« Tarawih in the Kingdom | MEMRI Mendacity, brief thoughts »


October 11, 2006

Tash ma Tash: Serious Saudi Satire or Child's Play?

The Tash ma Tash controversy rages on and has been adequately reported in both Arabic and non-Arabic media as well as on the blog of our own Lounsbury. However, apart from the obvious religious knee-jerk reaction that has sadly come to be expected when the world is dealing with something apart from sombre doom and gloom of the Wahhabi institution, there have been some interesting and disturbing reactions that reflect some entrenched attitudes towards free speech and criticism.

The attitude towards comedic parody laced with political observation differs widely. In Egypt for example, despite the long-standing heritage of presidential domination and totalitarianism, political satires, most prominently Mohammed Subhi's "Mama America", get away with a lot and resonate with the concerns of the Egyptian public. The Egyptian actor Adil Imam's "Al-Irhabi" (The Terrorist) in the 90's was one of the first indigenous Arabic works to tackle and put a human face on the phenomenon of homegrown terrorism and Syria's Duraid Lahham has a long history of political satire, the play "Ka'sak, ya Watan" ("Cheers, o homeland") being one of the most moving works deriding the weakness of the Arab states in confronting Israel, where hope in a bright Arab future is metaphorically killed off in the death of Dureid's new-born baby Ahlam (= dreams).

The Gulf, however, is new to any genre of homegrown drama and even less used to established comedic tradition. "Tash ma Tash" as a comedy is somewhat of a pioneer in the field of Gulf, and especially Saudi, comedy. Due to the fact that the Wahabi tradition frowns upon any sort of light entertainment either through drama or music and that Saudi women are rarely allowed into the field of acting, there are very few Saudi works that have persevered in such a hostile environment. Tash has so far lasted for fourteen years airing thirty episodes every Ramadan on Saudi national TV due to a good combination of an honest reflection of Saudi society and a genuinely funny treatment of serious issues like the domination of servants over Saudi households and the plight of the Asian expat community. The title of the series itself is the name of a traditional Saudi children's game where bottles of soda are vigourously shaken and then popped open to see which one produces the most impressive trajectory (insert joke here). Last year however, "Tash ma Tash" aired on MBC, a private Saudi network based in Dubai's Media City and it was clear from the outset that those behind the show had decided to push the envelope.

The "Terrorism Academy" episode, though howlingly funny, and meant primarily to poke fun at the simplicity, naivete, and easy manipulation of religious youth (a message in alignment with the official Saudi line), ruffled the feathers of the religious establishment due to its incorporation of religious ritual (like the terrorists insisting to use miswak), names (calling a mentally challenged Asian servant after one of the Prophet's disciples), and rhetoric within the comedic framework of the episode. In inevitable mind-bending irony, calls to assasinate and maim the actors in the episode have become widespread and, in my view, an oppurtunity to elevate the campaign against terrorism from the realms of provocation and accusation of criminality to one where there is a wider culture established, one in which terrorism is just 'not cool', has been lost. On the other hand the extent of social criticism that was aired in the episodes following the infamous "Academy" one is far more interesting and the reaction to it, albeit less sensational, is indicative of an inability to acknoweldge serious issues that undeniably exist within Saudi society today. This has its roots in much more than religious conservatism but in a perception developed over time that the Magic Kingdom - due to its religious custody of the Two Holy Mosques and its economic domination over so many of its Arab neighbours - is not only exempt from criticism, but socially above the faults and foibles of the mere mortals that live outside it.

The Tash controversey is threefold, the religious one being the least original and least unexpected. The two other dimensions are: Is the nature of parody itself too reckless and putting the euphoria of freedom of speech above the importance of the message, and do the parodied issues and phenomena really exist? The answer to the second question is undeniably "Yes". So far, Tash has tackled the issues of female Asian maids raped by their male Saudi employers, the easy availability of alcohol in the kingdom (three episodes to date have featured heavily intoxicated Saudi men), the behaviour of Saudi men abroad (Bint rejoices), the abuse of Bluetooth technology and images, and - my personal favourite - the irrational separation of men and women where the episode farcially ends with the division of the city by The Great Wall of Women that the Guiness Book of Records wished to measure. That there is a mass denial of these issues and an accusation on the part of even moderate Saudis that Tash has exaggerated random and isolated incidents is mind boggling. This stance is further discredited by the assertion that, as Saudis, the participants in the comedy should protect and defend their country, not expose it and display its dirty laundry (albeit allegedly only a couple of dirty knickers on the line) to the rest of the world. The subtitiling here is, "We do not want to give Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Sudanese etc. the privilege of laughing at us." There were no objections whatsoever on the part of Sudanese and Egyptians when they were parodied as expat workers in the kingdom, and certainly no pan-Arab offence on their behalf by even a part of the Saudi public. Saudi society has many ills, like all societies, which are compounded by the culture of denial and a lack of public space. Countries are not housewives putting on a brave face in front of their neighbours while their families struggle but dynamic societies where there should be no shame in exposing the shortfalls of the dominant systems. Indeed, it should be something to be praised and capitalised upon.

Tash however has shot itself in the foot and betrayed its heritage of harmony with the zeitgeist of its public. Here I feel criticism is justified. There is a fine line between freedom and license. If its agenda is to gain notoriety, then it has certainly achieved it. If one follows the history of the series and its careful research into the daily lives of not only Saudis but also expats, one is more likely to believe that, freed from the shackles of the Saudi censor, Tash unwisely incoorperated images and suggestions of sex, nudity etc. that are distasteful to the Saudi/Arab public and even more so during Ramadan. A lack of awarness of what it can get away with is only detrimental to its message.

Tash ma Tash's Naser and Abdullah, the main actors and scriptwriters, are talented, brilliant, homegrown and until recently trusted and seen as the window through which Saudi society can laugh at itself and feel like there is some hope. The arrogance of those who deny the problems only suggests their shortsightedness and lack of genuine concern for advancement. Let us hope that Tash's shortcomings are acknowledged and rectified, thus demonstrating that the only shame is in arrogant cowardly lack of self-awareness.

Posted by Meph at October 11, 2006 04:32 PM
Filed Under: Gulf , Media , Society & Culture , Terrorism

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3004


Comments

Excellent commentary. I would add that the Maghreb also has a deeper .... well cultural tradition such that satire seems far better accepted. For all that, some things just are not satirisable. Takes time to build this.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at October 11, 2006 07:03 PM

Takes time to build this

Indeed, the Kingdom is hardly ready for it's own version of Spitting Image. Re the Maghreb's more lenient attitude, one finds that the more developed a political culture is, the less there is offence at pisstaking. Not a judgement on the modernity or lack thereof of a country, merely on the heritage of political participation and relative social autonomy.

Posted by: Meph at October 12, 2006 08:24 AM

Laughter is the pleasurable orgasm of realizing you are not afraid of something. Often the pleasure of a joke is the surprise realease from the strains of conventional thinking and social demands of reverence.

Boy, that was dry. But anyway, humor is a "tiny revolution" as Orwell noted in an essay. THere is not alot of hilarity in the sacred Scriptures of many faiths for example (despite subtler or extraneous evidence that Jesus, Mohammed and Paul had well-developed senses of humor, not sure about Moses) because their purpose is about promoting reverence and obedience.

So humor has to tread carefully. Modern taboos often yield to suppression of humor about ethnicity, gender, and victimization (no joke, in the USA at least, begins "9/11, the Holocaust, and a lynched black man walk into a bar"), etc. because such sensitivities have risen to the level of secular pieties.

But the general level of tolerable humor is a somewhat useful gauge of social liberalism and it proceeds in fits and starts.

Posted by: matthew hogan at October 12, 2006 09:25 AM

'Humor is subversive; ultimately every joke is a custard pie.'

He said. Question is, is humor destructive?

Posted by: Klaus [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 12, 2006 10:29 AM

A lack of awarness of what it can get away with is only detrimental to its message.

I am reminded of the Karen Hughes visit to KSA, which led to a similar reaction after she clumsily discussed women's rights. The Saudi women who were interviewed went on the defensive (e.g. saying they didn't want to drive anyway). Bad approach, poor results.

Posted by: eerie [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 12, 2006 02:37 PM

I'd have to argue with you that the Saudis are ignorant of their self-denial. Saudi papers are full of self-criticism on all sorts of issues, including important ones, from dysfunctional education to the ignorance of the Haya.

I think rather that their problem is in figuring out how to deal with them. Saudi society is still very much a patron/client society. The patrons are expected to fix things. The client is expected to shut up about it until it's fixed. Taking personal responsibility for one's actions does not have a long history there (or much of anywhere, actually).

That realationship, though, is changing; it's just really, really hard for people who are used to doing something in one manner to quickly shift gears and find another.

I think, too, that attacking something with humor is more fruitful than whacking it with a stick, most of the time. "Tash" seems to be using humor to defeat the stick-wielders, with some success.

By providing laughs, it's encouraging the troglodytes to make even bigger, more obvious fools of themselves. We can only cheer that.

Posted by: John Burgess at October 12, 2006 04:25 PM

Dear JB,

the fact that Saudi papers include criticism of issues (although I would hardly call them "full of self-criticism") doesn't mean that Saudis are aware of their own denial of many problems. To the contrary, many might point to those stories as "proof" of just how open & self-critical Saudi society & its media are.

Most, if not all, MENA societies are "patron/client" societies, including places like Morocco and Lebanon. Still, criticism is possible and widespread. So is humor.

To me, the main issue in KSA seems to be a classic case of "what shouldn't be, can't be" - and thus "embarrassing" occurances are swept under the carpet or blamed on outsiders. Also, honor and dignity are prized so high that humor is easily mistaken for mockery. Add to that a system of culturalist-religious institutions that combine zeal with paranoia & you get 'ulama calling for the punishment of comedians.

I do very much agree with your argument that habits are, sadly, hard to change. And I join you in your cheers to make the traditionalists look as silly as they are.

--Matthias

Posted by: MSK at October 12, 2006 06:53 PM

Ahem:
Most, if not all, MENA societies are "patron/client" societies, including places like Morocco and Lebanon. Still, criticism is possible and widespread. So is humor.

Matters of degree. North Africa and the Levant (well Jordan and Leb Land, Syria is a wierd twilight zone in my opinion) are hardly in the same league as KSA in terms of the patron-client networks. KSA that is effectively government and society. In the Maghreb and Lebanon, it's parallel and sometimes in urban areas weaker than 'modern' society; in any case there are strong competitors to traditional / neo-traditional clientelist networks.

Vast difference.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at October 12, 2006 07:53 PM

Dear L,

I merely pointed out that a reference to "patron/client" relationships doesn't explain KSA.

And in the kingdom it's not quite as simple as "gov't and society", either. I agree that the relationships are 'clearer' than in, say, Lebanon. Thus, YES - "vast difference". But within a similar basic system.

--Matthias

Posted by: MSK at October 12, 2006 08:12 PM

I'd have to argue with you that the Saudis are ignorant of their self-denial.

Maybe I am being obtuse, are you suggesting that Saudis in denial know that they are in denial or that certain activists in the media etc recognise the trait in their societies? If the latter is the case, then the reports in the newspapers are about problems not about the culture of denial of problems, which are two different things.

Taking personal responsibility for one's actions does not have a long history there Agreed, that is still some form of not recognising one's faults is it not?

By providing laughs, it's encouraging the troglodytes to make even bigger, more obvious fools of themselves. We can only cheer that.

I for one am cheering that, my concern is that in doing so recklessly the show may have inspired sympathy for the icons it is attacking and imposition of an alien humour may be as destructive as a stick.

Posted by: Meph at October 12, 2006 08:13 PM

I entirely disagree.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at October 13, 2006 05:42 AM

With whom and what ya shiek?

Posted by: Meph at October 13, 2006 09:35 AM

Comment Subscription

Email Address: