Left: Toine van Teeffelen at the 4th Academic Conference, held in March 1995 at Birzeit. Papers from the conference are expected to be published by September 1995 (click here for more information). Photo by Yasser Darweesh.
This lecture is about media stereotypes and distorted communication
in which I want to look at the question: How do Westerners represent
an institution which seems to resist stereotyping, an institution
which, with the best will of the world, is rather difficult to
frame as threatening and violent?
My approach is primarily language-orientated, concerned with how linguistic patterns function in a social/political context in the media. My primary aim is to provide a description of the various language repertoires found in 15 selected articles from the Western or Western-orientated media, covering a period of about ten years from the beginning of the Intifada onwards. You can say that these repertoires define the 'building blocks' that exist in Western countries on which one can establish one's opinion about Birzeit, and through Birzeit, one's opinions about Palestinian reality. The newspapers chosen include: The New York Times, the Times Educational Supplement; NRC - Handelsblad, the Dutch mainstream elite paper; and The Jerusalem Post. The articles relate to important periods in Birzeit's history: the closure of the university and underground classes; the re-opening of the university in 1992; and after the signing of the Declaration of Principles, interviews with Birzeit spokespersons concerning the university's potential role in state-building.
Semantics n
|
In the official Israeli view, which can be termed the 'law and order' repertoire, Birzeit is represented as having people or political groups infiltrate the university to "incite" or "agitate" students, who subsequently are sent out to conduct "subversive" or "radical" activities in "cells" in the community at large. Often the process is described as a mechanical, automated one, the university a "magnet" or "focal point" for radical activists. Birzeit is often described as a "hotbed" or "breeding ground". This view has traditionally served to justify closures of the university, Birzeit's academic credentials being played down. This repertoire is often quoted in the press as an official view, without much criticism or endorsement, except in The Jerusalem Post.
In response to this view, the European and American media seemed to increasingly allow room at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s for what you can call a 'human rights' repertoire, which challenged the authority of the official view.
"Education as a crime", "underground education", "clandestine classes" and a "Kafkaesque" Israeli policy are some of the main rhetorical expressions with which many Birzeit University press statements underscored the illegality and absurdity of the closures of Palestinian educational institutions. These expressions were repeatedly quoted in the Western press.
The human rights repertoire also succeeded on occasions in turning the law and order repertoire against itself. Drawing attention to phrases such as "illegal cells of education" and similar expressions employed by the Israeli military authorities served to underline the absurdity of the Israeli stand.
The sometimes critical Western coverage of Israeli measures against Palestinian education in the Occupied Territories was helpful in pressurising Israel to allow the universities to function again. Yet, it was interesting to see how articles about the re-opening repeated - in a positive premise - many of the ideas that made up the law and order repertoire: Birzeit was "gradually" or "cautiously" reopened; Israeli had "offered", "agreed upon" or "permitted" the "resumption" of classes. Quotes from then Israeli defence minister Moshe Arens suggested that a kind of gesture was extended, as if a positive deed was performed, dubbed a "confidence building measure" or a measure of "normalisation". It was reminiscent of Israeli statements in the 1970s that it had "permitted" the establishment of Palestinian universities.
The 'tension release' repertoire can also accommodate certain Israeli concerns and also adopts an exterior viewpoint. Language enthusiasts can find a gold mine of metaphors here. The university is seen as a kind of pressure-cooker, with a high level of tension among students due to "rising" emotions and frustrations attributed to the oppressive conditions in which they live. The more the tension is repressed by Israeli restrictions, the greater the need to release the tension in a so-called "explosion" of violence; here we meet the popular psychological theory that frustration leads to aggression. Other comparable metaphors of violence within this repertoire include an "earthquake", "volcano" or "boiling water".
This repertoire differs from the law and order metaphor in that it views emotions as being the underlying force responsible for political activism, rather than conspiracies. Yet the repetoire's focus, on the 'pressure cooker' scenario, is also often used by both Western liberals who argue that the closure of universities is counterproductive (as more pressure leads to more violence), and also by Israelis, deriving authority through this viewpoint from the Israeli public's anxiety-loaded fears of violence threatening the political order; the "mob" or "Third World rebellion" concept. Interestingly Israel itself has offered the view that the Palestinian universities were established as a kind of "safety valve" to allow the release of tension among the population. Whether the liberals adopted this concept from the Israeli repertoire or vice-versa is unclear in this 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' question but clearly both sides are appealing to the idea that this dynamic is mechanical, existing as a powerful fact, overriding the self-control of those in its 'grip': an emphasis on the mechanics of violent behaviour rather than on the socio-economic and political reasons and motives people bring forward when arguing about an unbearable reality.
Longer articles tend to what Edward Said described as giving the Palestinians "permission to narrate". A November 1993 article on Birzeit University in the Dutch newspaper NRC - Handelsblad is one-and-a-half pages long, and contains stories expressed by Birzeit students, faculty and administration: stories of cautious optimism about Birzeit's future; stories of daily suffering and steadfastness during the university's closure, and stories of activism, including a willingness to sacrifice in the struggle against the occupation. Compared to the mechanical view of exploding emotions and similar metaphors, hearing this discourse is quite a relief since it provides a more differentiated and human view of people's emotions and experiences.
Still, the concentration on emotion is apparent. In the article mentioned the title, lead, and frame story of the interviewer's visit suggest that life at the university is dominated by emotions. The title, "Broken Dreams" begins this trend, followed by a lead that finishes with a quote from one of those interviewed: "Resentment and distrust determine the relations; danger and threats appear at all sides." Students and faculty are described as "proud", "suspicious", "shy", "eager", saying things "emotionally"; they feel "uneasy", "desperate", "disillusioned" and "resentful", most of the emotions described falling into the negative register.
As a Dutchman I should add that Dutch people tend to pride themselves in being cool, level-headed, and practical. The journalist's own somewhat distanced and ironic descriptions are being deliberately contrasted with the emotions of his interviewees.
An article in The New York Times is similarly titled "Among Palestinians, Worry and Rage"; the French paper Liberation introduces the university as: "Birzeit between Hope and Refusal."
This repertoire perhaps comes closest to how most members of the Birzeit community see themselves. What is stressed this repertoire is the specific mission of Birzeit as an academic institution that serves Palestinian society. It suggests that the university fulfills a civilised mission, implementing general values of science and nation building. Rhetorically speaking, this repertoire emphasises optimism, agency, determination, reasonableness and moderation. Scholarship can only nourish in a liberal and tolerant environment. The "autonomy", "independence", and "relevance" of Birzeit to society are key words here.
The discourse in this repertoire is rarely represented as solid or indisputable, noted by the presence of a Western/Israeli viewpoint that expresses - undisturbed by self-criticism - the belief that Western academia is superior, a standard against which a so-called "Third World" university is judged.
Examples of this include Georg Szpiro's article in the November 1987 edition of Swiss Review of World Affairs, where he asks, "is Birzeit producing a genuine intelligentsia which will one day assume responsible leadership of its people," or "will it be left at the mercy of semi-literate fanatics". The Jerusalem Post, on February 2nd, 1994 asked, "Will the university be able to churn out a generation of Palestinian statesmen, administrators and economists equipped to handle the new responsibilities? Or will it, following the example of some Third World universities, continue to be a hotbed of political militancy?" The Jerusalem Post article, entitled "Back to Basics", assumes in its subtext that Palestinian nationalism is a negative entity, quoting students in a way that it seems as though they "admit" or "concede" that they previously put too much effort into nationalist activities and that now they are back on the right path. Director of Public Relations Albert Aghazarian is quoted in a way that suggests he concurs with the concept of Birzeit as a "hotbed" and "prefers to" talk about the university as an academic institution.
To conclude, as one might expect, room has been made for Palestinian narratives and voices to be expressed in Western discourse. Additionally, voices framed as reasonable, moderate and balanced (i.e. not overtly strong in criticising Israel) are positively evaluated, as are voices that express stories of human suffering. Voices presented as nationalist or activist are at best doubtful and controversial. Journalists appear very much to cloak themselves in a variety of Western-style roles of observer: as a psychologist diagnosing Palestinian emotions; as a critical journalist trying to assess whether Palestinian universities such as Birzeit will remain politicised and nationalistic; and as an academic who ponders about the dilemmas between academia and politics. In all of these roles, there is little criticism of Israel's assumed authority to open and close the universities in Palestine at will. The positional superiority of these three roles has the power to set norms in providing a de facto framework for readers to 'understand' the 'complex' Palestinian question. It therefore remains to be seen whether Palestinian narratives and voices can really fulfill their communicational purpose and reach their true destination.