We should hope that the leaders of Hezbollah, its spokesmen, and those who promote its discourse do not believe in their discourse. Indeed, soundness of mind and common sense demand as much.
True, proponents are not absolved of other flaws in the event that they are not convinced of the case they are pretending to deeply believe in; it suggests that they are, in one way or another, maliciously or hypocritically deceiving and harming others. Still, the party could, if this were the case, approach this undignified behavior as being a political or partisan necessity, and this approach is typical of non-democratic parties and movements.
Conviction, on the other hand, cannot be defended or justified whatsoever. It would require nothing less than transferring the believer to the nearest hospital.
For whoever utters and believes claims like “Hezbollah protected Lebanon and defended it,” “it empowered Lebanon, imbuing it with strength and dignity after decades of weakness and humiliation,” or that “allying with Iran is necessary for overcoming Lebanon’s hardships and entering history,” is echoing rhetoric that cannot be proven by reason nor empirical observation. In fact, reason and empirical observation only point to the opposite.
It seems relatively well established, however, that myths are summoned and internalized as a response to events that seem unbelievable and incomprehensible. In our particular case, this fact allows for understanding how and why those who found themselves confronted with Israel’s victory- after having been spoon fed by an intellectual apparatus that, time and again, told them this enemy was “weaker than a spider’s web”- would turn to myths and miracles.
Here, we encounter another dimension to this indoctrination, Iran’s role. It is in the interest of Iran, which makes the very same claims as the party, for Hezbollah to believe in this discourse. Hezbollah’s conviction reinforces the notions Tehran needs to project to the world, like its possessions of “strong cards,” and to maintain its guardianship over a cause worth defending that enjoys broad support among the Lebanese.
Accordingly, we can expect to see more belief in the unbelievable so long as Iran, as some of its officials have been reiterating, is “preparing to fight a war with all its might.” We should also expect more of this if Hamas follows through on its compliance with Trump’s plan.
Still, we must always distinguish between one proponent and another, between one purveyor of myth and another purveyor of the same myth.
For example, when “Expediency Discernment Council” member Ali Larijani says such things, and he often does, he is being very shrewd. That does not apply to Naiim Qassem or Mohammad Raad when they do the same. Larijani is clever when he does this because he stands to gain from the fact that Qassem, Raad, and their followers believe in these notions that he does not.
This dynamic resembles authoritarian regimes’ deception of masses who go about echoing the rhetoric they must echo despite this regime knowing it is lying. The more the authorities shape the minds of its people, the more the people are inclined to believe the authorities. North Koreans, for instance, are infinitely more inclined to believe in the exceptionality of Kim Jong-un than Britons or Swedes would believe the same about their leaders.
The German psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich dubbed the manufactured being who believes and obeys “the little man.” After the Second World War ended, Reich published a long essay addressed to the “common man.” “Listen, Little Man!” incites the latter to confront the social and psychological forces perpetuating his subjugation and conformity. The “little man,” in pursuit of security and conformity, abandons his independence and individuality, giving them up to authoritarian figures and institutions. Be they political, religious, or moral, these figures and institutions take control of his reason and capture emotions. Often by appealing to his most base instincts, they manage to turn the “little man” into a proactive participant in his own oppression, the destruction of his mind, and the betrayal of his interests.
Nonetheless, Reich was not entirely pessimistic about the “little man” inclined to believe the unbelievable. He believed that individuals could liberate themselves and break free of their chains, reclaiming their individuality and enjoying the freedom they deserve. Doing so necessarily entails developing the courage to think critically and independently of the masses around them.
Accordingly, Reich called for a revolution within the mind that awakens the individual to the unrealized capacities and potential that he possesses and had himself taken part in repressing. Freedom, in this sense, cannot be reduced to the absence of external oppression; it also requires the capacity to think and act independently- many have enjoyed political freedom only to swiftly fall into new forms of intellectual and emotional servitude.
Going back to Hezbollah and its readiness to believe the unbelievable, the ultimate catastrophe is that this reflects abstinence from assessing matters on the basis of reason and lived experiences, and consequently from assessing promises that had been made, as well as the absence of any desire to retain free thinking. In the end, communal loyalties, allegiance to the “kin” confiscating their mind, come first, second, and third.
