Stay In This World
The stories, the culture, the conversations. Every week.
No spam. No third parties. Just Unruly.
Not expertise. Not evidence. Just the confidence that their discomfort is everyone's problem.
Most people never notice when it happens. Someone encounters a piece of creative work, a song, a film, an outfit, a performance, and something in them tightens. That tightening is discomfort. It is personal, it is real, and on its own it is entirely unremarkable. People feel discomfort about things they do not understand or have not encountered before. That is human.
What happens next is what makes the difference. While most people sit with the discomfort, perhaps discuss it, perhaps move on. But a particular kind of person does something else entirely. They take that discomfort and reframe it. Not as a personal reaction but as a social signal. Not as something they felt but as something everyone should feel. Not as their problem but as a communal threat. In that reframing, something shifts. The opinion becomes concern, the concern becomes danger, and suddenly, the person with the discomfort has appointed themselves the protector of everyone who did not ask for their protection. Sociologist Howard Becker called these people moral entrepreneurs.
The move is worth understanding carefully because it is very consistent across contexts and so effective. It works by first identifying something that produces genuine anxiety in a segment of the population, sexual expression, unconventional style, non-traditional relationships, creative work that challenges authority, and then doing something specific with that anxiety. Rather than acknowledging it as anxiety, the moral entrepreneur translates it into danger. The person who is different is not simply different. They are a threat to the community, to the children, to the culture, to God's design.
This translation is what gives the moral entrepreneur their power. Anxiety is personal. Danger is communal. Once something has been successfully framed as a communal danger, the moral entrepreneur can demand a communal response. The people who might otherwise have stayed out of it, who might have simply felt mildly uncomfortable, are now enlisted. Their discomfort has been upgraded to fear and their passivity to complicity if they do not act.
The tell is always the same: “think of the children” or “I am just worried about society” or “I have nothing against these people personally, I am just concerned about what this normalizes”. The moral entrepreneur rarely says plainly that they dislike something or someone. They position it as concern. Because concern sounds like care, and care sounds like expertise, and expertise sounds like authority.
This is not solely a Nigerian problem or even an African one. But it has specific variations here that are worth discussing. Across the continent, the creative class has spent decades navigating moral entrepreneurship from multiple directions simultaneously: institutional, religious, familial, and social. The Nigerian Broadcasting Commission's Not To Be Broadcast lists, which have at various points banned songs for words like "alcohol" and phrases like "bad belle," are the institutional tip of a much larger social practice. In Kano State alone, artists reported over 160 cases of unjust censorship in the first three quarters of 2024. In Kenya, Wanuri Kahiu's film Rafiki, the first Kenyan film selected for Cannes, was banned in 2018 by the Kenya Film Classification Board for its "clear intent to promote lesbianism." It took seven years of legal battles before the Court of Appeal ruled the ban unconstitutional in January 2026, finding that depicting a same-sex relationship does not amount to promoting it. In April 2025, armed police in riot gear blocked Butere Girls High School from performing their play Echoes of War at Kenya's national drama festival, after the play was deemed politically inconvenient.
These are the institutional expressions. But the social ones are equally powerful and far less visible. The Tanzanian family that stops sending a daughter to art school because the community has decided that kind of ambition is inappropriate for a young woman. The Ghanaian musician who self-censors an entire verse because they know what the response will be from their religious community. The queer creative in Lagos who ha to make their Instagram private because the cumulative weight of being monitored and judged by people who do not make anything, but have strong opinions about what should be made has become too exhausting to sustain.
Even in democratic societies, self-censorship has become widespread, as many fear reprisals for speaking out on sensitive topics. Self-censorship is what moral entrepreneurship ultimately produces at scale. The censor does not need to be present in every room. They only need to be present often enough that creatives begin to do the work for them.
There is a line worth drawing carefully. Not everything that looks like moral entrepreneurship is. Some limits are legitimate. Broadcasting standards that protect children from explicit content during school hours are not the same thing as banning the word "alcohol" from a pop song. A community's right to maintain standards around sacred ceremonies is not the same thing as policing what a musician wears in a video. The line between appropriate cultural guardrails and moral entrepreneurship is not always obvious, and pretending that it is makes you miss what is actually interesting about the conversation.
What distinguishes legitimate limits from moral entrepreneurship is not the subject matter. It is the reasoning and the honesty about motivation. Legitimate limits come with transparent criteria, consistent application, and acknowledgement that the limit is a value judgement rather than an objective truth. Moral entrepreneurship comes with inflated stakes, inconsistent application, and a persistent refusal to acknowledge that what is really happening is that someone's personal discomfort has been granted institutional or social authority.
The Nigerian spiritual leader who says Afrobeats specifically is spiritually dangerous is not making a verifiable claim. He is expressing a preference and recruiting others to enforce it. That is different from a broadcasting authority that says films with explicit sexual content should not air before 9pm. One is an opinion wearing the costume of expertise. The other is a defensible institutional standard, however imperfectly applied.
The cost of moral entrepreneurship to African creative culture is not only the work that gets banned or never made. It is subtler and in some ways more damaging than that. It is the creative who learns to shrink their vision before anyone asks them to. The filmmaker who writes a safer ending, even though it is unrealistic. The musician who removes the verse that says the very thing that needs to be said. The visual artist who keeps a whole body of work private because they have already calculated the social cost of showing it and decided it is too high.
The culture we celebrate now, the Afrobeats that fills arenas globally, the Nollywood that is finding new international audiences, the Nigerian fashion that is building genuine global presence, was built by people who either did not hear the moral entrepreneurs loudly enough to be stopped, or who heard them clearly and kept going anyway. The question worth asking is how many other things could have existed, and did not, because the cost of keeping going was too high.
Moral entrepreneurs rarely announce themselves as people who are afraid of something new. They announce themselves as people who are protecting something old. The distinction matters because one is honest and the other is not, and African creative culture deserves representatives who are honest about what they actually want.
