720817

research-article2017
JCL0010.1177/0021989417720817The Journal of Commonwealth LiteratureNwokocha

THE JOURNAL OF

C O M M O N W E A LT H
Article L I T E R A T U R E

The Journal of Commonwealth Literature

Subversive responses to 2019, Vol. 54(3) 367­–383

© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
oppression in Chimamanda sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0021989417720817
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021989417720817
Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus journals.sagepub.com/home/jcl

Sandra Nwokocha
University of Birmingham, UK

Abstract
Focusing on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s critically acclaimed Purple Hibiscus (2003), this article
argues that subversion, an aggressive performance that aimed at overthrowing and displacing
patriarchal institutions which initially impact on the choices and activities of the oppressed, is the
hallmark of the fictional figures’ responses to oppression. The essay contends that such forceful
reactions to repression expand our understanding of twenty-first century Nigerian female-authored
narratives. This argument I contrast with earlier critical readings, observing that while critics are
eager to expose and endorse a female presence in the text, the readings often undermine its
revolutionary suggestions. Through a radical feminist approach, my analysis of the novel highlights
the heroines in order to demonstrate subversive behaviours in their drive to establish female
agency, and notes such defiance to be necessary considering their repressive milieu. In doing so, I
conclude with the notion that dissidence is a remarkable feature of the novel, and that the radical
feminist paradigm is useful in widening awareness to this groundbreaking tenor.

Keywords
feminism, womanism, subversion, oppression, female agency

Discussion of the applicability of feminism to cultures other than those in the West is a
key concern that has long dominated feminist scholarship. This is a contested zone, with
relativist feminists alleging that the hegemonic comportment of mainstream feminism
emboldens minority groups to resort to modifiers in order to make their various back-
grounds clear and specific. The case is similar in postcolonial Nigerian society (and more
broadly Africa), where many women who practically espouse a feminist worldview theo-
retically refuse to identify as feminists. This rejection can be attributed to the debate sur-
rounding the supposed foreignness and inadequacy of feminist ideology in conceptualizing
the worldview of women of colour, a notion that was foregrounded in Alice Walker’s

Corresponding author:
Sandra Nwokocha, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Email: sandchin2004@yahoo.com
368 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

influential work, In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose (1983). Under-
scoring black women’s self-determination in the face of oppression and cooperative
endeavours between men and women, Walker articulates womanism as “referring to
a woman who [is] committed to survival and wholeness of entire people, male and
female. Not a separatist” (1983: xi−xii). Chikwenye Okonjo Ogunyemi concurs, adding
that numerous black women novelists writing in English have understandably not asso-
ciated themselves with “radical white feminists”, for whereas a white woman writer
may be a feminist, her black counterpart is most likely to be a “womanist” (1985: 64−65).
Suspicious of white allies due to years of racial discrimination, Ogunyemi contends that
the talented African woman writer “conscious of the black impotence in the context of
white patriarchal culture, empowers the black man. She believes in him; hence, her books
end in integrative images of the male and female world” (1985: 68−69). Glo Chukukere
takes it further, pronouncing Nigerian feminism a non-antagonistic, nonviolent, and
non-confrontational concept, which places a high premium on “disciplined freedom”
(1998: 138). Such perception, in my opinion, is instrumental in shaping the way African
women’s texts are read and is responsible for the prevalent undermining of the revolution-
ary undertones of contemporary Nigerian women’s writing. Putting specific emphasis on
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus (2003), this paper challenges such reac-
tionary readings, and maintains that rebellion is the main feature of modern Nigerian
women’s narratives. I argue that regardless of the politics of difference that threatens to
weaken women’s liberation, the radical feminist paradigm is expedient in comprehend-
ing far-reaching responses of Adichie’s heroines to their limiting circumstances. This
perspective, in my view, is yet to receive an in-depth critical attention.
Critical reviews of Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus have centred on three main approaches.
The first are those which argue for a reading of the politics of the novel as womanist.
Situating her discourse within Alice Walker’s brand of womanism, Brenda Cooper con-
tends that although heroine Kambili Achike’s horrific experiences of violence at the
hands of her father lead to the suppression of her speech, the protagonist eventually
regains her voice and freedom through her subsequent exposure to the womanist emblem-
atic “purple hibiscus” flower (2010: 8). For Cooper, this symbolic freedom lends credi-
bility to “Adichie’s womanism as opposed to feminism and the influence of Alice
Walker” (2010: 9). Shalini Nadaswaran concurs, comparing such liberation to the “meta-
morphic process of womanist theory where ‘the young girl inherits womanism after a
traumatic event’” (2011: 24). The second group comprises those who argue for a reading
of the text as a reformist rather than a radical work. Taking on the issue of faith, Cheryl
Stobie upholds Adichie’s stance as “reformist” rather than “radical” since it suggests
substitutes for totalitarianism by recommending veneration, broad-mindedness, and
clemency while supporting liberal interpretations of gender roles, culture, faith, and
piety (2010: 423−32). Lastly, there are those who, though attuned to the text’s radical
implications, downplay its subversive undertones. Affirming the feminist tone of the
novel, Chielozona Eze concludes that its brand of feminism is distinctive because the
novel’s female characters nurse neither the intention to “dethrone man nor to enthrone
woman on the seat of power” but to create a society where “human beings flourish”
(2008: 115). Ogaga Okuyade expands on this by maintaining that the text’s mode of
feminism is mild, and that the fictional figures are “differently rebellious” despite the act
Nwokocha 369

of murder that occurs in the text (2010: 72, 77). Still sustaining the “not too radical” read-
ings of the text (Ikediugwu, 2013: 14), Jane Ifechelobi (2014) and Ijeoma Ibeku (2015)
stress that the female characters’ reactions to oppression are suggestive of Adichie’s
African feminist predilections. I argue instead that Adichie’s fictional characters are
overtly rebellious, and that their revolutionary reactions to restrictive circumstances are
best understood and appreciated through a radical feminist viewpoint.
Taking up a critical position not only in relation to womanist readings but also in rela-
tion to those critics who tend to minimize the subversive implications of Purple Hibiscus,
I argue that the text, typically of modern Nigerian novels by women, deserves to be
assessed differently vis-à-vis the heroines’ refusal to be cowed into false obedience by
opting to be in conflict with the norm. Although these previous readings present valid
ways of reading the text, Adichie’s reader stands to benefit more from a radical feminist
reading in apprehending how oppression and resistance are interwoven in the story.
The expression radical feminism, in this context, denotes in the most general sense the
patriarchal roots of disparity between men and women, an unfairness that necessitates
feminists’ call for social reordering. In Sisterhood is Powerful (1970), Robin Morgan
argues that since “all oppressed people […] are women [thus] worldwide Women’s
Revolution” is the only solution for gender injustice (1970: xxxv). Pam Morris further
explicates this notion, stressing that “changing the existing power relations between the
sexes would mean a social revolution” (1993: 5). This article follows a similar trajectory
to that described by Morgan and Morris by employing the expression “revolution” as a
necessary and comprehensive change in power. A robust theoretical framework such as
radical feminism, which acknowledges rather than denounces subversion, is needed to
value Adichie’s female characters’ efforts. I concede that liberation might be attained
through non-confrontational means; however, concerted effort in the form of overturning
the status quo is required since the oppressors are determined not to relinquish their con-
trol. Such a far-reaching overhaul is what Adichie’s text seeks to promote.
Adichie’s debut novel Purple Hibiscus, first published in 2003, narrates the story of
an Igbo household in Nigeria in the late twentieth century. From Kambili’s vantage point,
the reader comes to know her father, Eugene, a philanthropist and religious bigot who
denounces his father, Papa-Nnukwu, for being a traditionalist, and regularly beats his
wife, Beatrice, and their children, Kambili and Jaja. The teenagers briefly escape the
choking air of their family in Enugu when they are invited by their Aunt Ifeoma, Eugene’s
widowed sister and a senior lecturer who lives in the University of Nsukka, to spend their
holiday in Nsukka. The comfortable milieu offers Kambili and Jaja an ideal substitute for
the environment of terror that permeates their home.
Right from the beginning of Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus, Kambili is positioned pur-
posefully within domains of patriarchal control. The family home is walled around with
coiled electric wires on top and characterized by the oppressive silence that envelops it:
“Our steps on the stairs were as measured and as silent as our Sundays: the silence of
waiting until Papa was done with his siesta so we could have lunch” (Adichie, 2003:
39).1 In Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1979: 138) maintains that power is a dynamic
oppressive entity that maintains an inescapable and suppressive hold on its victims.
Likewise, silence in this context is aimed at creating an unequal hierarchical structure
where Eugene, being the head of the household and main point of reference, is positioned
370 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

on top and his family from the base depends on his sole approval for everything, includ-
ing when to eat. The traumatic effect of this silence paralyses Kambili with fear, resulting
in her communicating with her eyes, stuttering when she makes an effort to speak, and
never discussing the tension in the home so as to evade her father’s anger and chastise-
ment. A particularly troubling instance of this happens when Eugene smashes the
étagère.2 Kambili notes: “I meant to say I am sorry that Papa broke your figurines, but
the words that came out were, ‘I’m sorry your figurines broke, Mama’” (18). Crucial at
this point is Kambili’s use of the passive voice to emphasize the impersonal smashing of
the ornaments without any reference to her father. Perhaps she is afraid to implicate him
for fear of being punished, even though there seems to be no obvious threat of punish-
ment from the context in which this happens, considering that “Kambili was still at the
window when Mama came into [her] room […] while Papa took his siesta” (18).
Patriarchal surveillance in Purple Hibiscus undeniably increases the subjection of
Adichie’s female characters; however, I strongly reject the notion that they are passive to
their situation. In her study Foucault and Feminism, Lois McNay argues that “a […]
serious problem with Foucault’s notion of the body is that it is conceived essentially
as a passive entity, upon which power stamps its own images” (1992: 12). As McNay
expresses, wherever domination is enforced, resistance will inevitably ensue. Similarly,
Adichie’s female characters’ rebellion is born from their repression, and such defiant
behaviours manifest in various degrees. While Beatrice’s and Kambili’s resistance takes
a gradual but resilient process, from a subtle condemnation of ubiquitous excessive con-
trol mechanisms to a total rejection of patriarchal repressive ethical values, Aunty
Ifeoma’s reaction to oppression is overtly subversive. This article, therefore, is signifi-
cant in its approach in analysing some of these insightful, yet less theorized, responses of
these fictional figures with the intent to foreground their determination to assert agency
in a repressive milieu.
The type of the physical abuse that Adichie describes is highly emotive, for it is typi-
fied by horror. Three of Kambili’s experiences of domestic violence, one of which is
gendered in dimension, are particularly awful. In the first, she is flogged with “a heavy
belt made of layers of brown leather with a sedate leather-cover buckle” as a rebuke for
desecrating the Eucharistic fast, a religious obligation for the Catholic faithful not to eat
solid food an hour before Mass (110). The event occurs on a Sunday morning when her
mother, contrary to the family ritual of fasting every Sunday before mass, encourages
Kambili to eat before taking her medication, a drug which is meant to assuage her men-
strual cramps. As she “started to wolf the cereal, standing”, her father unexpectedly
emerges and in his rage whips the entire family with his belt (110). This action could be
viewed as a reflection of Eugene’s insensitivity to Kambili’s biological needs, an organic
aspect of her life which he painstakingly struggles to control. Following this episode is a
more concentrated abuse in which she is tortured for sleeping in the same house in
Nsukka as her grandfather: “her father poured the hot water on my feet, slowly, as if he
were conducting an experiment and wanted to see what would happen” (200). In this text
the heroine’s body is ill-treated in the most brutal of ways: her father scalds her feet with
hot water, within the perimeter of their home. The hot water, similar to the belt, is a “dis-
ciplinary mechanism” (Foucault, 1979: 16), with which Eugene imposes control and
ownership in the private sphere.
Nwokocha 371

Eugene employs torture to regulate behaviour and to enforce compliance; however,

such a control device at this point begins to slip as Kambili progressively refuses to be
contained. Kambili, rather than being a character who unreservedly submits to oppres-
sion, in the last incidence of her domestic abuse begins to interrogate some of her father’s
ethical values about the idea that Papa-Nnukwu is a heathen. She returns home from her
aunt’s house in Nsukka with a gift from her cousin Amaka: a picture of her grandfather.
Eugene’s anger explodes the moment he discovers the picture, which embodies a sort of
change and resistance to oppression, and he subsequently tears it into pieces. This time
Kambili protests by dashing onto the floor to prevent “Papa-Nnukwu’s body [from]
being cut in pieces” (216). Kambili’s action, for a person like Eugene, is the worst kind
of unruly behaviour, which in turn requires rapid punishment: “Get up! Get away from
that painting [amidst kicking and beating] Godlessness. Heathen worship. Hellfire”
(216). In her foetal posture, Kambili describes her experience of overtly physical violent
treatment: “He started to kick me. The metal buckles on his slippers stung like bites from
giant mosquitos” (216−17).
Regardless of the fact that this posture might be deconstructed in many ways —
including, but not limited to, as an act of submission — for Adichie, I believe, it repre-
sents Kambili’s revolutionary move from needing to tremble at her father’s real and
imagined presence to the point of asserting her individuality. Kambili’s defiance of the
ethical values that would have her reject her grandfather is construed by Eugene as an act
of insubordination which deserves severe discipline. The extreme violence of the beat-
ing, “as he has never punished her like this before” (219), demonstrates his loss of even
the control he usually has when inflicting injury, and this can be read as the moment in
which his regime of control is weakest and resistance becomes possible. Kambili’s rejec-
tion of her father’s control affirms her position as an agent, and this validates McNay’s
notion that “repression produces its own resistances” (1994: 39). Kambili’s defiance,
which is evident in her resolution to remain on the ground and take the beating rather
than obeying her father’s instruction to detach herself from the picture, can be read as her
distinctive mode of resistance that is born from years of abuse. Through this boldness,
she demonstrates the aptitude to act in spite of the domineering presence of her father,
insisting that her opinion concerning her grandfather be respected.
Like Kambili, Beatrice also experiences physical maltreatment when on a particular
Sunday after Mass she expresses the need to stay in the car because of her feeling of nau-
sea and dizziness while the family visit Father Benedict: “Let me stay in the car and wait,
biko […]. I feel vomit in my throat” (37). Following this request is a sharp violent response
from Eugene who “turned to stare at her” (37). Perhaps startled by Beatrice’s implicit
request for autonomy, the first of its kind, Eugene in this description appears apprehensive
about the likelihood of opposition to his patriarchal sphere of control. This implicit
demand for autonomy, which can be read as a slippage of Eugene’s disciplinary regime of
consent to control, however, results in domestic abuse as Eugene resorts to physical tor-
ture as a means of reinstating compliance. After they return home, the “Swift, heavy
thuds on [the] bedroom door [and the] blood on the floor” result in a miscarriage, “There
was an accident, the baby is gone” (41−43). All of this indicates a determined form of
control with sole intent to dominate. The extreme nature of the abuse that results in
Beatrice’s miscarriage shows Eugene’s intolerance to opposition and by extension to
372 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

Beatrice’s freedom. Undoubtedly, Beatrice’s internalization of the omnipresent husband

might be responsible for her unwillingness, similar to that of Kambili above, to implicate
Eugene as the prime suspect in the miscarriage, even though he is notably absent within
the context under consideration. Power is thus created and sustained through the twofold
influence of invented surveillance and violent spectacle, performed by a deadly dangerous
and ever-present patriarchal figure who is apprehensive of autonomy.
Adichie’s Beatrice, rather than being inert, demonstrates the desire to be free from
patriarchal domination. In her seminal thesis, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
argues that “for [a] woman there is no other way out than to work for her liberation”
(1949/1971: 664). We find an implicit mirroring of this opinion in the attitude of Beatrice.
Beatrice’s seeming will to defiance, specifically demonstrated in her desire to stay in the
car, can be read in line with de Beauvoir’s notion of women working out their freedom.
By voicing her need to be allowed to stay behind, Beatrice demonstrates her first step
towards the decision to take control of her life; later, she will seize further control by
killing her husband. While Beatrice’s action might not be viewed as revolutionary at this
stage, it somewhat demonstrates her quest for autonomy, albeit in a formative stage.
Because Beatrice’s gestation period of resistance takes quite a while, and perhaps because
she is not as outspoken as Aunty Ifeoma, critics have seen her as “passive and silly”
(Andrade, 2011: 97), “physically and emotionally blind” (Nadaswaran, 2011: 27), a “bat-
tered woman [that] turns into a husband-murderer” (Stobie, 2010: 432), who obviously
“enjoys the [ill] treatment meted out on her” (Ibeku, 2015: 434) and whose ultimate deed
is depicted not as an achievement but as a miserable requisite. Such dismissive readings
notably downplay the revolutionary inferences of the text.
I argue instead that Adichie presents the character of Beatrice as a subversive person-
ality whose minor acts of resistance are a prelude to her eventual radical response to
oppression. Beatrice’s supposedly construed passivity, as I demonstrate below, can be
read as disguised resistance precisely because neither Eugene, before his murder, nor the
neighbours ever believe that she is capable of committing the crime she ultimately
claims. For Adichie, Beatrice’s progressive yet lethal approach and Aunty Ifeoma’s con-
frontational mannerisms are both valid ways of responding to repression.
Using the analogy of a snail, Adichie through her narrator hints at Beatrice’s quest for
freedom. On a particular occasion, Kambili’s attention is drawn to a covered basket full
of snails at the entrance of her hairstylist’s shed. Kambili notes that Mama Joe

picked up an enterprising snail that was crawling out of the open basket. I wondered if it was
the same snail, crawling out, being thrown back in, and then crawling out again. Determined. I
wanted to buy the whole basket and set that one snail free. (243)

Through the imagery of a snail, Adichie encourages readers to consider a creature bur-
dened with a heavy load, represented by its shell, which struggles for freedom under a
repressive environment. It is revealing that Kambili’s desire to buy the whole basket is
based on her seeming wish to set free the enterprising snail. Adichie through her narrator
espouses the notion that freedom must be fought for rather than being given. While
oppression ultimately produces resistance (employing McNay’s term), it takes determi-
nation, as evident in the effort of this lone snail, to bring it into actuality. What is evident,
Nwokocha 373

therefore, is the individual ability to decide whether to do nothing regarding one’s state,
which is epitomized by the attitude of the rest of the other snails in the basket, or to elect
for freedom, like the enterprising snail, through constant conflict with the repressor. I
argue that Beatrice, like this enterprising snail, is not passive but rather has been progres-
sively putting in efforts towards her freedom, although each of her attempts to crawl out
has attracted severe punishment: “You know that small table where we keep the family
Bible, nne? Your father broke it on my belly […] my blood finished on that floor […] I
was six weeks gone” (253). The heaviness of her pain and abuse, similar to that of the
snail’s shell, has built in her the deadly revenge against her repressor.
In spite of the fact that Beatrice implicitly resists repression for much of the text, the
reader will observe a higher level of agency when her resistance develops, ultimately
resulting in the killing of Eugene. Towards the end of the text, she progressively yet
subversively moves from implicitly requesting autonomy to overtly asserting her indi-
viduality in the domestic sphere by exploiting her control over foodstuffs. Most notice-
able, however, is the poisoning of Eugene’s tea, his very symbol of love, deliberately and
steadily “putting the poison in his tea” (294). She eventually kills him by consistently
dropping a poisonous substance into his tea. Eugene’s death marks the end of a regime
of abuse in Achike’s family, and this validates Morgan’s and Morris’s views regarding
the inevitability of social revolution as an antidote to gender inequity. By gradually
“walking” her way up to this level of agency, Beatrice, I argue, is shown to be different
to Foucault’s prisoners who elect to remain docile for fear of punishment. Her quest for
autonomy, which demonstrates the manner in which she doggedly resists repression,
shows that she is neither passive nor complicit with her restrictive and disadvantaging
atmosphere.
Beatrice’s premeditated murder calls for a reconsideration of Purple Hibiscus as
mainly a womanist text. Walker articulates womanism as a paradigm of communal whole-
ness. Conversely, I argue that this avowal might not apply to the text under consideration,
as the narrative not only ends with the disintegration of the Achike family, but also the
demise of Eugene and the resulting incarceration of Jaja.3 I do not propose that every
feminist text must end with the demise or incarceration of the male characters or that the
wholeness promoted by womanism is unattainable. Instead, I argue that, for Adichie, indi-
vidual subjecthood is paramount above shared commonality. Primary to Adichie in the
text is individual safety and self-esteem. The sad ending of Eugene and Jaja does not sug-
gest that Adichie, as a radical feminist writer, hates men. In her feminist manifesto We
Should All Be Feminists, Adichie describes herself as a “Happy African Feminist Who
Does Not Hate Men” (2014: 10). Such a feminist vantage point might be responsible for
the creation of male characters such as Father Amadi, the Igbo priest, and Papa-Nnukwu,
who are depicted, to some extent, in a good light. However, Eugene’s demise, for Adichie,
is a practical solution to ending oppression when such cruelty becomes a threat to the
existence of the woman. It is possible that Beatrice will die if she does not take the initia-
tive to kill her husband. By killing Eugene, she not only saves her life but also reinstates
her personal confidence. Her radical response to oppression, I argue, favours a radical
feminist perception that advocates for the abolition of patriarchal agencies in all social and
economic contexts. I contend that Beatrice’s act of dropping a poisonous substance daily
in Eugene’s tea and watching him die gradually constitutes highly subversive behaviour,
374 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

and that she is better understood as a radical feminist character whose deliberate desire for
autonomy from a repressive tyrant propels her to kill him.
Indeed, Beatrice’s personality following the murder does evolve for she does not only
kill Eugene, but also refuses to mourn him by not “wearing all black or all white for a
year [or] attending the first- and second- year memorial Masses, [and] for not cutting her
hair” (300). Marie-Antoinette Sossou depicts widowhood as a very trying moment for
women: “The behaviour surrounding mourning is inherently gendered. Rituals are more
to do with exalting the position of the dead man than allowing a real outlet for the wid-
ow’s grief” (2002: 202). Christine Ohale concurs, noting that “The Igbo widow is often
subjected to unutterable cruelty to which she is expected to fully comply” (2012: 4), and
that she is mandated to sit on the bare floor, take no bath or change her clothes, wail
loudly every morning until the husband finally lays at rest, shave her hair, including
pubic hair, dress all in black, never laugh or wear makeup, abstain from sex and live in
seclusion while depending on others for support throughout the six-month or one-year
mourning period. After the burial “the deceased husband’s family swoops on his prop-
erty, leaving the widow utterly destitute” (Ohale, 2012: 4).
By contrast, Beatrice rejects not only the cultural norms of mourning that facilitate
this abuse, but also the social expectations of widowhood: the wearing of a special
mourning cloth in honour of the deceased, attending memorial services and cutting her
hair. Through this act she makes a public statement about Eugene’s reputation, suggest-
ing that though he was a respectable man in society, he was nevertheless a terror in the
home. If a widow’s loud wail helps her deceased husband’s soul to rest in peace, then
Beatrice’s blatant refusal to mourn can be read as a form of punishment of Eugene’s soul.
Beatrice’s refusal of conventional mourning represents her acting out a subversive
behaviour, and this act of bravery that sees her rebel against damaging cultural norms
that encourage the marginalization of widows validates my reading of the text as a revo-
lutionary feminist work.
The radical feminist undertones of the text are also evident in the theatrical manner
with which Beatrice chases off mourners from her apartment. She instructs “Adamu not
to open the gates” for sympathizers; even “members of our umunna who had come from
Abba were turned away” (292−93). Here, Beatrice demonstrates the feminist inclination
that an individual’s well-being precedes shared commonality. Her explosive behaviour
can be understood in sequences. First, her performance could be read as a sort of revenge
on Eugene’s kinsmen who earlier in the text encouraged him to take many wives so as to
have more sons. Second, it could be hypothesized that her action is a personal defence,
as among those men are brothers-in-law who might have come with the intention to dis-
inherit or force her into conjugal relations. Finally, it is also possible to read her reaction
as confrontation with social hypocrisy, since among the sympathizers are neighbours,
friends, relatives, priests, and health officers who were privy to the abuse in the family
but elected to do nothing about it. By ordering the gate to remain locked, she demon-
strates a “coming-to-consciousness” — a high level of feminist awareness that enables
her to avoid the further abuse, mistreatment, and violence of being a widow either from
the neighbours or from Eugene’s relatives who come from Abba. Through Beatrice’s
performance, Adichie makes a far-reaching statement against such social structures that
covertly and overtly encourage the oppression of womanhood. Recognizing Beatrice’s
Nwokocha 375

reactions to oppression as revolutionary is, I submit, one of the key ways in which the
radical feminist undercurrent of the text might be appreciated.
Rather than being a character who regrets her actions, Beatrice unapologetically takes
ownership of her behaviour. Moving from the private domain to the public sphere, she
declares herself responsible for the death of her husband: “she went about telling people
that she killed Papa, that she put the poison in his tea. She even wrote letters to newspa-
pers. But nobody listened to her; they still don’t” (300). From her writing to the newspa-
pers, it is possible to hypothesize that Beatrice is educated, even though the text gives no
insight into her educational background. It is demoralizing that no one believes her story,
as people “think grief and denial — that her husband is dead and that her son is in prison
— have turned her into this vision of a painfully bony body” (300). Embedded in this
description is the notion that murder is purportedly a masculine crime, and that Beatrice
is incapable of committing the offence she has claimed. As such, Beatrice’s persistent
homicide claim signals her mental derangement to people, as no “normal” woman could
be courageous enough to make such a claim. By constructing her identity around her loss
— husband and son — people significantly dismiss this claim by rationalizing that grief
must have turned her to this “abnormal” behaviour, especially as this supposed act of
dissidence contrasts with her earlier reactions in the text.
It is interesting how Beatrice’s subversive demeanour is construed as atypical, which
in turn deserves to be quarantined. Such a response, I argue, might not be strange in real
life, and this has been researched by feminist critics such as Jordan and Hartling (2002),
Porter (2002), and Hartling (2009), who have pointed to the proclivity of the dominant
group to classify themselves as normal while placing those who do not fit in with their
principles of normality as abnormal. Beatrice’s murder declaration likewise is consid-
ered abnormal as it is against the social expectations of an ideal woman; the idea of an
innocent, calm, gentle, passive and sacrificial woman who surrenders all so as to gain
the respect of the community. Her uprising, which privileges individual autonomy over
social expectations of femaleness, however, is threatened by people’s dismissive attitude,
a consequence that necessitates her struggle to be heard and ensure that such behaviours
get recognized. For Adichie, although progressive resistance is a valid way of combating
repression, it nevertheless has its pitfalls, as seen by the dismissive response to Beatrice’s
subversive deeds, and this necessitates the creation of a more revolutionary character, in
the personality of Aunty Ifeoma, who significantly exemplifies Adichie’s radical femi-
nist worldview.
Aunty Ifeoma’s audibility and prompt confrontational approach against the conven-
tions of gender and power politics clearly depict her as Adichie’s radical feminist model
in the text. A tall, smart widow who works as a senior lecturer at the University of Nigeria
Nsukka, Aunty Ifeoma is presented primarily as a revolutionary character whose demean-
our exudes enthusiasm and blatant strength. This distinctive temperament distinguishes
her from Beatrice’s calm personality. Early in the text, Aunty Ifeoma admonishes
Beatrice to quit her relationship with Eugene while stressing, “This cannot go on, nwu-
nye m […]. When a house is on fire, you run out before the roof collapses on your head”
(219−20). De Beauvoir contends that “marriage [ought to be viewed] as a free engage-
ment where spouses could break when they wanted to” (1949/1971: 760). Aunty Ifeoma
likewise maintains the idea that marriage should not be an irreversible lifelong contract,
376 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

but should be a union where either party is free to quit, especially when life is in danger.
Her standpoint, I argue, has radical feminist connotations that apparently disturb the
dynamism of “wholeness” and “integration” advocated by womanists. By counselling
Beatrice to quit her marriage, Aunty Ifeoma can be read as a subversive character who
encourages divorce, instead of endurance, as a viable solution to marital problems.
Beatrice heeds this warning, albeit late, but the delay contributes to her deplorable men-
tal health condition. She consequently pays dearly for waiting so long before implement-
ing the advice. In this lies the difference between the two characters, for while Aunty
Ifeoma audibly and rapidly resists repression, Beatrice calmly but progressively achieves
the same, although belatedly. Via both women characters’ confrontational approach to
repression, Adichie stresses not only the complications of progressive resistance but also
the dangers of trying to mend repressive relationships, and by doing so she promotes
spontaneous resistance as a radical feminist strategy.
For Adichie, Aunty Ifeoma’s rapid revolutionary response to repression is an ideal
reaction. In one particular incident the Sole Administrator, who doubles as the military
head of state and vice chancellor of the University of Nsukka, terrorizes Aunty Ifeoma.
He includes her name in a list of staff disloyal to the university, sends unidentified secu-
rity agents to harass her, and eventually terminates her appointment for daring to criticize
his administration. Before this termination, the Sole Administrator implicitly gives her
several opportunities to denounce her words, including sending emissaries who advise
her to remain silent for her safety and that of her children. Aunty Ifeoma nevertheless
refuses to be cowed into false obedience, as she maintains: “I am not paid to be loyal.
When I speak the truth, it becomes disloyal” (227). As Kambili rightly points out: “The
sole administrator was pouring hot water on Aunty Ifeoma’s feet in the bathtub of our
home in Enugu. Then Aunty Ifeoma jumped out of the bathtub and, in the manner of
dreams, jumped into America” (234). As Brenda Cooper observes, it is fascinating that
the Sole Administrator doubles up in Kambili’s dream as “a violent father, the law, the
abuser, who scalded his children’s feet in the boiling water” (2008: 129). Aunty Ifeoma,
unlike Beatrice and Kambili who implicitly resist repression for much of the novel and
only explicitly fight back almost at the end of the text, apparently confronts the Sole
Administrator in his metaphorical experimentation by leaping from the bathtub and
jumping into America.4 This action is a subversive performance; a refusal to be muted or
restricted by Foucault’s ubiquitous power through the conscious act of rapidly asserting
her independence. Aunty Ifeoma’s rapid response to the Sole Administrator’s violent act
is, for Adichie, mostly appropriate as it enables her to avert subsequent health damage.
Aunty Ifeoma’s subversive bearing is also reflected in the purple hibiscus flowers
in her garden. So precious are these purple hibiscus flowers that the title of Adichie’s
text is derived from it. The fact that they make reference to Alice Walker’s The Color
Purple (1982) has prompted overt readings of the novel as a womanist text. Because
Aunty Ifeoma’s garden grows flowers, mainly purple hibiscus, many critics have
described her as a womanist who mentors Jaja, Kambili, and Beatrice to freedom.
Nadaswaran notes that Adichie’s images of flowers, gardening, and the colour purple
comprise a strong allusion to the nexus of womanist theory, particularly Walker’s
axiom “Womanist is to feminist as purple to lavender” (2011: 31). Cooper takes this
line of thought further by arguing that Adichie’s narrative technique, which engrafts
Nwokocha 377

Jaja into her vision of transformation and balances Eugene’s depraved private life with
a reputable public lifestyle, explicitly favours a description of “Womanist as opposed
to feminist” (2010: 9). I contend instead that the severity of the cruelty that Adichie
describes in the text necessitates a subversive response from the recipients of power
who elect to be free. For Adichie, although oppression ultimately produces its resist-
ance, the confrontation must be covertly and overtly lethal for the desired freedom to
be actualized. This view, as I demonstrate below, is embodied in Aunty Ifeoma’s purple
hibiscus.
Entrenched in the purple hibiscus flower is a revolution, and this is significantly
projected through the character of Aunty Ifeoma. This revolution exemplifies her femi-
nist worldview, validating the reading of the text as a radical feminist work. In the dis-
cussion that takes place in her garden, Aunty Ifeoma tells the story of King Jaja of
Opobo, “a defiant king [who] when the British came, […] refused to let them control all
the trade […] so the British exiled him to the West Indies” (152). Through this story of
a rebellious king, Adichie draws readers’ attention to Aunty Ifeoma’s revolutionary
feminist philosophy, which promotes subversion as an essential aspect of resistance.
Aunty Ifeoma shows through this discussion that “Being defiant can be a good thing
sometimes, […]. Defiance is like marijuana — it is not a bad thing when it is used right”
(152). In this statement, she evidently acknowledges rebelliousness as a positive behav-
ioural trait that is not out of place when applied to the right course, the salvaging of the
life and dignity of the oppressed.
Aunty Ifeoma’s perception, I argue, is significant as it embodies her radical feminist
orientation, a distinctive standpoint that allows her to see beyond the colours of the flow-
ers to the functions integral in them. She not only views rebellion as an essential aspect
of these flowers but also upholds the notion that to be radically different can be a good
thing, just as King Jaja, unlike the other kings who compromised their autonomy for a
“bit of gunpowder”, elects to assert his individuality. Comparing the purple hibiscus
flower to the female flowers of the hemp plant that are famous for their intoxicating
properties, Aunty Ifeoma claims that both are not harmful when taken in the right propor-
tion. This assertion disrupts Kambili’s ethical beliefs, as she explains that “the solemn
tone, more than the sacrilege of what she said, made me look up” (152). Aunty Ifeoma’s
endorsement of marijuana, used in a controlled way similar to a doctor’s prescription, is
predicated on the full dose intake for the desired healing and freedom to take place. It is
true that the validation promotes the need for revolution in women’s emancipatory
agenda: its implementation arguably depends entirely on a personal resolution either to
be radically different like King Jaja or to compromise like the other kings. However, for
Adichie, no price is too high for personal dignity even if it takes fighting alone so as to
effect the necessary changes.
Integral to Aunty Ifeoma’s revolution is change. Positioned in opposition to her
brother, Aunty Ifeoma does not share Eugene’s bigotry: the readiness to disregard his
father, offering long prayers during meal times and demonstrating a high level of intoler-
ance to Pentecostalism, particularly the clapping of hands and the use of Igbo songs
during Mass. She instead shows a forward-thinking brand of faith as she respects her
father’s traditionalist beliefs, takes good care of him, sings Igbo songs, and offers short
prayers. As I explored earlier, Stobie holds that Adichie’s religious stance in the text is
378 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

reformist (2010: 423−32). If a reformist is, as Susan Arndt has noted, an African feminist
who “does not challenge the foundations of patriarchal society […], but accept[s] the
fundamental patriarchal orientation of their society as a given fact” (2002: 83), I would
argue contra Stobie that Adichie’s religious stance, evident in the character of Aunty
Ifeoma, is radical in pressing for transformation in the Catholic doctrine. Adichie clearly
challenges the institutions of Catholicism that consider Biblical Eve as a guilty party to
the fall of Adam, a patriarchal agenda responsible for mandatory celibacy in the priest-
hood. In her discussion with Kambili, Amaka avers: “Maybe when we are in the univer-
sity you will join me in agitating for optional celibacy in the priesthood […]. Or maybe
fornication should be permitted all priests once in a while, say, once a month?” (285).
This statement, far from negotiating, challenges the doctrinal foundation of Catholicism.
By agitating for change, Adichie through Amaka disturbs the Catholic norm that insists
on the sacredness of the priesthood, and this intended sexuality campaign embodies that
radical feminist activism which finds itself at constant war with patriarchal orientation
and precepts.
The novel is coloured by Aunty Ifeoma’s revolutionary demeanour, particularly her
rejection of male control. The most illuminating instance of this rejection happens at the
death of Papa-Nnukwu, when she rejects Eugene’s intention to give their father a Catholic
burial: “I will sell Ifediora’s grave first! Was our father a Catholic? […]. Uchu gba gi!
[She] snapped her fingers at Papa” (195). Okuyade concludes that there is no “conflict-
ual” relationship between man and woman in the text (2010: 77). I argue instead that
Aunty Ifeoma’s confrontation with Eugene demonstrates the conflict between man and
woman. Her clicking of her fingers in Eugene’s face while cursing him is a form of fight.
Clearly infuriated by his sister’s act, Eugene resolves not to be part of the supposed
“pagan” burial. Meanwhile, though Eugene is more financially stable than Aunty Ifeoma;
his privileged position never deters her from firmly articulating the demand that their
father’s own religious beliefs get respected. Her radical stance in this context, however,
does not suggest that she is bound to her father’s will; it rather demonstrates her liberal
instinct to respect other people’s individuality. Having vowed to put the grave of her late
husband on sale instead of opting for Eugene’s solution, she demonstrates subversive
carriage by electing to bury Papa-Nnukwu alone.
Alongside her decision to bear sole responsibility for giving her father a traditional
burial, a role considered masculine, Aunty Ifeoma rejects the masculine assistance of her
14-year-old eldest son, Obiora, who offers to “clean where the ozu lay [and] accompany
the ozu to the mortuary” (192). Obiora’s proposal is rooted in his recognition of the
social expectations of him as the first son, a role which he notably lacks the courage and
experience to perform. By refusing to be emotional but merely letting out “sporadic
choking sounds, crying deep in his throat” (191), he reproduces the stereotypical assump-
tion that bravery is the preserve of masculinity, and anticipates that his mother will opt
for a feminine, passive role. This performance reveals the degree of his internalized
normative gender roles in a society that trains men to acquire and retain power through
masculine assertion whereas women are socialized to lose power by being “feminine”
and “passive” (Sanders, 2002: 438). Conversely, Obiora’s expectation is corrected by
Aunty Ifeoma’s rather abrupt response, “No, […] I will do it” (191). Her reaction to his
masculine performance arguably interrupts the womanist theory of complementarity, the
Nwokocha 379

idea that men and women need to work together for a common goal. Aunty Ifeoma’s
blatant refusal accords with the radical feminist emancipatory goal that promotes a radi-
cal restructuring of the society in which male dominance is eradicated in all social and
economic contexts. Her objection to Obiora’s help does not necessarily suggest that she
hates him, but does shadow forth her choice to decide what best suits her. By having her
decline Obiora’s offer and take responsibility for her father’s funeral, Adichie, while
upholding Aunty Ifeoma’s confrontational response as a feminist model, advances a
reordering of the social system whereby women can obtain and retain power by resisting
the socially-ascribed gender roles.
Aunty Ifeoma’s feminist worldview is explicitly opposed to the normative role of
wifehood even though it is significantly moulded by her role as a mother. Introduced
early on as a widow who has lost her husband in an auto crash, she remains a single
mother to the end of the narrative. She unashamedly resists the pressure to remarry by
rejecting her father’s prayer — “My spirit will intercede for you, so that Chukwu will
send a good man to take care of you and children” — requesting instead: “Let your spirit
ask Chukwu to hasten my promotion to senior lecturer, that is all I ask” (92). Aunty
Ifeoma’s preference of academic promotion to marriage tacitly upholds the radical femi-
nist stance that promotes women’s career development over conjugal relationships while
stressing that marital associations with their attendant responsibilities limit women’s
potential. Aunty Ifeoma’s negative view of marriage is why she discourages young girls
in her undergraduate class from marrying early. By inspiring the girls to graduate before
contemplating marriage, she can be read as a radical feminist character who promotes
equality of the sexes and female agency through girls’ education, a subversive behaviour
that I have also identified with the female characters of contemporary Nigerian female
narratives.
Modern Nigerian women’s writing to some extent shares Adichie’s radical feminist
concerns and, by extension, may also be subject to misreading if a womanist framework
is uncritically applied. In her womanist reading of Purple Hibiscus alongside Sefi Atta’s
Everything Good Will Come (2005), Unoma Azuah’s Sky-High Flames (2005), and Sade
Adeniran’s Imagine This (2007), Nadaswaran asserts that Adichie’s Kambili, Azuah’s
Ofunne, Adeniran’s Lola, and Atta’s Enitan are “fully realized young female womanist
characters” who while being mothers, wives and daughters emerge “educated, career-
oriented and strong-willed” (2011: 20–25). Jonas Akung sustains this discussion, assev-
erating that although the female characters of these twenty-first century Nigerian
women’s fictions are assertive, they are so in recognition of the “importance” of their
male counterparts (2012: 115). Focusing on Atta’s Everything Good Will Come, Akung
stresses that Atta’s heroine suffers incarceration for the sake of her father, and through
this action validates her willingness to “give up her life for the survival of her society”
(2012: 119).
These readings by Akung and Nadaswaran signal one tension involved in attempting
to analyse twenty-first century Nigerian female-authored novels. Although both critics
acknowledge self-assertion as a unique feature of the modern texts, they remain silent
about the degree of this self-assertion. This silence, I argue, forecloses the rebellious
temper inherent in theses texts, and such a foreclosure might hamper the emergence of
a strong contemporary tradition that challenges gender inequity and other forms of
380 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

oppression against womanhood. A rethinking along the lines of female rebellion becomes
essential, not to undermine a womanist ideology of compromise or to idolize feminism,
but to foreground the need for dynamic confrontation as a plausible solution to the
woman question in Nigeria. I concede that although it is possible for these new writers to
have been influenced by the older womanist models justifying the existing body of wom-
anist readings of their texts, the drastic responses of the protagonists, which are individu-
alistic rather than communal in nature, disrupt such readings. Entrenched in this
individualistic tendency is the quest to be in charge of one’s life as opposed to letting that
life be ruled by the wishes of others.
Recent novels by Nigerian women authorize female uprising as a sensible and inev-
itable response to oppression, and as such create a favourable impression of feminism.
While this article may not address all of the modern Nigerian female-authored narra-
tives, the approach I have applied to Purple Hibiscus might be fruitfully applied to
other contemporary texts by (diasporic) Nigerian women writers. Authors such as Sefi
Atta, Kaine Agary, Unoma Azuah, Chika Unigwe, Sade Adeniran, and Helen Oyeyemi
have persistently employed fiction as a medium through which notions of radical femi-
nism as inimical are challenged. By balancing representations of life under threat with
a matched confrontational drive for survival, Atta’s Everything Good Will Come
(2005), Agary’s Yellow Yellow (2006), Azuah’s Sky-High Flames (2005), Adeniran’s
Imagine This (2007), and Unigwe’s On Black Sisters’ Street (2009) promote rebellion
as an appropriate response to restrictive circumstances. Readers are encouraged to
visualize and identify with the fictional figures whose lifestyles and choices, much like
those of many readers, are adjudged abnormal merely because they fail to conform to
normative expectations. Atta’s Enitan, Agary’s Zilayefa, Azuah’s Ofunne, Adeniran’s
Lola, and Unigwe’s Sisi, Ama, Joyce, and Efe are resilient and independent personali-
ties who abdicate subsidiary roles in the private domain to assert agency in the public
space. Opting for careers as lawyers, educators, and sex workers rather than plumping
for domesticity might be considered by some readers as anti-family, yet these new
writers have consistently validated such preferences as reflecting the genuine life
experiences of some Nigerian women.
Through the platform of fiction, these new writers have continued to chart the degree
of female distinctiveness in Nigerian society by featuring new ways of thinking about
family, especially single parenthood, as valid ways of life. It is revealing that most of the
female characters of these contemporary novels maintain a single parent status at some
point in their life, and this, I suggest, reflects the authors’ attempts to draw attention to
single parenting as a vital but silenced aspect of Nigerian culture. In Adichie’s Purple
Hibiscus, Beatrice becomes a single parent after killing her husband, just as Aunty
Ifeoma becomes a widow and a single parent, having lost her husband to a tragic motor
accident. Similarly, Atta’s Arinola and her daughter, Enitan, become single parents after
divorcing and separating from their spouses respectively. Azuah’s Ofunne abandons her
marriage on discovery of her spouse’s infidelity and infertility. Unigwe’s Sisi, Ama,
Joyce, and Efe strive for a better life through sex work. Also, Adeniran’s Constance
(Lola’s mother) deserts marriage in pursuit of a personal career, just as Agary’s Binaebi
elects for single parenting.
Nwokocha 381

However, whereas Beatrice’s and Aunty Ifeoma’s single-parenthood is predicated

upon the death of their partners, Agary’s female characters are, from the inception of the
plot, single parents by choice. Where Beatrice for financial and procreative reasons lin-
gers awhile in marriage before asserting agency, young Binaebi not only remains unmar-
ried but also declines further heterosexual relationships throughout the text. Binaebi’s
self-ruling behaviour, which is in stark contrast with the usual gendered notion of female
dependence, authenticates her individuality, outweighing feminine social expectations of
an ideal woman who relies on men for protection and care. This primacy of autonomy
above complementarity with men makes Binaebi a more radical feminist character whose
impulse for independence is unprecedented. Again, I wish to note that this assertion does
not suggest that Binaebi is a remote personality who hates men. Although there are help-
ful men such as Ikechukwu, her local church pastor, who assists in finding a place for her
daughter in Port Harcourt, she never relies on such assistance for her daily needs, since
she alone provides for her family. By transforming the social world order (to adapt Pam
Morris’s expression (1993: 10)) through recognition of unconventional family form as
single parenting through choice, contemporary Nigerian female novelists could be read
as progressive feminist writers who articulate a radical feminist worldview that permits
new ways of thinking about family.
In this article, I concentrated on Adichie’s fictional figures’ subversive responses to
oppression, noting that regardless of the oppressive agents’ intent to constrain the choices
available to their subjects, the recipients of power possess the tenacity to act in spite of,
or in reaction to, the power imposed upon them. I argued that the nature of the female
protagonists’ resistance primarily favours a radical feminist reading, for while Kambili
and Beatrice gradually assert their autonomy, which reaches its climax with the killing of
Eugene, Aunty Ifeoma displays subversive comportment by choosing to position herself
at odds with normative rules through her negative views on marriage and her blatant
refusal of masculine assistance. Aunty Ifeoma’s emphasis on subjectivity, as against
shared commonality, validates the radical feminist undertone of the text, which in my
view is yet to receive attention from Adichie’s critics.
In critiquing the womanist readings of Purple Hibiscus, I also developed the evalua-
tion that recent Nigerian female-authored narratives share Adichie’s radical feminist
concerns, and that such works may be subject to misreading if a womanist paradigm is
uncritically applied. I admit that there are instances in these modern novels that might
call for a womanist reading; however, such readings are deficient in apprehending the
radical reactions of the heroines to repressive milieu. I conclude with the conviction that
the radical feminist framework is helpful to our understanding of the nuances of the nov-
els in this age. Employing a radical feminist rather than a womanist interpretation per-
mits the reader to have a fresh insight into the revolutionary temper of the works of this
period. This awareness, apart from portraying the Nigerian (and broadly African) female
novel tradition as a non-static creative piece of art, makes visible how far Nigerian
(African) female writers have gone in conceptualizing distinctive female experiences.
By focusing on a radical feminist paradigm, for the novelists of the twenty-first century
this article has claimed recognition of their impact on the genre. Through this model, the
paper thus encourages liberal interpretations that are free from the conservative biases
that have persistently ruled their readings.
382 The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 54(3)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. Subsequent references are to this (2003) edition of Purple Hibiscus and will be cited paren-
thetically by page number in the text.
2. The étagère, in this context, is a glass bookshelf for storing sacred objects such as the family
Bible and leather-bound missal that contained the readings for all three cycles of the year.
3. In the text, Jaja willingly accepts the responsibility for killing his father by going to jail.
4. Aunty Ifeoma migrates to the United States where she secures a teaching appointment in an
American university.

References
Adeniran S (2007) Imagine This. London: SW Books.
Andrade S (2011) Adichie’s genealogies: National and feminine novels. Research in African
Literature 42(2): 91−101.
Adichie CN (2003) Purple Hibiscus. Lagos: Farafina.
Adichie CN (2014) We Should All Be Feminists. London: Fourth Estate.
Agary K (2006) Yellow Yellow. Lagos: Dtallkshop.
Akung J (2012) Feminist dimensions in Sefi Atta’s Everything Good Will Come. Studies in
Literature and Language 4(1): 114−122.
Atta S (2005) Everything Good Will Come. London: Arris Books.
Arndt S (2002) The Dynamics of African Feminism Defining and Classifying African Feminist
Literature. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.
Azuah U (2005) Sky-High Flames. Baltimore: Publish America.
Chukukere G (1998) An appraisal of feminism in the socio-political development of Nigeria. In:
Nnaemeka O (ed) Sisterhood, Feminism and Power: From Africa to the Diaspora. Trenton,
NJ: Africa World Press, 133–148.
Cooper B (2008) A New Generation of African Writers: Migration, Material Culture and
Language. Oxford: Currey.
Cooper B (2010) Resurgent spirits, Catholic echoes of Igbo & petals of purple: The syncretised
world of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus. In: Emenyonu E, Wilson-Tagoe N
and Emenyonu P (eds) New Novels in African Literature Today 27. Woodbridge: Boydell &
Brewer, 1−12.
De Beauvoir S (1949/1971) The Second Sex. New York: Knopf.
Eze C (2008) African feminism: Resistance or resentment? Quest: An African Journal of
Philosophy/Revue Africaine de Philosophie XX (1−2): 97−118.
Foucault M (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Trans. Sheridan A). London:
Penguin.
Hartling L (2009) Strengthening resilience in a risky world: It’s all about relationships. Women &
Therapy 31(2): 51−70.
Nwokocha 383

Ibeku I A (2015) Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus and the issue of feminism in African novel. Journal
of Literature and Art Studies 5(6): 426−437.
Ifechelobi JN (2014) Feminism: Silence and voicelessness as tools of patriarchy in Chimamanda
Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus. African Research Review 8(4): 17−27.
Ikediugwu OA (2013) Feminist inclinations in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun
and Purple Hibiscus. New Academia 11(IV): 1−16.
Jordan W and Hartling L (2002) New developments in relational cultural theory. In: Ballou M and
Brown L (eds) Rethinking mental health and disorder: Feminist perspectives. New York: The
Guilford Press.
McNay L (1992) Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender and the Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
McNay L (1994) Foucault: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nadaswaran S (2011) Rethinking family relationships in third-generation Nigerian women’s fic-
tion. Relief 5(1): 19−32.
Morgan R (1970) Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation
Movement. New York: Vintage Books.
Morris P (1993) Literature and Feminism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ogunyemi OC (1985) Womanism: The dynamics of the contemporary black female novel in
English. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11(1): 63−80.
Ohale C (2012) The perpetuation of injustice against women: Reflections on widowhood practices
in Africa and the task of the writer in challenging the status quo. Forum on Public Policy: A
Journal of the Oxford Round 2012(1): 1−12.
Okuyade O (2010) Geography of anxiety: Narrating childhood and resisting familial order
in recent Nigerian women’s writing. The International Journal — Language Society and
Culture 31(1): 72−80.
Porter N (2002) Contextual development frameworks in diagnosing children and adoles-
cents. In: Ballou M and Brown L (eds) Rethinking Mental Health and Disorder: Feminist
Perspectives. New York: The Guilford Press, 262–278.
Sanders P (2002) The feminism of Dorothy West’s “The Living Is Easy”: A critique of the limi-
tations of the female sphere through performative gender roles. African American Review
36(3): 435−446.
Sossou M (2002) Widowhood practices in Africa: The silent victims. International Journal of
Social Welfare 11(3): 201−209.
Stobie C (2010) Dethroning the infallible father: Religion, patriarchy and politics in Chimamanda
Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus. Literature and Theology 24(4): 421−435.
Unigwe C (2009) On Black Sisters’ Street. London: Vintage.
Walker A (1982) The Color Purple. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Walker A (1983) In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.