ọdụ mmadụ dụrụ onwe ya

by

Obododimma Oha

 The Igbo have a lot of interest in individual responsibility and confrontation with life. That is one reason they say, “Onye kwe, chi ya ekwere” (If one agrees, one’s chi agrees). In other words, one’s involvement in making the decision, even deciding eventually, is important. It shows that the fellow, Jacob, that wrestled with the angel until dawn, saying “You must bless me,” has an Igbo spirit! Onye kwe, chi ya ekwere. And we see it in the understanding of even things like counselling or giving the other a piece of advice. The counsel seen as the greatest among the Igbo is the one that one gives to oneself. One cannot lie to oneself. Moreover, it is assumed that we like ourselves. Hardly do you find those who hate themselves and are still alive.

Most of the time, we think about counsel as what we give others. Some people think that they do not need counsel from others, even if others are experts on the issue at stake. They think they know it (check social media debates and find out!) but they would discover their error somewhere along the line. Well, but we think about counsel as being the other-directed, not to self. But the saying, ọdụ mmadụ dụrụ onwe ya (the advice or counsel that one gives oneself) contradicts that. How can self counsel the self? It looks like a contradiction, for it erases otherness in the interaction. How can an interaction not be interactive?

Really, sometimes the intrapersonal surprises us with doubleness, as in inner voices, as if there is really an argument between one voice and another,. And, indeed, there is such an argument that precedes every decision one makes. One has to listen to the argument between these voices, and one’s decision in the matter is an adjudication based on which voice is more persuasive in arguing the case. Among Christians, one of the voices arguing is identified as that of Satan seeking to mislead! So, he enjoys misleading?

Anyway, the important thing is that we as humans are formatted with this double-personality, double selfhood, producing a curious or fascinating case of “inner worlds” and “outer worlds,” which have to interact in almost everything. Among psychologists, especially psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung, that “inner world” should not be taken for granted; it is powerful and can shape our actions in a number of ways!

So, when somebody says, “ọdụ mmadụ dụrụ onwe ya,” who is doing the counselling? Which self is counselling self? Can the self still be held responsible for decisions or actions if a voice independent of singularity  is probably doing the counselling? And, by the way, a counsel is a counsel. A decision is a decision. The two are not the same, even when we can argue that one is the cause (counsel) while the other is the effect (decision, then action). By extension, the effect (the action) is not directly related to the counsel. The immediate cause of the action is the decision.

All the same, counselling the self to take a particular action is already a taking of responsibility. If someone else counsels us, we start arguing whether the counsel is the cause or the effect. But, in this case, one is accepting responsibility for giving accommodation to the arguing voices. One is the owner of both voices. So, based on that, one should accept the consequences of the action resulting from the counsel.

Does this not solve the problem of blaming the other, of shifting the buck? As humans, we like exonerating ourselves. We like being on the defensive. No; it  is the other’s fault, not ours. We are innocent, excellent! Who ever writes his or her autobiography and fails to celebrate his or heroism? Who fails to narrate self as wonderful and the other is not trustworthy? OK; check the titles of autobiographies you know and see for yourself how they initiate the praise-singing and exoneration.

Yes; “ọdụ mmadụ dụrụ onwe ya.” Does that not look unique? Does it not invite us to try to understand ourselves, the counselling selves? Does it not also look at the counsel? Is the counsel worth giving, that we can give it to ourselves? Does it not pick up the leash on personal behaviour and ask us to pull this leash now and then?

I am not sure that those who like or practise “ọdụ mmadụ dụrụ onwe ya” are hard-core individualists. They are simply those who understand the drama of life and who think that we should know when to play a role and when not to.