In the 1990s and 2000s, waves of political protests and
strikes surged in Egypt, year by year. Those who follow these labor
mobilizations were not surprised by the revolutionary events of 2011. Since the
International Monetary Fund restructuring agreement of 1994 and the Asian
Financial Crisis of 1997, Egyptian farmers protested at being evicted from
their small holdings by the mechanization of agriculture and by the
prerevolutionary landowning classes’ reclaiming of estates. Workers’ groups re-organized and held
nationwide strikes and sit-ins in response to the privatization of factories,
the closing of manufacturing collectives and the liberalization of trade with
China, Russia and the European Union. Social movements, the Muslim Brothers,
the judges’ syndicates challenged political exclusion and authoritarian rule.
And feminist groups - middle-class seculars, Islamic feminists, working-class
populists, and others –grew more visible and central to protest movements.
In the period between 2003 and 2006, levels of mass protests
in Cairo escalated dramatically, driven by the renaissance of an Arab nationalist
sentiment and antiwar mobilization caused by the outrage at the US invasion of
Iraq and the Israeli raid on Lebanon.
Both of these actions centered on the bombing of civilian targets and
infrastructures, inflicting mass casualties largely ignored and rendered
invisible by US and Israeli media coverage, but covered extensively in the Arab
media. This period also witnessed the rise of a new assertiveness among the
political opposition parties and the formation of new fronts and alliances among
leftists, liberals, and democratic Islamists in Egypt aiming to end the three-decades-long
state of emergency (initiated after the assassination of President Sadat in
1981), to identify alternative presidential candidates to replace Muhammad
Hosni Mubarak, and to block the accession of his son, Gamal.
The security state’s initial response to the rising tide of
protests during the 1990s was to attempt to delegitimize, intimidate, and blur
both the image and the message of these movements by infiltrating and
surrounding them with plain-cloths thugs, deputized by police and paramilitary
security forces. Whereas in the 1990s, baltagiyya
( the gangs of “thugs” and networks of violent extortion rackets seen as
emanating from the informal settlements surrounding downtown Cairo) were
identified as terrorist enemies of the security state, by the 2000s, the
baltagiyya had been appropriated as useful tools of the police. The Interior Ministry
recruited these same gangs to flood public spaces during times of protest. They
were ordered to mix with protestors and shout extremist slogans in order to
make activists look like “terrorists”, or, alternately, to wreak havoc, beating
civilians and doing property damage in the area of the protest, while, of
course, brutalizing the protestors themselves.
These practices aimed to to produce what I call the baltagi effect. This effect not only
terrorized the protestors but also generated new images for domestic and
international media and criminological
narratives for international
security agencies and local law enforcement. Protestors were re-signified as
crazed mobs of brutal men, vaguely “Islamist” and fiercely irrational, depicted
according to the nineteenth-century colonial-orientalist figurations of the
savage “Arab street”[ a re-occurring figure in Hollywood movies].
Protestors became targeted as assemblages of hyper-sexualized
terrorist masculinities; necessary and codependent constituents of twenty-first
century liberal incorporation and geopolitical
domination. In Egypt, the security state thus deployed and revived the
Islamaphobic, gendered, and anti-working-class metaphor of the “Arab street”,
rendering peaceful political movements with overwhelming public support into
hyper-visible, but utterly unrecognizable, mobs. The production of such hyper-visible
parahuman subjects* is regularized by discourses that cohere around powerful
metaphors; in this case the overarching
metaphor of the “Arab street”, whose meaning is enhanced by a field of other
gender and culture metaphors, in particular the “time bomb”, the “predator”,
and “the slum.”
This dovetailed with police development of gang injunctions
in North America, originally called “street terrorism” laws which emerged in
dialogue with simultaneous attempts to police and reform gang masculinities in
the informal urban settlements of Cairo. Of course “time-bomb masculinity” is
also just a dumbed-down and depoliticized “suicide bomber” trope, which has
become the justification for ratcheting up surveillance and undercutting civil
liberties in the Middle East, as well as European Cities. In this sense, it
represents the ultimate militarization of the respectability discourse of
modern urbanity.
Another important factor in the development of this security state narrative was that of the rapidly
changing consumer cultures of the middle and upper-middle classes in Egypt; upper-class
women in Egypt needed greater access to broad sectors of the city in order to
enact new consumer identities and practices. And they are loathe to risk class
degradation by mixing with the popular classes that took over the city center
after the middle classes moved out to new suburbs and gated cities. Thus by
moralizing and gendering what was essentially a class conflict over social
cleansing of urban consumer spaces, officials and NGOs were able to demonize
downtown boulevards with the same discourse that criminalizes “slums.” Efforts to evict masses of rent-control
tenants and popular-class venues from downtown Cairo were framed as dealing with
the problem of boys radiating explosive sexual indiscipline.
[In other words, the
victims of the dissolution of the social contract – ‘explosive youth fulfilling
suppressed needs unfulfilled by the corruption and ineptitude of government’ in
the progressive narrative- are conscripted into the criminological (and/or
moral) narrative of the necropolitical security State, aided, however
innocently and not always, by revanchist
evangelical or emancipatory social movements on both the Right and Left of the
political spectrum.]
In response such counter-challenges to popular protest as ‘woman should preserve their honor by not
joining demonstrations’ and to the public spectacle of orchestrated baltagi
effect in the 2000s, Egyptian feminists
generated plans to publically deploy gender and class-specific protests in
order to resist the performative cultivation of terrorist hyper-masculinity by
the Egyptian security state. Since the staging of “terrorist-mob” performances
depended on the powerful colonial metaphors attached to the bodies of brutal
working-class men, Egyptian progressive organizations realized that placing “respectable”
(i.e. upper-middle-class) women in mass protests would play a crucial symbolic
role. Women’s intervention in the public space became politically powerful
because the human-security state had invested so intensively in generating and
hyper-visibilizing women as subjects of piety, self-policing, moralization, and
cultural security. In this context, activists theorized that if women
(particularly those visibly marked by class and moral bearing as pious and
respectable) were to stand up against the police, rather than collaborate with
them, the logic of hyper-visibility and misrecognition could be subverted, at
least to some extent.
Women political
protestors in Egypt drew on a social history of Arab nationalist modernity that
embodied the nation in the figure of a
woman (particularly the respectable, literate, middle-class mother.) So when
women professors, medical doctors, lawyers, university students, and syndicate
leaders began to command the barricades at major political protests, it became
difficult for the state to draw on class and geopolitical phobias to portray
them as terrorists; the thugification tactic or baltagi effect unraveled.
Granted, the international media, and even many Egyptian reporters, could
easily believe that crazy thugs could emerge “naturally’ from within a group of
working-class male leftists and Islamists. However, when middle-class Egyptian
women were harassed, terrorized, and brutalized by men during protests, this
allowed for a disarticulation of the body politic of the protestors from that
of the brutalizers, enabling a recognition that the baltagiyya were cops in
plain clothes, not men from within the dissident organizations. This strategic
placement of certain classes and gendered bodies at the forefront of protests
successfully eroded the “Arab mob” metaphor.
The state responded by shifting its aims from using
demonized masculinity in order to delegitimize political opposition to using
state-imposed sexual aggression in order to undermine class respectability.
Women who protested were sexualized and had their respectability wiped out, not
just by innuendo and accusation, but literally, by being sexually assaulted in
public and getting arrested for prostitution, being registered in court records
and press accounts as sex criminals, and the getting raped and sexually
tortured in jail. Any woman who protested would be juridically categorized as a
prostitute, would be given a police file and a criminal record, and would have
her body and psychological integrity broken. The aim was to render impossible
the figure of the respectable, pious protestor against the police, rather than
as a victim protected and rescued by the
police.
The El-Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of
Violence in Cairo’s campaign against harassment and torture in public space and
jails began in the 1990s, but expanded in the 2000s as the baltagi effect began
to impact the practices of protest and repression. However, rather than aim to
rehabilitate the respectability and piety of the harassed protestors, El-Nadeem
kept the light on critique aimed at the state, the practices of the security
services, police, and prison officials. Shame, immorality, and hypocrisy were
to be exposed in the security state (not among working-class boys). And
middle-class professionals who collaborated with the state – in particular,
doctors, social workers, and aid officials –were held responsible for “crimes
against humanity” in El-Nadeem reports.
El-Nadeem made a bold move; rather than try to rehabilitate the reputation of middle-class political protestors, they insisted that even “real” prostitutes did not deserve disrespect and harsh treatment by the police and state. El-Naddem made the pioneering move to offer legal aid and psychological treatment, not just to political dissidents abused and branded as prostitutes, but also to actual working-class sex workers whose public rights and erotic capital were being violated and extorted by police rackets and state violence. In 2007, everting (turning inside out) the essentialist gender politics and respectability projects of the UN-linked campaigns, El Nadeem and allied organizations made another bold move, queering the NGOization framework again by reaching across gender and class divides to report of the state’s harassment and abuse of male prostitutes and youth labor protestors.
Conversations in critical race theory concerning the logic of
hyper-visibility focus on processes whereby racialized, sexualized subjects, or
the marked bodies of subordinate classes, become intensely visible as objects
of state, police, and media gazes and as targets of fear and desire; a
phobogenic or moral panic encoding process. Paradoxically, when subjects are
hypervisibilized, they remain invisible as social beings; they are not
recognized as complex, legitimate, participatory subjects.
One route by which subjects can escape the logic of hyper-visibility
is to strive constantly for respectability. This path entails a historically
class-phobic, gender-essential moral praxis consisting of self-disciplinary practices
that are depoliticizing and aim for assimilation. In the nineteenth century
this kind of liberal-progressive politics of respectability was called “temperance”
and was linked to vice policing and punitive moral reform of working women and
boys. In the late twentieth century, respectability politics was associated
with the promotion of the values of civility and ‘gender mainstreaming’ in
secular “civil society”. This dovetailed with the promotion of piety, gendered
labor discipline, and moral self-management by Islamic and Christian neoliberal
movements. To state my hypothesis as simply as possible, this strategy for
moving from hyper-visibility into respectability tends to naturalize social
hierarchies and modes of government and make security-state power less visible,
accountable, and contestable.
However, other traditions of gender activism have developed
more productive options for disarticulating the logic of hyper-visibility.
These tactics turn the gaze back on the state to the interests, histories, and power
relations that generate certain race, sex, and moral subjects and metaphors.
This supplants the criminological narrative with a critical project of
subversive recognition and embodied occupation that can potentially
rearticulate spheres of disciplinary power.
This strategy of ‘critical desecuritization”* does not count
as a liberal theory of resistance since it does not pretend to predict how
parahuman subjects will speak, or which interests will be articulated, once
their spectral or shadow characters, these securitized figures of fear and
desire, begin to be dispelled. Desecuritization praxis does not guarantee a
progressive or liberal sense of telos. Nor, on the other hand, does it cling to
the notion that the most authentic or effective resistance will be morally or
religiously appropriate for its “cultural context.” Through these types of
praxis, subversions of power, even mass insurrections within gendered, sexualized,
and class-repressive human security regimes, can surge suddenly onto the stage
of history.
*hyper-visibilization: the spotlighting of certain identities
and bodies as sources of radical insecurity and moral panic in ways that
actually render invisible the real nature of power and social control.
*Securitization: the reconfiguration of political debates
and claims around social justice, political participation, or resource
distribution into technical assessments of danger, operations of enforcement,
and targeting of risk populations.
Critical praxis that rearticulate spheres of disciplinary control, real subversions of power, even mass insurrections within gendered, sexualized, and class-repressive human security regimes, can surge suddenly onto the stage of history.
ReplyDelete