"To keep saying no," "How does a song break up?"

At the beginning of the new Gregorian year, the song "Salmonella" by advertising director Tamim Younes appeared on us, which sparked widespread controversy that has not subsided yet. In that video, Tamim appears as a young man who likes a girl, and tries to win her in various ways, but when the girl rejects him, he turns directly from romance to violence, and from seeking to seek her to the direction of wanting to punish her for rejection.

The audience received this song in many ways, and accordingly differed widely among them. While some people saw the song clearly criticizing the model of that young man, others interpreted the song as a celebration of it. The first team interpreted the song as a "joke" in which they wanted Tamim to highlight the image in a way I laugh at this type of youth, while the other team has given it as a literal representation of this style, and that the video is free of any real or prominent irony. Thus, we find ourselves in front of a single artwork with different interpretations that stand on one side of the opposite.

In our dialogue with journalist and novelist Shadi Louis Boutros about the song, he told Meydan : "Any artwork that is interpretable, and interpretation is done individually, selectively, and personally and is based on the references of cultural groups. The big arts problem is that the directness differs from the indirect, and what is said in the form of The implication differs from what is said explicitly, which leads to the fact that the interpretation process is very personal and often causes major differences regarding the intended meaning of the artwork, as we saw in the song "Salmonella".

He continues: "On a personal level, I do not see that the song incites violence against women, but on the contrary, I see it criticizing the discourse of violence. This was my personal reading of the song, but there are many who read it differently. This idea takes us once again toward the basic dilemma: who has the right In interpretation? Who can firmly say the intended meaning of the song? The problem in my opinion is not in political correctness as some have seen, but in interpretation, who has the right to say whether the song is politically correct or not?

Based on this controversy, and in an attempt to resolve the controversy about his song, Tamim published a video through which he seeks to clarify the meaning that he personally intended when he wrote and sang "Salmonella", when he confirmed his mockery of the model of the young man who does not accept rejection. Although Tamim interfered to resolve the debate, the matter did not calm down, and the interpretations did not stop bifurcation, which makes us return to Lewis' question again: Who has the exclusive right to interpretation?

Meaning is no longer in the belly of the poet

According to French cultural critic Roland Barthes’s theory of the author’s death [1], “There is no single meaning or single interpretation of the song,” and based on this saying, the video released by Tamim, in which he tried to clarify his original intention from behind “Salmonella”, It has no real value. Barthes’s theory came in a cultural climate in which the artist was the center of artistic work permanently and continuously, as critics saw in the artist’s personal destination from which he originated is the basic interpretation and the only correct meaning of the work, and from here, the critic’s mission was summed up in the search for that destination and its evacuation to the recipient .

In his article "The Death of the Author" - whose famous theory took its name from it - Barth tried to break that centralization, according to him, from the moment the artist finishes his artwork, that work is not his property, nor his interpretation is exclusive to him. Hence, there is no longer any value for the interpretations of cash that are taken by the artist as a starting point for them. The artwork, as Bart sees, is a stand-alone entity that must become the starting point for any interpretation. But the question remains: After Bart removed the artist from the dialogue center about his artwork, and after he took away the right to be the primary and sole interpreter of what he made, who became the center? Who has the right to interpretation?

Instead of the workmaker, Bart sided with the recipient. The meaning is no longer formed according to him in the belly of the poet, but in the consciousness of the recipient. Hence, the receiving process itself becomes a creative process in which every member of the audience re-dismantles the artwork, its composition and the formation of its own understanding. From here, Bart shattered the idol of "the only meaning", and the artwork became meaningful and interpretative as much as it had recipients. The answer to Lewis' question, according to Barthes's theory, will be: No one has the exclusive right of interpretation, because there is simply no single meaning to artwork.

For all these reasons, there is no real weight to the short video filmed by Tamim Younis, in which he tried to explain his main intention of his song. Likewise, what some audiences and critics have attempted to formulate their own interpretation of the song and stigmatize the rest of the interpretations as "stupid" and did not "understand the main intention of the song" is not based on a real basis, as Bart explained, there is no "one true meaning" that makes the interpretations that Deviate from it "wrong." Here, we are moving in a field far from the standards of right and wrong and its limitations, as all interpretations are equal. [2]

But since works of art do not exist in a vacuum, but are generated within cultural and social contexts, we find that these same contexts are the ones that generally determine how broad audiences will interpret the artwork. So, the receiving process is neither random nor simple, in which the artwork - in this case the song "Salmonella" - interacts with the recipient's culture and previous experiences to produce together their own understanding of the song. That is why we will find that the multiplicity of the song’s interpretations is mainly due to the multiplicity of cultural backgrounds, social environments and life experiences that the recipients have created on their subject. Culture, social climate and life experiences have a role that is not very small in the process of receiving, therefore, let us look at all of these elements regarding the subject of the song: a male who does not like to hear the word "no".

Who said "no"

In Arab culture there is a long cultural heritage that degrades the opinion of women and is not significant. Some are religiously false, others are based on tribal patriarchal customs. Most of them are based on a cultural heritage that considers women to be objects of no real opinion, while men give the right to interpret a woman's silence as acceptance of it.

In light of this long inheritance, you see a not a simple percentage of men, that it is natural and also expected that merely wooing him for the woman will be met by immediate acceptance, and even that he will be fine with her hour. If a girl happens and someone dares to refuse him, he will feel that his manhood is hurt and insulted, and that that girl humiliated him, and then he must turn back the conflict and be punished.

"The man's relationship with himself is related to his dominance and control over the women around him, and to his ability to reach women who are not usually found in his social environment. His imagination about his manhood feeds on his relationship with women in general," she says of this feminist Ghadir Ahmed in her article on the song. Rejection or hear the word “no” there is an imbalance in their relationship with themselves, and their manhood which they believe is represented in “getting” women. In the world of men, the person who does not get what he wants is stigmatized as “not a real man”, that is, he has lost one of the pillars His manhood when we say "no", men are confused and feel that something is wrong. M on women with violence. "[3]

Moving from the cultural and social climate to the periphery of personal experience, the author of the report only needed to ask a passing question to a group of girls: "Tell us about a situation in which a man refused and did not accept the matter," to pour the stories. From some of what came to us in Maidan , one of the girls said: “A young man once told me via the Internet and asked for my father’s number to propose to my engagement. I was 19 and my parents refused to marry their daughters before completing school. I apologized to him for his request politely, to find him responding I was cursed with indecent insults, followed by a picture of his penis. I started crying and did not dare tell me what happened to anyone. " Another narrated to Maidan : “One of the young men tried to woo me, and when I refused him, he reached my family and told them that I married him secretly, took a few normal photos of me and installed them on the body of another girl and wrote on them insults and insults in my right and raised him on YouTube. After I got connected to another young man He started trying to spoil my relationship with him, and he did not hesitate to threaten me that whatever I do, he will find a way and marry me against my will.

And Google search engine maintains stories in which some of the men who have been subjected to refusal go beyond harassment and threats, to rape and mutilation. In one of the stories, a woman’s divorced woman casts it on her with an acid and deforms her face after the news of her engagement to her grew to another, the last thing she heard from him and the gentleman ironed her face is: “If you wouldn't be mine, you wouldn't be a second one,” what we can consider a more violent diversification of “ To keep saying to me, "He raped the last girl after she refused to marry him, and the third opened fire and killed a girl and her family after they broke their engagement.

In this climate, it becomes natural and even expected that the words of the song "Salmonella" will affect some of its recipients of painful experiences with rejection - and they are not a few - with shock and fear that the song will encourage more men to continue their violence against women. It is also natural that they will not see anything "funny" in the song, and they will not understand her words as a mockery of that kind of men as much as they represent them. Here, we must ask: Is this fear really exaggerated and unjustified?

Those who sang: "So you keep saying no."

It is naive to imagine that someone will listen to the song "Salmonella" and then proceed to intimidate and harass women, because the recipient is not a fool, and a work of art will not move him and push him to do something contrary to his nature. But what about those who see harassment and violence against women as normal and justified? Certainly the way they receive the song will vary.

On social media, thousands of young people converted the song to "Mimes" and started sharing pictures of explicit violence against women and putting them in a sarcastic frame. One of them shared famous scenes from the movie "She is Chaos" by Police Secretary Hatem - who performed the role of the late Khaled Saleh - who raped the girl Nour, who played Menna Shalaby, after she refused to marry him.

And he shared the last image of the news of the explosion of a young man of seventeen years old with a hand grenade after she refused to link to it, and on top of all these pictures came the phrase "to keep saying to me" beside her laughing face, while another wrote: "Unfortunately I wanted to share with you the trend, but there is not one You can say no.

In all these examples, an explicit example of the young man who came in the song "Salmonella", who tried to Tamim Younis - as he said in the video posted on his page - ridiculed him. But it is clear that all of these young people did not understand what was stated in the song as a mockery of that model, but rather as a celebration of it. why not? What Tamim Younis says on the tongue of that model in the song is not very different from the style followed by these, from sweet words and pink promises to groom the girl, to fierce attack on her as a punishment for her uttering a "no". They saw in Tamim here a favorable reflection of them, and it seems that a wide cross-section of these people did not reach the intention of Tamim - as he later expressed it - in the ridicule of that style. Because the intention of Tamim as the author of the song has no real weight according to the theory of the author's death, there is nothing left for us here other than the song to talk about itself, but it seems that what the song said in that regard has had an adverse effect on not many young people.

In one of the dialogues, the producer of the song, Jad Omran, defending her, said: "There is no attack or abuse towards women. On the contrary, we laugh at men, not women, and whoever will see the song will definitely understand that." It appears from the reactions of some of the young people we have included that Imran's assumption of a perception that all recipients of the song as described is simply wrong. Tamim Younis was portrayed in his song, the harasser in an often attractive manner, as he is a light-colored and romantic boy, with an elegant appearance, and he belongs to a social class that appears to be well-being, and his "other" face only appears in response to the refusal of the girl, which may make it in the eyes of some is responsible Mainly about his transformation. What made matters worse is the lack of a woman in the video to represent her point of view about what happened, and give us another perspective that balances the story, which was expressed by feminist activist Rosanna Isis successful in her dialogue with us. Even the transformation that afflicted the young man in the song when the girl rejected him and turned with him from meekness to violence will not degrade in the eyes of many would, on the contrary, it may increase their admiration for him, in a popular culture that sings the values ​​of virility and does not accommodate the rejection of the woman, the boy's reaction will become in The song is very natural.

Hence, not a few young people found the "Salmonella" boy model an eloquent example that ridiculed him, but rather an attractive picture that they identified with. How not, and that image conforms to many of their own standards for masculinity. In the absence of real control by the artist on the way in which the audience will interpret his art, and in light of that audience's reliance on certain cultural and social references during which it is interpreted, these references become mainly controlling the ultimate meaning that will reach the audience.

The elites understood by virtue of the common ground what Tamim wanted to say, but not a few numbers went to the exact opposite of the meaning that Tamim described.

communication Web-sites

In the contexts of Egyptian society, where the long cultural heritage that demeans the opinion of women and does not place their rejection or consent into consideration, and the social reality in which violence against them in all forms - from electronic harassment to rape, mutilation, and murder - dominates the landscape, it becomes natural, but is expected Not a few recipients will see the song as a mockery of the harasser, but rather a celebration of it, especially in the absence of what is clearly alienating him from the picture that Tamim portrayed for him in the song.

For all of these reasons, Tamim's "joke" here, as some have described it, is unsuccessful, because the jokes assume that its author stands on common ground with the audience, so that the satirical meaning that its writer wanted to reach comes close to the one that actually reaches the recipient. But here we find that Tamim stands on another ground completely, the ground of cultural and social elites that is distinguished by a culture that is different from the masses and already understands that women are a whole being with opinions and attitudes that must be respected, and he speaks from above that floor to groups based on a different cultural heritage that does not respect women and sees in Violence against it in all its forms is acceptable. The elites understood by virtue of the common ground what Tamim wanted to say, but not a few numbers went the exact opposite of the meaning that Tamim described. Here, we cannot blame those masses and describe them as "stupidity" - as some have done - because they did not understand the "joke". The real blame here lies with the person who told the joke, who did not know how to express it, to reach everyone the way he wanted.

A young man will not listen to "Salmonella" and then go out to harass women, but Tamim's words in the song will turn into a new voice in a choir full of shouts of violence against women, and perhaps the next time someone terrifies a girl because she rejected him, he will laugh in cunning when he says: "Because Keep saying to me. " The question remains: What is the optimal way to socialize with artwork that expresses opinions that some see offensive?

and what?

Shortly after the publication of Tamim Younis, "Salmonella," the National Council for Women filed a complaint with the management of Google, demanding that the song be stopped. [4] Today, if you go to a Tamim account on Facebook where "Salmonella" is published, and you try to play it, you will encounter the following message:

Some of those affected by the song, then, considered that the best solution to face it is to prevent it completely. This again puts us in the culture of prevention and blocking, where the party that does not like it resort to trying to stop broadcasting completely, but is this really the best solution?

It may seem that muting sounds that appear to be harmful is the best way to confront them, but the fact is that this is a repressive tactic, and the repression has never produced anything positive. It is the easiest solution, but it is not the best solution. The presence of different voices and even opposing opinions on the scene creates a state of dialogue, in which each party tries to convince the other of his point of view. This dialogue sometimes yields artistic works in which every person tries to formulate his point of view in a practical way. Just as Tamim Younis made today “Salmonella” to express his take on harassment in a way that made people laugh and exasperate others, perhaps tomorrow we will find other artists who formulate their point of view and experiences with harassment. Better. Such is the case for cultural and artistic dialogue, different voices are intertwined and differ on the scene, resulting in an extensive social dialogue that increases awareness of many, and crystallizes in new artworks that spread the issue to wider segments and take them to further spaces. But in order for that constructive conflict to take place, freedom of expression of opinion must be guaranteed to all, which is what the culture of prevention and blocking totally brings.

When one of the parties silences the voice of the other party by force, it eliminates the state of constructive dialogue, and takes us to the dictatorship of the one-vote that is necessarily destructive, which was expressed by the cartoonist “Andel” on his personal account on Facebook: “The low intellectual level of the sale of most Egyptian artwork is caused by The field is not open to the meaning of diverse, different and incompatible values ​​in order to compete with each other and express itself and develop its vocabulary, language and artistic works, the field is only open to vulgar entertainment arts free of any real ideas or expression on people's problems, and any need other than this that arises and disappears from the public domain by For strength, it is true that the arts that express groups that do not have the right to do not flourish, and the arts that discuss controversial problems, do not revive, and all of them are responsible for developing each other. ”[5]

In 1758, French philosopher Francois Adrian Hilvatio published his book "On the Mind." The book sparked widespread controversy with which the French Parliament decided to burn the book in a public square. The book did not like the French philosopher Voltaire, and he disagreed with his author on many points, but what really irritated him was not the book, but a decision to ban it, and it was then that he said his famous phrase: "I may disagree with you, but I am willing to pay my life a price for your right to Express your opinion. "[6] What we really need today, as Voltaire saw and as Andel puts it, is more freedom, not more repression. [7]