In defence of nom de plumes

Jun 10, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – This column does not usually respond to criticisms because the column is intended to promote both the right to criticise and the free expression of diverse opinions. By constantly responding to critics, you can have the unintended consequence of stifling criticism. With few exceptions, the only instances in which this column will respond to criticisms are where there are misrepresentations of what was written or when facts are in dispute.

It has also been the policy of this column to avoid personal attacks. The column has stayed consistent with this rule even to the point where sometimes readers complain that sometimes they do not know to whom the column was referring.

The column does not attack people’s children or family members. It prefers to deal with issues rather than individuals. But at times, it is unavoidable that names have to be mentioned.

Where personal attacks are alleged, this column has been quick to indicate regret. Similarly, if something is said that hurts the feelings of anyone – even if what was said was justified – this column has adopted the position that it is prepared to express regrets.

This column once expressed an opinion, not a criticism, that at the time of Cheddi Jagan’s death, one person within the leadership of the PPP was not well-known among the working class. The person saw this as a “nasty” attack on him and this column responded by immediately expressing remorse at having hurt the person’s feelings even though it did not share the view that merely saying that someone was not well-known constituted a personal attack.

When this column was conceived it was intended to support the promotion of a diversity of views, to make opinions and analyses central and to avoid character assassinations.

There is a predisposition in Guyana for some persons to avoid addressing issues and instead attack the messengers. Often when someone cannot counter an argument, he or she resorts to throwing personal invectives and abuse. Given this tendency, it was felt that a non de plume would allow for greater focus on the views expressed rather than the person or persons expressing them.

There was also a predilection for persons to accept or dismiss views based on the ethnicity or political affiliation of the author. This fact was another consideration in the decision to use a non-de plume for the Peeping Tom column. By putting on a mask of anonymity, the reader is not influenced by ethnicity or political affiliation but by the merit of the arguments.

Over the past 25 years, the focus of this column has been on centralizing opinions by removing a face or a name. It is not about hiding but about highlighting positions.

This is one of the powerful benefits of the use of non-de plumes. It allows for the free expression of a wide range of views. In so doing it fosters an unbiased marketplace of opinion while prioritizing merit instead of personal attacks.

There is a recognizable difference between legitimate criticism and personal attacks. Even when it comes to persons in positions of power, the lines between legitimate criticism and personal attacks need not be blurred.

Personal attacks focus on the persons themselves which disregards the merits of their actions and opinions. Personal attacks often involve irrelevant and irreverent references to personal attributes. These attacks aim to impugn a person’s character rather than engage analyses.

In contrast, when you focus on either praising or criticizing the actions or opinions of someone, this is deemed constructive criticism. Constructive criticism centers on evaluating actions, decisions, and leadership without attacking anyone’s character. For example, a criticism of a leader’s stranglehold on his power is not a personal attack on the individual. It constitutes an analysis of the dangers of such domination and its consequences for inclusive decision-making and on the lives of citizens. Legitimate criticism remains one of the tried and tested means of contributing to informed debate and perhaps even influencing improvements and change.

Positional critiques address substantive issues, present evidence-based arguments and analyse the basis and consequences of an individual’s actions and policies. These are not aimed at harming the person. Instead, they can have the consequence of bringing about improvements, reassessments or changes, or providing alternative perspectives.

Constructive criticism focuses on the actions and decisions of individuals in their roles, while ad hominem attacks target the person themselves, often disregarding the merit of their ideas or leadership. This column has always been about the former rather than the latter.

This column has stayed clear of attacking anyone personally for another reason. It is not morally right to launch ad hominem attacks on someone while you are shielded from such attacks. And so this column seeks as far as possible to avoid naming persons. But this obviously cannot always be adhered to when addressing issues of political leadership.