When Denial Annoys Even the Devil

By

Obododimma Oha

Denial is a typical human discursive activity, which is obviously an attempt at defending the self, showing the self as blameless. When that self is blameworthy and one is claiming to be blameless, it is damaging to the image of self. It is laughable and also seems to imply the following, which are likewise annoying:

(i) others are fools;

(ii) others can believe just anything;

(iii) others are under some control and can do anything that they are told;

(iv) others do not make use of their brains – somebody has to think for them.

(v) relationship with these others is founded on deception.

One can then understand why the devil is grossly annoyed in the film, Suing the Devil, in which a salesperson and poor law student, Luke O’Brien, sues the devil for eight trillion dollars, for the disasters and harm he has caused in the world. Oh, you are smiling, too! This special but seemingly laughable court case goes on ridiculously, people wondering how the devil, a supposedly non-existent entity, would appear to defend himself. But the devil appears though unrecognized in the court-room, wearing a suit and with his team of powerful attorneys. The aspect that concerns us is his annoyance over the claim that he does not exist. Initially, he finds that funny, but at some point, does not find it funny again. He gets angry, even with the presiding judge, stands up and tells him to shut up, whether it is not he (the devil) that has been doing wonderful things for him, including promoting him. He has also helped other attorneys present, who are arguing that he is fiction! Who has the courage to charge him with contempt of court in that supernatural manifestation? How could the immortal be subject to human law, including resolving disputes based on their little knowledge (for which they are very proud!) with an idea about whose arguments are smarter? Nonsense! So, the devil, starred by Malcolm McDowell, finds human denial and court-room discourse really deficient and grossly infuriating.

Released to the public in 2011, written and produced by Tim Chey, Suing the Devil shows us how far in logic our tendency to deny can go and should annoy us if we really make use of our brains. Indeed, it is the kind of discourse about the devil that C.S. Lewis, the author of the famous Screwtape Letters, would find exceptionally inspiring. Allhough the film has a Christian evangelical ring to it, it is very relevant to the logic of how we deny or accept things in discourse: it challenges us to think critically about denial in discourse and about reality. Is the act of denial not really an invitation for us to think, to probe things deeper or is it for us to accept whatever we are told? If we are prone to accept whatever we are told, does that not show that our population of people are the easiest to rule by any fool? Does it not seem to say that ignorance is still food in that very context and that the ruling group may want to perpetuate it?

Furthermore, the film invites us to look at court-room discourse and reality again. It seems our courtroom discourse overlooks certain things and carries on conservatively at the way it looks at reality and evidence. The courtroom order is typically Western and would not admit any evidence from Ifa or any other system that is not observable. Above all, it privileges the nonsense that one’s proud argument along conservative lines is able to say. In that case, it recognises just one reality and dismisses fiction as a mere dream, just as the film itself remains a mere dream!

What is the boundary between dream and reality, particularly in a courtroom discourse that places some importance on talk, on argument? This boundary will continue to operate outside the law, but could be flouted sometimes as we demand justice. When one thinks of suing the devil or an angel, one is considered mad but held hostage by one reality. How would that reality understand the insanity as sanity?

There could be a rational basis for denial in some cases. For instance, if you assert that the author of this essay is the current President of USA, he could deny the assertion and we could easily agree with him. The weight of evidence would weigh in his favor. Also, if one says: "It is well" when I know that it is not, I could say the assertion is false, even if rhetorical. Further, if somebody claims that he cannot function efficiently in power because his predecessors performed badly, is he not begging the question and merely being defensive? One should know when to deny ("Ihe a gba n'aka, a naghị asị weta enyo ka e lelee ya" (A  mirror is not required to see a bracelet that one is wearing). One should know when denial becomes ridiculous. What is obvious is obvious. A denial is not a profession, neither is it concrete action. Denial is discursive and only shows that one is merely looking for excuses.