Beware of imitations

By

Prof. Wole Soyinka

Quite a number of valuable products carry that warning: Beware of Imitations. I am beginning to think that this might have proved a safer title to use for my address at the 50th Anniversary of the Pyrates Confraternity, the published version of which has clearly nettled the evangelical minister, Professor Muyiwa Awe. It never occurred to me that he would misconstrue the tenor of my remarks to such an extent as to imagine that the very extracts he had taken such pains to isolate were directed at him. 'I can live with strong words' he says. None of the 'strong words' he cites was directed at him!
 

Next, his plaint of my failure to contact him in order to check the veracity of statements credited to him is surely gratuitous, given the following caveats copiously inserted in my address:

"And first of all, let me say that I have taken into consideration the fact that some of his alleged remarks made early this year have been reported in such a way that there are misleading extrapolations, probably unintended, and due only to the peculiar reportorial style of the journalist. The article in question was written by a Godwin Ifijeh, was published in THISDAY of January 2, 2002, and posted on the web the same day.

Again, speaking of that reporter's coverage, I make the following observation:

"Now that is where the problem of extrapolation begins. This reporting style is downright sloppy, and possibly slanderous. Now, please recall that the just read passage is not in quotation. It is the reporter summarizing Professor Awe's comments and it is capable of various interpretations."

Further on, I again take pains to remind my audience:

"Do understand this - I am not indulging here in some nit-picking semantics; we are dealing with the cursory reader whose mind is being manipulated here by some tendentious reporting. Let us say a thousand people have read that article. Imagine the process of word-of-mouth dissemination that thrives compulsively on evil news: 'A-ha, says Mr..or Ms. Idi-Oro Bus Stop', haven't we always said it? Hear it from the horse's mouth, one who has turned a horse of a different colour. The Pyrates' Confraternity is one of those evil cults.'

By the time that we come to the end of this article, we are firmly persuaded that Professor Awe has the P.C. under reference when he says, or is alleged to have said: their names are kept secret, and those initiated cannot withdraw upon pain of death!

This is precisely how the grotesque lie is born, nourished and expanded. This is how society is programmed into a self-cosseting intellectual laziness, incapable of the rigours of enquiry, analysis and discrimination."

It is obvious, from the foregoing extracts alone, that I am taking issue with the reporting, and anticipating (backed by experience) its effects on a 'cursory' or 'gullible readership'. Those strong remarks could not possibly be construed as directed at Professor Awe. The 'grotesque lie' is product of the reporting, and thus is it clearly stated. The agent of persuasion as in 'we are firmly persuaded' is the article, written by the reporter in his peculiar way. But why has Muyiwa Awe in his response turned my'we are firmly persuaded' into 'he (that is, W.S) is so firmly persuaded...' What is the purpose of that? The 'we' in question is clearly the mentioned 'Mr.and Mrs. Idi-oro Bus Stop', 'gullible readership' etc. etc. Is this an accident or a deliberate distortion? I think Professor Awe needs to read the address more carefully, go over it again paragraph by paragraph and preferably in sequence. Right now, I am persuaded that he has read, not merely the sections, not just the paragraphs, but sentences and phrases out of sequence! Indeed, I begin to wonder if such a misunderstanding has not been subconsciously willed into being. Of course it could also be the work of Satan - malediction unto him! - in whose reality the learned Professor obviously believes, and whose favourite pastime is to foul up relationships.

With that quite superfluous clarification behind us, I hope, the next question is: are there no issues at all that are directed at my friend, the complainant? Of course there are, but only such issues as arise from incontestable declarations on the part of Professor Awe, even when allowance has been made for reportorial mischief. Does Muyiwa Awe disagree with this next extract from my address?

"Now of course I will not deny that Professor Awe does not help matters when he regrets that he was ever part of the founding movement. That is his privilege, and we must respect it. Unfortunately his words have been conveyed in such a way - (note, again, the attribution of responsibility) - that the reason one educes from his regrets is that he is now convinced that the intentions of the founding members - including his - were "essentially evil". On the one hand this is flatly contradicted by what else he says of both the nature and the operations of the founding association, especially as he categorically stated that their intentions were 'innocent'. On the other hand however, the worthy preacher goes on to observe, regarding his own participation, that while his intentions were indeed good, 'the road to hell are paved with good intentions.' This is where I part company with the theologian.

In other words, no preceding comments by me were directed at the ministering professor up to this point. Only thereafter does the argument commence. Muyiwa's published response - in his own unambiguous words - clearly confirms my basic proposition - that is, 'Professor Awe does not help matters'. If anything, this response confirms it even more robustly than in the original reporting. For instance, he writes: 'The tree is known by its fruit'. Such insinuations about the Pyrates Confraternity in the earlier reportage were accurately latched onto by me, and constitute the sole cause of the rebuttal directed at Muyiwa Awe. Our friend claims that he never said A or B, but goes on, in this new essay of his, to affirm exactly A and B! On this issue, we must once again take the theologian to task.

I happen to believe that the development of the 'fruit', in any evolving and complex society makes that piece of theological 'wisdom' extremely suspect. The 'tree' that is most directly responsible for the 'fruit', in the case of the human product, is the parent, next, the family. Given the easily attested actuality where, within one family, one child may grow up to be a saint while another is a social reprobate, we cannot blandly accept this simplistic line of cause and effect. Given two wildly contrasting fruits, one stunted and the other robust, which one, shall we say, truly offers an accurate knowledge of the tree? These 'wise sayings' aspire to summative truth but they illuminate only a partial view of the realities of existence. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' belongs to the same family of misleading generalisations, flatly contradicted by the fact that most good deeds are preceded by good intentions. We shall return to some other implications raised by this theme in a moment.

The rest of my comments were clearly directed at the January publication as it hits the reader's eyes, in addition to a pompous, sophomoric article by one Dr. Fabiyi, to which I made direct reference in the said address. I was summing up the 'lazy, escapist' attitude of society in general, its disposition towards easy blame passing and self exoneration. My address was a collective response to decades of public slander that the Pyrates Confraternity has had to endure from ignorant - yes, ignorant! - voices. What Muyiwa has done in his response, most sadly, is to take up cudgels on behalf of purveyors of slander. May I confirm this beyond doubt with yet another relevant quote from my address?

Here goes:

"While some of the foregoing remarks have been provoked by a cheap, pseudo-analytical approach to the problems of violent cults in our tertiary institutions, it is only partially in response to such tawdry reasoning..... The difference between the two (i.e. between Dr. Fabiyi and Professor Awe) - is that while the essay of Dr. Fabiyi is a straightforward article of denigration, a personal attack that is inspired by a craving for instant notoriety, the comments of our erstwhile colleague and personal friend, Professor Muyiwa Awe, stem from a deep spiritual questioning."

While I am happy to note that our friend is no longer 'questing' but has found Christ and is assured of salvation, it is nonetheless clear from the above quote that a distinction is being made between Awe's comments, even as reported, and the general brigade of slanderers. I then proceed to make it clear why it was necessary at all to refer at some length to Muyiwa's contribution to this debate. The address in question is on the website, and can be recalled for a simple textual examination - what goes before what, what deductions are made from what etc. I am frankly bewildered that Muyiwa has fastened on so-called vituperations that are not even remotely addressed to him.
 

I leave your readers to determine if Professor Awe helps matters by the following statement:

"Whatever may have been the intentions of those who started the earliest organization..."

when one encounters, later, the assertion that

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

What exactly is the conclusion to be drawn from this?

On a different tack, I find it just as strange that Muyiwa should make the claim that "Professor Soyinka wonders as to what constitutes a 'cult'" etc. I find this odd because I have re-visited the text of my address and cannot find where this 'wondering' took place. This is an address that is mostly dedicated to confronting those who insist on labeling the Pyrates Confraternity a 'cult', yet the Professor claims that I was wondering what constitutes a cult. The reading from this is that I insist that the P.C. is not a certain entity, yet declare in the same breath that I know nothing of what characterises that entity. What was the purpose of this gratuitous imposition? Could the following passage be responsible?

"The real issue of course is what constitutes a 'cult' whether on campus or outside campus, or even outside the nation's boundaries where several chapters of the Pyrates Confraternity have been established world-wide."

Well, I would have thought that this does not denote 'wondering', but throws out a challenge. To pronounce something an issue implies, among other possible interpretations, to declare something a theme for consideration or a bone of contention. In this case, it declares that I intend to challenge the malicious and/or ignorant classification of the Pyrates Confraternity as a 'secret cult'. Many adherents of that view do not even know that fraternities are an integral and respectable aspect of campus culture in most countries. Professor Awe's citation of FOCEM Newsletter Vol.1, No.2, on the definition of cults or the additional evangelical tract 'All Manner of Cults' of November 2002, is of no interest to me. I have read my fill of religious propaganda tracts and most of them have ended up in my waste paper basket. Serious literature on religion is a different matter. I am not aware that FOCEM Newsletter can be cited as a 'learned paper' even in Faculties of Religious Studies in the world that Muyiwa Awe and I inhabit. Even learned papers can be proved to be flawed however, prejudiced or merely opinionated. I think that Professor Awe could benefit from a slight adjustment of his own frankly presumptuous mantra, thus: that opinions expressed in his evangelical tracts, however strongly held, and no matter how many copies are circulated, do not necessarily amount to truth.

Professor Awe goes beyond opinions however and asserts some 'facts' that are patently false. He claims that the Pyrates Confraternity is not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). I would advise that he obtain a certified true copy of the relevant documents before making any further misleading statements.

Another falsehood, and I quote:

"When the National Association of Seadogs was being inaugurated, the plan was that NAS would ensure that Pyrates Confraternity did not exist on campuses".

Nothing of the sort! NAS was formed after the realization that post-graduate pyrates, having gone into adult life, had become numerous, and now wished to continue to associate on an adult, society oriented level, holding their meetings outside campuses. The decision to close down all campus chapters came some years later. It arose from a developed recognition that virulent imitators had taken over campuses and it was becoming fashionable to tar all fraternities with the same brush.
 

Here comes another:

"The implication of this statement is that he (Professor Soyinka) does not know that justice, integrity and truthfulness are Christian virtues."
 

This most peculiar derivation of implication is an abuse of sense. My statement, taken in context, means that within the armoury of virtues in the Christian or any other religion, I wish to call attention especially to 'justice, integrity and truthfulness'. Nowhere do I deny that these virtues are not to be found in the Christian, or indeed any other religion.

Having persuaded himself that I have accused him of ignorance, a charge that I never made, Professor Awe goes to truly absurd lengths to 'return to sender', a normally valid exercise that is however based here on delusions, such as contained in yet another passage: "unfortunately, the Bible is a closed book to many, who do not share the Christian faith. They are ignorant of its contents...."

Wrong. I do not share the christian faith, but I grew up on the bible and am still conversant with its contents. As a quester, I also studied the Koran without becoming a Moslem, plus other scriptures - the Hindu, the Bhuddist, the Ifa of the orisa etc. without professing any of these faiths. I remain drawn to the phenomenon of religion, the sometimes sublime poetry of its scriptures, its virtues and abuses. The gap between precept and practice continues to appall my social being.

Coming down to earth, Awe's claim that the 'Pyrates Confraternity....still exists on campuses as secret societies' nearly sent me scurrying for cover. Now that my own investigations have failed to confirm this charge, could our learned minister of God kindly relieve my ignorance by informing me on which campuses a chapter of the Pyrates Confraternity still operates? We are not asking here for rumours, allegations, divine revelations, hallucinations, 'wishful thinking', but for patent proof. Professor Awe says that 'tertiary level institutions can easily produce evidence that Pyrates Confraternity exists on campus.' Produce such evidence, and shame the ignorant. There is a clear difference between 'Confraternity' and 'Pyrates Confraternity', just as there is between 'Club' and 'Dancing Club' or Club Soda'. One is a generic description, the other is specific, a brand name. Beware of imitations! 419ers are being exposed everyday who lay claim to being Colonels, Generals, Professors, Christian ministries, NGOs. etc. What has this to do with the authentic status of Colonels, Professors and NGOs?
 

Related to this is what might be taken for constructive advice. Declares my friend in what appears to be a persuasive spirit of helpfulness: "....for the avoidance of doubt, my position is that secret cults existing on many campuses and calling themselves Pyrates Confraternity have brought disrepute to that name. The National Association of Seadogs ought to consider the wisdom of continuing to identify with that name...."

This is a dubious piece of advice. Because some fake NGOs have given the true organizations a bad name with their fraudulent importuning both at home and abroad, it is now recommended that the originating bodies find themselves a new designation? And what happens when another mimic body springs up yet again, determined to steal the identity of this new 'original'? Go back to the Personal (or Corporate) Advertisement columns - I, formerly known and addressed as....etc etc. ad infinitum?

No one has ever denied that some of these upstarts are rejects of the original organization, expelled and disowned by them for conduct incompatible with the aims of the Pyrates Confraternity. Even the Christian ministry is not free of fakes, thieves, rapists, child molesters and other social deviants. Out of a mere twelve apostles there was one traitor, corrupted, and one denier. Membership of the PC runs into thousands. There exist armed robbers all over the place who are not denied their family names right up to, and after, their transitional moment at the execution stake. Is Professor Awe now recommending that the parents also change their ancestral name simply because a member has turned a murderous villain? Why not go the whole hog and find the parents also guilty of the offspring's crime? Let them all share in the felon's fate - hang them, quarter them and throw their corpses in the evil bush! In the case of the Pyrates Confraternity, most of these renegades were never even entitled to the family name in the first place.

The PC constantly regenerates itself just as the Good Book decrees: If thy right arm offends thee, cut it off etc. etc. I am sure that the Evangelical Ministry of the Fullness of Christ does not require me to look up chapter and verse, but I will swear to its accuracy. With equal confidence, I would swear that nowhere in the same Scriptures does it say that you should change your name after cutting off the rotten branch of the family tree, never mind that it plants its own diseased roots elsewhere. If the public is so lazy that it cannot or will not tell the difference, the more ignoble is the attitude of such a society. My 'contentious' address was most specific about the role of universities in this matter: let campus authorities live up to their responsibilities. Armed with formal notice that the P.C. has been ordered to close all campus chapters - in order to avoid further confusion with campus cults - they should proceed to deal with the full punitive weight of authority with any pretenders. The P.C. or NAS is not a police agency, even though it accepts, and has demonstrated - over and above the call of duty - its acceptance of citizen responsibility in numerous ways, including actively participating in the efforts to eradicate all campus cults.

Deliberately or inadvertently, Professor Awe's response is a further contribution to the literature of confusion on the subject of cults. It provides additional nourishment to the ravenous spirit of denigration. However, we must look on the bright side. One service that Professor Awe has rendered to the cause of truth, ironically, is that his response will make the curious reader seek out the original text of my address. Such a reader will however seek in vain if they pause to look for any passage that justifies the comment that:

"If Professor Soyinka insists that there is absolutely no connection between what we founded almost 50 years ago and the present Campus cults, he is welcome in his opinion."

This is an unpardonable deception regarding my position. My address devotes time to lamenting that what we began fifty years has indeed been subverted by mimic organizations. An admission of a clear connection could not be more clearly stated! Has the servant of God read this address at all, or was he sent aggressive snippets from outer space?

In conclusion, let me simply say that Professor Awe's response is a subjective reaction to an offence that was directed elsewhere - if indeed offence it was - an offence that was nevertheless taken, thanks to a pitiable predilection that is betrayed in his description of me as 'someone who is so full of the wisdom of this world....' It explains a phenomenon that has puzzled me in recent years, but would be a distraction from the specifics of this public exchange. Declaring that I made his January comments 'the pillar' of my public lecture is an egotistical act of misappropriation that fits into a recognisable typology. A take-off point for part of the lecture, yes, but the pillar? Really! This open revelation of a deep-seated complex however does indeed 'constitute stumbling blocks to fruitful discussion'. I am compelled to agree with Professor Awe on this score.

Even though a long lapsed christian, I shall continue to practise christian charity and persuade myself that this has all been a case of genuine misunderstanding. That universal whipping dog, Satan - double malediction unto him! - must be at the bottom of it. Perhaps, now that the power of prayer has succeeded in seeing off Sanni Abacha, as professed by the President of the Ministry of the Fullness of Christ, a little more time on the knees can be devoted to supplication for the descent of clarity and understanding onto the earth of human communication. Amen!

 

June 2003