In a column about the “Axis of Resistance” for "Al Majalla," my colleague Houssam Itani asks: "Who can think of a book written by a thinker or writer associated with the Axis that is worth reading?" To the lack of such a book, we could add the lack of any idea, poem, novel, painting, play, film, and song...
This question would not have been posed in the first place if the "Axis" and those who speak in its name had shown no interest in culture. Indeed, many episodes and incidents have shown that this Axis that hasn't published a book does have a draconian and all-encompassing rigid stance on Lebanese cultural questions, one that can best be encapsulated by the term censorship. They oppose anyone active in the cultural sphere who does not "denounce the enemy,serves the enemy,takes part in a conference or festival with the enemy," or "speaks to an enemy newspaper." The "enemy" is, by definition, Israel- each and every Israeli with the exception of around ten anti-Zionist figures that are "on our side." However, those encompassed by this loaded epithet can broaden to include anyone accused of "collaborating" with the enemy, "supporting" the enemy, "sympathizing" with the enemy, buying a product made by the enemy's "allies," sitting in a cafe run by the enemy's "partners," or even shaking hands with someone who belongs to the enemy...
This censorship body is, of course, unelected and has no official authority. The authority it has enjoyed for all these years is derived from its professed "passionate devotion to Palestine," enabling it to ban artists from visiting Lebanon, film screenings, events, and the translation of books. It has also had the right to defame people arbitrarily based on those criteria, without ever being questioned or held legally accountable.
Of course, this is not a narrative of history and the world that is used to ‘justify’ the suppression of dissent. We saw this sort of censorship, for example, with Stalinism, which used a Marxist-Leninist yardstick to identify the "enemies of the people." As for our censors, they mostly pounce on the banal and daily life and practices: shaking hands, dining, visiting, buying goods, sitting in a cafe...
In this symbolism-laden context, some of Lebanon's most iconic artists and intellectuals have been defamed: the novelist Amin Maalouf, the filmmaker Ziad Doueiri, and the playwright Wajdi Mouawad, among many others. At best, extremely narrow and authoritarian interpretations of the “law” are brandished against the targets of this defamation. Mind you, even the most justified reference to the law can be challenged and seen with suspicion in light of Hezbollah's seizure of the state and legal interpretation.
If these censors had a shred of respectable cultural sensitivity, they would be appalled by the sight of mass rallies brought together by a single shared dogma, chanting with one voice, raising their fists in synchronized motions, and declaring their willingness to die for a single idolized leader. Ultimately, it is a mechanical scene that brings to mind only the notorious images of crowds gathered at fascist rallies. On top of that, however, this mass phenomenon is coupled with efforts to drill extremely reactionary and mythical ideas inimical to reform and cultural liberation into the minds of these masses. None of that compels Resistance Axis censors to voice the slightest criticism or reservation. One component of this circle of censors is a disturbing political party founded by a racist "fuhrer" who has explained the "degradation" of Arabs in North Africa as being a result of intermarriage with black Africans. This is a party that continues to raise a flag reminiscent of the swastika and considers every Jew an enemy "fighting our religion, land, and rights." It also draws a distinction between those who have "flat skulls" and those who have "round skulls." As for this milieu’s sympathy for the Assad regime, as well as other similar regimes, it can only be said to reflect a strong inclination towards censorship and fierce animosity to culture- even before we received the news of mass graves, crushed corpses, and salt rooms in Saydnaya Prison over the past couple of weeks.
In its Lebanese articulation, two hallmarks of anti-intellectualism are particularly salient:
First, an aversion to freedom. In the Lebanese case, this translates to an aversion to Lebanon itself because, without freedom, the country loses everything it stands for. The cause of freedom, at least in the Lebanese cultural environment, should be revered above any other, with freedom the basis for determining the significance of other causes.
Second, we find absolute enmity that has the capacity to satiate the hunger that drives cultural pursuits and to define our identity purely through this enmity. The "enemy" will remain our enemy forever, not related to borders, distance, time, rights, nor interests, while enmity is the cornerstone of our human relationships. Rather, “humanizing” our enemies is immoral, and thanks to a secularized religious consciousness humanizing them are turned into demons or devils. Nothing clarifies this sick worldview and its output better than the concept of a “culture of resistance,” which has nothing but animosity and contempt for culture.
Breaking anti-intellectualism’s arbitrary authority over culture, an extension of our subjugation by force of arms, deserves to be considered inseparable from the pursuit of breaking that subjugation. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the Lebanese people want to see both broken.
