Corona Virus as a Science Fiction Tragedy

by

Obododimma Oha


Some people make the mistake of thinking that science fiction (sci-fi, for short) is fantasy for young people who are crackpots. Science fiction may have dwelt on matters that are classified as puerile but can bring up serious issues about human life. It can point the way to new possibilities and inventions waiting.  It has also extensively looked at disease and human survival in the world. These doomsday narratives have been warning and cautioning, asking us to get ready with strategies for addressing the hypothetical situation.

As someone who has been consuming some of these narratives, I see a similarity between what is playing out now as Corona Virus Scare and many cases we have in science fiction narratives. When I was just thinking about  putting together this essay, I had to refer to some existent knowledge on the Internet  about those narratives. Here is an interesting explanation on Wikipedia about apocalyptic fiction, which we are thinking about:

Apocalyptic fiction does not portray catastrophes, or disasters, or near-disasters that do not result in apocalypse. A threat of an apocalypse does not make a piece of fiction apocalyptic. For example, Armageddon and Deep Impact are considered disaster films and not apocalyptic fiction because, although Earth and/or humankind are terribly threatened, in the end they manage to avoid destruction.

So, following this line of thinking, let us say that Corona Virus Scare is both disaster in outlook and apocalyptic, after all, there is a prediction that the epidemic would go away after sometime; we will manage to overcome it. And a new world will follow. But the route taken is disaster, and people may watch helplessly while loved ones suffer and die, or are isolated. That is very painful and a challenge to our humanity.

If I call it a tragedy, that is in a simple sense that many have perished in fighting it. I also refer to the classical sense of tragedy as something painful from which  some ironically derive pleasure or catharsis. An account of that catharsis has to include, not just the enjoyment of some conspiracy theories emerging from it, but also the fact that the characters mentioned in those narratives seem to derive some pleasure from what they are doing – performing experiments with human beings and trying to see if they can enact disaster! How different is that from the gladiatorial shows of the ancient Roman Empire? In the process of reading up for this essay, I came across conspiracy theories pointing towards the escape of the viruses from an American laboratory and another an experiment gone awry in a Chinese laboratory. These are just some of the emergent conspiracy theories.

The only difference, you would say, is that the science fiction narratives were imagined, scripted, revised, and then, published. But you are looking at real life. Reality has learnt to imitate fiction. Nothing prevents our world from modelling its life, its experiences, after what obtains in science fiction narratives. Are we not the fictional characters acting our roles and learning from science fiction? If Corona experience turns out to be apocalyptic, that, too, is a learning experience.

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.

Obi Ndi Uka: the beginning

By

Obododimma Oha

Today, I remember my childhood. One aspect of my childhood I remember with gladness in particular is a discourse about church as an arbiter, obi ndi ụka, (literally “the mind of the church person” or “a Christian spirit...”). As children, we fought a lot over trivialities, but we quickly made up and became friends again, sharing the little chewables we could find: stale groundnuts, bean cakes, pieces of bread, biscuits, candies, chewing gum, etc. These were tempting and there was obi ndi ụka standing nearby, waiting to settle quarrels and convince us to share. Obi ndi ụka welded a community of sharers; it was only adulthood that came later to turn the soup sour, to make the quarrel last long and put heavy luggage on tender hearts. It was hard-hearted adulthoood that knew the difference between sin and righteousness, Heaven and Hell. But as children, the law was obi ndi ụka: it quickly settled quarrels and gave us justice.

How was obi ndi ụka able to work the magic? Two children would have a disagreement, maybe a fight, and a third party would come forward and throw the obi ndi ụka challenge (considering the mind of the Christian in the matter) and that would be the reason to forgive. Obi ndi ụka was what one subscribed to in the catechism class. One would not like to miss Heaven because of another person and because of a little difference. So, one quickly forgave. One had to do obi ndi ụka in the matter, not that one had accepted being treated unjustly or being cheated. One just had to do obi ndi ụka, to show that there was a difference, to suffer injustice, hoping that God was taking note. Doing obi ndi ụka was obviously a way of scoring moral points and moving on. It was the mind of the just, the mind of God. In that case, only the Devil would not do obi ndi ụka. Simply this: the Devil must be hard-hearted, we imagined. We would not like to be like the Devil! 

It was considered strange, very strange, for one to be a Christian and not have obi ndi ụka and not be able to do obi ndi ụka. What kind of Christianity was that? It puzzled us and we just had to make sure that we did obi ndi ụka, and God was always the witness.

Maybe we were very naive and obi ndi ụka was a simplistic interpretation of the Christian attitude. Maybe it was because of that naivety that adults have to struggle with camels to enter the eye of a needle but children are warmly welcome to sit beside the son of God. Maybe our witness is our witness, standing beside the evidence!

How that discourse of obi ndi ụka easily becomes  a way of seeing things and looking at the world differently. It was because of obi ndi ụka that we were able to be playmates, sharers, and people who could watch the other’s back as we stole mangoes or roamed the bushes and shot noisy squirrels. It was because of obi ndi ụka that we were able to be one, even though from various homesteads. Obi ndi ụka was a major law, our major guide. To lose it was to lose one’s way.

Come to think of it, obi ndi ụka was a special logic, the reason for a reason. What reason was greater than a reason? There has to be a reason behind a reason. Call it “super-reason.” That “super-reason” is superior and over-riding. We were its subjects.

Indeed, invoking the authentic mind of the church person was a way of confessing that there is a difference between a fake and a genuine one. Who would not want to be intepellated and governed by the genuine one? Who would not want to take sides with it? Who would want the inability to idenitfy with genuine become the reason for losing? Not me! And so, one was wholly for obi ndi ụka and supported its intervention.

It is interesting how that discourse brought peace. Fighters made up and became friends again. No more aggression. No more conflict, at least at that point. All  were for the other. It was the order of obi ndi ụka. But selfishness belonged elsewhere. One community of children; one principle of obi ndi ụka.

Has obi ndi ụka just travelled? I can’t seem to see that beautiful fellow at home! Where have you gone, obi ndi ụka? Children of this and that homestead are looking for you. They want you to touch them. They want you to guide them. They want you to help them to form community. They want to have a “super-reason.”

Argument and Image of Self

By

Obododimma Oha


Anyone who monitors happenings on various platforms on social media, whether on Facebook or WhatsApp, whether on listservs or on Telegram, would testify to the fact that subscribers are often involved in one form of endless argument or another. It sometimes looks like a championship in a theatre and each arguer seems yoked to give a response so as to equalize. I wonder whether such arguers have peace of mind and do something else instead of being worried and going back to read a reaction and to prove a point. The best thing seems to be as the Igbo would say: Onye Imo hụrụ ụkwụ ya ka ọ na-eburu (Anyone whose  feet are sighted by River Imo is the person it carries away) . And so, it is better to leave that person kittting up for a battle to fight self and self alone!

So, if you want to see argument and the performance of the pride over who knows and who does not, go the various forums on social media.

 All the same, people argue so as to enrich the thinking of others and to try to influence behaviour. It is not just to show off. This form of rhetoric is at the heart of human intersubjectivity. We depend on one another. No one knows it all. We,therefore, need other people to bring their ideas to fertilize ours. Other people’s knowledge is really our own resources. Ours is incomplete and is asking to be allowed to become complete, always.

I have identified argument as a form of rhetoric and an appeal to reason, to thinking. It is asking us to think as beings and to think properly. Stephen Toulmin has a good thinking about argument as rhetoric. I unreservedly recomment him. He shows us that it is a process whereby we have to provide proofs or evidence for claims we advance. That is proper, but make sure your proofs are sound, properly supported by other acceptable grounds.

This is where one can bring in more fully the way argument affects self, not just promoting self as a knower. First, a weak proof, say an appeal to pathos pretending to be an appeal to reason, can easily reveal the arguer as being shallow-minded and fraudulently trying to score a point.

Further, when something is obvious and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and one is still arguing, hoping to win, it is obvious that one is further demolishing one’s argument, presenting self as an idiot, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

That self is further distanced and we are being told indirectly to avoid the fellow.

I once had a friend who would argue and argue endlesssly. If you got exhausted and told him that he had won, he would turn around and ask: “How have I won?” That was obviously designed to start another round of argument. The best thing was not to change the topic, for he was still lying in wait. The best thing would be to just run away.

So, what is my admonition? Simply this: do not always argue for the sake of winning arguments. Think of the poor image you cut for yourself before others.Argue, mainly to enrich the thinking of others. If you argue to be seen as the only wise person around, you are, indeed, unwise. Argue because you must, not to add to the problems of others. There is time and context to argue. It is not every time and every where and in every thing. Think and rethink the argument.

A Morphing Amotekun

By

Obododimmma Oha

Art in violence and the art of violence, as two different things with an interesting intersection, could be quite intriguing in analysis. First, both reveal the use of force to get a way, and that may entail pain or death. But, second, both have representations from which, ironically, we derive pleasure and professionally discuss as encodings of craft. It is possible that those with artistic skills that suggested the name, “Amotekun,” (roughly translated as “leopard”) and its emblem, were interested in reconciling the fear-instilling meaning with the aesthetic touch. As someone keenly interested in the aesthetic, I noticed the large-cat icon and linked it with the encoding or targeting of fear as its silent statement about grace. 

(Particular artist anonymous) 

The Ekun (lion or leopard in Yoruba) is a fearless killer. A hunter that meets Ekun in the bush is certainly playing with the big boys! The large cats are fearless devourers and may be good candidates in the iconization or a countervailing of terror, a paradoxical representation of anti-terrorist terror, you would say. With the emergence of related security outfits in other regions of Nigeria, one also had to look for the aesthetic statement in the designs of the emblems. That was a good candidate for an article for Artitude, one of my blogs dedicated to politics and the artistic.

One cannot miss the recurrence of the large-cat icon in the designs of emblems of other regional security outfits. It is there in the emblem of the Northern security outfit. It is there in the one being proposed for the South-East. Are these other copycats merely copying and pasting without giving due credit, especially since Nigeria officially seems to trivialize plagiarism in artworks? So, it seems to be the same Amotekun traveling – to the North, the South-East.... Who knows where it is headed next? But when it travels to other regions, it behaves like a typical Nigerian politician at campaigns – adorning a bit of the local dress, but still wearing the true dress of self, hoping to deceive local populations that he or she identifies with them.

But it is the same Amotekun traveling as Ekun the tiger or large cat from region to region, mobilizing, campaigning for a localization of security, selling the culture of fear in the artistic and the artistic of fear... a morphing Amotekun.

If I say that it is the same Amotekun, maybe I am concentrating on Ekun the tiger! Perhaps I should also focus on difference. The South-East outfit is called “Operation Ogbunigwe.” 

(Particular artist anonymous  

Ogbunigwe may be typically Biafran and instilling fear as an explosive, but is this local security really about mass killing or a protection? Something does not quite sit very well there. I know that the outfit could kill to protect, but a loud Ogbunigwe gives a misleading impression that the outfit has set out to kill en masse! That is not true, even though it may be looking for a local icon to narrate its no-nonsense posture. Also, is it not very creative when Biafra's popular rising sun becomes a young person's fashionable shaggy hairstyle? If the sight of the rising sun annoys you, then see it in the shaggy hair. Who says ambiguity has no value? 

I know that the proponents for the South-East Security outfit may be at great pains in reconciling the icons in the emblem: there is the ogbunigwe lure and there is icon of the colonial blaster which, I doubt, captures the ogbunigwe idea. Perhaps the mass killer is "unrepresentable", not even by a leopard which kills and drags up its meat in the tree. So, I know the problem in the semiotization. But, why not we see the same anti-terrorist terrorism traveling? The paradox is admirable!

The Northern outfit is linguistically anchored in Hausa as “shege-Ka-Fasa,” which means, “I dare you to attack or surrender," and that is clearly more of a response or counter-statement. So, it is all about attack and counter-attack in Nigeria, in which the tragic conclusion may be an ogbunigwe summary in rivers of blood.

(Artist anonymous) 

This discourse, however, points at violence in the icon travelling. It is traveling now in the bloodstream of Nigeria and may rip its heart open.

Nigerian Expressions, English Blessings.

By

Obododimma Oha

The recent entry of some Nigerian expressions into Oxford dictionary of English is welcome but raises a lot of issues about the formal use of the expressions, the commitment of Nigerian linguists to the development of Nigerian English, and Nigeria’s linguistic independence. The Nigerian expresssions that were given a blessing include: agric, barbing, buka, bukateria, chop-chop, danfo, to eat money, ember months, flag-off, to flag off, gist, guber, Kannywood, k-leg, mama put, next tomorrow, non-indigene, okada, to put to bed, qualitative, rub minds(together), sef, send-forth, tokunbo, zone and zoning. A report on this can be found at: https://t.guardian.ng/new/oxford-dictionary-adds-okada-danfo-mama-put-26-other-nigerian-words-expressions/  . Indeed, a similar process of acceptation was created by Merrriam Webster, but Webster’s goes through a process of reaction to submissions over time and later the expression may be included if reactions are satisfactory and if the expression is much in use. To introduce this welcoming ritual for expressions from the Outer Circle of English use (as Braj Kachru lists Nigeria) is a significant thing. So, Nigeria is finally not sliding in to the Expanding Circle, given its notable and widespread poor use of English? The Nigerian scholar, Farooq Kperogi, who, in Letters from Atlanta, has been relentlessly commenting on English in current Nigerian life, would certainly be interested in this. Kperogi’s reaction is important to the discourse and would suggest an important dimension.

While we await Kperogi’s reaction, the following observations are also noteworthy. First, the endorsement by an Oxford dictionary comes at a time that Nigeria’s political direction and lesson notes are also considered worth reading if they are endorsed at Chatham House. This takes one back to Nigeria’s history and makes one feel that Britain is still the determinant of Nigeria’s future, as its “former” colonial master! Incidentally, English is still highly respected in Nigeria and seen as ensuring a professional future. Nigeria is also tremendously multilingual and English benefits from the unhealthy competition, pretending to be the arbiter and language of neutrality. Promoters English linguistic imperialism may use the acceptance of Nigerian expressions (considered poor English) as the bait and evidence that Nigerian English is being promoted at the international level. It is like winning a visa lottery or gaining entrance into Heaven! But, wait, the derogation reserved for the green passport may be extended to the utterance of Nigerianisms out there!

But, thanks to Oxford. At least, you are complementing genuine efforts. A government that cannot repair roads cannot award research grants that seek to promote a Nigerian provincial dialect of English! So, Oxford is helping in a big way. The colonial master would get a wife for the colonized, buy a mat, ask the colonized to lie down on the mat with his wife, and tell the colonized what to with the wife! Is that a Nigerianism? Is it good enough for inclusion and public consumption?

The words accepted are, indeed, popular and common in use in Nigeria. I hope that they are accptable  out there, and would not make me, the user, appear as a comedian.

But the blessing means a lot for those of us who frown at these expressions in formal writing, especially teachers of English. It means that we have to overhaul our tools ans overhaul our thinking, too. It means we can no longer frown at these expressions in formal writing, just we do not have to frown at cattle taking over the runways of airports or cattle routes being established from Paris to London. Who says that we cannot have a bottle of mama-put, without thinking of enclosing the Nigerian words in italics? Is that not also helpful to my carelessness in indicating foreign words as foreign words?

There is hope, just as there is God, or the former is the latter. There is hope, just as I have a dream that one day the Outer Circle can become the Inner Circle. Is somebody articulating “Thirdworldization”? No, even a linguistic “Thirdworldization” of the First World!

Electronic Messaging and the Decline in Greeting Card Business

By

Obododimma Oha

Greeting, a phatic communion in which the main goal is to service and maintain relationship, could be turned to a commodity. Indeed, celebrations or communal feasts do commodify it often. That also means more money, more gain, for dealers of such. In fact, some clever fellows may discover the prospect of making gain through it and so go temporarily into it. Lovers of homemade or customised cards could also amplify the boom. But with the growth in electronic messaging, each holder of an android phone and who is willing to learn navigational skills, changes the game in the card business, causing a decline and exit of some ad hoc soldiers of fortune.

The soldiers of fortune and seasonal dealers on these cards need to be pitied. They have been pushed out of business. But every business person should be ready to move on, or know where and how to move on. The ups and down will surely come. One has to have the heart and be ready to take risks. Let us say the commodification of "Hello" is a risk in the hands of technology. So, one in that business has to tighten the belt. We know that some in that business but constrained by technology have still found ways of tempting people to buy online cards. The mere fact that one can see one's name on the card is just one of such temptations. And falling to the tempting appears enjoyable!

Happy Christmas and happy Sallah and happy New Year, even if these are not "happy" at all and my android phone does not respect copyright. It is a matter of copying and pasting, with little or no editing. One with an android phone is nowhere and everywhere, with everyone and with no one. So, yours is mine and ours belongs to no one. Happy New Year, even if there nothing "new" in the year in spite of deafening fireworks in conversation and cannons that prevent one from worrying about Boko Haram invasion. Happy New Year to electronic card that has thrown someone out of business.

But, of course, electronic culture and technology have also served many well on seasons and card giving. It is not just that many in distant places can be conveniently greeted, some greetings can be personalised and customized to  suit persons and their statuses. So, one is compelled to greet information tech too. You "do well" for people like me who do not have to spend money buying many cards for many people!

This year, let us visit homemade cards to read their faces. We may find something there! I don't like how this decline has affected them, chasing them into uncomfortable silence. Why are not talking? One used to pay extra to have them, hoping that receivers would be full of appreciation and display the cards visibly in the sitting room. Is the define affecting them, too?

But is greeting declining, too? Do we have to carry sacks and rake together the greetings, if we can no longer open our mouths and share pleasantries and service relationship?

But will information tech go free after causing problems for greeting card business? No at all! In the first place, one has got several greetings in a short while and one's memory space is in trouble! Also, one has to keep deleting messages!

A greeting clashes with an important message; they could embrace and quarrel the next minute on that phone, annoying or confusing the user!  In that respect, you also have seasons of electronic greeting trouble, and greetings could stand on or block the ways of holidaying citizens, the same way that great traffic of people during these festivals make the use of the road a miserable thing!

Sorry, greeting card business. Technology has touched you and you have changed, not for the best. You are neither here nor there!