In the early nineties, in a small village in Upper Egypt, a case of mass hysteria broke out

among elementary school girls. The young girls were exhibiting symptoms of excessive

uncontrolled crying, fainting and stomach pain.

This case of mass hysteria usually occurs among people who share highly condensed and

confined spaces. It usually starts with one person developing the illness but quickly spreads

to others who are in close contact with the person. Usually the new victims, are ones who

sympathy and somehow identify themselves with the person who developed the illness first.

At the time, Egyptian national TV was covering the effect of exams on students. So the case

was reported and broadcasted nation wide. Soon after this live broadcast, various women, in

different parts of Egypt exhibited similar symptoms to the girls. Housewives, business

women, teachers, and dancers were crying excessive, fainting and suffering from stomach

pain. There was of course no biological reason for their symptoms. Their case was a classic

case of mass hysteria. The women simply sympathized and identified themselves with the

young school girls. The only peculiar thing about this case of mass hysteria breaking out

nation wide was the fact that the effected women, were not in close contact with the young

Schoolgirls, a condition that is usually necessary for the illness to spread. These effected

women caught the illness by merely watched TV. They were dedicated spectators who saw

in the young girls something that reminded them of themselves.

So could it be, that the domino effect of revolutions spreading through out the Arab world, is

merely an extreme case of sympathy and identification? One that is occurring among

dedicated TV viewers? After all, the Tunisians revolt began when Bouazizi, a street vendor,

created a conscious spectacle by setting himself up on fire in front of a local government

building. His act was reported on TV and the Tunisian people sympathized with him and

took to the street. And then, the revolution of the Tunisians was widely covered by Arab

satellite stations and it got Arab viewers mesmerized in front of their TV sets.

When the Tunisian revolution was followed by the Egyptian rise, demonstrators at Al-Tahrer

square held banners written on them “Thank you Tunis”. In other Arab countries like Jordan

and Yemen, demonstrators carried banners written on them “Thank you Tunis and Egypt”.

Demonstrators were thanking the Tunisians and the Egyptians for giving them a second hand

experience, which, they were living through it by watching TV.

The TV viewers of the Arab world were then becoming active spectators. By watching their

“brothers and sisters” revolt, they were developing a sense of sympathy and identification

and they were acting upon it. They understood, recognized, sympathized and identified with

what was driving the Tunisians and the Egyptians to the street.

Egyptian friends of mine, who went to the streets during the revolt, told me that on many

occasions, they heard demonstrators saying to each other: “The Tunisians are not better than

us!” It is as if they were saying that if the Tunisians can do it so can we! So it is obvious that

the Egyptian demonstrators identified similarities between themselves and their Tunisian

counterparts.

All of this makes it not difficult to conclude that a significant agent in getting people to the

street in the Arab world have been their previous act of watching TV. This active viewership

translated itself across the Arab world, were demonstrations were reported in Tunisia, Egypt,

Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and to

a certain extent in Palestine and Lebanon.

But why is it that the Arab viewers of these particular revolutions suddenly becoming active

spectators? After all it is not the first time that a revolution is being televised. So what is so

different this time?

On the same TV screens, which the Arab viewers watched the Tunisian revolt, they

previously witnessed revolts in Eastern Europe and in South America. Yet, the protagonists

of these revolutions did not inspire the Arab viewers. Even revolts by fellow Muslims like in

Pakistan and Iran (the first Iranian revolution and the present revolt of the youth in Iran now a

days) didn’t seem to have any effect on the Arab viewers. In fact, the mass demonstrations in

the Muslim world following the Danish Mohammed’s cartoons happened mainly on a mass

scale in Indonesia and Pakistan but not really in the Arab world.

Yet, there is a case in modern Arab history, where an event was communicated on TV and

radio and led to mass demonstration across the Arab world. That was back in 1967 following

the war with Israel. It is when Jamal Abdul Nasser the president of Egypt, at that time, made

his famous speech in which he took responsibility for the defeat in the war and announced his

resignation. The public, who idealized Nasser and saw in him the “Arab savior”, took to the

street demanding that he withdraws his resignation and returns to office.

But, as Sheriff Yoniss, puts it in his book “The Holly March”, the 1967 demonstrations were

not instigated only by a televised speech. He thinks that nothing in these demonstrations was

spontaneous or natural. In fact, Yonis argues that from the day Nasser came to power, the

whole propaganda machine of his party and government who controlled all media outlets,

worked systematically and extensively on promoting Nasser to be the only hope of the people

in the Arab world. The TV viewers, the radio listeners and the newspapers readers were led

to believe that without Nasser they were worth nothing. In his book, Yonis revises the party

rhetoric’s, literature, speeches, newspapers TV and radio announcements, to demonstrate that

people in the Arab world, but particularly in Egypt, under Nasser rule were so indoctrinated

that it was only natural that they would take to the street.

So can we compare what has happened today to what Yonis described?

For years now, the various players in the Arab world and they are many, have been trying to

communicate, dictate, enlighten, indoctrinate, mobilize, stair sympathy and so on, in the Arab

world by setting up TV satellite channels.

In fact, the first Arab satellite station, MBC, was founded upon recommendations from the

Americans to the Saudis, following the first Gulf war, urging them to improve their image in

the region.

During the second Gulf war and its aftermath, the Americans decided to invest in improving

their own image. They wanted to tackle the question, which seems to disturbed them most

“Why do they hate us so much?” They also wanted to spread what they saw to be American

values: “Freedom and democracy”. This is why they established their own Arabic speaking

news satellite station Al-Hurra (The Free).

Today, when you flip channels on your Arab satellite TV receiver you will find Arab

speaking channels that are British (BBC Arabic), Chinese (CCTV News), Iranian (I Film

TV), Turkish (TRT al Turkiye), German (DW-TV Arabic), French (24 France), and of

course American (Al Hurra) and so on.

You will also find TV satellite stations set by Arab regimes. These channels usually reflect

and work on mobilizing sympathy to the regimes that own them. For example, Al-Jazeraa,

which reports atrocities all over the Arab world, fails to mention the Qatar’s regime. Or Al-

Arabia which is Saudi and which you can chose to watch it if and when you want to know

whom Saudi politics is favoring or rejecting, now a days.

Without any hesitation or questioning, the Arab viewer seemed to consume, the various

packages of his/her present reality, which, these channels were offering. Arab consumption of

unquestioned TV material went as far as to watch an American TV series called “Army

Wives”. The series, follows the daily lives of American army wives whose husbands are

fighting in Iraq. The emotional sentiment, which the makers of the series capitalize upon is

sympathy to the characters who their husbands are out to do “good deeds” while the wives

have to maintain a family equilibrium.

“Army Wives” was and is still being broadcasted on the Saudi channel MBC, when it has

became apparent to the Arab street, that American involvement in Iraq has not succeeded in

bring stability or prosperity. In fact, many have gone as far as to describe American presence

in Iraq to be an occupation. Still, Arab viewers manage to watch the series, sympathy with its

characters and enjoy it.

The youth who are being accredited for the Arab revolt have grown up playing computer

games designed in the West in which the Arab character is a villain and the player is on a

mission to exterminate him.

So is it possible, that these TV channels and maybe computer games are behind the spark of

the Arabs revolt? Could it be that by watching packaged news and by watching “Army

Wives” the Arab viewers have decided to change their states from passive viewers to

revolutionary ones?

I would argue: YES! Without intending to and by being completely oblivious to what they

were doing, these satellite channels contributed to what we are witnessing today.

During the post Nasser era, Western theorists argued that Arab nationalism is a myth. An idea

that was created by Christian’s intellectuals who were searching for common grounds

between them and the Muslim masses. The same argument was applied to Nasser’s regime,

which was seen to use Arab nationalism as a tool to control the masses. Later on, many Arab

scholars adopted this orientalist strain of thought and used it to read their own societies.

Muslim theorists on the other hand, dismissed Arab nationalism and argued that the nation is

a Muslim one. It is a Muslim “Umma”. As for Arab regimes, many of them promoted

slogans, which urged their people to think locally and not regionally. The Jordanians were the

first to use the slogan “Jordan First” meaning that what is good for Jordan comes before

anything else; i.e., Islam or Arab interest. The same slogan was soon adopted by the

Lebanese Government “Lebanon First”, and then “Syria First”, and so on.

Since Arab Nationalism have not been a fashionable subject, non of the TV satellite channels

which are broadcasting to the Arab world, portrayed it as a subject or promoted it.

Still, and since the targeted audience of these channels are in North Africa, the Southern

Mediterranean and the Gulf where Arabic is the dominant language, the programs of these

channels are usually in Arabic or subtitled into Arabic.

These TV satellite channels cater for a wide audience. Their programs are made to

appeal to people across the Arab world. So suddenly, viewers, in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, the

Emirates and so on, could enjoy watching the same programs and have a unified TV

experiences; something which they can do as an Arab lump sum unit.

Game shows and reality shows, which host normal average people from across the Arab

world, like, “Star Academy”, “Arabs got talent”, “Who’s Going to Win a Million” and many

others, helped the audience to break their stereotype about other fellow Arab. Suddenly,

Egyptians are no longer only movie stars or cheap labor and the Lebanese are not only TV

presenters who have been intoxicated by botox and so on. The viewer could see on these

shows people with whom he/she can identify with. Ones who have, just like the viewers,

mothers in-law who nag them and just like the viewers, they have dreams to ensure their

children’s education and wellbeing.

Another interesting thing, which these channels did, is that they trained the ears of their

audience to listen to various Arab accents and grow to understand them. Something they

couldn’t do in the past. So when the Arab viewer watched the Tunisian uprising unfold,

he/she could understand the chanting demonstrators.

All of this enabled the viewers to nourish sentiments of sympathy and identification with

fellow Arabs.

Moreover, the variety of these channels, with their different political agendas and editorial

decisions gave a rise to the “power of the remote control”. The viewer, and in order to get the

full picture of an event, quickly learnt to flip channels. For example, the demonstrations in

Tunisia and Egypt were extensively covered by Al-Jazeraa. But demonstrations in Bahrain

were hardly given any profile on Al-Jazeraa or it’s rival Al-Arabia. Yet, Al Manar, which is a

Hezbollah Shiites, owned Lebanese channel covered extensively the events in Bahrain

because of its fellow Shiites leadership.

But if these satellite channels, played such a role in forming a new Arab identity, then how

can one explain, the Arab audience consumption of programs like “Army wives”? How could

it be that the youth who are leading the revolutions in the Arab world are ones who spent

their adolescence playing computer games in which the Arab character is the villain?

To explain this I will borrow Mulveys feminist’s theory. To her, women who watched

Classical Hollywood Cinema in which women were portrayed as either “whores” or “virgins”

had to and in order to sympathy and enjoy the film shift to a male specter position. These

women simply transformed their identity from women to men.

So it is possible to argue that the Arab spectator who so happily watches TV series and films

in which the Arab is a villain, simply shifts position to a non-Arab person. But this shift is

temporary. It begins and ends to fit the duration of the TV series or the film. As soon as this

experience ends the Arab spectator quickly regains his/her own real identity.

But let’s not be one-dimensional. It’s true that the act of watching TV, the verity of the

existing Arab speaking satellite channels and the power of the spectator, which is gained by

the remote control all, contributed to the rise of revolutions; yet, these are not the only forces

behind viewers developing a sense of sympathy and identification with each other.

Away from the TV screen, all the viewers share similar political and somehow, economic

reality. They all live under dictatorships were corruption is thriving and wealth is in the hand

of a few. So no wonder that the viewers not only sympathized and identified but also

emulated by going to the streets and demonstrating.

Skeptics about the notion that these revolt which are aided by satellite channel could be based

on the idea that for example, people in Egypt felt a unity, I dare say an Arab unity, with the

Tunisians, argue that the main element which usually form Arab nationalism, and that is the

fight for Palestine and a resistance to Western intervention in the area are not present

in this one.

True. But who says that Arab nationalism of today needs to be identical to that of yesterday.

In fact, this one is more interesting because it is personal to the individuals participating in it.

Each demonstrator holds sympathy and identification with the other not because of an

ideological set but because of an identification of similarities.

In my argument I rely extensively on the notion of the spectator feeling sympathy and

identification with the protagonists; an argument, which Aristotle used to dismantle Plato’s

fears that poems in plays, inflame a case of hysteria among the audience.

Aristotle argued, that although the spectators of these plays feel the pain of the protagonists

because of their sense of identification and sympathy, still their act of involvement is complete

as the play reaches its end and the suffering of the protagonists finds some sort of a

resolution. To Aristotle this experience allow the spectators to perform a cathartic act; where

the pain of the spectator is heeled without him having to personally go through the experience

of the protagonists.

So if Aristotle was alive today, he would be happy to see the banners carried by the Arab

spectators written on then “The Fear barriers is gone”. These spectators have gone through

their cathartic act and are heeled. Yet, unlike the spectators of Greek tragedies the Arab

spectators did not wait, in order to perform a cathartic act, for the spectacle to end. Instead,

they went out to the street to cleanness their own souls.

As for Plato, well he is also right. Because a beautiful case of mass hysteria has broken out in

the Arab world; all because viewers watched and heard something that touched their souls.