Dialogical Dynamics and Subversions of Political and Ideological Boundaries in Chinua Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the subtle allegorical political nuances and implications in Chinua Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah (1987). The novel foregrounds and grapples with the problematics of voice, representation, and history where the more inclusive voice appears to be, the more suppressive and exclusive of other voices it is. Hence, the text enacts a journey toward a realm that rises above gender and class-based rigidities, fusing facets of Nigerian sociopolitical and environmental crises (in the past and present). The novel takes on multiple narratives that engender continuation and sharing vis-à-vis historical realities of political cleansing and ideologies and systems of exclusion. Counteracting condescendingly patronizing doctrines and reductive dichotomies, dialogism and ecofeminism pay equal attention to all parties and reject polarizations and divisions. A combination of these approaches precludes tantalization, and it also humanizes ecofeminism and gives it a wider scope. In principle, combined, these approaches guard against any rejectionist or exclusionary superstructures they seek to deconstruct. Ecofeminism, much like Bakhtinian dialogism in its quest for justice, hinges environmental degradation to gender-based, class-based, racist, and imperial variables, and it disrupts these ideologies and systems of oppression in order to assuage human and nonhuman conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".