STOP patronizing cultural institutions and leave it to the public to evaluate their activities, say Saudi intellectuals after a spate of bans recently hampered the activities of literary clubs in Al-Ahsa, Hail and Madina. In one instance, the discussion of a novel was banned. In another, the screening of a film was stopped just because of its program music, creating turmoil at the club. Even the internationally acclaimed Hindi film “Black” (directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali), based on the true story of Helen Keller, ran into opposition – though attempts to ban it failed. Such attempts are patronizing and stem from an erroneous reading of reality, the intellectuals say. Poet Mohammad Al-Ali attributed them to “the presence of wardens of dead values who have access to multiple channels, financing and support” and who are in conflict with those aspiring to create social awareness. This conflict will not end, unless awareness is raised throughout the society, he said. But censorship is not an easy matter to reckon with since its criteria are varied and relative, according to critic Dr. Saad Al-Baze'i. He said that since culture has originally been about admissibility and not restriction – as in religion – it should be much more accommodating than religion. Mere discussion of a film or a novel, he added, does not necessarily mean condoning its content. “Clubs are pools of a large numbers of people with disparate tastes and opinions,” he said, ruing the needless rigidity in matters that hurt no one. One suggestion made was to form an independent board to vote on contentious issues and whose vote must be accepted, even if it means stricter censorship. Poet Dr. Thuraya Al-Oraidh believes that it takes courage and conviction to get rid of the patronizing attitude that is often well disguised to conceal the true motives of wanting to control and alienate. She says the matter requires not only vocal confrontation but also mature and conscious examination and deliberation since the bold can sometimes be outnumbered and defeated. Boldness, she cautioned, could be misplaced and rash, which would backfire. As such, wisdom is more important than courage: one cannot succeed at planting seeds if it's done out of season or at hunting if one faces an angry herd alone, she said. Novelist and critic Ahmad Bogari believes that moves to impound or eliminate the opinions of others, whether it originates from within the cultural establishment (as at Al-Ahsa Club) or from outside (as at Hail Club), are miscued due to the absence of an enlightened and precise reading of the new trends of the Ministry of Culture and Information and the new cultural environment where a renaissance is taking place. He, however, added that despite the contradictions and controversies, the cultural scene still enjoys a large popular base. Poet and critic Mohammad Al-Haraz lashed out at the patronage mindset, saying that such people who have not been freed from it will only have in their vocabulary words that carry the characteristics of violence, destruction and elimination of others. They only coexist with themselves, their illusions and their advocates who have no will or desire to be freed from their restrictions, Al-Haraz said. He drew a comparison with the wind that brings dust with it not to blind vision but to blunt insight, which is what people eventually suffer from when they set out to think and reflect. Like mushrooms proliferating on the cultural scene, each patronizing incident, objection and battle to silence others contributes to creating a trail that others follow, he said. They are certainly aware of what's going on in the world around them, the changes in all dimension, all relations; yet their prime concern is to safeguard their ignorance and its sanctity from perceived desecration and vice, as if they were protecting a treasure that has become worthless with obsolescence, Al-Haraz said. Caught between an abyss and the sheerness of lofty heights, it is expected of them to exert every effort to ban a book here or an evening there, he said. “I wish they would spare their efforts to make more use of their knowledge instead of touting it with all the degrees and titles that they decorate their names with at each meeting and in every conversation.” These people are far removed from the concerns of knowledge and its tortuous and rugged paths, Al-Haraz said. “We say all this not to counter verbal violence and likewise eliminate others and their legitimate right to defend their beliefs,” he clarified. “But isn't every individual in this nation entitled to ask in what way is he different from his fellow citizens in the sphere of interaction and dialogue? Unfortunately, we have learned from the history of culture that those who possess the authority of discourse are those who dictate their opinion not only to tame intellect but also to place it at the service of this authority, for gain.” Critic Lamia Ba'eshen was not surprised by the remonstrations, which she described as “expected and normal” – who would have thought that a club could play movies, even if they were cartoons, and not arouse controversy? Culture as a whole was and is still targeted and we will not overcome this crisis unless we refuse to be submissive, for each backward step is resignation that will strengthen the opponents, she said. “We have to remember that any public cultural movement carries with it problems,” she said. “It is as if what is important is not to recognize the value of culture in this life. The purpose cannot be patronization or a guarding of virtue, for everyone is all too aware of what Saudis watch on satellite channels, home videos and home cinemas.” Furthermore, Saudis travel all year round, read what other people read and watch what the world watches, including movies, plays, and music festivals. In other words, in-country prohibition is not instrumental in making Saudis immune to exposure to whatever corrupts their religion and ethics, she said. Ba'eshen added that if the matter were personal and one is entitled to exercise one's freedom at home or during travels outside the country, why is it then that freedom of choice is taken away on the public, local front? “In the face of such contradictions, we find that the matter is merely a passion for control, an escalating desire to alienate others and impose personal opinions on them, even by force.” According to poet Ameera Kashghari, the happenings are also rooted in the fact that the majority of intellectuals at literary clubs are burdened with a legacy that shuts out acquisition of culture. They deal with clubs' forums as walls behind which every attempt to address contemporary cultural reality is restrained. “Consequently, in time, they got addicted to the discourse of cultural patronage, which, in my opinion, is an integral part of the larger patronage of the society through guidance and preaching. Otherwise, how can we interpret the banning of a cultural film or the reading of a novel or the threats while, as a society, we live in the era of globalization which is sweeping through all walks of our lives, whether we will it or not?” Culture in its wider global context is a network of knowledge and art that become richer with cross-exchange. “And when we exercise the exclusion of others, we are only excluding ourselves.” Kashghari wonders how such cultural introversion can be relevant at a time when Saudi Arabia is leaning more and more towards openness and when the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques adopts the inter-faith dialogue and calls for shunning seclusion and narrow-mindedness. The mere idea of rejecting the program music of a film was shocking for her. “It frightens me for its implications are much deeper: this is an indication of the fragility of the cultural structure…,” she said. From Al-Hayat __
