguistic trademark is a strategic choice to emphasize the gravity of certain issues, others contend that it undermines the intellectual rigour for which he is otherwise revered. The paradox, irony, and thinly-veiled hypocrisy that define the linguistic contradiction raises compelling questions about the evolution of a critic’s language over time. Does the use of such provocative terms, once directed at critics, now diminish the clarity and impact of Soyinka’s own critiques? It invites reflection on whether this linguistic shift is a strategic choice to emphasize the gravity of the issues at hand or a departure from the intellectual rigour for which Soyinka is celebrated. The paradox serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by public figures when navigating the fine line between passionate expression and responsible discourse. It is in this regard that I seek to situate this atavistic incidence of weaving the tapestry of linguistic barbarism with ironic threads of paradox and hypocrisy, which has increasingly gained resonance and prominence in the speeches of Kongi, the Nobel Laurate by drawing from various extant historical and contemporary contexts.
Roll back to 2015 in the aftermath of the general elections, the Nobel Laurate had a cause to take refuge in the sanctuary of his well-worn track to discountenance alleged statement credited to him by an online medium, which he not unexpectedly dismissed off-handedly as “evidently one of the Internet infestations.” In his words, “anyone who believes what I am alleged to have said must be a moron – repeat, a moron…Only the mentally retarded will credit this comment attributed to me regarding the Ndigbo voting pattern in the last elections…” – (Premium Times 6 May 2015). Shortly after in 2016, Soyinka, according to Nicholas Ibekwe, came hard on Nigerians making commentaries about his threat to destroy his Green Card on social media, after Donald Trump emerged the US president-elect, describing them as meddlesome ‘slugs’, ‘millipedes’, imbeciles’, ‘barbarians’, and ‘blabbermouths’. “Barbarians are taking the opportunity of the anonymity of the Internet to take over the country,” noted the literary critic in his vitriolic best, (Premium Times 15 December, 2016). And only very recently, precisely at the 48th President’s party and his investiture as honorary member of Abeokuta Club, Ogun State, Prof Soyinka followed the well-worn trajectory of ‘linguistic barbarism’ in upping the ante in the trenchant business of draping the ‘Obidients’ in ‘barbarian’ garb, when he lamented that barbarians have taken over the social media in Nigeria. “I’m astonished and flabbergasted that people are so power-besotted that they can’t even accept the possibility that they did not win an election…As far as I’m concerned, barbarians have taken over social media and they have swapped the intellectual quotient which used to make and still make social media valid in other society.”
The foregoing contexts instantiate what I call ‘linguistic barbarism,’ which merit some critique. In this regard, I return to the typical Ezikeoba Igbo adage, which speaks to the awful privileges of the elders, art of mitigation, and culture of respectful dialogue sired by principle of reciprocity. In interactional exchanges, the words we choose not only convey meaning but also shape the dynamics of power, respect, and reciprocity. By choosing to drape anyone who disagreed with him in such pejorative terms as ‘barbarians, morons, imbeciles,’ Wole Soyinka seems to have perfected an interactional habit of justifying the awful privileges of elders implicit in an Ezikeoba adage: Ogerenyi nyukwu g’ehu n’azu, i kpo ya ‘Oluoha’ (One, in whose presence an elder farts, is duty-bound to greet the elder, ‘Oluoha’). In other words, an elder who farts in the presence of a child should be praised by the latter for the farting prowess of the former. However, the adage comes with a caveat – the ‘gbepi’ principle of reciprocity – which dictates that the elder mitigates the odoriferous sting by responding with ‘gbepi’ or ‘káà nwá m’ (I am sorry, my child). Failure of the elder in this regard questions the wisdom of his grey hairs, which perhaps predisposed him to disregard the reciprocity principle and by extension inflict violence on the culture of respectful dialogue.
Perhaps, it may be tenable to excuse Prof Soyinka’s total embrace of linguistic barbarism as a discursive choice for dealing with dissenters of his opinion on the basis of the anecdotal wisdom implicit in the Ezikeoba Igbo adage. This adage encapsulates a cultural norm of Ezikeoba that bestows elders with special rights and privileges.; suggestive of a hierarchy where the wisdom and experience of the older generation command reverence and respect from the younger ones. From this anecdotal perspective, old age invests the literary colossus with nature’s golden garland, which confers on him with some inalienable rights and privileges, including the awful right to fart freely and unabashedly in the presence of his younger one on one hand and not only circumscribe the rights of the latter to protest the offensive sting but imposes urgent requirement on them to eulogise the farting prowess of the former on the other hand. However, this seemingly curious politeness complexities implicit in the Ezikeoba Igbo proverb invites us to recognize the anecdotal caveat and reflect on the elbow it offers for the elder to engage in deeper contemplation of the principle of reciprocity. This principle impels the elder to latch on to the gbepi repair mechanism to mitigate the impact of abdominal indiscretions. The younger person who willingly acknowledges the farting dexterity of the elder by showering the latter with Oluoha greetings expects gbepi or ‘káà nwá m’ in return. However, this reciprocity principle hardly holds any attraction for the Nobel Laurate, who seems satisfied to verge at a puffy angle from his great heights of elitism. Deeply enscounced in this altitude of intellectualism, the literary giant is effectively and distantly detached from the mundane realities of life, which point unwaveringly to the wise import of gbepi and its mollifying effect as a lubricant that oils the wheel of interactional exchanges. The foregoing seems to have informed his linguistic disposition, which has remained a template for explaining the trajectory of his intermittent verbal misadventure, one that often cruises through the crest of linguistic barbarism.
The implications of linguistic barbarism invite a critique encapsulated by the Ezikeoba adage. This scrutiny unveils a paradox — the complex interplay of elder privileges and the caveat dynamics encapsulated in the adage, which Soyinka, as a literary giant adept in literary nuances, was reasonably expected to be mindful of the ‘gbepi’ repair mechanism and its implied reciprocity. The adage offers a cultural lens through which elders, despite potential misdemeanour, are granted a degree of reverence. The metaphorical act of ‘farting’ implies an uncomfortable expression, while the child’s praise signifies a recognition of the elder’s inherent respect. However, the caveat brings forth the need for a reciprocal gesture from the elder – an acknowledgment of the potential discomfort caused. Soyinka’s use of such pejorative terms to silence dissenters raises questions about the boundaries of expression, particularly for elders. While elders may enjoy certain privileges, the adage’s caveat implies that the exercise of these privileges should be accompanied by a sense of responsibility. The delicate balance lies in navigating the fine line between freedom of expression and the responsibility that comes with it. Soyinka’s unbridled language, while a manifestation of intellectual vigour, prompts a reflection on whether elders, even in their expression, should be accountable for the potential impact on those who receive their words. The adage’s call for the elder to reciprocate and show remorse introduces a crucial element — the art of mitigation. In the realm of discourse, this could translate into a more measured and tempered choice of language that acknowledges dissent without resorting to derogatory terms, thus mitigating any potential sting caused. In the metaphorical sense, the ‘odoriferous sting’ symbolises the impact of harsh language or rebuke. The adage and its caveat urge Soyinka, as an intellectual elder, to be cognizant of this impact and to engage in discourse with a mindfulness that fosters understanding rather than alienation.
As Prof Soyinka grapples with the implications of his language, the challenge is to contribute to a culture of discourse that is not only intellectually robust but also responsible. The adage’s wisdom serves as a guiding light, emphasising the need for a reciprocal approach in the exchange of ideas. His position as an intellectual elder demands a wise engagement with the rights and privileges that come with it. The Ezikeoba adage, with its admixture of praise and reciprocity, serves as a thought-provoking backdrop. As the Nobel Laurate savours the interactional rights and privileges, the invitation is to strike a balance — a balance that upholds the right to express ideas forcefully while recognizing the responsibility to engage respectfully and foster an environment where diverse voices are enabled to contribute meaningfully. The literary giant’s unbridled expression raises questions about the limits of freedom, especially for elders who often enjoy a certain latitude in their discourse. While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, the challenge lies in discerning the fine line between exercising this right and maintaining a respectful and inclusive dialogue. The Ezikeoba adage introduces a cultural nuance that suggests elders, despite potential misdemeanour, should be granted a degree of reverence. However, the paradox lies in the child’s right to feel insulted – an implicit recognition that freedom, even for elders, should not absolve one from the impact of their actions. The Ezikeoba adage implies that even in freedom, there should be accountability for the potential impact on others. The adage’s acknowledgment of the child’s right to feel insulted challenges the assumption that elders are immune to accountability. It implies that while certain allowances may be made, there should be room for the expression of discomfort and acknowledgment of potential harm caused by the elder’s actions. The adage, in essence, urges a delicate balance between freedom and responsibility. In a world where public figures wield significant influence, the responsibility to cultivate a culture of respectful and responsible discourse becomes crucial. The tension lies in maintaining the right to express opinions freely while acknowledging the potential consequences and fostering an environment conducive to constructive dialogue. As Soyinka navigates the realms of discourse, the challenge is to strike a balance — a balance between the right to express ideas forcefully and the responsibility to consider the potential implications of the chosen words. The Ezikeoba adage serves as a reminder that even in freedom, there should be a commitment to respectful engagement. In the art of interactional exchanges, finding the appropriate rhythm becomes essential for fostering a discourse that transcends mere expression to embrace understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.
In conclusion, Prof Soyinka’s proven love for ‘linguistic barbarism’ and stereotypical framing betrays an interactional paradigm of choice, which linguistic tapestry is delicately woven with threads of irony, paradox and hypocrisy. These threads are evident in the isolated instances of interactional exchanges from 2015 till date. From his lamentations for occupying the same space with ‘morons’ and ‘imbeciles,’ to dismissal of Nigerian social media users as ‘barbarians,’ the Nobel Laurate has been faithful, steadfast and consistent in perfecting the art of adding new layers to his history of appropriating pejorative terms to muscle out dissenters of some of his extreme opinions. This lexicon of stereotypical framing, laden with elitist undertones, raises pertinent questions about the nature of intellectual engagement, the impact on inclusive discourse, and the ethical responsibilities that accompany intellectual prominence. This piece sought to provoke a reflection on the role of language in shaping the contours of intellectual exchange and the quest for a discourse that embraces diversity with respect. Finally, it calls for a thoughtful exploration of how modern expressions align with cultural norms, challenging us to come to terms with the natural rights and privileges of the elders and the implicit reciprocity that creates room for constructive and respectful interactional exchanges.
• Agbedo writes from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka