Note: this is the second blogpost in a series of 3 about approaches to practical life and inspired by what I'm seeing and hearing around me in Lebanon. Here's a link to the first one; it deals with the question of the "daww 3ale" (high beams) at night. I'm not sure exactly in what way, but I've benefited a lot from conversations with Michel about driving in Lebanon when it comes to these posts, so I'd like to thank him :)
If you've driven in Lebanon, you've probably had the experience of turning into a one-way street only to see another person coming towards you the wrong way - I'll call driving the wrong way 3aksesser from now on.
There are several attitudes I've seen adopted in this case, and I've been trying to figure out which one I should adopt if I want to be a good person:
- an understanding attitude: if everyone takes the mafra2 (the street you're going into) 3aksesser, and you're feeling magnanimous, you just back off or move your car to the right and let the person pass
- a principled attitude of attachment to the law: because the other person is breaking the law, you'll force them to back off until they can pass and throw in some mean looks while you're at it to show them how ashamed they should be of breaking the law
- an always right, always angry attitude: some people don't think of the question of who's right in a road disagreeement as one that depends on the facts. They only look at one variable: their position in the issue. If a "principled" person refuses to let them pass when they're driving 3aksesser, they'll be outraged. If someone who's driving aksesser comes their way, they'll be outraged. These people will get angry and force the other person to go back, maybe even getting out of their car and getting threatening if they sense resistance on the other person's part
For me, the angry attitude doesn't really qualify for what a good person is or should be - because, in the end, morality relies on our ability to be someone other than ourselves and see that someone sees - so the competition is between the understanding attitude and the principled one.
People who hold the principled attitude will tell you that if there was a proper, functioning Lebanese government, people would be punished for going against the traffic. While that's not happening, it's on us as citizens who care about the law to model lawful behavior and frown upon unlawful behavior. If we act like unlawful behavior is okay then we're part of what's making it okay.
I used to find these points compelling. However, there's something that makes me very uneasy with this sacralization of the ideal State that these points rely on. I don't like the idea that the only way for things to be right in this country is for the State to be in control of every inch of territory and for all laws to be perfectly enforced. Very often, what I see in the description of this ideal state we will have reached "lamma yezbat el balad" (when the country finally becomes functional, works out) is the imposition of an idealized European framework - even though even Europe doesn't function this way. Very often, that idealized State becomes an excuse to dismiss what we have before our eyes and blame whoever seems to be preventing that State from happening or who's acting like it's not there. We blame them instead of thinking about why exactly the problem at hand is a problem and what we can do to fix it. On that note, I suspect that it's once we let go of that framework of the sacred idealized State as the ultimate solution for all problems that we can start to work a solution out when it comes to Hezbollah's weapons and their current monopoly over decisions of war and peace.
Sorry I got a bit sidetracked. To come back to our topic, I think it might be useful to stop seeing 3aksesser as a backwards phenomenon that will be eradicated once our ideal perfect Lebanese State is in place. It's no wonder mentions of such a State (e.g., "kif beddo yezbat el balad" = how is the country gonna work out) often go hand in hand with terms like "bajam" and "tatar" that conjure up racist images of an undisciplined, barbarian people. We need to stop fitting every difference between our situation and the idealized State on the backwards/advanced axis - things are richer and more interesting than that.
After much thought, I decided that we should start seeing 3aksesser for what it is: something that can be helpful and save us a lot of time in many cases; but I still think it should be looked down upon when it's exaggerated or when it's (too) dangerous. I think I'm a better person when I let it be and maybe even engage in it when it makes sense. Compared to the crusade against 3aksesser in all its forms, the battle against unreasonable 3aksesser is one that is more just and that is more likely to be won.
If you've driven in Lebanon, you've probably had the experience of turning into a one-way street only to see another person coming towards you the wrong way - I'll call driving the wrong way 3aksesser from now on.
There are several attitudes I've seen adopted in this case, and I've been trying to figure out which one I should adopt if I want to be a good person:
- an understanding attitude: if everyone takes the mafra2 (the street you're going into) 3aksesser, and you're feeling magnanimous, you just back off or move your car to the right and let the person pass
- a principled attitude of attachment to the law: because the other person is breaking the law, you'll force them to back off until they can pass and throw in some mean looks while you're at it to show them how ashamed they should be of breaking the law
- an always right, always angry attitude: some people don't think of the question of who's right in a road disagreeement as one that depends on the facts. They only look at one variable: their position in the issue. If a "principled" person refuses to let them pass when they're driving 3aksesser, they'll be outraged. If someone who's driving aksesser comes their way, they'll be outraged. These people will get angry and force the other person to go back, maybe even getting out of their car and getting threatening if they sense resistance on the other person's part
For me, the angry attitude doesn't really qualify for what a good person is or should be - because, in the end, morality relies on our ability to be someone other than ourselves and see that someone sees - so the competition is between the understanding attitude and the principled one.
People who hold the principled attitude will tell you that if there was a proper, functioning Lebanese government, people would be punished for going against the traffic. While that's not happening, it's on us as citizens who care about the law to model lawful behavior and frown upon unlawful behavior. If we act like unlawful behavior is okay then we're part of what's making it okay.
I used to find these points compelling. However, there's something that makes me very uneasy with this sacralization of the ideal State that these points rely on. I don't like the idea that the only way for things to be right in this country is for the State to be in control of every inch of territory and for all laws to be perfectly enforced. Very often, what I see in the description of this ideal state we will have reached "lamma yezbat el balad" (when the country finally becomes functional, works out) is the imposition of an idealized European framework - even though even Europe doesn't function this way. Very often, that idealized State becomes an excuse to dismiss what we have before our eyes and blame whoever seems to be preventing that State from happening or who's acting like it's not there. We blame them instead of thinking about why exactly the problem at hand is a problem and what we can do to fix it. On that note, I suspect that it's once we let go of that framework of the sacred idealized State as the ultimate solution for all problems that we can start to work a solution out when it comes to Hezbollah's weapons and their current monopoly over decisions of war and peace.
Sorry I got a bit sidetracked. To come back to our topic, I think it might be useful to stop seeing 3aksesser as a backwards phenomenon that will be eradicated once our ideal perfect Lebanese State is in place. It's no wonder mentions of such a State (e.g., "kif beddo yezbat el balad" = how is the country gonna work out) often go hand in hand with terms like "bajam" and "tatar" that conjure up racist images of an undisciplined, barbarian people. We need to stop fitting every difference between our situation and the idealized State on the backwards/advanced axis - things are richer and more interesting than that.
After much thought, I decided that we should start seeing 3aksesser for what it is: something that can be helpful and save us a lot of time in many cases; but I still think it should be looked down upon when it's exaggerated or when it's (too) dangerous. I think I'm a better person when I let it be and maybe even engage in it when it makes sense. Compared to the crusade against 3aksesser in all its forms, the battle against unreasonable 3aksesser is one that is more just and that is more likely to be won.
I can't decide whether I agree or not (or to what extent). While I find your argument very logical and compelling, I think it could be applied dangerously in practice. Suppose everyone takes your conclusion and applies it to his or herself. Each individual will have the freedom to decide, for him/herself on his/her own scales and subjective measurements, what qualifies "too dangerous," "exaggerated," or conversely "helpful" to go 3aksesser. Each person will have a different perception of what constitutes "too dangerous." This would take the law and put it into the hands of the individual. The individual becomes the ultimate authority on how things should be, what is right and what is wrong. This creates a general disrespect for the law which may extend to other spheres. Moreover, others respond to examples they see. If a person who respects the law sees a growing number of those who don't, he/she will be more likely to defect. The outcome will be that everyone does whatever they believe is right (which will most likely be whatever is most expedient in that moment). Not everyone wants to be moral and do the right thing and not everyone will think as much as you have on this issue. I wonder how dangerous this kind of driving is in Lebanon today. If it does not seem to result in higher accident rates etc then maybe having everyone engage in driving 3aksesser is not so bad.
ReplyDelete