A Skeptical Lot
When I was in my early teens I used to be an avid fan of the local football tournaments. I went to nearly every match in which my favorite team played. These were the days of the club flag-hoisting hysteria and black magic. Obviously no amount of flag hoisting actually influenced the team’s performance on the field. But it was believed that the craft of black magic did.
The special kind of black magic associated with football teams were known as “booguls”. The spells or incantations or invocation of spirits – both evil and good – were used to supposedly help a team play better or win matches. I have never actually witnessed the act of casting a boogul nor have I seen anything supernatural about the football that was played those days (the same could be said of today’s football, I suppose). But I have heard a lot of stories of miraculous acts of the supernatural - aiding teams win matches by influencing the team to perform better or, in the case of the opposing team, shoddily.
One such account of an event was recounted to me by my uncle who played as a defender for my favorite club. He told me, in great detail about one particular match in which spirits levitated the body of the goalie in mid-flight to catch a ball that was otherwise humanly impossible to catch. Could it be that it was his hard work in training that finally paid off and not some supernatural entity?
In any case, I whole heartedly believed in that story because it made me feel great to be supporting a team that could not only play good football but commanded spirits and jinns to gain victories. There was no way my team could lose, I thought.
But, alas, my team did lose. The booguls failed miserably and the spirits let us down (literally) – no levitation, no, nothing. We needed better boogulmen!
Our history is rife with stories of black magic influencing ordinary people’s lives. I’ve heard many over the years and if truth be told I’ve never actually thought about them with real skepticism. It is not because I wholly believed them but because later on I just didn’t believe in supernatural influences to warrant skeptical analysis. But the same cannot be said for many, many of us.
We are a superstitious and suggestive bunch, after all. We believe in black magic, spells, curses, faith-healers and bad omens and we used to believe in fairies (paree), goblins, baburu kujja, avatteriyaa, bodumeeha and numerous other far more outlandish apparitions until very recent times. Nowadays we just don’t hear enough of these stories to relate to them. Does it mean that we’re any less credulous?
I don’t think so. Our lack of critical thinking or skeptical mental processes transcends black magic and apparitions. It also applies to our credulity when it comes to politics also. For instance, on the 3rd of November 2006 the Minister of Information addressed the nation on the occasion of Victory day. In the speech, with the aim of educating the public, he made reference to special tactics used by rogue organizations to topple governments. According to him there were many “great” books that documented these so-called tactics. No doubt the mention of the tactics from the books gave the speech a sort of intellectualized hot air quality. But it left me wanting to find out about these books more than anything. Why was it so important to say that great books were written on the subject of these tactics?
I cannot think of any purpose other than to exploit the mind of a credulous public. In fact, the mention of the books could be considered useless. We would have believed even if there was no mention of any books or had he said that these tactics were written on a stone found on the moon.
I think it is dangerous to society as individuals to be so suggestible, so unaccustomed to skepticism. We need a mindset shift towards skepticism, critical thinking and scientific inquiry to help us evaluate and make clear sense of an increasingly confusing and hostile world. Whether it is for a game of football, a boy faith-healer or government propagandist dribble we need it urgently. We need it to survive the onslaught of illogical ideologies and irrational beliefs that is at the core of whatever is ravaging much of the world today. It is also absolutely essential, in my opinion, to survive the political storm we are in right now.
But as always skepticism and skeptical people will always be frowned upon in our society and elsewhere as long as we don’t cultivate or advocate critical methods of thinking in the generations to come.
A prominent politician once told me that the only good Maldivian skeptic is a dead Maldivian. If you don’t believe me then perhaps all hope is not lost just yet.
Have a great weekend.
hamza | February 24, 2007 2:44 AM | Reply
The ironic pessimism of the 90's failed for a reason. Doubt and inquiry is good but outright antagonism towards faith in anything and everything reduces one to a hollow shell.
I understand what you're saying about exploiting credulity but why do we always, intentionally or unintentionally, and unreservedly blame the ignorance of the faceless masses thereby immediately reducing their agency in their country's history centuries before its written. Credulity isn't a cultural attitude it has to do with poor education, personal convictions, fear, deliberate snuffing out of creativity and initiative in public schools, celebrating apathy and rewarding cowardice.
I might be wrong but I get the impression that there's a certain amount of blame placed on our credulous and uninitiated masses for their ignorance in your post. While you present political opportunists as clever puppetmasters and extrapolate superstitions surrounding team sports to politics I feel it is both unfair and inaccurate. Superstitions, especially in the case of vicarious involvement in certain sports by their supporters, exist everywhere with cultural variations, regardless of levels of education. I'm not contradicting myself. I just think that education and awareness blows away some superstitions but certainly not all of them.
If politicians are prepared to exploit what the masses take for granted it is certainly not through any fault of their's which can be immediately solved by changing cultural attitudes. The U.S. of A. can be considered fairly "enlightened" but both the political left and right seem to be able to utilize national myths about the founding fathers, the loosely-defined concept of patriotism and the politics of fear to good effect. This is not simply because of an ignorant public which swallows the message whole. I believe it has something to do with vested interests on the part of the public in some or all of the political issues on the table. To sum it up what I'm saying is we need to study the masses (if such a simplistic collective term even has any actual application to reality in this context). We need to know their fears, their expectations, their needs and desires before dictating the proper "enlightened", ironic and skeptical approach towards life to them.
muhammadh | February 24, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply
Let's say that Maldivians forcefully enlightenend themselves to think critically in 3 generations. That's about 200+ years and by then they'd have to use their good mind for the evacuation plan before the polars dissapear.
Zero | February 24, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply
Simon, I agree with you.
Most of us are credulous. I don't know, it maybe due to lack of awareness...
Even when we look at the 'story' of how Maldives embraced Islam, there are varying opinions now saying how credulous we were to beleive that there 'really' was a 'Rannamari' who raped and killed a virgin girl. On a skeptical point, was it a really a 'rannamaari' or was it a human?
jaa | February 24, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply
Simon, excellent post ;)
I don't think Maldives is going to shift gear anytime soon though :(
Hamza: I kind of agree with you but I dont think the current situation allows such clear distillation. Credulity seems to have become an unchallengeable cultural attitude via generations of teaching and reinforcement of certain ideals in thinking. It IS poor education from the perspective of skepticism but this suspension of intellectual faculties is hailed, commended and treated as the holy grail of personal enlightenment by the supernatural lot. Unlike the US, in the Maldives this is promoted as the ONLY manner to fashion one's thinking. So, to me atleast, which came before which is a question irrelevant for now for the cause and effect seems to have merged into an indistinguishable common force to be reckoned with.
Nasheed | February 25, 2007 2:16 AM | Reply
Hello Simon,
Again a very interesting post. A very enlightening one as well.
Credulous, some of us may be, on some issues, at certain times, under certain circumstances. But not all of us, not on all issues, and not at all times. I am not sure there exists a society in the first world or in any other, where the masses in general terms, represent a critical thinkers' lot. Perhaps that is why the cow we find as an animal, is a god for some. The sea we go to bathe in, represents faith for some. A piece of rock, for us, is a source of worship for others. If we use critical thinking, and debate with them on grounds of merit, they would say this: Not everything in life is guided by reason or logic. Certain things are governed simply by convictions.
We, Maldivians have become better with time. You are a good example, from our own generation. You raised the issue. You talked about it. And here we are, commenting on it. I am sure, with education, with tolerance, with plurality of opinion, with meaningful democratic change, with dignity in ourselves, with freedom to be creative, with latitude to make mistakes, with respect for dissenting views, the seeds of critical thinking and analytical mental processes will be sown in our selves and in our culture too.
By the way, this is the same guy, whose speech you refer to in your article. I made reference to the availabilty of many books on the subject, for three very important reasons (for me, i mean)- one: to admit that i was not making up any of it on my own and was sharing published ideas instead - second: to appeal to my listeners not to submit to the circumstances around us thinking all of it to be just another occurence of fate, happening in its natural course of events, but to recognise them as strategies and tactics deliberately and carefully employed to achieve certain desired results as tested over and over again in places known and not so known - third: given the nature of the circumstances we were in, and the subject on which I was speaking, I ran the risk of being branded by those who did not know of materials published on the subject, as making up all that stuff to relate to present realities thereby blowing my credibilty apart.
I wanted them to say after listening to me speak: aan, mihen dho mivanee. That is what I wanted.
Anyway, Simon, good as always, reading your posts. I have a great time, everytime, I visit your blog.
Best wishes always
Nasheed
hamza | February 26, 2007 2:46 AM | Reply
Nasheed, were you saying that the state-sponsored religion in the Maldives requires less suspension of "rational" or "logical" thought than Hinduism? Glass houses dude, glass houses. If you insult one religion, you surely insult the rest of them as well. Tolerance and plurality my ass.
I don't know who you're defending "Nasheed" but a propagandist's use of academic sources to justify the point of view they're selling isn't exactly honesty or some misguided attempt at avoiding plagiarism. Yeah a scientist in a lab-coat would back up the claim that Aquafresh prevents plaque-formation and keeps your teeth white (and who doesn't want a nice smile?) but anyone knows that it's still a sales pitch. Politicians are even worse. Maldivian politicians in particular are notoriously capable when it comes to beating around the bush while appearing to make a point.
It's not probable that you are indeed the Nasheed that Simon mentioned in his post but your comment is a great example of political double-speak. There's the appeal to Simon's vanity, avoiding any mention of an actual issue or refining your point of view to the extent that someone can understand it and appearing to be a man of the people. Really, if there is a hell, it should open under a politician's feet the moment they die.
Simon | February 26, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply
Hamza, actually I too blame it on poor education but also on a culture that over centuries have depended supernatural beliefs to explain many things. Even today this is prevalent. The post was aimed more as a commentary on how we should exercise some of the critical faculties at least. I drew examples from my own experience - which is of course harmless - and that of a public speech to get the point across that we (and not the politician's use of our credulity - which is part and parcel of politics anyway) need to think a bit more...
And you know what? I think those of us who think we are more enlightened than the rest come out as being arrogant about the whole thing. I admit that I do the same and I have no explanation that would justify that but then at least I am not advocating nihilism.
Jaa, even the US uses credulity and the belief in unscientific views both for political gain and as coersion. Until very recently grade school biology books did not mention anything about evolution. I don't remember reading about in school either. But of course thats another story.
Nasheed, I did not intend to make you sound like a bad politician and as I said sometime I wonder if there is such a thing as a "good" politician. Every good politician is a bad politician to someone.
Why I talked about your speech in particular is because I have for many years avoided listening to public addresses by the president. When I heard you were going to deliver a speech I made it a point to hear what you have to say and what I talked about in the post is something that really got to me. I've never heard anyone mention any such thing in any public address ever before. But here I am talking about it months after you made the speech because it really got to me.
Also I think by mentioning the books without reference you did run a worser risk of being branded as making up all that stuff. I think, and this is my opinion, that the only book we're supposed to quote from in a public speech is the Holy Quran. Anything else would come out as too academic, wouldn't it?
For anyone else reading this:
Nasheed who has commented on this post, is indeed the author of the speech I refer to in my post. I am happy that in general the maldives blogosphere has become such an influential medium in terms of providing feedback on current events and more. The Hyphen project initiated by Hon. Nasheed from the Information ministry, I have been told, is a direct result of the effect the blogosphere is having on at least part of our public debate system.
So what's my point? Keep blogging.
And also, I thank him for taking the time to visit this blog and comment. I wish him, as Borat might say it .. "great success!".
maldiveshealth | February 26, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply
It would have been great if Simon had some how included a link where we could hear or see Nasheeds speech.
I have to partly disagree with one reason Nasheed has made. That is, the first reason he raised.
I quote, "one: to admit that i was not making up any of it on my own and was sharing published ideas instead".
I have got comments asking or questioning about a certain point of view or personal experience i present on my blog. Which is fine by me and i dont think that we have to, or there is an urgent need to "enforce by force" any views on the public.
With time and more awareness i am sure that more peope will not only start dounbting what politicians say in their speeches but will start asking questions about the references they give as well.
And Simon, long live maldivian blogosphere. :)
nass | February 27, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply
A minister in the blogosphere? Not bad. Good work, Simon. Long live MvBlogs!
hamza | February 27, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply
I'm just surprised any of them can use computers :P. I guess my knowledge of the members of President Gayyoom's cabinet is seriouly out-of-date.