TheCable

An interview conducted by Chimamanda Adichie with Mrs Hillary Clinton had sparked off a thunderstorm. The backlash on the social media, especially on the Nigeria social media ecosystem, had been majorly negative. Some of these feedbacks may or may not be unwarranted depending on which position one holds but more importantly if those who reacted had done so based on the headlines generated or reading through the whole interview question.

I had taken time to read the full text of the interview and had read some of the reactions. My conclusion is that many of us reacting may be lazy readers. While some do have a good point, the only snag is that they have fallen for a major flaw associated with many Africans’ who engage in conversation with others.

The flaw in the condemnation for me is based on our inability to hold a conversation without resorting to abuse and the use of derogatory words. We really do not know how to address issues intellectually even if there have been errors. We always miss a great opportunity of correcting the wrong and setting the record straight as we go into attack mode.  We add emotion instead of objective analysis of the issues.

Though towards the end of writing this piece, I stumbled on Chimamanda Adichie’s response which I will address later but before then here is my intellectual discussion I would have loved to engage her with before I read her feedback.

The major question Adiche asked  Mrs Hillary Clinton, which led to the thunderstorm was “In your Twitter bio, the first word that describes you is ‘wife’ and then I think it’s ‘Mom’ and then it’s ‘Grandmother’. When I saw that I felt a little bit upset. And when I went and looked at your husband’s twitter the first word was not ‘husband’ “.

Based on her question I think those who had responded with abuse in my own opinion are crying more than the bereaved.

Back to my intellectual question, I would have asked Adichie. She once made an internationally acclaimed speech on the ‘west and the power of a single story’ where she confronted their error of maintaining and focusing on a single story of poverty and underdevelopment in the underdeveloped world, especially in Africa. Now with this particular question to Hilary Clinton, can she be guilty of the same offence? Adichie is a firm believer in feminism. I am a loyalist too, given the barrage of insults and myths women have to confront in a patriarchal world. No right thinking man and father of a girl child like me must be against such stand.

But the fact remains feminism is not a single story. It has shades, opinions and choices which must be respected.

By Adichie’s choice of words used in her question and especially the operative words, ‘I am a bit upset’;  she also may be following a single story as well. Why get upset with a person’s choice of identity? A known global crusader of women rights for that matter.

Two, based on her question, one is quick to ask if in Adichie’s opinion, is feminism really against any institution or sexual orientation?  Hillary Clinton’s Twitter bio starts with ‘wife’. That word is a noun meaning ‘a married woman’. So if Hilary Clinton is proud of her heritage as a family value adherent, does that go against the spirit of feminism? Going further, identifying yourself as a wife also show a clear indication of your sexual orientation, that I am straight. Is there a problem with feminism in that.

I think the question to Hillary Clinton would have been justified if her bio is seeking relevance outside who she is as a woman(a point that undermines feminism) if she had added ‘of Bill Clinton, former US president’.

The choice of the word ‘upset’ shows she is angry with Hillary Clinton’s other side of the story of feminism. I stand to be corrected here. So  Adichie might have been sincerely wrong in all these. Which I think her attackers should have raised instead of abusing her. Thorough this they would have better shaped her perspective and that of her millions of followers around the world.

On this particular question then, I do think feminism may be on a wrong path if activists must always draw a comparison instead of living their full potential. One is quick to connect the dot that Adichie was upset because Hilary Clinton’s husband does not describe himself as husband or grandfather in his own bio. I think that in no way means Bill Clinton does not value family institution. Bill Clinton’s bio may be the other side of feminism too and should be respected. I mean without reading any psychological meaning to it. Feminism must encourage women live to their fullest potential and fight every known injustice as well as seek equity in all instead of frivolous comparison with men.

Despite all the above,  I strongly believe Mrs Hillary Clinton had diplomatically sent a good message to the world by her answer. Her answer to Adichie addressed all the concerns Adichie raised without any abuse of Adichie’s personality as some of her attackers did.

For me, Hillary Clinton’s (a more exposed international figure with a huge sense of responsibility and understanding of what brand means) answer addressed all the issues raised. She said, “we can choose to describe ourselves by our relationships or by our professional accomplishment”. Hilary believes none is secondary to other.  I think that is a complete story where Adichie might have been sincerely wrong and where she crossed the bar.

For want of space, let me quickly come back to Adichie’s response to the backlash. First, she established she is human who is prone to error. She acknowledged she could have used more appropriate words in her question which could have averted the backlash. Based on what she said she meant by the question, I think the best words she could have used instead of ‘I am a bit upset’  are ‘I am curious to know or want to find out’.

If we look at the background event which led to the interview, according to her, one would not have blamed her so much. According to Adichie, Hillary Clinton is a huge figure she has always admired from afar. So for Hillary to have personally requested an interview from her was a big break she had always dreamed of. For some of us, it is like meeting a long cherished celebrity of choice. In such moment, one can be carried away with excitement and say some things not well-intentioned. This I do think happened here. I am not holding brief for her anyway.

Adichie also addressed an issue raised by one of her attackers where the individual suggested being a brand comes with responsibility. This should compel her to be careful in the choice of her words and actions. The unidentified person believes opinions of strong brands like her may be subject to misinterpretation by her teaming followers. The influence of these may lead many astray and she may not have the opportunity to correct such impression.

Adichie said she never saw herself as a brand but just an ordinary person passionate about an issue and who is ready to hold a conversation around this. With this response, I think Adichie may be sincerely wrong. Whether we appreciate this or not, everyone is a brand. We have a label which is the anchor of our engagement with the community of people who follows us. People do not just follow any ordinary person. They follow people because there is something the individual represents that strike a chord with them.

In some instance, followers take the words of their idols as final. A word from the gods which eventually shape their values. In this age of viral information overload, many may never have the opportunity of meeting their hero or heroine, the best route is quotation, speeches and books. This is where caution must be taken even though we are all prone to error.

One great thing Adichie did well in her response was her ability to hold a conversation without resulting to abuse like many did. She addressed issues raise sincerely. Though there is a possibility of being sincerely wrong as we have identified above.