Ad hominems At Your Service: We Need Philosophy in Our Schools ASAP!

Heidegger wrote "Technology is … no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth." (Heidegger, 1977). Technology! The very significance of this phenomenon is now clear to Kenyans, who pinned their political hopes on it. Information technology was the foundation on which the 2017 elections were planned, and so much has emerged since August 8^th! Apart from being at the core of this year’s electoral process, technology has also been vital to the campaigns of politicians and their supporters. Social media has been the preferred technological tool. A large portion of Kenyan Trends on Twitter have been on politics. Facebook has also been rife with politically charged debates. One thing has been revealed by these trends, we desperately need to make philosophy a core part of our curriculum to counter fallacies and bigotry.

No political move by any politician has failed to be shared on social media among followers and foes. However, the analysis that goes on social media is often not objective. One thing that is abundantly clear is that a majority of Kenyans cannot make fair arguments. In a previous article, I described how politicians relied on logical fallacies in their campaigns1. I have now observed that their supporters also rely on fallacies to show their loyalty. The one often used by political minions is the ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking arguments of their opponents, debaters in politics have been going at each other’s characters.

When the full Supreme Court ruling was being read, Kenyans were quick to go on Social media to share their thoughts. However, very few made objective efforts to analyze the rulings. What most did was comment positively on Judges who made an agreeable decision, and negatively on Judges with a different opinion. One Judge was “ad hominemed ”  to the point where people brought up the employment history of his wife. Others were keen to point out how the DCJ is not “fluent” enough to be in the office she currently holds. When politicians took over this ad hominem business, we witnessed the filing of a number of petitions to remove this or that Judge of questionable character. That was a while back. A few days ago, the Economist published an article on Raila Odinga2. However, instead of deconstructing the arguments presented therein, Raila’s supporters were focused on showing how the Economist is evil and foreign. Sauti Sol, a favorite boy band in the country, aired their political views the other day, and the feedback was disappointing. Instead of being engaged in constructive criticism of their political perspective, their dress-code and sexual orientation were brought to the forefront and used as a reason why their political opinion doesn’t count. Their music also became trash to all those who did not agree with them. Very disheartening.

The reliance on logical fallacies makes it challenging to engage in fruitful political debates, especially on the internet. Fallacies nurture bigotry because they stand in the way of sensible thinking. Fallacious individuals fail to make a genuine effort to understand the arguments of others, thus, making objective analysis impossible. The ad hominem is particularly dangerous because it gives those who frequently use it the notion that something is wrong with anyone who does not hold the same views as them. Consequently, they shun the responsibility of self-criticism and open-mindedness required in any debate.

How can we eliminate or decrease fallaciousness in our society? By teaching basic philosophy in our schools. We don’t have to get into the differences and similarities of various philosophical schools. No. We can start by teaching students about logical fallacies, as well as how to analyze and make valid arguments. Doing this would arm our citizens with the necessary skills to coolly participate in political debates that will move the country forward.

References

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. Garland Science.

Jimmy Gait Wept: On Patriarchal Disciplining and the Justification of Sponsorship

In this era of Live Facebooking, spontaneous tweeting and automatic Instagramming, moments of reflection and second thought have become rare. This has made it extremely difficult to go against the tide of social hysteria that often accompanies trending social media news. I believe a momentary pause to reflect on something is invaluable because it allows you to think about an issue with a cool head by avoiding the blinding effect of emotions. The second reason is that by pausing, you give yourself a chance to get a better interpretation of a subject as you come across new information. Now, I’m going to dig-up an issue that, in the fast-moving social media world of tap and share, has become fossilized. Jimmy Gait wept. The cause, a song of his titled Yesu Ndie Sponsor, was deemed crappy. However, this reason is superficial. In the following post, I’m going to show how the weeping was the result of patriarchal disciplining because the artist dared to undermine a long established mutually beneficial social phenomenon known as sponsorship in Kenyan society.

In all honesty, the attack on Jimmy Gait was dubious. A majority of his critics could not tell the difference between a minim and a d, so the criticism was not because of poor harmony or the lack of melodic eloquence and clarity. The issue was something else entirely, and it had nothing to do with Gait’s musicianship. Jimmy Gait has been in the music industry for a long time, and his current woes are not a result of faux pas. Through those years, he had acquired a style that had proven successful up to that particular moment when he released Yesu Ndie Sponsor.  The style and inspiration under which he penned this ‘blasphemous’ song were the same that helped him write some of his most successful ones such as Huratiti and Muhadhara. These three songs are pretty similar in style and theme, but the last two were popular and successful. Why?

In Huratiti, the artist speaks of being in financial troubles, and how God came through for him. The message of the song is God will help you get anything you want be it money, a house, a car, a wife, a husband, etc. In one line Jimmy Gait asserts “Wacha nikukumbushe, unapokosa pesa, Mungu hakosi pesa…”1  Why an omnipotent deity would need money did not stand in the way of the song’s popularity. Huratiti was not considered blasphemous despite its overt materialism, which is unequivocally condemned in the Bible (See Ecclesiastes 5:15, Matthew 6:19-20; 19:21, Luke 12:15, 1 Timothy 6:9, etc.). Muhadhara was also another popular tune by Gait, so popular that we had it in the playlist of our high school percussion band in 2009 for class 940J. We got to the nationals that year. In this song, Jimmy Gait talks of how he narrowly escapes from the snares of a rich MILF BBW. In the chorus, he sings “Tuwachungee, sweeti mamas tondu nima Nomagutirie x2”2 . In essence, this song tackles the same theme as Yesu Ndie Sponsor, except in the case of Muhadhara, the roles are reversed. The former attacks sponsors who are mainly males who prey on broke young girls, while the latter attacks sugar-mummies, who prey on broke young men. However, one was well received while the other was hysterically condemned. Weird!

We live in a patriarchal society, so anything that bruises the male ego is a no-no. For this, we have patriarchal disciplining, which takes many forms, some nuanced, and others extreme. On the nuanced side, we can take makeup application as an example, where most girls view this as an improvement of self rather than self-disciplining to fit the definition of beauty in a male dominated society. On the extreme side, we all remember the public stripping of women for allegedly wearing overtly sexual clothing that gave men erections in public. Back to Jimmy Gait, the patriarchs of this society could not handle the idea that they won’t be in heaven. It was okay for Gait to condemn “sweetie mamas,” and warn young men against them, but it was blasphemy when he condemned sponsors, a majority of whom are financially stable old men who buy themselves into the post-pubescent female fountain of eternal youth. The backlash against Jimmy Gait was not because he equated Jesus to a sponsor, he had already done that in Huratiti where he showed how God/Jesus can sort you out financially and romantically. Gait was attacked because he undermined a long established social arrangement.

Sponsorship is not a 21^st-century phenomenon. In fact, this phenomenon is a product of years and years of social and biological evolution. Studies have shown that mate choice is complicated and decisions are made after the analysis of some variables that do not include “love.” Two of these variables are the most important .i.e. fertility and resources. Men give priority to fertility cues. Physical attractiveness in a female mate is “a necessity and not a luxury” (Geary, Vigil and Craven). This attractiveness includes facial features, waist-to-hip ratio (this has been measured, and a 0.7 WHR is universally considered attractive by men), and breast symmetry (Geary, Vigil and Craven). Age is also an important cue to fertility. The WHR explains the fascination with women who have big butts, natural or otherwise, from Sarah Baartman to Kim Kardashian. On the other hand, women give priority to social status and resources cues, especially when looking for a long-term mate. In a study on marriage patterns of the Kipsigis, it was discovered that access to land and cattle was the major factor that determined the sexual attractiveness of a man, and his fitness as a marriage partner (Geary, Vigil and Craven). In a study by Borgerhoff Mulder that lasted for 18 years, it was observed that two male participants who offered the most land or had the most cattle were chosen as mates by 13 out of 29 potential brides (Borgerhoff Mulder). It was also observed that “either one or both of these men got married in 11 of the 15 years in which one or more marriages occurred” (Geary, Vigil and Craven) Participants who had less land and cattle to offer were chosen as mates in “only 1 of these 15 years” (Geary, Vigil and Craven). So, having a sponsor is very pragmatic and advantageous for women. It is not a matter of morality, but survival. The resource endowed males have a chance to copy and re-copy their genes, and the females get access to the much-needed resources to take care of any copies of said genes. A sponsor has the status and the resources, and that makes him sexually attractive. Hell,  patriarchs even made polygamy legal in the country. The advantages of the Marriage Act 2014 are not for the poor males, or the females advanced in age.

It has taken both men and women thousands of years of trial and error to narrow down on mate traits that will guarantee their offspring a healthy future. A musician with claims to divine inspiration won’t change that. The stability of societies is often built on phenomenon such as the one described above. Attacking such arrangements is often seen as an affront to society as a whole. Gait had to be disciplined, not because his song was blasphemous, but because he attacked what is, in essence, a win-win social arrangement. That’s just the way I see it.

References

Geary, David C., Jacob Vigil and Jennifer Byrd Craven. "Evolution of Human Mate Choice." The Journal of Sex Research (2004): 27-42. PDF.

Borgerhoff Mulder, M. "Kipsigis women’s preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female choice in mammals? ." Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (1990): 255-264. PDF.