Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie Reith Lectures R4 this morning

Today's Reith Lecture is by Darren McGarvey, the author of Poverty Safari. He's a very interesting voice. The theme is Freedom from Want.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001g2zf

Just caught up with this lecture.

Brilliant! I particularly liked the riposte she cited (which could be used to answer those claiming women are transphobic for not believing TWAW), which was along the lines of 'You are accusing me of blasphemy in a religion that is not mine'.

Yep

and disagreeable is in the eye of the beholder, a point CNA made herself

lots of people find things we say here which are perfectly reasonable to me, disagreeable

so I don’t think she was being completely logical there

For people who enjoyed CNA's lecture, the origin of it can be heard in a Archive on 4 on Radio 4 at midday today, which I think is intended to be a companion listen:

In January 1941, American President Franklin D Roosevelt delivered an epic speech about the Four Freedoms that he believed to be vital for the post-war world: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want. These words became the basis for a global understanding of “human rights” and they also shed light on how the United States viewed itself and its global role at the dawn of the so-called "American Century."

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fm6c

'I can't stick that Elizabeth day podcast normally as I find her so sycophantic and fawning over the guests'

Oh god, you're so right! I'm sure she didn't used to be SO fawning and gushy but she has become unbearable recently. Would still recommend the CNA episode just because she's always worth listening to

Yes, that's what I think about free speech. I do take the point though (if this was her point) that being antagonistic for its own sake might get you in trouble (as it did Harry M); but I also appreciate his point about 'use it or lose it'.

I loved her answer to Harry Miller... it was very much - no, freedom of speech does not give you the right to be disagreeable just because you feel like it.

But it does, doesn't it? Otherwise it's not freedom of speech. I agree that it might not be desirable to just go round being unpleasant for the sake of it, but you still have the right to do it, and that right has to be defended.

I admit I didn't know about Miller, but have just had a read about him and his case against Humberside Police. I actually feel happy with what he said and agree with some pps in thinking CNA's answer was a bit '#bekind'.
Obviously him saying 'I do not however accept the proposition that a person of one sex can biologically change to become the opposite sex.' is not comparable to 'Women are inferior' or 'Black people should be killed.'
And I agree with pps saying that social media is part of the real world and that CNA, with an assistant to handle hers for her, is coming at it from a position of privilege that can and should be considered and interrogated.

She is a great speaker, very considered and thoughtful every time.

I agree - it's a shame that he didn't put his question across very well from the start - he tried in his 2nd question to her response but it was too late by then it sounded like the audience felt the same. "If you don't use it you"lll lose it" or something to that effect. He could have started with that and formed his question around that angle as well.

Thanks PP - I will listen to the longer version on BBC sounds

Fair comment on Elizabeth Day. I’d never heard her before as literally went searching for anything and everything CNA on Spotify. There was definitely a lot of fawning but with no frame of reference I just assumed it was because she is such an impressive woman!

The podcast is centred mostly around CNA’s grief and perceived failures of losing both her parents. Her way of speaking was somewhat comforting.

A day to myself, will listen with bliss later

I've been saving this thread until I had a chance to listen to the lecture. God she was fabulous!!

I love everything I've ever read of hers too, she's bloody brilliant. I went out on my lunch break and treated myself to another of her books.

I wish I had half her composure, bravery and capacity for thought. What a woman.

I can't stick that Elizabeth day podcast normally as I find her so sycophantic and fawning over the guests but I will search out the episode mentioned above - all fawning is justified in this case!

Harry Miller is always a bit of a wild card. His strengths include a high degree of everymanism. He comes across as knowledgeable and filled with common sense quite a lot of the time, which I’m sure was a great asset in court, for example. But now and then, the other side shows, where hos opinions can be somewhat extreme and perhaps tempered a little too much with flights of fancy and somewhat cynical humour that makes it much harder for him to be taken seriously.

I haven’t listened yet, but thanks for the link, OP. I was shown her first lecture a couple of weeks back at a conference. I will listen to this one over the weekend. Definitely something to look forward to!

I was disappointed by the way Harry put his question, because it was a great opportunity to ask about how we should respond to politicisation of state institutions as a result of them engaging in and absorbing the norms of discourse on social media.

Agreed he came over a bit immature and contrary for its own sake in the question which was then to easily dismissed as self indulgence and not really making any serious point- I do agree he has a serious point to make.

Great distillation of the point about regulatory capture- which goes as a risk across all lawmaking institutions. She’d already alluded to it in publishing, academia etc. it stands to reason that no institution can fully resist once a cultural force of fear like this takes hold which is why we need personal critical thinking and moral courage (as CNA summed up re moral courage) but also we specifically and desperately need institutional leaders with critical thinking and moral courage.

I see totally the risks that CNA points out with personal and institutional exposure to social media. I don’t know how we get around it. I think that ship has sailed already and it makes me very worried for the future. I agreed with what CNA said (IIRC) that social media platforms should be treated like utilities for the purposes of governing them. They should because we use them that way.

Especially with Twitter heading in an even more unhinged direction under Elon Musk and that platform still being widely used by credible institutions, governments, key policy influencers (though presumably time is running out for the platform?) In which case, something else more moderated and regulated (or something less so) will take over as the most popular platform.

As a major side point to this thread, it’s concerning for global collective memory that so much Twitter content that is an important document of recent years could potentially be lost. Presumably Twitter owns and gets to keep everyone’s published tweets on the platform?

Hugely enjoyed this too.

I was disappointed by the way Harry put his question, because it was a great opportunity to ask about how we should respond to politicisation of state institutions as a result of them engaging in and absorbing the norms of discourse on social media. I also didn't buy CNA's position that if we ignore social media it will all be fine precisely because of real world effects like this, and it would have been good to explore this.

I think Harry was trying to be tongue in cheek, but without knowing about his case it would have sounded like he was arguing for an 'anything goes' version of free speech rights, including things like incitement to hatred.

It stopped me in my tracks. I can’t wait to listen properly to the whole lot. So eloquent and clever!

PS - thanks for the transcript - I was looking for one - shame about the Kathleen Scott question being missed off... and the person who said people in this audience think that transpeople should not exist - well she didn't read the room - did she?

I am also very much in love with this beautiful woman. She said so many things that I was nodding along to, so many that made me think - yes, I self censor.. and yes, I get furious with books when I think the writer is writing what they think will be received and when you can see the hand of the writing team in it. I loved her answer to Harry Miller... it was very much - no, freedom of speech does not give you the right to be disagreeable just because you feel like it. It would have been great to hear from the police - shame they declined! I was surprised that I enjoyed the discussion with David Baddiel. The questions seemed really curated which left me feeling a little played - however - I think she played it very well indeed and bravo to the curation of the questions.

@JoyousAsOtters will absolutely look at both of those. Thank you!

I so wish I was educated and eloquent enough to intelligently contribute to this chat. As it is , at almost 40 I’m just now pulling myself up by bootstraps on feminism.

But I just wanted to thank OP for dropping this gem on my path.

I listened to Chimamanda’s lecture today after seeing this thread and have been moved beyond words. By the content and her delivery of it. I was in awe. I have subsequently listened to her on Elizabeth Day’s How To Fail and…well, it’s like I’ve just heard my new superhero.

Dear Ijeawele is in my Amazon basket as we speak, I strive to better myself as a mother for DD. My soul is on fire, in the best way.

Thank you.

I think Harry's initial question didn't come across well. His clarification about the Overton Window was much better. If I hadn't know who Harry Miller was I'd have probably reacted like Chimamanda as well.

The more I think about the response to the trans question the more I like it, and the more the snide 'even some people in this room'of the questioner gives me the rage.

I loved her point about not wanting affection if it were forced. It’s all in there.

I thought that was a great talk and I enjoyed the Q&A too

Thanks to the download link provide by Nauticant, I took a look at Chimamanda's answer to Harry. My interpretation was that he said he liked to be contrary on principle whereas she felt that free speech is not simply a rhetorical device but has consequences. We shouldn't make untrue statements such as 'woman are inferior' just simply as an exercise in free speech.

Of course her stance is not the same as Voltaire's but then Voltaire didn't have to deal with so many misinformation proponents. That's just my interpretation. I might be wrong. It was just such a pleasure to hear someone engaging with the topic of free speech so eloquently.