One of the most prominent common denominators among the vast majority of writers is their persistent desire for distinction, uniqueness, self-proof, and victory for thought, even if they are to varying degrees in this, each according to his abilities, skills, and contributions. The writer always seeks to be a different voice, with behavior that ranges between rebellion and closeness to authority, which can support him, just as it can restrict and control him. The desire for intellectual and self-independence remains the basic characteristic that the serious writer seeks to ensure the integrity of his word and the nobility of his position. The concept of creativity means creating the new, searching for the unique, achieving more, liberation from restrictions and restrictions, and searching for new ideas and angles to look at, in addition to shedding light on people’s suffering and complaints, as well as places of pride and pride. Also, any literary creator: poet, storyteller, novelist, playwright, literary critic, etc., always seeks to present what attracts his recipients and readers, and intends to arouse amazement, stimulate minds to interact, hearts to taste, and tongues to spontaneous expression. In the history of oral cultures, the poet distinguished himself from all members of his clan, due to his ability to compose the text and sing it, and then the members of the clan united behind him. Because it expresses their feelings and thoughts or presents them with new thoughts, feelings, and aesthetics in expression, image, and symbol. It is not surprising to find that many poets and creative people were seeking independence in different forms from their societies or the people around them. Because they live in imagination, seek to inspire, spread high values, and call for ideal virtuous societies, it is better for them to always reject manifestations of hypocrisy, tyranny, and tyranny, calling for higher morals, and denouncing all manifestations of corruption. Of course, this does not apply to all creative people, not even the largest or least part. Rather, this is the model that if you interview any creative person, writer, or intellectual, you will find him dreaming about it, denouncing what he sees around him, regardless of his commitment – as a creator – to what he calls for or his lack of commitment. In other words: Creative writers always dream of the values of justice and equality, call for courage and courage in times of distress, and vary in their personal positions between what they declare and what they actually practice. It is worth noting that our discussion of the position of the writer does not mean that he is far from the structure of the cultural and scientific movement in general, but rather that he is part of it, even if the meaning of the intellectual is general and includes the writer, the philosopher, the scientist, and everyone involved in writing, authorship, and general concern. However, many studies have begun to use the term “creator, writer, intellectual, and artist” as almost one thing in general, which includes everyone interested in knowledge production. And the creative and scientific, but at the private level, there is what is called the active, active intellectual/creator, who goes beyond the prevailing culture, and aspires to spread a new culture and creativity, that addresses the existing imbalance, confronts stereotyping, traditionalism, and keeping up with authority, and in return rejects all aspects of oppression, hypocrisy, and intellectual calcification ([1]). The intended goal is that the writer, like the intellectual and the artist, seeks to prove his literary uniqueness, while preoccupying himself with the general national concern. For the sake of creative uniqueness, the true creator is in a constant state of what is called the “creative climate,” which is the immediate environment in which he lives, with its social, economic, political, and psychological influences, all of which are variables.[2]It depends on the nature of the ruling authority, the extent of society’s openness and civilisation, the highness of its taste, and also the educational and cultural level available among the members of society, who receive creativity. The general climate that gives freedoms, welcomes new ideas, supports talents, and does not restrict mouths or prevent pens, is an atmosphere that stimulates creativity, while a closed climate spreads negative criticism, one-sided vision, and unjust judgments, that is, it is an atmosphere that fights creativity.[3]). This is what every true creator and intellectual who wants to change his society for the better, and seeks to spread the message of creativity with the high values it contains, the essence of which is human and moral, supports freedoms, justice, and equality, and combats all marginalization, silencing mouths, closing minds, and spreading a culture of fear, negativity, and stagnation. True intellectuals and creators do not drown in themselves and their narcissism, nor are they confined to ivory towers, devoting their lives to difficult philosophical and intellectual topics. Rather, their strong feelings and lofty principles push them to spread justice and truth, expose corruption, defend the weak, challenge flawed and oppressive authority, and not be drawn into sweeping popular sentiments, such as sectarianism, societal, sectarian, and ideological hostilities, and conflicts based on differences of opinion. Nationalities, class and factional interests)[4]). Since ancient times, the authority, whatever it may be, has sought the help of innovators, writers, and scholars in order to propagate the ruling authority and its policy, support its popularity among the people, and create a hostile climate against the official enemies of the state.[5]), through an intellectual, cultural, creative and scientific discourse, formulated by intellectuals and innovators who are attached to power, with which they convince the masses, consolidate the government’s authority among the people, and formulate terms and ideas that justify what government agencies do. Their discourse is always linked to popular feelings using terms such as: national dignity, pride, independence, and so on. Hence comes the problem of intellectuals, when they stop the critical spirit that aspires to better change for their countries, and identify with the interests of the authority, and spread multiple discourses linking the actions of the authority to national affiliation, loyalty to the nation, and the national interest, which transcends every human and moral value to mobilize the feelings of the people. This is what Edward Said calls “the betrayal of intellectuals and complete moral bankruptcy” ([6]). The authorities’ agencies are in constant need of someone to formulate their speeches directed to the masses, in an elegant way, that convinces the members of the people, at the elite and common levels, and makes them cling to those who rule, unwilling to think of another alternative. Ancient, modern and contemporary history is full of dozens of examples of these intellectuals and creators, whom we usually call authority intellectuals, authority scholars, or authority writers. We see them writing articles, appearing on satellite channels, and wandering between conferences and seminars, arguing about everything, not for the sake of truth, but rather for the sake of beautifying the existing reality, and bestowing auras of admiration – if not sanctity – on the established authority with all its decisions, whether successful or unsuccessful. Of course, these people excel at writing, persuading, and promoting, and it is enough for them to bring up issues and ideas that distance people from their reality, distract them from what is being suggested to them, and drown them in intellectual nonsense and mental debates, which we find in writings steeped in love and infatuation, self-narcissism, or devaluing opponents of authority. In all cases, the writings of these people do not deviate from the intellectual line drawn by the authority. The counterpart to this position is that the creative, intellectual, and scholar enjoys all the benefits of power, such as positions, money, prestige, fame, and protection. However, the price required of him is high, related to his creative personality and principles. He must remain silent about injustices, falsify what he sees as falsehood, and even argue in order to triumph over everything that is governmental and authoritarian. We must be well aware that the majority of those who supported governments, supported their authorities, and walked in their wake continue this trend, and are keen to continue the “accusation” of the advantages they obtain. Because they simply gave in and got something in return, they tasted the milk and honey, and they are ready to make more concessions, in exchange for the continued benefits. On the other hand, the intelligence of the authority is that it is not satisfied with one supporter or one category of creators, but rather creates alternatives to it, and sows competitiveness and conflicts among them, always waving the carrot and the stick. Meaning that there are alternatives to you, O creator, who are allied with the authority, and there are many, whom we can bring closer to us if you try – just trying – to contradict the official line of the government, and we are not surprised by this, as we have seen many creative people, poets, writers, artists and scholars who have aligned themselves with the authority in its various ideologies. They sang of liberalism in the monarchy before July 1952 AD, and when the era of the Nasserist state came, they turned – with the power of Qadir – to socialism and singing of nationalism. Arabic, then they quickly disbelieved in it, when Sadat turned against Abdel Nasser’s legacy and invented new terminology. Of course, there are those who could not adapt to the changes power; Because he simply believed what she said and believed in her slogans, he was automatically excluded from the scene, and the authorities did not harm him, as there is a long line of people seeking closeness, waiting for their turn. He even volunteers to perform what is required of him and more. What is important is that he enjoys closeness, obtains favor, and enjoys fame. On another level, we find in traditional literature what deepens this concept, and clarifies the relationship between the intellectual and authority, as Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi points out when he says: “As for the kings, they have abandoned friendship, and therefore their rulings are not valid for them, nor are their covenants fulfilled. Rather, their affairs are governed by power and oppression, whims and desires, self-denial and disdain, and as for their servants, they are very similar to them, and the end of trouble is for them” ([7]). This text explains the nature of dealing with authority, represented by kings, and it is a name that refers to rulers in general, and those who are in their rule, such as princes, ministers, governors, and those in positions of authority. There is no friendship with them, in the sense of maintaining and lasting friendliness, because they deal with people in general, and those who are close to them in particular, with the logic of benefit, and that the relationship is based on a view of the superior to the inferior, with the pride of those in power in power and oppression, and their psychological fluctuations, which are governed by whims, and accordingly. Grammar is those who serve them and become close to them. There is always a state of psychological alienation that makes those who follow authority follow the morals of authority and deal with its logic and methods. In order for the picture to be clearer, let us look at the members of the ruling National Party in Egypt, during the Mubarak era (1981-2011 AD). These people, regardless of their ranks and party positions, were dealing with the people with the logic of benefit and oppression, and that in their hands were the power and the scepter, and they were able to pass government transactions, including corruption, bribery, and nepotism, because they had membership in the ruling party, so how can the people of authority themselves be in the government? The film “The Yacoubian Building” (2006) expressed this dimension, through the character of the Secretary of the National Party, “Kamal Al-Fouly,” who is similar in name and influence to “Kamal Al-Shazly.” He was moving, ordering, and forbidding, as if he had a scepter in his hand. He could make whoever he wanted succeed in the People’s Assembly elections, without any effort, and whoever disagreed with him would plot a crime against him and frame him for a crime. He had to follow the game of the authoritarian system. Power is not limited only to those in power, but is distributed throughout the folds of society, especially if power is based on a comprehensive political party, which has an extended structure in the country, and has its own superstructure, and its subterranean and horizontal extensions.[8]), a reality that we see with the existence of political parties over which authority was established, such as the Socialist Union in the Nasserist era, the ruling Baath Party in Syria during the era of Hafez al-Assad, and its counterpart in Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein. Abu Hayyan Al-Tawhidi continues his speech: “As for writers and scholars, if they were free of rivalry, envy, rivalry, and quarreling, then perhaps their friendship would be healthy, and loyalty would appear from them, and that is few.” ([9]). The standard set by Al-Tawhidi for governance is true friendship, which means loyalty, love, sophisticated communication, and avoiding hypocrisy and artificiality. Because he is a writer, thinker, and scholar, he is deeply aware of the nature of these people, and unfortunately his impression of them is negative, given the prevalence of envy for the sake of benefit between them, and if worldly rivalry is present, there is no talk of any true friendship. If we link this text with Al-Tawhidi’s vision of kings/power, and how writers approach them, the picture becomes clear. The people of power manipulate writers and scholars, if they find in them envy and competition for the sake of gaining favor and getting closer to the Sultan’s court. They approach whomever they want, and abuse others, according to their own moods, or the skill of the writer himself in gaining the Sultan’s approval, in a way that does not make him look at anyone else. If Al-Tawhidi’s view was somewhat negative in his view of the writers and scholars of his time, then this may be the result of his personal experience, which cannot be generalized to all the people of his time or the times before or after it. He pointed out this by mentioning that few writers have good qualities and a desire to advise and spread good values. This is what coincides with the contemporary perspective of the intellectual/writer, that he must combine cognitive and creative production, moral commitment, and speaking out for the truth, as he is concerned with the events and problems of his society, feels responsible for its progress, and thus rises above narrow political and partisan calculations, and stays away from the conflicts of those in power and those who are more important ([10]). There are many factors that affect the position of the writer and intellectual towards authority, including what is related to the writer himself, and his desire for fame and to obtain money and prestige. These are psychological factors that require struggle, advancement, and promotion. Among them are factors related to the prevailing political, social and intellectual climate. If tyranny and tyranny prevail, bureaucracy takes control, fear spreads, and poverty increases; All forms of hypocrisy, slander, envy, and hatred will spread, and the authorities will find many writers and intellectuals who are ready for more fawning and concessions. Also, writers vary in their creative abilities. Some of them are exceptionally distinguished and draw attention to themselves, and some of them are quarters and halves of talent. The intelligence of the person in power depends on bringing the writer who enjoys a large audience closer to him, so he supports the authority with his popularity, and his words have an impact on the readers. These distinguished people differ in their relationship with the authority. Some of them cling to their independence, rejecting any appeasement or hypocrisy, and some of them deal wisely, neither being hostile to the authority nor… He hypocrites it, but rather moves in the space available to him to have his say, and some of them completely align with the authority, and even become its arm, especially those with weak talent, who need more titles, positions, and awards in order to complete their position among intellectuals, because their creative production is weak, repetitive, or a dull idea, which does not allow it to enjoy a large space of readers and admirers.
[1]) The Problem of the Intellectual according to Gramsci, Haider Ali Muhammad, Master’s thesis, University of Baghdad, 2004, pp. 125, 126.
[2]) Public and Private Creativity, Alexandru Rushka, translated by: Dr. Ghassan Abdel-Hay Abu Fakhr, World of Knowledge Series, Kuwait, 1989, p. 71
[3]) Previous reference, p. 76.
[4]) The Intellectual and Power, Edward Said, translated by: Dr. Muhammad Anani, Dar Roya for Publishing and Distribution, Cairo, 2006, pp. 36, 37.
[5]) Previous reference, p. 37.
[6]) Betrayal of Intellectuals: Recent Texts, Edward Said, translated by: Asaad Al-Hussein, Nineveh Publishing and Distribution House, Damascus, 2011, p. 89.
[7]) Examples of the two ministers, Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, in the book: The intellectual between the anvil of power and the hammer of the public, a model of the fourth century AH, Dr. Hala Ahad Fouad, Egyptian General Book Authority, Cairo, 2015, p. 372.
[8]) Michel Foucault and the question of power from reduction to fragmentation: towards an interpretive phenomenology of power, Mohamed Amin Ben Djilali, Believers Without Borders Foundation, Morocco, June 22, 2016 AD.
[9]) The Tales of the Two Wazirs, Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, p. 352.
[10]) The Arab Intellectual and Social Transformations: A Reading of the Path of the Intellectual Crisis in the Arab World, Ahmed Al-Qadhib, Qalamoun Magazine, Dar Maysloun, Qatar, April 2018, p. 131.
