A very British weapon
by Jamie Bartlett
Every country has its own distinct way to fight terrorism. The Americans, shock and awe. The French, a dismissive laicite. The Dutch an obsessive multiculturalism. And us? Not much until now. But finally, we have rediscovered our most effective weapon: wit. This week, Chris Morris’ new spoof film Four Lions features at the Sundance Festival, and it joins a growing number of satires taking aim at al-Qaeda wannabes.
It is amazing it’s taken so long. All those pointless debates last year about what it means to be British forgot the one thing that genuinely does unite us more profoundly than anything else. Satire in particular is a uniquely British skill. In 1729 Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal suggested that Irish families sell their children as food to ease their economic woes, (“I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout”) and is considered the first, and one of the finest, sustained satirical essays ever written. The reason Oswald Mosley never got within an inch of power was because we couldn’t take fascists seriously – all that goose-stepping and black uniforms, it offered just too much material.
Satire works of course when it mirrors reality, and there is no shortage of material among the Jihadis. Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas pants bomber, was merely the latest in a string of often laughably incompetent fools. The “Toronto 18” cell couldn’t remember the name of the Canadian Prime Minister they were plotting to kill, while the Dutch Hofstad cell used to fantasise about the ‘little female sex slaves’ that would be waiting for them in the next life.
Satire can really work. Next month, Demos publishes the most extensive study to date of homegrown terrorists in the West. What emerges from our research is that a significant part of al-Qaeda’s appeal is not its ideology or message but its mystique, glamour, and modish coolness. Its members style themselves as modern day James Bonds and Che Guevarras, playing their role as a heroic warrior against Western tyranny. It all sounds rather exciting to an 18 year old from Bradford or Lyon. The battle of ideas is not just about competing world visions.
Last year, we spent over £140m trying to prevent people become radicalised by al-Qaeda. By turning them into laughing stocks, Four Lions will do more than all of it combined.
William
See my Four Lions imdb review here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/usercomments
I think Morris gets this issue absolutely right. His morality is not in the least bit weird.
And the reason it took so long to make/ You guessed it: no financial backing. So the comparison of £4m for this movie vs £140m is an intriguing one.
Will Davies
I confess that I've not seen the film, I was just responding to Jamie's post. But I see nothing at all wrong with having some heroically weird moralists around. On the contrary. How else does anyone break open cracks in the moral logic of the media than to produce things which are morally ambivalent, morally questionable and at risk of being taboo? I just doubt that these heroic individuals are the same people to turn to for an alternative. Anyway. Your review makes me all the more keen to see this.
Will Davies
The publication sounds fascinating, and very plausible. I guess any vaguely successful ideological movement has to confront the fact that few people are ever motivated by anything as methodical and consistent as an ideology. Just ask Karl Rove.
I think you're right that comedy is a serious political weapon. Simon Critchley argues as much at the end of Infinitely Demanding, though from an anarchist perspective. He also pointed out during the 2004 US elections that it was no coincidence that so many Democrat supporters had turned to the Daily Show as their main source of news - the inability of John Kerry to lay a punch on Bush was as much a failure of his sense of humour.
But there are two other examples that make me nervous. One is what Martin Amis argued with Christopher Hitchens about, regarding Stalin: why was it OK to laugh at a genocidal regime, to the extent that Western Marxists did retrospectively in the 70s? The other is the phenomenon of 'chavs'. Why did it suddenly become OK to laugh at people for being marginalised and living unhealthy lifestyles?
Put these two examples together - mass murder and social marginalisation - and you have something approaching home-grown terrorists. Do the two somehow cancel each other out? Does the fact that a, ahem, 'chav' blows people up make it OK to laugh at them? (Being laughed at can hardly persuade a marginalised kid that Western liberalism is OK after all). Equally, does the fact that a murderous movement employs people in tracksuits make it OK to laugh at it? Maybe it does. I suspect that it's these sort of confusions that drew Chris Morris to the topic, because he is, after all, a bit weird. A genius, but a weird one.