Iconoclasm is back! Angry mobs of puritan zealots are storming the streets of various cities, toppling statues and tearing images apart. No picture is too sacred for their axes, which are set to erase any blasphemy from the face of the earth.
Admittedly, this opening sentence is an overdramatization of recent attacks on statues and monuments in the aftermath of the gruesome killing of African American man George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota in the United States on May 25, 2020. It is, furthermore, inaccurate in its characterization of these acts as a form of iconoclasm, which is—in the strict meaning of the term—the destruction of statues and pictures set up as objects of religious veneration.
Between 10 and 12 March 2017, the Third Conference of the Arab Council for the Social Sciences (ACSS) took place in Beirut, Lebanon under the title: State, Sovereignty and Social Space in the Arab Region: Emerging Historical and Theoretical Approaches. The ACSS was established in 2008 to promote social scientific research and knowledge production in the Arab world, enhance the role of social science in Arab public life, and inform public policy in the region. The conference took place at the Crowne Plaza Hotel and consisted of 38 panels in addition to four roundtable discussions, a keynote, and a number of presentations. Lectures and discussions were conducted in three languages (Arabic, English, and French) with simultaneous interpretation available for every session. The papers presented by around 200 active participants covered a wide variety of themes in political science, anthropology, and sociology.
I wrote a draft of this post two years ago (March 2015) in my notebook, but only now that I have edited it and posted it online. I have avoided making any substantial changes, so that it remains true as much as possible to my thoughts back then.
Those who know me personally or have read some of my posts here (Oriental(ist) Metal Music or “Is God really Dead?”) know me as a dedicated heavy metal fan. For 15 years, almost half my life, I listened almost exclusively to heavy metal music (along with few hard and progressive rock bands). I have also been a dedicated concert-goer, sometimes travelling to other countries just to attend a metal band I like. Heavy metal was in fact more than just music for me. It was, for most of these 15 years, an identity and an influence on the way I think and behave. I even wrote my MA thesis, back in 2010, about heavy metal in Syria and for a while I was thinking about doing a PhD in this field. As a faithful metalhead I looked down at all other styles of music, especially hip hop, and bragged how heavy metal surpassed it in sophistication, authenticity, anti-commercialism, and fan-dedication. In fact, two months ago, I would not have been able to name 10 hip hop songs, and if you asked my what was your favorite hip hop song, I would have said Gay Fish.
So after all that to turn to hip hop within less than two months came as a surprise to me personally before anyone else. So I have spent the past two weeks reflecting on this “radical” change and trying to understand how come it ever happened and why hip hop and not any other style of music. What has changed in my life or my environment that helped make this transformation? I will try in this post to give some answers to these questions.
Few days ago three members of the radical feminist group FEMEN disrupted an event of Berlin’s Islamic Week by charging topless into the hall where it was taking place with anti-Islamic slogans painted all over their bodies. A number of policemen seized the women and dragged them outside, while the event proceeded as scheduled. The question that I would like to answer in this post is whether this act of protest, provocative as it may be, constitutes a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression or simply a form of hate speech. I’m not concerned here with the method of protest, but the language used.
يرتبط مصطلح “العلمانية” لدى المواطن العربي (سواءً كان مؤيداً أم معارضاً لها) بعلاقة سلبية مع الدين من قبيل الفصل أو التضاد، فالمؤيدون للعلمانية ينظرون بريبة لحضور الدين في الحياة العامة، ويفضّلون بقاءه بعيداً محصوراً ضمن نطاق الحياة الشخصية للفرد، لذلك ترتبط العلمانية بالنسبة إليهم بمفهوم الفصل: الفصل بين الدين والسياسية، الفصل بين الدين والتعليم، إلخ. في المقابل ينظر المعارضون للعلمانية على أنها أيديولوجيا عدائية تجاه الدين، بل ويربطها بعضهم بالإلحاد المطلق، لذلك تصبح العلمانية في نظرهم ضد الدين.
لا بد وأن هذا البعد السلبي لعلاقة العلمانية بالدين يرجع بدرجة كبيرة إلى طبيعة التيارات العلمانية الغربية الأكثر تأثيراً على العالم العربي، والتي ساهمت بالتالي إلى نحوٍ بعيد في صياغة مفهوم العلمانية لديه، على رأس هذه التيارات تأتي العلمانية الفرنسية (والتي تعرف في بلاد المغرب العربي باللائكية)، وقد طبق هذا النموذج إلى حدٍّ بعيد في تركيا المجاورة على يد مصطفى كمال أتاتورك (العلمانية الكمالية)، كما تم تطبيقه إلى حدٍّ ما في تونس على يد الحبيب بورقيبة، وقد أثر كذلك على العديد من الأنظمة السياسية العربية التي خلفها الاستعمار الفرنسي.
Last Thursday (Halloween 2013) I finally decided to watch World War Z—one of the biggest movie productions of 2013, featuring Brad Pitt in the leading role. It is a zombie movie, so it kind of fits Halloween day, but that was a pure coincidence. I neither care about Halloween nor Zombie movies. When the film was being shown in local cinemas here in Leipzig a couple of months ago, a friend of mine suggested that we go together to see it, but I objected strongly on the grounds that it seemed very silly. This was confirmed later by one of my flatmates who described the movie as a debacle. Later, another flatmate of mine watched it and described it as too bad to the extent it is funny. This has aroused my curiosity, but not enough to bother watching it until I watched World War Zimmerman—the third episode of the new season of South Park—in which World War Z is bitterly ridiculed. I thought then that I must watch this film. The day before yesterday, which happened to be Halloween, I stayed in bed all day long because of being sick, so I had enough time to watch two movies—one of them was World War Z.
The film turned up to be very bad indeed, but, unfortunately, not to the extent it was funny, as my second flatemate had claimed before. From a cinematic perspective, I have nothing interesting to say about the film. It is simply a bad movie, and I don’t recommend it to anyone. World War Z, however, is not only cinematically bad, but also politically, and this is what I am going to talk about in this article.
The only blog in the internet that I follow closely is Peter Berger’s, who is an American renowned sociologist of religion. Most of his blog posts revolve around issues related to the “culture wars” in the United States of America, in which religion is almost invariably strongly present. The culture wars cover a wide range of issues, such as creationism vs. evolutionism, pro-choice vs. pro-life, supporters of same-sex marriage vs. those who opposite, and the like.
In his latest post, Berger refers to the support given by some American large corporations, such as Microsoft and Starbucks, to a bill in Washington State to legalize same-sex marriage and the negative reaction against this support by some Evangelical pastors and conservative activists. Berger wonders about the real motivations behind such “political correctness”: Are they straightforward commercial interests (i.e. a desire to win more customers in a large “gay market” of, say, coffee drinkers or computer users) or is it a matter of class and cultural elitism?