Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first Africa-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Agbedo is a Professor of Linguistics, at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and contributing analyst to USAfrica multimedia networks.
“…I am embarrassed to occupy the same nation space as some imbeciles and morons.”
“The ‘Obidients’ Movement was slithering backwards and down the fascistic slope.”
“…Barbarians have taken over social media…” – Wole Soyinka
Prof. Wole Soyinka, the Nobel laureate and literary icon, has 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 characterize his discursive interactional engagements with those who challenge his perspectives. To this effect, I seek to explain the concept of ‘linguistic barbarism’ and dissect its tapestry woven with threads of irony, paradox, and hypocrisy.
‘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.
Perhaps, as a prefatory remark, it seems pertinent to state from the onset that while being celebrated for his literary brilliance and fearless critiques, 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. 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 The Cable, 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). Promising to hold private funeral for the ‘death of common sense in Nigeria,’ Soyinka wondered why “this has gone beyond a flurry of public commentary and hilarious cartoons, and turned into a masturbatory for some, a vomitory for others, and an epileptic sanatorium for a self-reproducing number.” For this, “I am embarrassed to occupy the same nation space as some imbeciles and morons,” he lamented. Fast-forward to 2023 general elections and welcome to another toxic treat to Soyinka’s ‘fascism on course’ comments, which he gladly but mercilessly served the ‘Obidients’ without any let or hindrance. He warned that the Obidients movement was ‘slithering backwards and down the fascistic slope,’ describing the Movement as one of the most repulsive, off-putting concoctions he ever encountered in any political arena’.
In his exact words, “It would appear that a record discharge of toxic sludge from notorious smut factory is currently clogging the streets and sewers of the Republic of Liars…I am well aware that the foregoing is further invitation for more nauseous bilge from the besotted. The seeds of incipient fascism in the political arena have evidently matured. A climate of fear is being generated. The refusal to entertain corrective criticism, even differing perspectives of the same position has become a badge of honour and certificate of commitment,” Soyinka roared. 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. Wole Soyinka’s response to a statement attributed to him on a news outlet, which reflects a strong denial for which employed the term “moron” to emphasize his disbelief in the credibility of the information. Surely, calling those who believe the attributed statement “morons” is highly derogatory and dismissive. While expressing frustration or disbelief, using such language can be seen as unnecessarily offensive and does not contribute to constructive discourse. Soyinka’s unequivocal denial of the statement and his emphasis on the term “moron” are effective in conveying his stance. However, it raises the question of whether a more measured and detailed clarification of the content in question might have been more informative and constructive. Soyinka’s use of the term “Internet infestations” to describe the news outlet might imply a skepticism towards online media. While concerns about misinformation are valid, using such terms may also contribute to a general distrust in the media landscape. Employing strong language, even in denial, may affect how Soyinka is perceived by the public. While some may appreciate his directness, others might find the language overly combative and detracting from the seriousness of the issue. As a prominent figure, Soyinka’s communication holds significance. The choice of words and tone in denying allegations should align with a strategic communication approach that fosters understanding and maintains respect, even in disagreement. The strong language used in the denial may discourage open dialogue and critical discussion.
A more measured response could have invited questions and discussions rather than dismissing those who may have legitimate concerns or inquiries. All in all, while Soyinka’s denial is clear, the use of derogatory language may overshadow the main message. A more measured and respectful response could enhance the effectiveness of his communication, particularly when addressing potentially controversial or misunderstood statements.
The same echoes of ‘linguistic barbarism’ resonated in Soyinka’s strong and unapologetic stance while responding to Nigerians who reacted to his threat to tear up his green card after Donald Trump’s election. Although his unequivocal denial of the statement and his emphasis on the term “moron” are effective in conveying his stance, it raises the question of whether a more measured and detailed clarification of the content in question might have been more informative and constructive. Such language tends to shut down constructive dialogue and may contribute to a more polarized discourse. Perhaps, rather than engaging with the concerns or criticisms raised by Nigerians, Soyinka’s response dismisses them outright. A more constructive approach would involve addressing specific points of contention or fostering a dialogue to understand different perspectives. As a public figure and intellectual, Soyinka’s use of language is held to a higher standard. Such strong and derogatory language might be seen as unbecoming of someone in his position, potentially detracting from the substance of his arguments.
Soyinka’s strong language may affect how he is perceived by the public. While some may appreciate his outspokenness, others may find the use of derogatory terms counterproductive and not befitting of a Nobel laureate. In all, Soyinka’s stereotypical framing discourse carries implications that extend beyond the immediate context. It prompts reflection on the role of language in shaping perceptions, fostering inclusivity, and encouraging the kind of dialogue essential for a vibrant and diverse public discourse. The challenge lies in balancing the right to express strong opinions with a commitment to nurturing an environment where a multitude of voices can contribute meaningfully to the collective conversation.
Prof Soyinka’s metaphorical expression, likening a ‘record discharge of toxic sludge’ to the political climate in the Republic of Liars, is a vivid and provocative way to convey his concern about the perceived rise of fascism and the creation of a climate of fear. The use of phase like ‘Republic of Liars,’ when viewed in the context of his characteristic intolerant attitude towards contrary opinions, carries a dismissive and pejorative tone, suggesting a sweeping judgment about an entire political entity. This language, while potent in its expression, may contribute to a divisive atmosphere rather than fostering nuanced discussion. Soyinka’s characterization of the political landscape as a ‘smut factory’ and the assertion that ‘seeds of incipient fascism’ have matured may be interpreted as a continuation of his tendency to label those with differing views in a highly critical manner. Such language, though emotionally charged, raises questions about the extent to which it stifles constructive dialogue and engages with diverse perspectives. Furthermore, the statement hints at a predetermined conclusion – that a climate of fear is being generated. This lack of openness to alternative interpretations or a willingness to consider a range of opinions aligns with the critique of Soyinka’s intolerance towards contrary voices.
While Soyinka’s concerns about the political climate are valid and may resonate with some, the challenge lies in striking a balance between impassioned expression and fostering an environment where diverse opinions are acknowledged and engaged with constructively. In essence, the critique of Soyinka’s statement centres on the need for influential figures to be mindful of language that may contribute to polarisation and to actively encourage an atmosphere where dissenting voices are not dismissed outright. Balancing the urgency of the message with an openness to dialogue becomes imperative, particularly when dealing with complex political issues.
_____________________
Prof Soyinka’s dismissal of ‘Obidients’ as a movement ‘slithering down the fascistic slope,’ smacks of irony and hypocrisy, as such glib dismissal tended to ignore his crucial historical antecedents chiefly defined by archetypical youth rebellion against social ills, which draws parallels with the ethos of ‘Obidients’ dissent against woeful status quo. This charge of hypocrisy and perhaps selective amnesia draws from the resonance between ‘Obidients’ and Soyinka’s historical moments of rebellion and the evolution of dissent as a timeless force against societal injustices. Wole Soyinka, a name synonymous with intellectual rebellion, finds himself entangled in the web of irony and accusations. The man who, in his youth, stormed a radio station at gunpoint demanding his voice be heard, now points fingers at Obidients, accusing them of fascism for supporting Peter Obi’s presidential ambitions in the 2023 elections. In the annals of history, Soyinka’s act of storming a radio station with a gun in his youth remains an emblem of bold rebellion. As a young intellectual determined to break through oppressive silence, Soyinka’s actions symbolized the uncompromising spirit of resistance against systems that sought to stifle dissent. Fast forward to the present, and Soyinka is no longer the insurgent but the accuser. Accusing Obidients of fascism for supporting Peter Obi’s political ambitions introduces a layer of irony that cannot be ignored. The rebel has become the critic, wielding words instead of weapons, but still shaping the narrative with a forceful hand.
The charge of hypocrisy emerges from the stark contrast between Soyinka’s youthful rebellion and his present-day accusations. The man who once demanded to be heard at gunpoint now levels accusations with words, and the irony is palpable. It raises questions about the evolution of ideals and the consistency of one’s principles over time. Soyinka’s journey from rebellion to accusation encapsulates the ethical dilemmas inherent in political evolution. The narrative prompts contemplation on whether the rebel, as an accuser, risks betraying the very ideals that once fueled the flames of dissent. The hypocrisy lies not only in the accusations themselves but in the power dynamics introduced into the discourse.
Soyinka, who once challenged power structures, now shapes the narrative and influences public perception through his allegations. The dynamics of power play a crucial role in understanding this intricate dance of irony. The burden of consistency weighs heavy on the shoulders of those who transition from rebels to accusers. Soyinka’s legacy is now entwined with the question of whether his present-day accusations align with the principles that drove his youthful rebellion. Wole Soyinka’s hypocrisy is not just a personal narrative; it reflects broader ironies inherent in the realm of political ideals. Wole Soyinka’s journey from rebellion to accusation introduces a compelling narrative of hypocrisy. The rebel’s bold act is now juxtaposed against the accuser’s allegations, weaving a story that beckons contemplation on the consistency of principles, the evolution of ideals, and the enduring echoes of political irony. As the narrative unfolds, the question lingers: Can one transition seamlessly from rebel to accuser without being ensnared in the paradoxes of hypocrisy?
In the mosaic of youth rebellion against societal ills, ‘Obidients Movement’ emerges as a contemporary archetype, channeling the very spirit that ignited Wole Soyinka’s acts of dissent in his youth. His youthful rebellion at a radio station was a manifestation of dissent against oppressive systems. The subsequent formation of the Seadog confraternity, driven by a desire for justice and resistance to societal ills, became an unyielding flame of youth solidarity against the status quo. This flame of dissent, a metaphor for resistance, finds its echoes in the ethos of ‘Obidients,’ a contemporary collective carrying the torch of dissent against present-day social ills. ‘Obidients’ stands as a living archetype of rebellion, embodying the same spirit that animated Soyinka’s youth. In a world grappling with multifaceted challenges, this collective becomes a symbol of resilience, reminiscent of the rebellious vehemence that shaped earlier generations. The parallel between Soyinka’s youthful rebellion and ‘Obidients’ emphasizes the pivotal role of the youth as catalysts for societal change. Across time, generations have risen to challenge injustice, and ‘Obidients’ continues this tradition by carrying forward the torch of dissent in the digital age. While Soyinka’s acts were entrenched in a different era, ‘Obidients’ navigates the landscape of digital activism. The tools may have evolved, but the core essence remains unchanged – the unyielding resolve to confront societal injustices and spark conversations that lead to meaningful change.
The transition from the Seadog confraternity to ‘Obidients’ underscores the evolving nature of youth rebellion. As societal challenges transform, so too do the expressions of dissent. Both entities symbolize a continuum of resistance, adapting to the zeitgeist of their respective times. The legacy of dissent, whether etched in Soyinka’s history or embodied by ‘Obidients,’ is a testament to the enduring power of youth in shaping societal narratives.
Both serve as beacons, reminding us that the flame of dissent, once ignited, can cast a lasting glow that influences generations to come. The parallels between the Seadog confraternity and ‘Obidients’ underscore the timeless nature of the quest for justice and the power of the youth to shape the narrative of societal change. As the legacy of rebellion continues, it serves as a testament to the enduring spirit of dissent in the face of societal challenges.
The Nobel Laurate took the demonization of ‘Obidients’ campaign further when he expressed surprise at people unable to accept election defeat, which reflects his frustration with Peter Obi’s supporters, whom he perceives as power-besotted. While Soyinka’s observation may resonate with concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, it’s crucial to examine the broader context. The use of terms like “power-besotted” implies a judgment about the motivations of those in disagreement, possibly dismissing their concerns as mere hunger for power rather than legitimate grievances. Soyinka, a staunch advocate for justice and freedom, should ideally embrace diverse perspectives, including criticism, in the spirit of democratic discourse. The intolerance towards those questioning electoral outcomes may inadvertently undermine the very principles he champions. Critics argue that an unwillingness to accept dissenting voices contradicts the ideals of open dialogue and intellectual exchange.
A more inclusive approach would involve acknowledging differing opinions and engaging in constructive conversations to address concerns rather than dismissing them outright. It is essential for influential figures like Soyinka, who hold a considerable sway over public opinion, to model a commitment to free expression, even when faced with criticism. Nurturing a culture of tolerance and openness within intellectual and political spheres is vital for the health of democracy. On the whole, while Soyinka’s frustration may stem from genuine concerns about democratic values, his statement prompts reflection on the need for intellectual figures to cultivate an open-minded disposition towards critics. A more inclusive approach would not only enhance the quality of public discourse but also align with the principles Soyinka has ardently defended throughout his distinguished career.
The Nobel Laurate completed the circle of linguistic barbarism with his recent lamentations about the social media being taken over by ‘barbarians’ in Nigeria. As a term historically laden with notions of cultural superiority, barbarism rekindles memories of past instances where Soyinka labeled dissenting voices with equally charged epithets. In this instance, the Nobel laurate took relish in taking his audience through a journey of ‘barbarianism’ from Greek Antiquity through colonialism to contemporary discourse with all the power dynamics, political overtones, and cultural sensitivities it carries.
In wielding ‘barbarians’ as a rhetorical weapon to frame real or imagined opposing group as an uncivilized or threatening a bunch of scallywags that needed to be whipped back to line and clobbered into submission, the literary guru hardly reckoned with the term’s historical baggage, which raises ethical concerns about perpetuating stereotypes and undermining the diverse richness of global cultures. It is on record that colonial powers often used ‘barbarians’ to justify their unbridled imperialistic incursions into their colonies, portraying the colonized as culturally inferior. With time, the term fossilized into a potent tool in power dynamics, shaping perceptions and narratives, and justifying the imposition of Western ideologies on non-European societies. In contemporary discourse, Prof Soyinka has joined the vanguard of repurposing ‘barbarians’ with varying degrees of subtlety, without minding the pertinent questions, which this linguistic (mis)appropriation raises questions about its appropriateness in a world that pushes for inclusivity and mutual understanding.
This choice of words, particularly the term “barbarians,” echoes his past critiques where he characterized
those who disagreed with him as lacking in intellectual refinement. The paradox emerges as Soyinka, a proponent of rigorous intellectual discourse, seemingly succumbs to a rhetoric that he has long criticized. This 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? 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.
Critics argue that Soyinka’s descent into using terms like “barbarians” may undermine the very principles of clear dialogue that he has advocated for in the past. 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. In analyzing this paradox, it is essential to consider the broader implications for public discourse and the expectations placed on influential figures. Ultimately, Wole Soyinka’s journey into the linguistic pit he once dug for his critics prompts us to reflect on the inherent challenges of wielding language as a tool for critique. The paradox serves as a cautionary tale, reminding both critics and the criticized of the enduring importance of fostering a discourse characterized by rigour, respect, and a commitment to the principles of free and open expression.
————————————-
Prof. Soyinka, revered literary figure, now carries a weighty paradox within his linguistic repertoire — a baggage of linguistic barbarism that complicates the very essence of the power he attributes to words. Ironically, a term, which he could have glibly used to ‘roast’ those he deemed intellectually inferior, has now come full circle, as Soyinka finds himself wielding it to describe the state of social media.
This baggage of linguistic barbarism is a complex tapestry woven with the threads of irony, hypocrisy, paradox, and introspection. His historical disdain for uncouth language and intellectual deficiency seems, at times, to be at odds with the charged terms he chooses in expressing his current concerns. The power of words, a force he has championed throughout his career, now bears the weight of this linguistic baggage. The question arises: Can a critic’s message remain potent and credible when delivered with the same linguistic vigour that he has criticized in the past? Soyinka’s linguistic paradox prompts us to reflect on the relationship between the power of words and the responsibility that comes with wielding them. Critics argue that this baggage risks diluting the impact of Soyinka’s message, overshadowing the urgency of his concerns with the very language he once decried. It underpins the delicate dance between passion and propriety, and the challenge of wriggling through the evolving wicket of public discourse. Yet, within this baggage lies an opportunity for contemplation and growth. Soyinka’s journey into linguistic paradox invites a broader conversation about the evolution of language, the responsibilities of iconic figures, and the enduring power words hold in shaping perceptions. As admirers and critics contend with Soyinka’s linguistic baggage, the broader discourse on the power of words gains renewed significance. It calls for a collective introspection on how language shapes narratives, influences public opinion, and can either bridge divides or deepen chasms within society. In charting the complex course of linguistic expression, Soyinka’s baggage becomes a symbolic reminder of the profound impact words can have. The power of words, once wielded thoughtfully and judiciously, holds the potential to inspire, challenge, and shape the trajectory of societies. As we unpack this linguistic baggage, the journey continues—a journey that underscores the enduring importance of linguistic precision and responsibility in the realm of intellectual discourse.
Soyinka, the outspoken critic, has found himself ensnared in a paradoxical narrative – a victim of the very linguistic barbarism he has decried throughout his illustrious career. Known for his razor-sharp intellect and uncompromising stance on the precision of language, Soyinka’s recent engagements have given rise to an ironic twist that demands scrutiny. The seasoned wordsmith, who has wielded language with finesse to critique perceived lapses in intellectual discourse, now faces the repercussions of what some may label as his own linguistic imprecision. From dismissing critics as “halfwits” to characterizing social media as a realm overrun by “barbarians,” Soyinka has employed language that echoes the very qualities he denounces. This ironic twist prompts contemplation on the complexities of linguistic expression and the evolving nature of public discourse. Has Soyinka, in his fervour to uphold intellectual standards, unintentionally become a victim of the linguistic landscape he seeks to refine? Soyinka’s characterisation of social media users as having low intellectual content’ raises concerns about overgeneralization and stereotyping. Social media is a diverse platform with a broad spectrum of users engaging in various discussions. Labeling an entire group as lacking intellectual depth oversimplifies the complexity of online conversations and risks dismissing valuable contributions. His assertion that social media’s intellectual quotient has been swapped suggests a certain nostalgia for a perceived golden era. This sentiment can be interpreted as elitist, implying that only a specific intellectual class should dictate the quality of discourse. It overlooks the democratizing aspect of social media, where diverse voices and perspectives can be heard. The notion of relying on the “community of the intellect” may be seen as somewhat elitist, implying that only a specific intellectual class possesses the capability to address the challenges posed by social media. This perspective may overlook the diverse talents and perspectives that contribute to meaningful conversations on digital platforms. Labeling certain users as ‘barbarians’ can be interpreted as elitist and exclusionary. It implies a hierarchy in which those deemed intellectually superior are separate from, and superior to, those labeled as lacking in intellectual depth. This approach may hinder the fostering of an inclusive and diverse online community. Wole Soyinka, celebrated Nobel laureate and intellectual heavyweight, has long been an advocate for linguistic precision and intellectual depth. However, the import of Soyinka’s recent foray into what some perceive as elitism and exclusivity, particularly in his characterization of certain social media users as ‘barbarians,’ raises profound questions about the role of language and its impact on contemporary discourse. It equally raises concerns about the potential alienation of voices and perspectives that don’t align with his standards, creating a perceived hierarchy within the realm of ideas. The characterization of social media users as ‘barbarians’ hints at a form of ‘othering,’ where a particular group is cast as fundamentally different or inferior. This exclusivity, whether intentional or not, risks undermining the democratic potential of public discourse and fosters a sense of division rather than unity.
Equally of note is the fact that criticising social media users without addressing the underlying systemic issues contributing to misinformation and shallow discourse may oversimplify the challenges faced by online platforms. It seems pointless to ignore such pertinent factors as media literacy, education, and the role of algorithms and algorithms in shaping social media content. His characterisation of social media as a ‘monstrosity’ tends to oversimplify the complex dynamics of online platforms. While acknowledging the negative aspects, it makes little sense to overlook the positive contributions and the role of systemic issues, such as misinformation, algorithms, and online behaviour. Emphasising the ‘community of the intellect’ might inadvertently neglect the need for collaborative solutions that involve a broader range of stakeholders. Tackling the challenges posed by social media requires a multifaceted approach, involving not only intellectuals but also policymakers, educators, and the tech industry. Employing strong language to criticize social media users might inadvertently contribute to a culture of antagonism and polarization. Encouraging a more balanced critique that allows for constructive engagement and dialogue may be more conducive to fostering positive change.
The landscape of communication, including intellectual discourse, has evolved with the advent of social media. While there are undoubtedly instances of misinformation and shallow discussions, there are also platforms and users dedicated to fostering meaningful dialogue. Soyinka’s critique might benefit from acknowledging the dual nature of social media, where both constructive and detrimental conversations coexist. Instead of outright dismissal, Soyinka could consider engaging with social media users to encourage thoughtful discussions. Constructive criticism and guidance may have a more positive impact on intellectual content than outright condemnation. Engaging with diverse perspectives could contribute to elevating the overall quality of discourse. Addressing the perceived low intellectual content on social media involves considering broader societal factors. Investing in education and promoting media literacy could be instrumental in enhancing critical thinking skills among social media users. Instead of solely blaming users, examining systemic issues contributing to misinformation and shallow discourse is crucial. The emphasis on the ‘community of the intellect’ might inadvertently exclude voices from various backgrounds, potentially contributing to a hierarchical perception of who holds the authority to shape discourse. A more inclusive approach that recognizes the value of diverse perspectives could enrich the proposed solutions. While aiming to address the negative aspects of social media, it is crucial to avoid solutions that inadvertently curtail freedom of expression. Striking a balance between fostering responsible discourse and preserving the openness of online platforms is a delicate task. In essence, while Wole Soyinka’s concerns about the intellectual content of social media discussions are valid, his critique could benefit from a more balanced perspective. Engaging with the complexities of online communication, acknowledging positive aspects, and actively contributing to the elevation of discourse may offer a more constructive path forward. Balancing criticism with an understanding of the evolving nature of communication platforms is essential in fostering a culture of thoughtful engagement in the digital age. To round off this aspect of the discussion, it is important to restate the fact that while Prof Soyinka’s concerns about the quality of discourse on social media are valid, the sweeping language and lack of specificity in his statement invite a clearer approach. Acknowledging the complexities of online conversations, engaging with diverse perspectives, and addressing systemic issues can contribute to a more constructive and balanced critique of social media dynamics.
In conclusion, Prof Soyinka’s proven predilection 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 discourse 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.
