Language cannot be discussed outside the human context; this is because it is a universal property possessed by all humans. It is a universal means of human communication. It is an instrument of social existence, without which communication would have been completely impossible. Language is indispensable because it serves as a vehicle which conveys human thoughts, information, ideas, emotions, ideologies etc. Language is central and crucial to man, and it is the quintessential endowment that differentiates man from other animals. Language provides man a tool to enhance growth and progress. The language one speaks tells much about one’s identity with regards to where the person comes from. Not being oblivious of these magical powers of language, individuals and groups have used it persuasively to inculcate their ideologies in the minds of others, and our pen goddess, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, is one of such individuals.
Working within the tenets
of Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA), this article examines how
feminists use rhetorical strategies in their speeches to portray their identity
before their audience and persuade them into accepting their ideology. The
speech of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie delivered at the 137th Commencement
Exercises at Wellesley College, United States of America, constitutes the
primary datum for this article and is analysed using the qualitative approach.
The study reveals a conscious deployment of different persuasive strategies by
the speaker (Chiamanda Ngozi Adichie) to articulate an alternative ideology for
women whose society has subjected to playing the role of a second fiddle.
Just
as political discourse, feminist discourse is also persuasive. Feminists employ
persuasive language to make their audience accept their ideology. They often
employ emotional arguments and language to arouse the interest of the audience,
and consequently shapening their views on certain issues. Jimenez (2005, p.
209) observes that “By means of language, we shape our view of society, we
organize our knowledge; we learn new things and above all, we assimilate the norms
and social patterns of our community.”
The
analysis done in this article will centre on identifying some of the rhetorical
strategies employed by the speaker to project her identity and ideology. These
strategies are discussed below.
The Use of Anecdote/Story telling
This
is the first persuasive strategy used by Adichie in her speech. Adichie
recounts to her audience the conversation that ensued between her and “a loud,
unpleasant man” at a friend’s dinner party. The conversation was about
traditional Igbo – a custom which allows only men to break the kolanut, which
is a deeply symbolic part of Igbo cosmology. According the Adichie, the
breaking of the kolanut should be based on achievements rather than gender.
Inarguably, Adichie tells such anecdote to her audience in order to till the
ground for the implantation of her feminist ideology although she claims that
the anecdote isn’t told to illustrate her discovery of gender injustice. Such
claim only portrays Adichie as a seasoned speaker who cleverly dishes out her
message to her audience.
The use of Name as metaphor
Name
plays a significant role in the life of an individual. In traditional Africa,
it is believed that the name one bears has a way of affecting one’s existence
in life hence parents are very careful of the kind of name they give to their
children. Izevbaye (1984, p. 164) cited in Kamalu and Agangan (2015, p. 43)
argues that “Names in reality exist in a context that gives them form and
meaning. Taken out this context of social reality, names remain in atomistic
state.” Adichie, as an Igbo woman, knows the importance attached to names in
traditional Africa and Christendom, and decided to play politics with the name,
“Hillary.”
The
name, “Hillary,” is of high repute among Americans and in the world at large.
Hillary Clinton was the first lady of the United States from 1993 – 2001, and
as first lady, Hillary was an advocate for gender equality and healthcare
reform; so, it is glaring that Adichie’s description of her audience (who are
mainly females) as “Hillary” is deliberate and not for mere fanciful purposes.
There is a strong connection between her feminist ideology and the
nomenclature. And I am compelled to say that Adichie uses such name to
indirectly persuade her audience to accept her feminist ideology with open
hands. Adichie is fully aware that 80 out of 100 women will accept being
feminists if they are aware that someone of cosmic importance like Hillary
Clinton is a feminist hence her exclamation of the phrase, “Go Hillary.”
The projection of feminism as an
inclusive party
Due
to the general misconception that feminism is a “woman thing” or an ideology
that is propagated by some arrogant women who don’t intend to be submissive to
men, thereby making most men and women not to accept such ideology, feminists,
through the use of language, always try to debunk such fallacy by portraying
feminism is an inclusive party; a party opened to both men and women who share
similar ideology:
It was as
though feminism was supposed to be an elite little cult, with esoteric rites of
membership. But it shouldn’t. Feminism should be an inclusive party. Feminism
should be a party full of different feminisms...
Furthermore,
the speaker’s assertion that “men were not inherently bad or evil” but “were merely
privileged” by society is also a way of projecting feminism is an inclusive
party; a party that is not just opened to women who have decided to liberate
themselves from the unfair treatment melted against them by society, but a
party that is also opened to men who have decided to liberate themselves from
the bad and evil beings that societal privileges have turned them into. This is
further validated when the speaker urges her audience to “go out there and make
a raucous inclusive party.” Undoubtedly, these are ways of controlling the mind
of her audience to accept her feminist ideology.
The portrayal of feminism as an
ideology that is based on equity
In
order to legitimize their actions and ensure that people accept their ideology,
feminists all over the world always project feminism as an equity-based
ideology. They are of the view that what is good for the goose is good for the
gander. Of course everybody loves equity; nobody wants to be dealt with
unfairly. Not being oblivious of this ideology, Adichie, once again, uses it to
subdue the mind of her audience:
Write
television shows in which female strength is not depicted as remarkable but merely normal. Teach your students to see that vulnerability is a human rather than a female trait; commission magazine
articles that teach men how to keep a
woman happy because there are already too many articles that tell women how to keep a man happy. And in
media interviews make sure fathers are asked how they balance family and work.
In this age of “parenting as guilt”, please, spread the guilt equally. Make fathers feel as bad as mothers. Make
fathers share in the glory of guilt. Campaign and agitate for paid paternity leave everywhere in
America; hire more women where there are few, but remember that a woman you
hire doesn’t have to be exceptionally good. Like a majority of the men who get hired, she just needs to be good
enough.
In the above excerpt, Adichie
samples her professionalism in the use of language to control the minds of
others and dominate their own perspective of life. Someone who never liked the
feminist ideology will definitely have a rethink when he/she reads this.
Identifying with women in general
It is
believed that traditional African society is a patriarchal society, and as a
result, relegating women to objects rather than subjects. Having an in-depth
knowledge of such belief, feminists, although having being liberated from such
patriarchal dominance, always identify with such women while addressing them. Such
identification is not done for mere fanciful purposes but for tilling the
ground for the implantation and acceptance of their feminist ideology. Through the instrumentality of language,
Adichie tries to create a collective identity with women who have been reduced
to nothing other than objects in a society that gives more privileges to men
than women: “I already knew that the world does not extend to women the many small courtesies that it
extends to men”. She uses the plural noun, “women,” to include herself in the
class of women who are victimized by societal constructs. This is a rhetorical strategy employed by the
speaker to invoke the feeling of pity in her audience to her and women in
general, and consequently legitimizing her action.
The use
of pronominal
Kamalu (2013, p. 70) observes
that pronominal referencing is strongly used in discourse to index group
alignment or alienation and identity. On their part, Simpson and Mayr (2010, p.
13) cited in Kamalu (2013, p. 70) opine that pronominal/pronouns are used to
“construct identities, draw or erase boundaries between groups, and stress
social distance or resentment against other groups.” All these assertions gear
towards one thing – pronominal referencing are used to create identity, either
individual or group identity.
Adichie’s speech is an embodiment
of pronouns such as “I,” “we,” “you,” “me,” and “my.” Among these pronouns, the
first person singular pronoun, “I,” has the highest frequency as it is used 98
times by the speaker. The predominance of the first person singular pronoun
highlights the speaker’s independence, individual identity and achievements,
which are major traits of feminists. Her continuous use of the first person
singular is deliberate. It is her own way of telling her audience that women can
still be great achievers without depending on any man amidst the too many
privileges given to men by society. In almost all the paragraphs of her speech,
Adichie highlights the things she did or intend doing all by herself through
the use of the pronominal, “I.” One can feel her self confidence through her
tone:
I already knew that the world does
not extend to women the many small courtesies that it extends to men. I also knew that victimhood is not a
virtue. That being discriminated against does not make you somehow morally
better. And I knew that men were not
inherently bad or evil. They were merely privileged. And I knew that privilege blinds because it is the nature of privilege
to blind. I knew from this personal
experience, from the class privilege I
had of growing up in an educated family, that it sometimes blinded me, that I was not always as alert to the
nuances of people who were different from me.
I told myself that I would tough it out and become a
psychiatrist and that way I could
use my patients’ stories for my fiction.
She also
uses the pronoun of exclusion, “they,” to dissociate herself from the group of
men whom she feels are only enjoying the privileges provided them by society:
“...They were merely privileged”. By
so doing, Adichie creates a new world for herself; a world where men and women
will have equal rights and privileges. With the sole aim of inculcating her
feminist ideology, she also urges her audience to create a world for themselves
as their “standardized ideologies will not always fit” their lives because
“life is messy.”
Negative face strategy
According
to Kamalu and Ogangan (2015), the negative face strategies refer to “those
rhetorical patterns that are intended to indirectly endear the speaker (self)
to his audience and delegitimize the other (the opponent).”
Feminists
see society as their opponent hence their continuous use of the phrase,
“societal construct.” To them, it is the society that has made the woman to
play the role of a second fiddle; so, they always use language to delegitimize
society, thereby legitimizing their actions and endearing themselves to their
audience. One major negative face strategy Adichie employs is the indictment of
society. She accuses society of giving men too many privileges but paying
little or no attention to the women folk:
And if
the goddesses and gods of the universe do the right thing, then you will also
very soon be the proud alumnae of the college that produced America’s first
female president!
From the above excerpt, one can
adequately argue that the speaker is of the view that America’s continuous
production of only male presidents since time immemorial is a social construct
that is made possible by the “goddesses” and “gods” of the universe (society),
which she sees as a form of injustice to the female folk. Therefore, she
asserts that “if the goddesses and gods of the universe do the right,” her
audience “will also very soon be the proud alumnae of the college that produced
America’s first female president.” This is an outright indictment to society or
what Kamalu (2013) refers to as “explicit indictment.” To the speaker, women
are still reduced to objects in the society because the society has failed to
do the right thing.
In sum, Adichie consciously deploys
these rhetorical strategies to articulate an alternative ideology for women
whose society has subjected to playing the role of a second fiddle. The speaker
wants her audience and the society to see and accept her own ideology hence her
adoption of some persuasive strategies to positively orient her to her
audience. It is also important to state here that Adichie’s speech is a full-fledged
speech, with duration of 20 minutes and 48 seconds on YouTube. Although this
long, Adichie is able to keep her audience informed and entertained. The sense
of humour is there from the beginning to the end of the speech. I counted the
number of applause, uproars, clapping and cheers of laughter created by the
speaker and found that the audience responded with at least 13 times. In
relatively short speech of 20 minutes, this is certainly a marker of agreement
and solidarity among the audience. Indeed, Adichie, through the use of
language, was able to manipulate the minds of her audience to accept her
feminist ideology.
Listen to the speech below.
REFERENCES
Jimenez, C. & Rose, M. (2005). “Linking gender and second language
learning education in a database”. CAUCE, Revista International de
Filologia y su Didactica, 28, pp. 205 – 218.
Kamalu, I, (2013). “Ethnic and racist discourse in postcolonial African
text: A critical linguistic analysis of Uwem Akpan’s Say
You’re One of Them” Covenant Journal of Language Studies (Maiden
edition) 1 (1) pp. 63 – 75
Kamalu, I. & Agangan, R. (2015). “A critical discourse analysis of
Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration of interest in the PDP” ResearchGate, pp.
32 – 54.
Tags:
Articles
