This New Class of Outsiders

To our ever questioning and observant readers,

   You’ve probably noticed from your own personal experiences that we, as a collective, are not a forgiving bunch. From our unexamined and dismissive attitude towards certain issues to how we view and characterize social commentators; it is clear that there are some issues that you shouldn’t examine too closely or challenge too publicly in contemporary Ethiopia. Especially if you want to lead a normal and fulfilling social life. As በዓሉ ግርማ once put it: 

“ዝም ከማለት የቀለለ ነገር የለም። የሚያስቸግረው የሚያስቡትንና የሚያምኑበትን ሳይፈሩ መናገር ነው።”

(1962)

   And if you dare scrutinize our grey zone of deniability? Well, you will be treated to one important weapon in our country’s cultural discourse; one that is not only reactionary in nature but exclusionary in its intent.   

A Silence of Denial

   From trivializing and abnormalizing independent thinkers to naming and shaming social critiques, it is clear to most that these discursive strategies aim to fulfill a particular set of functions. Functions that, ultimately, strive to ridicule, marginalize and silence voices of dissent. And whilst there might be some of you that think this is an exaggeration; there are plenty of examples that make this abundantly clear. For example, I could point to this famous quote from  Ethiopian philosopher ዘርዓያቆብ: 

“እውነቱን ብገልጽላቸው ትልቅ ጥፋት ይሆናል እንጂ ጥቅም የለውም፤ ይሰድቡኝና ያሳድዱኛል እንጂ አይሰሙኝም። ስለዚህ ከሰዎች ጋር እንደነሱ ሆኜ እኖራለሁ።”

(1660)

   Or I could point to a parable that ቀዳማዊ ዓፄ ኃይለ ሥላሴ shared with one of his contemporaries; one that highlights the power of conformity and the efficacy in which it tests the convictions of everyone. Including kings:

“አንድ ንጉሥ ሕዝቡ እየሰከረ ስላስቸገረው ተበሳጭቶ አንዱን ብልህ ሽማግሌ አስጠርቶ ምክር ጠየቀው። አንተም እንደነሱ ስከር ብሎ መከረው ይላሉ። ንጉሡም የሽማግሌውን ምክር ከፈጸመ በኋላ ኑሮው ጤነኛ ሆነለት።”

(1945)  

   Still not convinced? How about I highlight someone that is highly respected by those self-appointed guardians of Ethiopian culture. Those that have not only continued to use this type of reactionary rhetoric but are doing so under the guise of returning our society to its pristine wholeness. I wonder, my dear reader, do you think they know that ሀዲስ አለማየሁ strongly rebuked this very trend of marginalizing the few for the good of the whole?  As he put it: 

“የማህበሩን ባህላዊ ስራቱን የማይከተሉ “ጋጠ ወጦች” ተብለው በማህበሩ ውስጥ ደንበኛ ያባልነት ቦታ አይኖራቸውም። ከማህበሩ ውጹአን ሆነው ያካልና የመንፈስ ቅጣት ይደርስባቸዋል። ይሁን እንጂ የማህበራቸውን ጨቁዋኝ ወይም ግፈኛ ህግና ስራት ተሸክሞ የማህበሩ ደንበኛ አባል ሆኖ ከመኖር ከሱ ነጻ ሆኖ አይደርስ ቅጣት ወይም ችግር ቢደርስባቸው የሚመርጡ አንዳንድ ግለሰቦች በየጊዜውና በየቦታው ጠፍተው አያውቁም።”

(1980)

Always the Distanced Observer

   Now I suspect that some of you are of the opinion that we are way past those days. That our mainstream culture has renounced those bygone eras of absolute conformity and ad-hominem attacks; making us a more tolerant bunch. That our educational backgrounds and modern sensibilities have made us appreciate the substance of an argument rather than how it’s mislabeled by others.  

   To those of you that think this way, I come bearing bad news. For our mainstream culture has not only condemned you but you don’t even know it. You are oblivious to the fact that you are a few publicly stated/contrarian opinions away from having your nationality questioned by your fellow countrymen. 

   What? You don’t agree? Then go see for yourself. Go talk to your social circles about gender norms and see how quickly you’ll be branded and ostracized. Take a look at how obscene generalizations, stereotypes and extreme case scenarios are used to name, shame and attack feminists at your next social gathering. Or better yet, consider those that try to ridicule, misrepresent and otherize parents that raise their children in a different way. 

   These are but a few examples, for you know how many times you have seen people use that tired phrase. The one that is accompanied by great delight and glee by those that are quick to use it. You know, the classic and dismissive saying: “እሱ እኮ እንደ ፈረንጅ ነው ሚያረገው”. 

  But, if you are ever in need of more visceral examples, go take a look at the works of Timmy Bee and Lella Misikir  ;two popular entertainers and social commentators that are constantly bullied, otherized and, at times, physically threatened for their contrarian opinions. 

   So, now that we are all on the same page, how are we to understand these acts? How should we explain our collective sport of labelling and vilifying those that challenge our society’s deeply held attitudes?

The Function of Contrast

“አንዳንዱ ስዎች ብዙ ዘመን የኖረውን ልማድ ማሻሻልና ማደስ እንደ ነውር ይመስላቸዋል። ይኸውም የቀድሞውንና የዛሬውን ታሪክ ካለማንበባቸውና ካለመረዳታቸው የተነሣ ነው።”

(1925)

   Luckily for us, institutions like the University of Ghana, the University of Cambridge, the University of Illinois, Auckland University and the City University of Hong Kong (just to name a few) have gone to great lengths to understand the social and cultural contexts that promote such practices. 

  And although the sheer number of names given to this phenomenon might be off-putting to some, names like ideological squaring, manipulative discourse, dissimulative discourse, the discourse of moral panic, performative defiance and hegemonization (again, just to name a few), there is comfort in what they represent. 

   There is solace in knowing that researchers from around the globe have identified the patterns, logic and effects of what we so readily see at home.  So much so that they have developed what can only be described as a step-by-step guide of how to construct your very own reactionary rhetoric. One that is as exclusionary as it is performative. And it goes a little something like this: 

An Exercise in Futility

“ጥቂት ያሳዘነኝ ሠልጥኗል በሚባለው ጊዜም ጨለማ ይባል በነበረውም ጊዜ ሲሠራበት የኖረው ብልግና ሲሠራበት በማየቴ ነው።”

(1966)

   So, someone has decided to go out of their way to question something you thought was completely normal in our society.  And your accustomed responses of “it is what it is”, “it’s not that bad” and “that’s just how we do things” have not gone as well as you planned. This person just doesn’t seem to be impressed by your hasty, yet widely accepted position; one that has served you so well in the past.  The position that things are fine the way they are. 

   You quickly come to the realization that this person is proudly violating one of the most important yet unspoken rules of our society: that there are some truths that can’t be uttered. That normalcy is only possible if they are never acknowledged. That questions that are never asked did not need answers.

   What do you do? Do you re-evaluate your position on the topic? Do you, when faced with critical questions and well-reasoned opinions, break your policy of see no evil, hear no evil, and, therefore, admit no evil? Of course not! I mean, you are someone that feels their allegiances very clearly. Right? So, you reassess your approach and do the following: 

Step 1: Positive Self Representation- Creating the Impression of Moral Superiority: As an Ethiopian, your best bet would be to rely on the dual and potent mix of nationalism and populism. For you come from a country with a very long and proud history, giving you plenty of national symbols and historical figures to choose from. Forget the diversity of thought and the myriad of scholastic contributions that comes from living in an ancient and multicultural country. Instead, simplify and generalize. Characterize yourself as the representative of the proud, yet ordinary Ethiopian. Ignore the impossibility of glorifying yet simultaneously stereotyping 120 million people. Stress your selective and dogmatic understanding of what it means to be an Ethiopian until you feel that you have made your point: that your position is moral, just and synonymous with being an Ethiopian. 

Step 2:  Negative Other Representation- Creating Deviancy: Once you’ve solidified your position under the banners of pseudo-nationalism, conventional wisdom and cultural purity, it is time to focus on your social critique. For moral superiority means very little without a discredited and inferior other. So, you get to work. Create the impression that your opponent doesn’t know what they are talking about. That they either don’t know their country very well or are a foreigner for thinking the way they do. That their lack of relevant knowledge is fueled by ignorance, naivety or their modern education. Pick at your discretion, so long as it creates the impression that they are part of a small group, exiled to the margins of our society. That they are chipping away at the uniform cultural behemoth you created in step 1. Hammer this point until it is clear that these social commentators are not only an unfortunate aberration in our society but also an irrational one. Worthy of no more than advice and supervision. That their behavior is so meaningless that there can be no rational dialogue with it. That their only options are to either return to the fold or silently withdraw into the margins. 

Step 3: Moral Panic- The Consequence of Deviancy: Once you have set this stage of a positive self vs. a negative other, where disagreement has become illegitimate and unthinkable, you are left with the final step. The consequence of deviancy. Where you use figurative language and acute generalizations to create a certain characterization. One that builds on steps 1 and 2. One that is anchored to the premise that continued opposition is immoral, unpatriotic and an acute threat to our way of life. That going against you is going against the beliefs and attitudes of most Ethiopians. That by going against the will of the people, they are, for all intents and purposes, not a real member of this community. That they are an extremist for trying to spread, attack and impose their foreign/irrational beliefs on the rest of “us”.  That it is as necessary as it is logical to suppress the likes of them. 

   And it is at this point, my dear reader, that you should congratulate yourself. For you have not only positioned yourself as the sole arbitrator of what is credible dissent and what is not; you have also otherized your opponent. All without engaging with their arguments. You have made them less than you. You have effectively used the language of nationalism, pathology and culture war to legitimize your position. All the while silencing your critique and justifying any mistreatment that is to come their way. 

Sound’s familiar doesn’t it? 

Questions for the Wise

   So I should ask you, my dear reader, do you find it at all jarring? Knowing that the way some of us “defend” our culture is not even particular to us? That it’s so predictable? Do you find it surprising that there are people out there, from very different cultural backgrounds than ours, who also try to define themselves by what they are against? Do you find it at all revealing that our practices of nostalgic regression, reactionary rhetoric and abnormalizing social critiques is not even exclusive to us? 

   And if you are someone that is accustomed to using such discursive prototypes, will you reevaluate your convictions or will you double down? Does it matter that you have already been renounced by those influential Ethiopians that you claim to respect?  Does it trouble you to know that this practice of yours has been studied by so many academics and institutions? That the faulty assumptions and brutish intent of your approach have been thoroughly examined, accounted for and laid bare by sociologists, behavioral scientists, psychologists and linguists alike? 

   Will you renounce your self-asserted victimhood and performative nationalism?  Or will you continue to characterize social critiques as a bunch of troublesome and subversive outsiders; relegated to the margins of a country you yourself don’t seem to properly understand? 

   If it’s the latter, then I thank you. For it is your predictable yet potent efforts to silence critical voices that have inspired the name and works of Gudu Publishing. And if I have failed to convince you in this piece, then maybe ሃይሌ ገሪማ might do a better job than I ever could: 

“ኢትዮጵያዊ ነኝ የሚለው ነው እንድታፈነግጥ የሚያደርግህ። መጀመርያ እራሱንም፣ ታሪኩንም ሳያውቅ የኢትዮጵያን centrality ይዞ ቪዛህን ይጠይቅሃል። ያኔ አፈንግጠህ ትሄዳለህ፣ ይሰለችሃል። እየዞረ የሌላውን ሁሉ ኢትዮጵያዊነት የመጠየቅ  መብት ያለው መስሎት፣ ሌላውን አግልሎ እራሱን ኢትዮጵያ አድርጎ የሚጠይቅ ኢትዮጵያዊ የኢትዮጵያ ጠላት ነው። የእውነት ኢትዮጵያዊ ግን ሌላውን ሰው መጀመርያ ያከብራል። በእራስህ ኢትዮጵያዊነት ከተማመንክ የሌላውን የሚያስጠይቅህ ጉዳይ የለም። አንተን ፓስፖርት ጠያቂ የሾመህ የለም።”

(2021)

For More on the Resources Used for This Work, Visit Gudu’s Catalogue by Clicking Here.