Syria Today | Thinking inside the tank; Syria should join the club

Thinking inside the tank; Syria should join the club

By Rime Allaf

“Peut-on désirer sans souffrir?” was not a mere lament about the possibility (or not) of desiring without suffering, but an important illustration of the phenomenal tradition of logic, or perfecting the art of thinking, in France.

Every year, for that most distinguishable of French institutions, the Baccalaureate, thousands of students start their set of written exams with a good dose of philosophy, a compulsory subject for all degrees. For four hours, choosing one of three questions, they attempt to respond in the manner they hope will merit a high passing grade – not by giving a correct answer, but by presenting correct reasoning and logical argumentation.

The selection of questions is announced on televised news and published on front pages, provoking nationwide debates over the next days and reinforcing the strength of France’s Cartesian tradition. Last year, choices included the questions “Does art transform our conscience of reality?” for scientific students, “Is it easier to know another than to know oneself?” for economic and social studies students, “Can one love a work of art without understanding it?” for technology students and, for literary students, “Is a scientific knowledge of the living possible?” Regardless of their opinion on the various matters, or even of the degree of their interest, most students easily write dissertations of more than 10 pages, explaining their thought process and why they arrived at a particular answer.

I think, therefore I am

Years of studying how to think have armed these students with tools supposed to take them through their academic, professional, social and personal life. Having learned how to think independently, exposed to a multitude of sources and given the opportunity to make educated arguments, they become better able to detect, diagnose and deal with issues facing them. They also become better communicators.

What the French take for granted, however, remains the realm of the unknown for most of their peers elsewhere, especially in our region. Following an educational regimen that generally favours memorising over understanding, that rewards conformity over initiative and that penalises independent thinking and deviations from the straight path, they will never be as well-equipped to think about situations or to solve problems.

Filling the tanks

Actions speak louder than words, goes the proverbial saying, but the word, and the thought behind it, have been receiving prime-time attention in recent years. Never since Plato’s Academy – thought to have been the world’s first think tank – has there been such interest in the institutions that gladly label themselves as such. Flourishing over the world, with preponderance in Europe and the United States, they cover the spectrum of political positions from left to right, with varying degrees of independence and varying degrees of influence over the circles they wish to influence.

Whether they were thinkers in the time of Plato and Aristotle, trying to influence the workings of society and therefore of the state’s politicians, or whether they are actual political activists driving for tangible change, think tanks aim to make a difference. To this end, they follow, analyse, write about and discuss the ideas and events they want, through publications, meetings, conferences, lectures and media coverage.

Respected institutions have no fast track to respectability, and influential fellows no quick way to influence; positions of authority come with patience and ideologues have spent much time, effort and money over the past decades to seep through the mainstream political arena and overtake their opponents’ argumentation. It’s not necessarily a labour of love, but it is labour and it is necessary. It’s uncertain, however, that the Arab world has understood this.

Arabs in search of influence

On the bright side, most Arab countries have joined the think tank club, managing to spread some papers, market some conferences and present some researchers. On a less bright side, most of these tanks are mere spokespersons for the person or for the entities supporting them and paying their salaries. This would be problematic enough in a domestic context, but it becomes much more serious on a worldwide scale if credibility is tainted by association to various authorities or institutions. In order to make a difference where it matters, the Arab world has a lot of work to do.

Firstly, there is a distance that is nearly impossible to bridge while established institutions spread a general anti-Arab (and pro-Israeli) rhetoric. This is especially difficult in the aftermath of 9/11, where the Arab-Islamic world has been thrown into a contrived civilisation clash.

Secondly, there are too few Arabs in the think tanks strong enough to make a difference. For the time being, even with the scarcity of think tanks in the region, there are more think tanks in the Arab world than there are Arabs in the think tank world.

Syria’s particular case is worthy of study and improvement. As a fellow in one of the world’s most reputed think tanks, I have met many peers from Arab countries, but rarely from my own. In fact, it has been easy for a discourse antagonistic to Syria to spread in think tank circles, with papers and meetings expanding on a general necon/pro-Israeli approach, disregarding the big picture of Syria’s regional interests.

Such a limited presence is not conducive to much influence and it calls for decisive action by Damascus to promote various nationals who could also compete in the world.  There are times when differences of opinion on internal affairs are best left aside in order to confront a bigger problem coming from outside; consequently, various thinkers, academics, intellectuals, researchers and other assets to Syria should be getting greater exposure on the think tank circuit, joining the outnumbered Syrians and offering a different perspective.

Don’t think of an elephant

In his seminal pamphlet on the power of framing (fantastically titled Don’t Think of an Elephant) and numerous writings on linguistics, metaphors and cognitive science, George Lakoff has explained how conservatives in the US worked for decades on spreading their ideas, having framed the debate with careful language and even invested in building the infrastructure (the think tanks), filling them with people picked from graduate schools. With time, funds and consistency, they reached the pinnacle of political influence as their opponents struggled to gain traction with more liberal agendas.

This is the kind of serious discipline needed for a country like Syria, which needs a long-term approach to alter fundamental opposition to its interests, and which needs to accept and embrace the voices already doing this independently. Added to changes in educational practices, instilling a French-style thinking process in new generations, there is no reason why we cannot frame the debate and be the ones to say “don’t think of an elephant”, or at least to know how to respond while ignoring that elephant. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.

Rime Allaf is an international consultant and an Associate Fellow at London’s Chatham House. She blogs at www.rimeallaf.com/mosaics/index.php