By
Obododimma Oha
There are those who derive special pleasure from seeing two people or two groups fighting. They set up one against the other, a simple bait for one to swallow and start accusing and attacking the other. This looks like a psychological disorder and psychologists can explain it better. Peter Abrahams depicts this well in his Mine Boy in the life of the character, Daddy. Daddy likes seeing two people fighting and is not happy with anyone who separates them.
Ibakọ Isi (literally, "knocking heads together") seems to be similar to this attachment to the enactment of the tragic. Apart from the derivation of pleasure from watching it, the agents use the possibility of collision of two unknowing parties to get a revenge or carry on a fight. In other words, he or she has worked against both sides without them knowing so. Didn't white slave owners in the slavery days pick two hefty black slaves and put them in a ring to fight till one was almost dead, while making watchers bet on who would win? What of the cockfights? Two cocks with mad eyes made to fight in pit, till one is tired or beaten? Or two bulls or dogs forced to fight it out and to entertain humans with the sight of blood spilled? What of the very "sad" gladiatorial shows of the old Roman Empire in which people enjoyed the sport of seeing their fellow human being torn to pieces by a very hungry lion? The list appears endless : human "civilization" is characterized by attachment to the tragic and so humans like knocking heads together and enjoying it.
If the justification is that lower animals are the victims of ịbakọ isi what of when humans are used instead? It appears that the ultimate but terrible joy is when humans are used in causing pain!
Another thing is that we may think that ịbakọ isi is only found in cases of things assumed to be naturally in opposition. That is not so. Things in seeming agreement may be subject to ịbakọ isi, in that case, in conflict sometimes. This is well illustrated by the Yoruba narrative in which two friends, who went to gather fuelwood, were taught a lesson by the trickster-god, Esu. The friends swore that they would never quarrel but Esu caused them to forget their oath and quarrel. The god switched their fuelwood and soon they were quarreling about it! Esu had taught them a great lesson.
The ịbakọ Isi agent is not really helping any of the sides, even though he or she may make it seem so. This is simply a case of attack looking like a support. In that case, it is clearly a strategy of making one a weapon against self without the suspicion, a villainy!
The ịbakọ Isi syndrome is often witnessed at the macro level in deeply divided societies, with one group deceiving some others to gain an advantage. "Oh, that group is working against your interests. Don't allow it. " And the victim-audience swallows the bait easily.
Ịbakọ Isi, in indigenous Igbo thinking, manifests in various ways. It manifests as "mmụọ nchịgha nkụ" (spirit of confusion that switches the fuelwood), as in the case of Esu above. The local people gather and use fuelwood to make fire in their cooking and in other tasks. The spirit of confusion steps in to create doubts about who owns which fuelwood. This confusion can lead to a quarrel or even fighting. In that case, have their heads not been knocked together?
What further needs to be pointed out is that ịbakọ Isi is imagined. The enmity or working against the interest of a given group, as the work of imagination, recalls the work of Sam Keen, especially Faces of the Enemy. As shown in the book, the agent of ịbakọ Isi is a homo hostilis whose hostile imagination leads to undermining the innocent other, first in thought, then through tragic action.
The villainy is designed to make us think of that
(1) Our interest is in jeopardy.
(2) It is the fault or making of the target.
(3) We can and should do something to stop it.
(4) That something we can do should hurt the imagined agent very well.
(5) This design to work against our interests is very real, just as our own reaction is an obligation.
Ịbakọ isi, which is really another version of divide-and-rule, makes plural societies become more divided, makes animosity to intensify here and there, and makes a society horrible to live in. One in such a setting turns from being a friend to being an enemy simply by acting neutral and thinkinng one is free enough to converse with one side. Devastating in society, as in intergroup relations, too.
Comments