To Willingly Enter the Circles, the Square

[Untitled. Illustration by Salma El Tarzi] [Untitled. Illustration by Salma El Tarzi]

To Willingly Enter the Circles, the Square

By : Wiam El-Tamami

We were on the edge of Tahrir Square on Wednesday 3 July when the army made its announcement. The square burst into jubilation. A member of our team checked his smartphone. He shouted over the din of drumbeats and squealing vuvuzelas: “Morsi`s gone. They`ve appointed the head of the constitutional court in his place and suspended the elections.”

We watched the celebrations. I looked around at the people I knew, with some of whom I had shared—what do I call it, the Tahrir of yore?—and the subsequent two-and-a-half years of anger, euphoria, exhaustion, triumph, dejection. Their faces were as expressionless as mine. The only emotion I could locate inside myself was fear—not of the political future, about which I no longer felt I understood a thing, and had lost my faith and footing in—but of the very next moment: how would we get back into the square?

After ten minutes, we could not put it off any more. We had to deliver food to the intervention teams posted around the square, and the celebrations would just get more massive and feverish as the night wore on. Our team formed a line and dove into the crowds, holding tightly onto one another and trying to protect each other from any onslaught of hands. I tried to be present—if not to enjoy the festivities, then at least to notice them—but all I could think of was cutting across this heaving sea. In a distant part of my mind I wondered about fear: is it an idea or a real understanding in the body? If I did not known what I did, would I be able to feel the exhilaration, to lose myself in the crowd as I had done before? 

We reached the first intervention team and I flopped in their midst—an isle of safety in the square. This was not some slick special-forces unit in imposing uniform. It was a group of young women and women wearing white T-shirts with red lettering that said: “Anti-Sexual Harassment” and on the back, “A Square Safe for Everyone.”

It was my first day of volunteering with Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment/Assault (OpAntiSH). With everything I had heard about Tahrir lately, it was the last place I wanted to be. And yet—I no longer felt I had a place in the marches taking place all over the city; I could not stay home; and I could not turn my back on the one thing in the midst of all the madness that seemed to cleanly matter, to make sense.

I was trembling as I got out of the taxi by the Nile that afternoon and walked alone to our meeting point behind the square. As we gathered around in a circle to be briefed, a part of me was bewildered at the red nails of the girl standing next to me, at the smiles on people`s faces, when on mine tragedy must have been writ large—a sort of newcomer`s naiveté. I had not yet had time to recalibrate, to normalize.

We divided up into mixed teams of ten. Our task was to spread the word about what was happening and tell people what to do if they saw anything. We would move quickly around the square and stay close together—straying could be dangerous.

But I soon began to realize, as we walked into Tahrir, that it was still more or less Tahrir. Being away, listening too closely to the news—especially in these panic-fueled days—makes one misunderstand, forget the pockets of air. The square was still the square: crowded with different kinds of people, many men, many women, families, children; standing around, a few walking here and there with their hand-painted signs, others clustered in conversation, or sitting in studied silence, as though waiting. It was revolution-as-usual, normal as we now knew it.

And in the midst of this familiar, this innocuous Tahrir, eighty-nine cases of mob sexual assault had been reported since June 30. In just three days of mass protests, eighty-nine girls and women—young girls, elderly women, a pregnant woman, mothers carrying their small children—had been surrounded by mobs of fifty to hundreds of men, clawing at them, ripping off their clothes, sticking fingers inside them, in several cases beating them with sticks or metal chains or mutilating them with sharp objects or knives.

For several hours we threaded through the sticky heat of the crowds, distributing fliers and pressing the small slips of paper with the hotline numbers into people`s hands. We asked everyone—especially women and girls, who nodded with somber experience at the word “harassment”—to save the numbers in their cellphones straightaway. One man in his mid-twenties spoke to me, in few words and with ringed and weary eyes, about the things he had seen on June 30. Many people thanked us. Several young men said they wanted to volunteer with us. A few others asked, with foolhardy grins, if these were the numbers they should call if they wanted to harass someone. And some men—especially older men—were adamant that nothing of the sort happens here. “Al Tahrir zayy al full!” they said, likening the square to a small, white, fragrant local jasmine, an expression meaning cleanliness, purity.

We finished our rounds at nine p.m. and stayed behind to deliver food to the intervention teams posted around the square, who were at this point three hours into a shift that would last until three a.m. That night, in the delirium of celebrations at Morsi`s removal, eighty more cases of mob sexual assault were reported in the square, including two rapes.

After five crisis nights in the square, the mass protests eased off, and the volunteers of OpAntiSH had a few days to recoup. A meeting was called to reflect, discuss evolving tactics, and share stories—to release some of what they had been through.

The atmosphere was open but respectful, shy yet trusting, teasing in moments, quick to laughter. And, despite moments of vehemence and eyes that were laden with more than I could say, it was impossibly bright—that of a big family gathering, a family whose lives could quite literally depend on each other. 

An outsider would have been very hard-pressed to guess that this group of young men and women had developed, virtually overnight, an intricate operation—of hotlines and scouts; dangerous rescue interventions; trauma response and hospitals and legal assistance and follow-up care, all coordinated by a central control room—in response to a horrifying social phenomenon. That they had decided to counter its madness with their own brand of madness: to form—in the absence of any police or state response to the issue—a renegade rescue force, and an extraordinarily effective one at that. That the majority of this motley crew of normal young people of all shapes and sizes—including, it has to be said, girls whose stature was as small as my (rather diminutive) one—were foot soldiers on the ground in these dangerous, possibly life-threatening, rescue operations. Night after night, they had developed and refined tactical maneuvers to infiltrate a frenzied (and sometimes armed) mob and extricate a woman caught in its grip.

Some of the young women involved were themselves survivors of mob attacks. At the meeting they spoke of the risk of being dragged into the maelstrom during an intervention, and how what they were subjected to in these moments did not feel like the violation of their earlier experiences, but like battle wounds they were impervious to.

Several of the young men said that they had, at first, been opposed to the idea of having women on the intervention teams, thinking they would be an added burden, a liability. They spoke movingly of how the things they had seen on the ground from their female comrades in the most critical moments had made them reflect on their own judgments, transforming their concepts of power and muscle strength, as they began to recognize that it came from another place entirely.

I marveled at this group, how they joked about the food, how they mentioned nightmares in passing; I had not seen what they had and could not fathom the burden they were bearing. I could not possibly understand what it feels like to be there, though the idea haunts me: to hold your hammering heart in your hand and willingly enter these circles of hell—to enter this roaring, airless mass of sweat and bodies and blood, carnage and unheard screams. To put your own body there, your own flesh and bones, at the risk of being groped, beaten, stabbed, or worse; to put your own senses there, your heart, your mind—to feel and witness, indelibly, girls and women being violated in the most horrific of ways. What does brushing up against that darkness do to you for the rest of your life?

And then to still be able to laugh, to get up every day, to believe... 

I still do not know, writing this, what their story is about. Is it one of self-organization and ingenuity in the Egyptian revolution? Is it one of “heroism”—the very concept makes me cringe—or, more simply, of defiant humanity? Is it one of an alternative form of resistance that gained more meaning and traction as the political process and protests grew ever murkier? Or is it a drop in the ocean in a confoundingly complex and troubled society?

A friend of mine once said, “Living in Cairo is like being in love with a manic-depressive.” The last two-and-a-half years of revolution have only magnified these extremes. The lawlessness of revolt has allowed us to bring into being processes of such audacious, creative, collective action we could not have anticipated existed in us; it has also brought to the surface some grim, ugly, festering stuff. It is as though the revolution was wrought to bring us face to face with our values, to clash and grapple with our own narratives about ourselves. It continues to strip us down to our foundations; to lay bare, and bring out, the worst and best of us—then makes us look at this fragmentary picture, as though into a broken mirror, and try to make sense of it all.  

Occupy Gezi as Politics of the Body

Since the Gezi resistance started with bloodshed on 31 May, it has had an “anti-depressant” effect, as a friend of mine puts it, as much as it has been nerve-racking. During this period where each day has been prone to new crises and normalcy was completely disrupted, we simultaneously experienced the peaks of ecstasy and the depths of sorrow.

Analyzing such an intense event naturally requires taking some distance. Pending systematization, however, the vivid memory of each day impels one to put on paper multifarious ideas that resonate well with the resistance. Each morning, many bodies with sleep deprived eyes wake up in Istanbul, Ankara, Antakya, Urfa, and Denizli to take to the streets once again, after having quickly checked the latest news in the social media. They are astonished and impressed that they can still walk, run, stand up, and carry provisions for those in the parks. Exhausted bodies rejuvenate with every new threat that the government utters, and with thousands, tens of thousands of others they begin flowing to Taksim, Kızılay, Kuğulu Park, Gündoğdu, Abbasoğlu, and Yeniköy Park carrying home-made gas masks, swimmer goggles, anti-acid solutions, and whistles.

No one does or can govern these bodies. The masses that gather in public spaces are not formed by virtue of transferring tax money into the wallets of partisans. No one provides shuttle buses for them; no one gives them flags, or feeds them with sandwiches. No one assigns them the slogans they shout out during the demonstrations. Bodies that take heart from knowing that they are not alone do not count, or count on, numbers to meet with others in communal or virtual spaces. One standing man suffices for thousands of others to take to the streets. After all, “one” is also a number…

The government, whose tactlessness prompts these resisting and standing bodies to convene again and again every single day, could not have missed the significance of this body politics. These bodies naturally do have a language, even a few languages that are at times congruent and at others incongruent; however, as a whole, they constitute a politics of the body. The rage and dreams that have been embodied in tweets and graffiti since 31 May turn into material realities through the physical existence, visibility, and endurance of the bodies. If history is being rewritten, then its subject is the body.

Four of these bodies lost their lives during this war that the government has waged on society. Thousands of bodies have been beaten up: some lost their eyes, some received irretrievable injuries. Skins were burnt under the water from the cannons, “laced” with chemicals for maximum harm; lungs were choked with tear gas. Pounded arms, legs, and heads got crushed and broken. The long-term effects of the tons of chemicals dumped on bodies are still unknown. What is known, however, is that these chemicals killed hundreds of cats, dogs, and birds, and that they did harm to countless insects, butterflies, and other smaller organisms.

The apparatuses of the state, and the vehicles of death that responded to Gezi’s politics of the body, attempted to imitate the life force that they failed to extort. In response to the huge numbers that filled the parks and squares and astonished everyone without exception, they hoped to gather partisans together in scripted rallies. They began comparing head counts; they calculated representative percentages. When the calculations did not match, they increased the number of police in body armor and helmets and moved them from protest to protest. They built walls of flesh and steel against the wave of resisting flesh. When that did not work, they offered these bodies—which have been in contact with each other physically and virtually through meetings, banners, and tweets—a mise en scène of dialogue, the conditions of which were more or less already determined. They could not even wait for this attempt to yield fruit; two warnings and a command were enough to launch an assault to remove the bodies that produced an alternative sociability from the park, from the space in which physical resistance could be transformed into a life style. They freed the public space of the public. They collected all the banners, pictures, and colors one by one to erase them from social memory. They stripped all the trees, each dedicated to victims of state violence; they appropriated the barricades that were named after tens of people who had undergone physical and psychological torture, and they tore them to tatters. They destroyed the efforts to keep alive the memories of Fikret Encü, who was a victim of Roboski; Metin Göktepe, who was tortured and killed in detention; Dicle Koğacoğlu, who could not take all the sorrow inherent in this society any more; and the Surp Hagop Armenian Cemetery, which was destroyed by Turkish racism.

The only thing that remains is a politics of the body—but the bodies that produce this politics differ from what Giorgio Agamben calls “bare life.” They are not “mere” bodies that the arbitrary will of a sovereign can isolate from society, oppress unceremoniously, or push to the margins of the symbolic world. Rather, they evoke what Ernst Bloch calls “the upright man,” the collective Prometheus. Bloch writes:

Nothing is more fortifying than the call to begin from the beginning. It is youthful as long as it is; to it there belongs a young and aspiring class. It is innocent of the bad things that have happened, for it has never had a real opportunity to be guilty. When this happens, justice has the effect of a morning; it opposes itself to that eternal sickness which was handed down before it. Beginning anew is freshness through and through; it is a first if it appears completely ahistorical, and if it seems to lead back to the beginning of history….It carries the image of the pastoral mood, of the shepherd, of the simple and upright man; one can play with it even in the dark.[1]

Gezi is the struggle of disorderly bodies, those who do not have any dispositif other than their own bodies, against the death machines. If the machines are regulatory instances that follow commands and extort public spaces of mobility with force and violence, then the force they face is the resistance of life itself. Life flourishes at the most unexpected moments and places, just like weeds that crack the concrete and spring out of it. No apparatus of the state can succeed in dominating life absolutely.

The state seeks order; it can control only those whom it orders. It cannot cope with the demand of "freedom"; it has to ask questions such as “freedom for whom,” “freedom for what,” or “freedom under what circumstances” in order to tuck freedom into neat boxes. Order draws borders, fixes identities, and defines. It attempts to establish a hierarchy. By telling parents to take their daughters and sons home from the park, it both brands the resisting bodies as "children" and tries to trigger into action the nucleus of society: family. Through its rhetoric of security, it attributes the risks of its own making to the resisting bodies. It hangs its own flag or banner on the bodies that it prefers knocking down rather than protecting. It punishes those who do not obey; it uses punishment as retaliation. It operates through censorship, threats, and propaganda.

Life, on the other hand, is a constant flux. It challenges borders and moves beyond them. It opens up to circulation those spaces that are closed off due to construction; it paints such destructive vehicles as bulldozers pink; it transforms steps into tribunes, pieces of iron into wish trees, and trees destined to be cut down into monuments. It walks on highways and bridges that are closed to pedestrians. It does not like the empty and the sterile; it covers them up with banners, slogans, tents. It leaves its mark on every surface. It disrupts silence at times with pots and pans, and at other times with a tune from a piano. It plays with identities and definitions; it makes them fluid; it renders them indistinguishable. It can make fun of both itself and the established order thanks to its humor. By changing one single letter in a word, it can ridicule the heaviest of symbolisms. When the state apparatus sends a riot-intervention vehicle to pour tear gas on it, life stops to catch its breath for a while and goes right back to resisting. When a body grows tired, it gets replaced by a reinvigorated one. Life turns into thousands of fingers that tweet and take photographs when the state apparatus sends down vehicles of propaganda. It stops its wheelchair to grab the flag that fell on the ground while escaping from tear gas. It apologizes when it steps on someone`s foot while running; it calms down those who panic.

It is obvious that these bodies that fascism wants to militarize will not assume any ideological identity. When they do not drink alcohol, they ridicule conservatism; when they lie under a TOMA, they make fun of liberalism, which claims that life is the most valuable good. Orthodox Marxism cannot decide under which class struggle these "çapulcu" bodies are to be subsumed. As long as they stay in physical contact, as long as they remain as collective Prometheuses, as long as they—have to—continue the resistance, they grow accustomed to each other`s colors, languages, and genders. They disrupt the behavioral rules that ideologies and institutions expect from them. The natural or moral instinct of protection that has been attributed to mothers loses ground when female bodies participate in the resistance alongside their children. The nationalist and the Kurd exchange anti-acid solutions in gas-filled hotel lobbies. The upper-class college kid drinks the water handed over by the kid with an Anonymous mask without needing to ask what neighborhood he’s from. Soccer fans save their curses for the police rather than for their rivals.

What comes out of all this is trust, not chaos. That`s why the bodies multiply with every gush of tear gas, spaces expand with every police attack, and the quality of contact among the bodies increases with every propaganda speech. The life woven together by bodies born in Gezi is so tenacious that the government is right in fearing it. The power of these bodies stems from their capacity to mutualize endurance, rather than vulnerability (as Judith Butler envisioned they would). One would need to look into the extensive interstices of this politics of the body, rather than into macro-level discourses, to begin deciphering it.

NOTES

[1] Ernst Bloch, Natural Right and Human Dignity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987), 61.

[An earlier version of this article was published on 26 June 2013 on BIA ("Independent Communication Network"). The link to that version can be found here. This article was translated from Turkish by Gülfer Göze.]