The American University of Beirut’s Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) foundation held on April 21 a three-day international conference which addressed how various art forms deal with secularism, religion, and violence. Entitled “Secularism, Religious Nationalism and the State: Visual Practices and Public Subjects,” the conference cited examples from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, India, and Iraq as well as other countries. During the opening ceremony, AUB President John Waterbury highlighted, in his welcome address, the emerging importance of the Lebanese flag as a national symbol to the grieving Hariri family and the Lebanese people; Dean of Arts and Sciences Khalil Bitar also referred to the recent developments which have caused “a lot of aspects of our lives (to be) redefined.” “I could think of no better place to discuss the complexity of this topic,” said Samir Farah, FES representative. “You will find churches next to mosques, pictures of the state’s president Emile Lahoud next to pictures of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and often within the same family, a mini-skirt next to a hijab,” he said. Moreover, Farah argued that the recent emergence of the Lebanese flag as a national unifying symbol has highlighted the importance of visual practices in terms of identification of nation-state subjects. Architectural historian Maha Yahya, who is affiliated with AUB and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) also invoked the past few months in her introductory speech. “The past 67 days have cast this project in a more critical light,” she said, “particularly since the deaths of Rafic Hariri and Basil Fleihan carried with them a lot of meaning, since Hariri was an emblem of the post-war era and Fleihan symbolized the defiance of a younger generation to overcome sectarianism and reach public office.” The issues of symbolism, visible and invisible practices and their ties to secularism, religious practice, and the development of a nation-state and democracy were raised by Keynote speaker Peter van der Veer from Utrecht University, whose one and a half hour speech inspired a thought-provoking discussion with the audience. Van der Veer argued that although television and the media and “democratic narratives” apparently allow people more access to information by exposing them to more “visible practices,” they also create an invisible counterpart in the form of the secret service, torture chambers, and corruption. “We see more, but we know not less, but just as little,” he said, adding that the media selectively televises what fits in with the “narrative of democracy.” Van der Veer also pointed to another dialectic that takes place in the modern state: along with more apparent visibility in the form of openness and transparency, the modern state is also characterized by an absence of certain public visual practices, such as public executions, he said. But the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia still follow this practice. Does that make them less of a modern state? he asked. On the other hand, flags, uniforms, and tombs of unknown soldiers are also prevalent in modern nation-states and they act to evoke the power of the state to symbolize its immortality in the face of the individuality of each citizen, he added. The keynote speaker also argued that visual signs of conformity and cohesion do not necessarily signify loyalty to the state. “Both visible and invisible symbols can be a sign of disloyalty to the state,” he said, giving examples of the dilemma involving Muslims wearing headscarves in France and people who appear loyal to the state but harbor hostile feelings internally. “The assumption that the modern state is transparent, open and accountable has to be criticized,” he said, adding that a state may appear secular but hide a strong religious and sectarian culture that prevents cross-religious mating, for instance. The conference, which was held in West Hall, included presentations on religious iconographies, public spheres and artists in postwar Lebanon. Moreover, presentations addressed national symbols in film and media, including reality TV shows and how they contribute to nationalistic versus pan-Arab sentiments. Depictions of violence in the media, with examples from the Abu Ghraib prison experience and cases of ethnic cleansing, were also analyzed.
|
|||||||
|
