The language of representation and change is always fraught with difficulties. Change is invariably a process which can accelerate or slow down based on a number of factors. The rapidity with which change takes place affects our ability to perceive precisely what those factors are and our relationship to them. But change, the movement from one point to another in a political process, is always represented in one form or another and how it appears and is communicated is inseparable from the manner in which we perceive change taking place. This is why In a very significant way the two are inter-connected.
From the vantage point of hindsight, change has an historical dimension. There is a perspective that arises simply as a function of time; we can see a progression of events and comprehend more clearly the consciousness and the forces which propel these events. Yet, at the moment change is taking place, when history is unfolding, we do not have the luxury of hindsight but are dependent on a form of critical distance in order to perceive the various forces, the actors the confluence of events that bring about change.
Thus, in relationship to events in Tunisia and now Egypt what becomes paramount is the manner in which the processes of change are represented. In these situations the outcome of the events unfolding is not a given; there is no script regardless of how various actors, various interests in the drama would like things to conclude. Consequently, those with a vested interest in a pre-determined conclusion, introduce elements into the drama that in fact are only peripheral characters with no real power to determine the outcome. But these characters are like McGuffins used to twist the process of change in a misleading or false direction. An example of this would be the manner in which the Muslim Brotherfood is introduced into the mix of political elements. Their exact political nature and history is obfuscated but they are portrayed as a dangerous Islamic element that sidetracks our perception of events. It is no mere coincidence that those who dramatise this danger also show the least interest in comprehending the actual process that is unfolding.
At this moment we do not know the precise series of events that led to the massive outpouring of revolt in Egypt; we have a good idea of what lies behind the anger, frustration and determination; we also have little difficulty in comprehending the legitimacy of the grievances and emotions. Factors which accumulate slowly, and then more rapidly until they can no longer be suppressed and the status quo is upended. Once the genie has been unleashed he cannot be put back into the bottle; the legitimacy of popular grievances have been confirmed on a massive scale. Now, as the unfolding events intensify, as the stakes become greater, the language of representation and change become ever more important for they allow a window into the process in which a shattering of myths is taking place and subverting misconceptions about a people’s complacency or inability to initiate dramatic political changes.
Change is infectious particularly when one’s own horizon of experience is seen as being limited in comparison to much larger social realities. When hope for a better life is diminishing change is infectious when one is able to perceive or witness the process of change and the possible results; it can be liberating because it demystifies the most basic aspects of the human condition which is the ability to act. This is perhaps why events in Tunisia resonated throughout North Africa and the Middle East; change emanates from a shared communality of experience and culture. When we view the representation of the Egyptian events on Al Jazeera we are able to sense the process underway, the narrative that people are writing; when we compare this to CNN or the BBC the narrative is being written in London or Atlanta but not in Tahrir Square: the window onto the process of change is shuttered - we have only glimpses of the human dynamics. In this context the nature of orientalism becomes most transparent: in one context the contours of the human condition are being fleshed out by the people themselves and in another why are rely on interlocutors to translate ‘the meaning’ of the events because, in the most profound manner, the people are not trusted to describe their own reality.
