The “Jacobsean Fallacy"

It is true that the internet is an invaluable source for the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, yet, regrettably, it lends itself with equal alacrity to abusive and equally destructive use by some. Emmanuel Jacobs’ attack on Peter Vakunta is an example. It is always exciting for anyone who reads and writes, but especially for those in Literary Theory and Criticism, to encounter constructive reactions to theirs and others’ works. Accordingly, it was with a lot of interest that one followed the exchanges between Vakunta and his readers after his article on Pidgin, until Jacobs’ most vitriolic and personal attack.

Such blunders do occur in literary circles from time to time, but they are usually in specialized journals. The implication here is that the true identity of those writing can be verified, and so those in error quickly recant and sometimes even make up. This may not easily be the case over the internet since most people write behind a mask and could not care about being damaging in their actions since they believe nobody can easily identify them. The outcome sometimes is a certain recklessness that is destructive and stifling in many ways. 

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, even strongly, with another scholar or person’s ideas, but when one’s approach is as destructive as Jacobs’ then one cannot afford to pretend that one is minding one’s business by not reacting. In this light, I think it incumbent on some of us, to react too this blatant and equally misleading precedent on Jacobs’ part. Virtually every art and craft has rules; the ethics of Literary Theory and Criticism decry the negative practice of abandoning ideas and attacking the person instead. Such a fault is referred to as the Fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) and is not an accepted practice in the field. Jacobs, with a twenty-eight year old Ph.D and the title of Professor, which means he is also a teacher, should have known this by this point in his life as a scholar. Let us examine the fallacious nature of Jacobs’ critique.

Jacobs’ topic sentence is frighteningly revealing: “Peter Vakunta, stop bloating in your writings.” The sentence exposes envy on the part of Jacobs. What in Vakunta’s writing gives the impression of arrogance or haughtiness on his part as claimed by Jacobs’ rebuttal? Is it the expression “some of my many books” by Vakunta in an earlier entry? It was obvious Vakunta had done his research and was putting forward a perspective to be constructively examined by all, only for Jacobs to come across as if Vakunta’s write-up was a personal attack to his erudition. So many people enjoyed Vakunta’s effort and did not only praise the article, but went on to try their hands at writing in pidgin, as varied and conflicting as the brands of pidgin and the different spellings are. This came about as a result of the fluidity of Pidgin rather than any fault of these writers.

Jacobs then urges Vakunta to do his research well only to expose the paucity of his own research by claiming Vakunta is a “son of Banso” whereas Vakunta is from Ndop. The meaning of this is that no work is perfect; there are bound to be some oversights which when being pointed out have to be done in a constructive and mature spirit instead of spitefully. In the same angry vein, Jacobs asks Vakunta to consult his “superiors,” before going on in a most resentful manner to declare that by “attaching a Ph.D by your name does not make you knowledgeable.” One cannot help wondering who Vakunta’s superiors are, because if they are the likes of Jacobs, then that is disturbing as per his display in his insulting rather than dialectical critique of Vakunta’s work. May I seize this opportunity to point out that attaching a genuine Ph.D in front of one’s name does not make the scholar all-knowing, but it is indicative of how much work that person has done in the realm of academics in his or her capacity as a student. The problem with that revered degree is that many people tend to look at those who have acquired it with envy instead of admiration. It should spur whomsoever is interested in the degree to go on and earn his or hers. By the way, a Ph.D is not a sine qua non for scholarship; there are incredibly successful scholars out there without a Ph.D behind their names. 

In any case, a Ph.D holder, a true scholar in other words, should be humble because by the time one earns a Ph.D, one should have realized that knowledge is incredibly vast and one’s Ph.D is in a small if not limited aspect of an equally specific field. By attaching a Ph.D to his name, Vakunta certainly was not making claims to omniscience, but following a common practice. In fact, typical of that meekness expected of true scholars, Vakunta expresses how humbled he is by the exchanges his work provoked. Is this “bloating” in one’s work? 
And then Jacobs tosses into his cauldron of disparaging insults the very classic accusation of “buying degrees,” which given the corrupt nature of the world today, is very possible. However, it is worthwhile pointing out that with a terminal degree, one might only getting oneself into trouble by such a purchase as one would be required to live up to those credentials in the field and failure will lead to suspicion and subsequent discovery which may lead to a jail term. In any case, to suggest this of Vakunta’s recently earned degree (March 2009) is just nonsense. Vakunta is very proud of his university where he is also teaching, how then can anybody make such an allegation of such a tried scholar from an equally distinguished institution. To tell the truth, Vakunta’s scholarship had long been established even before his earning a Ph.D. 

In a condescending manner, Jacobs again tells Vakunta “Get this clear…” before accusing him: “intelligent as you pretend to be by addressing me as having a myopic ideology of the south….” The revelation is then complete. It comes across as though Vakunta had stepped on Jacobs’ toe without realizing it, by qualifying his ideology “myopic,” and so Jacobs loses it and comes all out to denigrate Vakunta’s integrity as a scholar. What is really that incensing in the word “myopic” that completely dislodged Jacobs’ scholarly equilibrium? From this, one can only urge our critiques to respect people’s efforts and disagree like scholars, for it is through these challenges and counter challenges, respectfully executed, that ideas are polished and eventually put in perspective as tested facts. 

Then Jacobs instructs Vakunta in the guise of a piece of advice: “An advice again you young fellow. Write simply” (emphasis mine). It is a given that age has nothing to do with academics. There are young men and women out there who are very gifted as we all know; I hope it is not being suggesting that because of their ages they be ignored or treated lightly. I hope not. In the same vein, a writer’s style is his and it comes to him the way speaking comes to a child—naturally—so Jacobs cannot instruct Vakunta to write simply. By accusing Vakunta of imitating Bate Besong because he may at times be difficult to understand, is misleading. Were the fire brand Cameroonian scholar still alive today, he would have pointed out to Jacobs that he (Bate Besong) does not have copyright ownership to obscurantism. It is a writer’s choice to come across the way it pleases him, for which reason some equally, if not more obscure poets than Bate Besong have claimed their audience is specialized. By the way, what is wrong with imitating another writer in so long as one is not plagiarizing? Bate Besong was himself greatly influenced by the late Nigerian poet Christopher Okigbo and Professor Wole Soyinka, to name two examples. In fact, Professor Ime Ikiddeh confirms this when he writes in his introduction to Besong’s Volume of poems Polyphemus Detainee & Other Skulls:

Indeed, for good and ill, the major influences on Besong’s work so far, are three of the world’s most ‘difficult’ modern poets: Eliot, Okigbo, and Soyinka. From them, the young poet has learnt the poetic value not only of the well chosen word and phrase but also, in extension, of image, symbol and myth. (2)

So Besong learned from and imitated others, and so there is nothing wrong with Vakunta imitating Besong if that is what Vakunta has been trying to do, which, I am convinced, is far from the truth. This kind of criticism by Jacobs reminds me of school mates who think that because they were doing very well earlier on in life, in secondary school for example, they should remain equally “smart” and successful after secondary school and in real life even. Accordingly, they are suddenly too angry upon finding out later on that classmates whom they considered “dull” earlier on in school are doing better in real life and even in academics at a much higher level. Asong explores this concept in his psychological novel No Way to Die, confirming it a real life phenomenon.

I have gone to some detail in my reaction to this unfortunate exchange between two scholars (if Jacobs’ credentials are true) for one main reason at the very least: to stem the tide of the misuse of otherwise useful blogs like “Up Station Mountain Club.” Many of our young ones are looking up to the likes of Vakunta and Jacobs, but the latter’s acidulous contribution is certainly derailing as it can cause our sprouting critics to think this is the way a critique is written; it is not. Even if Jacobs had any good points, his fallacious arguments have exposed more his, than Vakunta’s credentials to question. At the very list, he has succeeded in drawing more attention to Vakunta’s works as many will now be questioning “Who is this Vakunta and what else has he written?” 

Look at the way Danny Boy has brought a very enlightening fact in his contribution as he points out that “Students of the Government Bilingual Secondary School in Yaounde … had been speaking franglais long before re-unification in 1972. He goes on to argue that “They had to or how else were they able to communicate with the locals, mostly women who came to sell their moyondos, bobolos, ‘pistache’ de ‘egusi’, groundnuts etc.” Danny Boy is constructive and argues his points convincingly. In a subsequent rewrite of his paper therefore, Vakunta may agree with Danny Boy, and use his suggestion to make another or to re-enforce an older point, but again Danny Boy is just another mask, at best a pseudonym.

I disagree, however, with Danny Boy’s opening insinuations when he talks of “closing ranks” by suggesting that Dr. Bill F. Ndi responded to Jacobs’ insult of Vakunta because Vakunta had done a review of Ndi’s work. No Danny Boy, anybody can write a review of anyone’s published book, and in this case it is certainly coincidental that this review had been done. Vakunta is a prolific writer who, besides its being his responsibility as a teacher and scholar, enjoys writing reviews and political articles alike, in addition to publishing books. It is not surprising then that Vakunta had done a review of one of my books also, and I have also done a review of one of his works like I have of a number of other Cameroonian writers, the old and the new alike. It will be wrong then to claim that one is reacting thus as a way of “closing ranks.” Teachers, writers, and critics have special roles in society, and to fail in one, is to live with a disappointed conscience. At times there are academic camps, but a true academic will, or should react positively or otherwise to a situation regardless of his relationship with the culprit or the victim. 

Accordingly, this reaction of mine is for no other reason other than that I consider it a duty of mine, as a teacher, to educate at all times even as I continue to learn from others. I learned from classes taken in Literary Theory and Criticism, during my days as a student, a point which was later hammered upon by a dear friend and former colleague whom I respect a lot, Professor Linus T. Asong, that as a writer one’s job is done after one has completed a project by having it published. The critics can then do whatever they want with the work; it becomes their business to agree and disagree with each other as they dissect and explore the work. Accordingly, though friends and colleagues, I was the first to review Asong’s The Crown of Thorns in the very early ‘90s when the Cosmos edition was released. In this review, I said whatever I had to say regardless of our relationship. Asong cherished my work because I called things as I saw them and my critique certainly influenced the portraits of some of his later characters. In a similar fashion, when Professor Shadrach Ambanasom wrote a critique of an earlier collection of my poems, he said what he had to say regardless of our academic and social connections. In fact, some of the most insightful critique of a writer’s work is more likely to come from his friends; the poignant and sometimes scathing character notwithstanding. 

No, Professor Dr. Jacobs’ approach is simply unethical, wrong in a nutshell, and it must not be encouraged if we are, at all, to educate our communities while making claims to the distinguished scholarly titles in the wake of our names. The public expects to encounter mature critical practices from supposed academic princes and princesses, not disparaging write-ups that fail to make a distinction between a writer’s person and his or her ideas. By writing and attacking personalities, a handshake metamorphoses into something else and the consequences can only be stifling. If anyone doubts this, then all I have to do is point to the rich and spiraling exchanges that were already taken place with regards to Vakunta’s paper; they have all suddenly stopped after Jacobs gave it a different character by attacking Vakunta’s person instead of his ideas. Only small minds enjoy listening to people insult each other; those reading the post may be “ordinary” folks according to Jacobs, which is not true, even then they are not petty as to associate themselves with such worthless wrangling. For scholars to disagree over ideas, therefore, is only natural, but they must not let it become personal else the exercise loses its value and goal—education!

By Emmanuel Fru Doh