This
is a very slightly revised version of an essay published by the website Cannons
@ Muses (www.cannonsandmuses.org) in February
2011.
ART AND
EXPLOITATION – Reflections on the Cultural Boycott of Israel.
By Raymond Deane
Against whom
must one defend the cultural boycott of the state of Israel? Clearly those who
believe in "Israel right or wrong" will reject all tactics opposing
Israeli policies and actions, including all forms of boycott. Similarly those
who criticise the Israeli state and believe that all tactics against it are
justifiable except for boycotts, will make no exception for culture. The
cultural boycott, therefore, must be defended against those who support
boycotts but specifically exclude culture as an object of boycott.
In what follows,
I shall omit discussion of the "legitimacy" or otherwise of the state
of Israel, or of the boycott tactic in general. Furthermore, I shall take
culture in this context as being synonymous with art, although in other
contexts this equation is dubious.
Dismissal of the
cultural boycott tends to take two forms: art is "above politics",
and it "breaks down barriers and brings people together." Interestingly,
opponents of the sporting boycott use the same arguments. Apparently culture
and sport are both activities deemed to transcend political categories while
uniting people of diverse backgrounds. Indeed it may be implied that the
transcendence enables the unity.
The statement
"art is above politics" seems to me - as an artist and activist – to
be as incoherent as all statements beginning with the words "art
is..." Perhaps the very essence of art is its absence of any definable
essence, so that it "can be" many different things while remaining
art. Attempts to pin down its definition are both misleading and exclusive. (Of
course this also applies to other essences than aesthetic ones.)
Furthermore, all
discussions of art are necessarily aspectual, concentrating on diverse ways in
which the artistic object or process may be viewed. A work of art created
without political intention may be analysed from a political perspective
without (necessarily) being thereby distorted. It may equally be analysed from historical,
structural, sociological, erotic, or any number of perspectives without losing
its identity, which is multidimensional.
The idea that
art is “above politics” seems to imply a concept of art as autonomous, an
autonomy linked to its anti-utilitarianism, its lack of obvious practical
usefulness. It further reads such autonomy as excluding any possible political
perspective on aesthetics, although the philosopher Adorno, for example,
famously thought the opposite. Thus for artists to engage in a cultural boycott
supposedly violates the autonomy of art by enlisting it for a political cause.
My own
involvement in the politics of cultural boycott culminated (so far) in August
2010 with the launch of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign's
"cultural boycott pledge", whereby creative and performing artists undertake
not to accept invitations to Israel (two years later, the pledge has some 233
signatories).
At
the time, I wrote: "Whether or not art is 'above politics', its
presentation and representation in the real world can all too easily be
hijacked by oppressive states". In the initial letter that I sent artists,
I cited Nissim Ben-Sheetrit of Israel's Foreign Ministry: “We see culture as a
propaganda tool of the first rank, and I do not differentiate between
propaganda and culture.” This was taken from About
Face, an article by Yuval Ben-Ami that appeared in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz
on 20 September 2005, concerning the Foreign Ministry's belated recognition
of "the importance of culture as a public relations device."
While one surely
cannot deny that this represents a serious “violation of the autonomy of art”,
is it not
inconsistent for
artists to respond with a violation of their own? Should artists not display a
purer and more moral concern for their work than an amoral state? Phrased thus,
the argument might remind us of the question whether it is acceptable to resist
state violence with acts of violence (automatically dubbed “terrorism”)? A
negative answer would appear to demand more moral behaviour from the oppressed
than from the oppressor, a position that has a certain logic, since oppression
is inherently immoral.
However, one of
the most positive aspects of all boycott campaigns is precisely that they are
non-violent. Furthermore, the autonomy of the artist and of the art-work, like
all forms of autonomy, is never absolute. Artists who auction paintings to
raise money for the homeless, composers who allow their music to be used as
music therapy, are voluntarily surrendering a degree of their work's autonomy.
Or are they?
Because whatever use is made of it, in a certain sense the work remains
unscathed. The choral finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony remains a
revolutionary plea for universal brotherhood even though it was appropriated in
turn by Bismarck, by the Nazis, by (most bizarrely!) Japanese kamikaze pilots
during World War II, and most recently by the European Union. While Beethoven
had no control over these posthumous perversions of his work, Bruce Springsteen
could and did fight against the distortion by Ronald
Reagan of his protest song Born in the USA into an anthem of right-wing
patriotism. The artists who refuse to perform or be performed or exhibited in
Israel are withholding their work from exploitation by a racist, colonial
state. The work itself retains whatever autonomy an art-work possesses. Indeed
one might even argue that it remains “above politics” without concluding that
the artist should be similarly aloof in seeking to influence the conditions of
its dissemination.
Furthermore,
artists from states that are actively complicit in Israel's crimes –
particularly the USA and the EU – are saying to their governments: You claim
that you oppose all forms of boycott of the state of Israel – although most of
you imposed sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s, thus hastening the fall of
Apartheid – and we also dislike boycotts because we wish our work to achieve
maximum dissemination. So if you wish to make our boycotts redundant, then
avail of the means at your disposal to bring Israel's crimes to an end: insist
on the total cessation of colonial settlement-building, an end to the
occupation of Palestinian territories, a genuine process of negotiation leading
to a just peace that recognises inalienable Palestinian rights including
the Right of Return; in the meantime, stop funding the occupation and arming
the Israeli rogue state, and stop conceding Israel trading privileges to which
it has long since forfeited the right.
The other
contention – that art “breaks down barriers and brings people together” – also
implies an
essentialist
definition of art's capabilities. Just as we may replace the formula “art
is...” with “art can be...”, we may similarly rephrase the above assertion as
follows: “art can break down barriers and can bring people together”.
It can also do the opposite, when those who control its dissemination
exploit it to such an end.
In the case of
Israel, musicians (e.g.) who perform in Tel Aviv can take it for granted that
their audiences are unlikely to include fans from the West Bank and certainly
will exclude Gazans – not because such people don't wish to hear their music,
but because they are prevented from travelling by the armed forces of the Israeli
state. Should these musicians seek to “balance” their performance in Tel Aviv
by playing Ramallah, Israelis will be prevented from attending – not by
Palestinians, but by the same occupying forces. Should they seek to play Gaza,
they will themselves be prevented – and not by Hamas. Given that any such
performance in Tel Aviv will be exploited by Israeli propaganda as testimony to
the “normality” of the Zionist state, it is difficult to see how our
hypothetical musicians will have “broken down barriers and brought people
together” – rather, they will have provided living proof that Israel is an
apartheid state and will indeed have reinforced it by their presence,
regardless of whether the content of their music extols love and peace.
But does the
cultural boycott not hurt individual Israelis, many of whom may reject their
government's
policies towards
the Palestinians? The non-violent cultural boycott may well “hurt” individuals,
but not in the way that (e.g.) US sanctions “hurt” (i.e. starved to death)
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children in Saddam's day. Strikes “hurt”
ordinary people, yet if those people support the aims of the strikers they grit
their teeth and endure the pain. Those Israelis who genuinely oppose government
policy also support the boycott, as demonstrated by the steady growth of the
internal boycott movement – including the cultural boycott – within Israel.
Boycott, as
Mandela said, is a tactic, not a principle. Its ultimate aim is to help –
however modestly – to remove the conditions that brought about its imposition.
Culture exists in the real world, not somewhere above the clouds. For this
reason it cannot lay claim to any exemption from the obligation laid upon all
of us to strive for a more just world.
Raymond Deane is
a composer and a member of the National Committee of the Ireland Palestine
Solidarity Campaign.
