The protests and rioting in the Middle East are not, as is argued, a result of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. Instead, they demonstrate the lack of legitimate authority in the region following the Arab Spring.
Continuing protests and rioting in front of Western embassies in the Middle East are not a testament to the ability of Muslims to be exceptionally touchy to religious insult, but an underscoring of the formula Charles Tilly opens with in his The Politics of Collective Violence:
(x + y) occasionally to the power of z = collective violence
[where x = young men; y = lack of supervision and z = a stimulant]
To say that the deaths of American embassy workers in Libya is because of exceptional Muslim touchiness to the ‘Innocence of Muslims’, is to say that the riots in London two years ago were a series of cogent protests to a police state.
In the case of ongoing violence in the Middle East, while media sources dwell upon the ‘z’ element – here the perceived honour infraction dealt by a film that received most of its publicity from Salafist media sources and must now be the worst most watched film ever after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – as apparently the sole cause of unrest, this element of the formula is optional and of uncertain statistical significance. What is surely more interesting to the scenario is the crucial ‘y’ factor.
What do Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen have in common? Exactly. Lebanon, Afghanistan and Sudan are more chronic sufferers of what ails these four Arab Spring nations. Supervision, authority and a perception that violent actions will have consequences for the young man in his subjective opinion (apologies if this appears sexist, but the under 30 and male thing is ubiquitous) are the cures to prevent rioting on a regular basis. To what extent these elements are present in the new executives of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia is becoming apparent. To what extent they have ever been present in the others is also telling.
We should also look at the ‘x’ factor. Why these young men have so much pent up frustration and time on their hands is a psychosocial-economic study for another day. Men in Cairo are becoming an issue as disenfranchisement rises and the dismal prospects for their economic future unravel. That sexual molestation is on the rise (and take it from an ex-Cairo-ex-pat, that it could rise from the situation before is a horrific prospect in itself) is also an indicator of young men thinking that they can get away with going with any urge that reveals itself to them. These young men are ripe for collective violence. The point is that this rioting would happen at the hands of male youths of any religion – or lack thereof – given the opportunity and some kind of stimulant.
This kind of violence – due to its stimulant factor, granted – like we saw at Bagram in February with the stimulant of the Quran desecrations always leads to Western commentators singling out the Islamic: why are Musilms so easily offended? Which is to be willfully blind to the universality of this tendency as a human trait that we can see everywhere. So keen is the West to ‘other’ the Muslim, that it is forgotten that the seminal work explaining this formula for violence was not developed looking at the violent characteristics of brown people of a different religion, but of Americans – of cowboys.
This violence, therefore, says everything about the status of authority where it occurs. Therein lies the means for peace, not in teaching Muslims a lesson about free speech, nor in teaching American film-makers about Islam, but in concentrating authority in a legitimate state apparatus. In this way, no TV Islamist could sow such unrest. Though it should be made clear that not even the instigators were authorities at the scene of the violence – in fact some Islamists present at some of the riots did try to prevent violence, but by then the ‘x’ + ‘y’ factor was cemented and nobody was in control.
The reaction to the recent unrest shows Western commentators for what they are: totally obsessed with Islam; but the unrest itself shows something very sad indeed about legitimate authority and statehood following the Arab Spring.
Photo credit: agoolapulapu
Tagged Arab Spring, Benghazi, Cairo, Christopher Stevens, Egypt, Innocence of Muslims, Islamists, Libya, London Riots
djsauerbornSeptember 16, 2012 at 12:56 pm
chapeau!
toumbuctuSeptember 16, 2012 at 11:36 pm
There’s also a lot of videos scattered on Youtube about Islam criticizing Christianity. They also posting some pictures of Priest converting into Islam. Is there any violent protest happened around the world about these videos? Nothing!See? what they are protesting? if we really know ourselves to where we are going or we are just following our prepared path that we think we are happy and living a prosperous life, why do we need to protest about the film?Im not against Islam. I am not also a devoted christian. i have a lot of Muslim friends. We are happy together because we are not after the RULES of religion. We are living in a way that we know we are going to grow with God’s/Allah’s grace and to be a good model for other circle of friends.
Peter KellySeptember 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm
I agree that these conditions absolutely provide the environment behind which violence can occur, but disagree that this alone should be concentrated on. Instead we should be looking at why a film such as ‘innocence of Muslims’ was such a strong stimulant (which is completely about religion) and why the US was the target (which is a combination of religion and politics). Above all my problem with this article is the comparison between these killings/protests and the London riots. They are not comparable. The only casual link is that both share the equation you laid out. Other than that you have the London rioters on one side indiscriminately stealing and burning, largely just ‘for the fun’. On the other you have targeted and intense attacks on a particular institution and driven by a particular belief system. Also the environment could (at a push) be compared, the stimulus and drive cannot.
MariaTahenySeptember 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Hi Lucy,This fascinates me. I paralleled it to the riots in South Central Los Angeles (the town of my birth) and found the similarities quite striking. I am a second year PhD student of Clinical Psychology at Saybrook University and find the formula you identified is only lacking in one basic element: The interior motivation for catharsis. Young men, to be sure, are the x factor, but supervision is not the y factor. The y factor is perceived hopelessness, although supervision can also account for the downgrade in the collective dimension. I am really amazed at the pinpoint focus of the media on one or two “causes” when the reality is a multitude of causes. If enough young men felt hopeful about their future, would they be so quick to destroy as a group? Would the group be so willing to condone violence against others? The hopelessness allows them to downgrade their own sense of moral integrity which motivates a man to protect a woman because he sees his mother or sister in that woman, or a man to protect a storekeeper because he sees himself in that storekeeper. How can we best instill hope in these young men. There is your answer. Not how can we best police them. That will eventually degrade into the same thing as we see here.
Lucy ThirkellSeptember 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm
I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, and there is plenty to keep one occupied in the media. I have particularly enjoyed Salman Rushdie’s contributions on the topic, especially his interview with Jon Stewart where he notes that unfortunately, “organised outrage” seems to appeal to young men with not a lot to do… and no girlfriends. I agree that collective violence is cathartic and as such appealing to some young men; and I do not think we can arbitrate the validity of the object of that meaning, whether it is for the direct gain of a flat screen TV or the feeling that you are defending faith, it is still the pursuit of something in sync with others around you.