Charles Le Brun and the 'Arab Winter'

The recent rise and use of the term “Arab Winter” by those on the left- and right-wing seems to unite different and opposite worldviews regarding the prospects of democracy, freedom and equality in the Arab/Muslim world. The “Orientalist” worldview, argued by Edward Said (1935-2003), is a possible explanation for this ideological unity. The unifying assumptions are embedded in the discourse of modernisation and modernity which is outlined by the contemporary Iranian scholar Ali Mirsepassi roughly as follows:

• That the contemporary conditions of non-European peoples are defined in terms of Europe’s feudal past and historical experience.
• As a result, non-European peoples are “essentialised” as a singular group according to the European cultural qualities and values regardless of their geographical and historical difference.
• Thus, this discourse makes the assumption that there is only one essential path to modernity and modernisation that is essentially European in quality and value.

Thus, regardless of the left or right positions on the ideological spectrum, any divergence of Europe’s pathway to modernity by non-European “Others” is prejudged as a failure or regression. This is especially true in relation to the role of religion in public life and the success of Islamist political parties in the post-2011 Arab revolt. Classing Arabs and Muslims as a non-European “Other” category provides a platform that unites left and right ideological positions, exposing the shared roots of European bias regarding freedom, equality and democracy. European art provides a wonderful opportunity to interrogate this claim.

The 1660 Baroque masterpiece “The Family of Darius before Alexander” by Charles Le Brun (1619-1690), for example, provides a glimpse into the timeless ideological unity of left and right in relation to the non-European “Other”. The painting was commissioned by Louis XIV (1638-1715) in the year that he acceded to the throne of France. The painting was displayed in Versailles, the encampment of French aristocrats at that time. By commissioning the painting, Louis XIV intended to signal to them as a class his ambition and vision of France under his rule. As a propaganda painting, the parable of the powerful, good and civilised king in the person of Alexander the Great (365-323 BC) provided Le Brun with the perfect symbolism to paint the future despotic and tyrannical reign of Louis as virtuous and benevolent.

The left side of the painting portrays Alexander and a companion standing side by side and dressed in a similar fashion. A small clue distinguishing which of the two figures is Alexander is the small pin with an image of his face on his companion’s cape. The physical gestures are the most telling in the painting; most notable is the extended right arm of Alexander, a signal to the Persians that he, not his companion, is Alexander. Similarly, his partner’s raised right hand, waving no, indicates to the Persians that he is not the emperor. The open left hand of Alexander offers clemency and mercy toward the Persian court. Alexander is thus depicted as a civilised monarch who chooses mercy over plunder in dealing with his defeated enemies. Le Brun’s intention is to communicate, through a few gestures, the timeless values of freedom and equality embodied in Hellenistic civilisation, and he extends them to Louis XIV who, during his reign, proved to be tyrannical and despotic.

The right side of the painting provides us with a glimpse of the despotic order and value of the Persian non-European “Other” that exists in the European imagination as shared by both left- and right-wing ideological positions. Though it is a known historical fact that Alexander was fascinated with Persian culture, Le Brun’s painting as a propaganda tool disregards this. The painting depicts Alexander and his companion seemingly surprised by the Persians’ prostration, something alien to Hellenistic culture even in times of defeat. Confused by the values of freedom and equality in the conqueror’s culture, the queen mother throws herself at Alexander’s feet, begging for clemency. The queen, with Darius’s heir in her lap, appeals directly to Alexander’s human side, with her daughters following suit. The second daughter seems to be breaking the rules by looking curiously at the victorious emperor, while the dark-skinned maid urges her to follow her mother’s example. Skin tone is an indicator of hierarchy in Persian culture, the exception to the rule being the standing person with fair skin, who is a Greek slave captured in an earlier war.

Le Brun depicts the innate hierarchical system of the Persians even in times of crisis by standing ranked according to their status. The barbarism of the non-European “Other” is emphasised further by the practice of wailing and tearing of their clothing as depicted by the two eunuchs standing half-naked. The artist aims to communicate that these are the cultural practices that Alexander is set to end, setting the non-European “Others” free from their own barbaric culture. Even though Alexander’s fascination with Persian culture infuriated his fellow Greeks, Le Brun’s intention is to draw a parallel between Louis and Alexander versus the non-European “Other”.

Le Brun’s painting is still relevant today in understanding the unity of left and right ideologies in assessing the 2011 Arab revolts as an “Arab Winter”. This is especially true regarding religion in public life and the success of religious parties that the 2011 Arab revolts brought to power.

Regardless of who was in favour of Western intervention in the Arab world and who was against it, both the left and right view the Arab revolt in a fashion similar to Le Brun’s depiction of the non-European “Other”. Those who favoured military intervention and the deposing of tyrannical and brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi saw the “Arab Spring” turn into an “Arab Winter” because Arab culture lacks the cultural prerequisites to be free and equal. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump declared recently that dictators such as Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi of Egypt are worthy of US support because they know how best to “rule that part of the world”. During his election campaign, Trump has pointed out constantly that removing Saddam from Iraq and Gaddafi from Libya led to the rise of ISIS. Other neoconservatives argue that the intentions were noble but blame the lack of the cultural prerequisite of Western liberty and individualism for the failure of liberty to take place in “that part of the world”.

The left generally argues that interventions in the Arab world to remove dictators are primarily motivated by profit and not by human rights. The argument is that interventions are disastrous to non-European “Others” – even if their brutal dictators massacre them – and that once the non-European cultures mature and develop working class consciousness, they will be able to free themselves from the barbaric and despotic shackles of their culture and religion. In other words, Arabs must suffer until they are mature enough to free themselves accordingly.

Le Brun’s propaganda painting exposes the commonalities between the left- and right-wing ideologies that assume non-European cultural inferiority by communicating the superiority of the civilised Louis XIV as the new king of France. The non-European “Other” represents an essentialised entity defined by the lack of European culture and values. Both left and right ideologies infantilise non-European culture as a remnant of Europe’s feudal past. As a result, both the left and right assume one type of modernity that is essentially European in culture, value and history. The label “Arab Winter” is actually the product of a European culture viewing itself in the mirror, and not about a non-European “Other”.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.