Last week, I intended to write my reflections on President Obama’s speech at the commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Instead, I offered my ambivalent thoughts on Obama on Syria. Summarized in my opening: “Two Cheers for Obama.” The potentially tragic decisions of the week overshadowed, in my mind, the enduring accomplishments and challenges of decades. Obama is not only threatening Assad. Assad is threatening Obama. A march to war overshadowed a poignant remembrance of this historic march of 1963.

I closed my reflections by expressing my fear that this overshadowing may become emblematic of the Obama presidency: significant work on jobs and freedom challenged by questionable military and national security adventures, including not only the potential attack on Syria, but also drone warfare and heightened domestic and international surveillance. Unlike the President’s full-throated critics on the left and the right, I am not convinced that his positions have been simply wrong. Yet, I too sense that there is a pattern here that is troubling, especially so since the ideals which Barack Obama embodies, symbolizes and has acted to fortify are of such crucial importance to the vigor and health of the American body politic, revealed in his speech commemorating the great civil rights march and its most powerful leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

Obama’s talk, like King’s, is not cheap. His words often act. He is the only man to have been elected President of the United States based on a speech, (William Jennings Bryant was nominated but not elected), and his speeches, in form as well as content, continue to be consequential. This was my hope when I watched and then read the text, despite recent events in Syria, and the possibility of an American attack. Obama’s words on jobs and freedom, and the people who marched on Washington, tell us something about who we are, where we are going, and by what means, and as I see it, even offer interesting insights into the Syrian dilemmas.

The speech revolved around an irony. While, Obama honored King and his eloquent rhetoric, he emphasized the more humble deeds of the many who came to Washington and gave the words substance.

“We rightly and best remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory that day, how he gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions; how he offered a salvation path for oppressed and oppressors alike. His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.

But we would do well to recall that day itself also belonged to those ordinary people whose names never appeared in the history books, never got on TV. Many had gone to segregated schools and sat at segregated lunch counters. They lived in towns where they couldn’t vote and cities where their votes didn’t matter. They were couples in love who couldn’t marry, soldiers who fought for freedom abroad that they found denied to them at home. They had seen loved ones beaten, and children fire-hosed, and they had every reason to lash out in anger, or resign themselves to a bitter fate.”

The humble were in Obama’s telling the real heroes:

“Because they marched, a Civil Rights law was passed. Because they marched, a Voting Rights law was signed. Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. (Applause.) Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed, and Congress changed, and, yes, eventually, the White House changed. (Applause.)”

Leaders lead when they are pushed, Obama argues. The eloquence of leaders such as King, but also Obama himself, has power when it is empowered by social movement. Odd to hear the President argue this, a reading of leaders and activists that he also emphasized in his second inaugural, as he is preparing for acts of war that are not only unpopular, but seem to distract from his principal policy initiatives, as Robert Reich recently observed on his blog.

And in the speech, Obama argued the urgency of not being distracted, for, much is left to be done. From defending past gains, to completing the project:

“But we would dishonor those heroes as well to suggest that the work of this nation is somehow complete. The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but it doesn’t bend on its own. To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency. Whether by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance.” (Applause.)

He highlighted the legacy of the March by pointing to two courses of action. On justice – there is an urgency to push back reaction, to fight against those who would again limit access to the ballot and who accept growing inequalities and incarceration, and on jobs, there is an equal urgency grounded in the pursuit of happiness:

“For what does it profit a man, Dr. King would ask, to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can’t afford the meal? This idea — that one’s liberty is linked to one’s livelihood; that the pursuit of happiness requires the dignity of work, the skills to find work, decent pay, some measure of material security — this idea was not new. Lincoln himself understood the Declaration of Independence in such terms — as a promise that in due time, ‘the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance’.”

I have a dream, or at least I can imagine, a way out of the Syria dilemma, inspired by these words of the President. In terms of my last post moving from two cheers for Obama to three.

Under pressure of the social forces he celebrated in his address marking the fiftieth anniversary of the march on Washington, Obama works with world leaders to find a course of non-violent common action to responding to the atrocity of Assad’s chemical warfare. I admit that is probably a pipedream.

But alternatively, I can imagine very positive results of Congress turning down Obama’s request for authorization of the use of force in Syria. In his defeat Obama still will have expressed his strong response to the use of chemical weapons, and the need to find more diplomatic means to control Assad will become the order of the day.

It may cost Obama immediate political capital, but it may also help him more assuredly move American foreign policy in the direction he has long sought, that his words point to and can enable in the future. The state senator who spoke up against a stupid war, without democratic support, will have achieved his goal. The newly elected President who won his Nobel Prize for the perceived promise of changing the direction of the global hegemon, will get a boost from among others his most right-wing opponents. The Nobel Peace Laureate explained why war is a necessary evil to be avoided when possible, and this may come to pass. It will become harder for the President, as his aides now emphasize, to embark on military actions for the rest of his term, but it will also make it harder for future presidents to engage in such action without the approval of Congress and the American people. The result will be an American foreign policy that is more suited to the emerging global order, that is less militarized, and is more subject to democratic restraints. America will have turned an important corner: a tactical defeat for the President, but in the long run, a major strategic victory, a foreign policy that Martin Luther King Jr. and the marchers of ’63 would approve of, a foreign policy that makes it more likely that the struggle for jobs and freedom will move forward.

Coming out of my dream I still am deeply concerned, as is President Obama that those who would use chemical weapons against innocent civilians should not go unpunished and must be stopped. Obama’s obligation now, as he and his Democratic critics, such as Congressman Grayson, see it, is to make the case for military action against Syria disclosing all the purported evidence of its necessity. But those same critics, of the left and the right, must then work on effective non-violent action. I fear this is another pipedream.

Two cheers for President Obama! On his performance leading up to his speech yesterday in the Rose Garden. See video below.

Great that he is going to Congress. I hope this sets a precedent, making it harder in the future for Presidents unilaterally, and contrary to the constitution, to go to war. No guarantee this will be the case, but it is very much worth the effort, notable here because it is far from clear that the President will get the support he seeks.

Cheer two: I am pleased that he is standing against chemical warfare. Too many of my friends on the left are missing this point. In their generalized criticism about American power in the world (thus, for example, America now is “waging war on Syria”), they seem to not understand, even seem to purposively ignore, that the Assad regime in Syria has engaged in a horrific act, one of the few times since WWI that chemical weapons have been used so openly.

I know this is not the only time. I know that the U.S. was silent when Iraq used such weapons against Iran. I know that the U.S. has used chemicals in Vietnam and Iraq, and I know that Israel has used chemicals in Gaza. But Assad used chemical weapons for the sole purpose of indiscriminately killing people, his fellow citizens, actually his subjects. It was state terror, pure and simple. There are those who point to the less than certain evidence, but I think a pretty clear case has been made by the White House, and those who still doubt that Assad is a butcher do so out of willful ignorance, powered by ideology, close to home, a blind anti-Americanism. To the contrary, I believe that sometimes, there is something worse than American power, and sometimes, the U.S. does the right thing. As an expert on East and Central Europe, I especially appreciate this.

To be sure on purely humanitarian grounds, a case can be made that an attack upon Syria will only cause more causalities, the position of the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. The fear is that fighting violence with violence cannot solve the problem. But this is a sensible position only if you think that war and all acts of war are never the answer, are ruled out on moral grounds. I respect this position, but can’t buy in, as I couldn’t many years ago during the Vietnam War when I tried to convince myself that I am a pacifist. Thus, it makes sense that human rights groups are divided in their understanding of the proper course of action.

But is Obama’s outlined course the right one? I admit; I am not sure, and I have serious concerns. Violence is communication. This is clearly the case of suicide bombing, for example, and terrorism more generally. Communicative violence doesn’t directly change the balance of coercive power, but it can change opinions, affect morale, spread fear. But is this the way legitimate democracies should communicate? I fear that limited intervention in Syria is a kind of expressive politics, and not more than that. It may feel good to do something, but it is far from clear that it will do any good. Unforeseen consequences for the U.S. and the region are almost guaranteed. But then doing nothing also will have consequences, and will say something, perhaps making matters worse. I am conflicted.

It would be best if a broader coalition of nations and citizens were behind action against the Baathist regime in Syria. It would be wonderful if the UN were capable of acting. Putin’s Russia has made this impossible for the last two years, with no prospect for change. It would be much better if the opposition in Syria had a democratic face: apparently not, unfortunately. I support some action, worry about the present course, but also about alternatives.

PS. This past week marked the 50^th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Justice. I wanted to open September with serious reports and reflections. These are forthcoming. For now, I perceive tragedy revealed in the events of the week. The very positive role Lyndon Johnson played in the civil rights story was overshadowed at the end of his term as President and in the last years of his life by his big mistake in Vietnam. Thinking about Obama, I fear repetition.

To skip this introduction and go directly to read Alexander Mirescu’s In-Depth Analysis “Civil Society in Tunisia: The Arab Spring Comes Home to Roost,” click here.

The Arab Spring is now commonly understood as a tragedy, if not a colossal failure. Those who “knew” that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible feel vindicated. Those critical of American foreign policy find their criticisms confirmed, whether the object of their criticism is that of realpolik – the U.S. should have never supported the purported democratic uprising – or more idealistic – the U.S. should have supported such forces sooner and more thoroughly. I believe these common understandings and criticisms are fundamentally mistaken, based as they are on lazy comparative analysis, not paying attention to the details of political and cultural struggles, and by ethnocentric obsessions and superpower fantasy, not realizing how much the fate of nations is based on local and not global struggles.

In today’s post on Tunisia, a very different understanding is suggested, as I as the author of The Politics of Small Things, see it. The uprising in the Middle East of 2011, sparked by protests in Tunisia, opened up possibilities for fundamental transformation. The possibilities were opened by ordinary people, when they spoke to each other, in their differences, about their common concerns, and developed a capacity to act upon their concerns. In most countries in the region, one way or another, the power these people created together faced other powers and has been overwhelmed. But the game isn’t over, as this report on civic associations in Tunisia shows. The report suggests a corollary to the old adage: those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The persistence of civic action in Tunisia suggests a continued opening: those who manage to speak and act in the presence of others, in their differences, with common principled commitment to their public interaction, open the possibility of an alternative to tragedy.

The promise of the Arab Spring may yet live in the country of its birth. I think we should pay close to this, as we are overwhelmed by the tragic reports and images coming out of Syria and Egypt.

To go directly to read Alexander Mirescu’s In-Depth Analysis “Civil Society in Tunisia: The Arab Spring Comes Home to Roost,” click here.

Now that the Obama administration has concluded that the red line has been crossed, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own people, there will be more military aid for the rebels from the U.S. and its allies. Although this will certainly affect the course of the war (though the rebels and their strong supporters, such as John McCain, will demand more), equally certain is that this aid will not on its own positively affect the prospects for a just peace, with an improved situation for the Syrian people in their diversity.

The dark situation that Hakan Topal described in his last post on Syria (and Turkey and its neo-Ottoman foreign policy) stands: profoundly undemocratic and illiberal, brutal and barbarian actions are on both sides of the Syrian military conflict. The victory of one side or the other is likely to yield very unpleasant outcomes, as each side reveals itself with more and more horrific means of fighting, and more and more sectarian commitments.

The story of the Syrian opposition is tragic. A very hopeful peaceful protest was heartlessly repressed. The bravery of peaceful protestors in the face of military force, including bombings, was remarkable. I watched the persistence of the protests in the face of brutal force with wonder and deep admiration. Violent resistance was an understandable last resort.

But as resistance fighters have replaced peaceful protesters, and as the war has escalated, with the fortunes of each side rising and falling, the nature of the war seems to have fundamentally undermined the ideals of the protest. Islamist true belief seems to have overwhelmed democratic and pluralistic commitment. Sectarian interest, defense and retribution seem to animate the resistance’s actions, no less than the actions of the government forces and the forces of Hezbollah.

I want to believe that out of this mess something less than horrific may result. But by reading the headlines and the debates here in the U.S., I see little that is promising. I am not an expert on Syria or the region, but as I read what the experts have to say, I despair. They don’t point to a way out. Yet without knowing exactly how it would work, I do see some basis of hope in action off the central political and military stage, not captured in headlines or in expert analysis.

Well before the Arab Spring, in May 2010, I read an interesting article in The New York Times about a literary salon in Syria. It reminded me of the kind of alternative cultural activity I first worked on during the communist years in Poland. The significance of the Polish and the Syrian activities was clear to me: the existence of a space apart from the logic of the existing order, where people could speak and act freely changed the nature of the repressive order. This suggests the possibility of a different order, with a changed relationship between power and culture, in my terms “reinventing political culture,” immediately in a small way, and, perhaps, in a big way in the long term. This happened in Poland. I hope it can also happen in Syria. I see some positive signs.

A couple of weeks ago the Polish translator of Reinventing Political Culture, Agata Lisiak, sent me a note about a new Syrian blog, Syria Untold. She knows my perspective as well as I do and she recognized how important this blog could be. It’s an instance of the politics of small things under extreme circumstances, in wartime conditions. It’s an instance of a small group of people working creatively to reinvent political culture. I think it provides a glimpse of a broad range of activities that provides an alternative to despair. It tells the story of an emergent alternative to tragedy in Syria.

The blog is only a couple of months old, but it is already very impressive. Its self-description:

“Syria Untold is an independent digital media project exploring the storytelling of the Syrian struggle and the diverse forms of resistance. We are a team of Syrian writers, journalists, programmers and designers living in the country and abroad trying to highlight the narrative of the Syrian revolution, which Syrian men and women are writing day by day. Through grassroots campaigns, emerging forms of self-management and self-government and endless manifestations of citizen creativity, a new outspoken Syria has emerged, after decades of repression and paralysis. With mainstream media focusing increasingly on geostrategic and military aspects and less on internal dynamics developing on the ground, we believe there are many aspects of the Syrian struggle that remain uncovered, many stories that we would not like to see forgotten. Welcome to the stories of daily resistance and creativity. Welcome to Syria Untold.”

Clearly this is an example of what I call “the politics of small things,” telling the story of other practices of the politics of small things around Syria.

Syria Untold tells the history of the resistance starting before the Arab Spring. It gives day to day descriptions of non-violent opposition around the country. Playful protests are reported, e.g. even Syrian snowmen want freedom. Other “untold stories” include reports on the work of Syrian artists commenting on the course of the Syrian transformation, a beautiful animated cartoon of a tulip overthrowing a tank by the famous artist, Ali Farzat, the work of “The Rebel Painter of Horan,” and the musicians in the city of Duma using the instruments of war to make music.

The emerging alternative media landscape is sketched. The story of the “creative state building” in the city of Raqqa within the chaos of war is told. The deep significance of demonstrations in the small town Bustan al-Qasr (The Palace Orchard) which seek to maintain the ideals of peaceful resistance and self governance after the withdrawal of the Syrian army is revealed:

“As one of the signs from their countless demonstrations highlights, the people of Bustan al-Qasr inisist that ‘in the Syria of the future there will be no revenge but justice, and everyone without distinction will be held accountable for their actions.’”

There is also a report on an independent Internet Radio station reinforcing this theme. The radio declares:

“We believe that our problem is that we don’t listen to each other. Our message isn’t aimed at any one group over others, rather we try to reach every Syrian heart and especially those of the so called ‘silent majority.’”

Syria Untold is published both in Arabic and English. I don’t know for sure, but I imagine that the Arabic version is even more impressive, as the stories of an alternative to the tragedy is enacted and reported. I don’t know how consequential beyond its immediate creators and audience it will be. But I do know that Syria is different because such a project exists. And I do see an alternative to a tragic end is visible in its actions: grounds for hope.

President Barack Obama gave a powerful speech today, one of his best. The president was again eloquent, but there is concern here in the U.S. and also abroad in the Arab world, that eloquence is not enough, that it may in fact be more of the problem than the solution. The fine words don’t seem to have substance in Egypt, according to a report in The Washington Post. There appears to be a global concern that Obama’s talk is cheap. Obama’s “Cairo Speech” all over again, one Egyptian declared. Now is the time for decisive action. Now is the time for the President of the United States to put up or shut up. (Of course, what exactly is to be put up is another matter.)

This reminds me of another powerful writer-speaker, President Vaclav Havel. Havel is the other president in my lifetime that I have deeply admired. Both he and Obama are wonderful writers and principled politicians, both have been criticized for the distance between their rhetorical talents and their effectiveness in realizing their principles.

Agreeing with the criticisms of Havel, I sometimes joke about my developing assessment of him. I first knew about Vaclav Havel as a bohemian, as a very interesting absurdist playwright. I wrote my dissertation about Polish theater when this was still his primary occupation, and I avidly read his work then as I tried to understand why theater played such an important role in the opposition to Communism in Central Europe.

I then came to know him as one of the greatest political essayists and dissidents of the twentieth century. At the theoretical core of two of my books, Beyond Glasnost: The Post Totalitarian Mind and The Politics of Small Things: The Power of the Powerless in Dark Times are the ideas to be found in Havel’s greatest essay, “The Power of the Powerless.”

However, as president, Havel was not so accomplished. He presided over the breakup of Czechoslovakia, a development he opposed passionately, but ineffectually. He sometimes seemed to think that he could right a political problem by writing a telling essay, often translated and published in The New York Review of Books. He expressed a moral high ground in these essays, but he did not address the tough and messy side of politics. This is a real weakness of the intellectual as politician, the temptation to think if one can put a solution into words, one has solved a problem.

Does this problem apply to Obama, specifically to his speech today? Many on both the left and the right have heard enough of his speeches. They want action.

I watched a PBS News Hour discussion last night in anticipation of the speech today, and this was the consensus of the expert observers. Therefore, I think it is significant how much of this speech pointed in the direction of specific policy developments. Yet, they were placed in a broader historical and moral context. And the words were important. They did politics. They acted. They were speech acts in Austin’s sense.

I was particularly moved by the way the president told the story of the Arab Spring. He gave it great significance. He alluded to the killing of bin Laden, but didn’t dwell on it. He started with the politics of small things and pointed to civilizational transformation.

“On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week — until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.”

The president maintained that this power as it spread throughout the Arab world can no longer be easily repressed, and he expressed a conviction that given the media world we now live in the protestors’ “voices tell us that change cannot be denied.”

But that was it for the moving rhetoric. Obama then turned sober and practical. “The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.” And he described what might very well become known as the Obama Doctrine.

“The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. (Applause.)

The U.S. supports a set of universal rights. These rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.”

This all sounds quite good, but perhaps empty, as some have maintained. However, the substance of the matter is in the details. It is noteworthy that when the president referred to the importance of universal rights he mentioned not only easy targets, but also Sanaa, increasing the pressure on Ali Abdullah Saleh, our ally in “the war on terrorism” to resign. And later when he criticized regimes that violently repress their citizenry for engaging in peaceful protests, he included not only Libya, Syria and Iran, but also the important American ally Bahrain.

“Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will – and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.”

He spoke to the people and not only to the rulers of the region. He understood that the problem was not only political, but also economic, offering assistance and engagement in economic development as it addresses the needs of ordinary people. Moreover, he promised to listen to diverse voices coming from the region.

“We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.”

He gave a forceful commitment to support religious minorities and strong support to the centrality of women’s rights.

“History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama was careful but took a strong position. There was a little to warm the heart of those on both sides, but also much that would concern both.

Obama made news and earned the wrath of his domestic opposition by declaring, “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” This earned him an immediate protest by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But he also expressed concerns about the recent Hamas – Fatah agreement and about “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” Thus, the Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri denounced the speech completely.

To my mind, Obama was not tough enough on Netanyahu, but he did move forward. Clearly, something other than complete support for the Israeli right’s position is necessary, contrary to Obama’s hysterical Republican critics. Obama advanced the U.S. position a bit. He said the obvious. The future border between Palestine and Israel will be based on the ’67 borders with negotiated adjustments. That has been the implicit assumption of the peace process for decades. Saying it bluntly, as President Obama did, provides some grounds for progress, suggesting a real response to the Arab Spring.

In his speech this morning, the president gave an account of a rapidly changing political landscape, showing an appreciation of the dynamics driving it and presenting a role for the U.S. to play. It was a broad and impressive depiction of our changing political world. He revealed an understanding of the role of the U.S. in this changing world, and he started playing the role when he turned to the all-important details. He staked out a position.

We will get a sense of how full or empty his rhetoric was today, when he meets Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow.

There was an interesting article in The New York Times last Sunday about a poetry salon in Damascus, Syria.  It reminded me of the theater movement I studied in Poland in the 1970s.  Both the theater movement and the poetry salon are examples of constituted free zones in repressive societies.  I think they demonstrate the possibility of re-inventing political culture, the possibility of reformulating the relationship between the culture of power and the power of culture.

The secret police are present at Bayt al-Qasid, the House of Poetry, in Damascus today, The Times reports, but it is also a place where innovative poetry is read, including by poets in exile, politically daring ideas are discussed, a world of alternative sensibility is created.  Not the star poets of the sixties, but young unknowns predominate.  The point is not political agitation nor to showcase celebrity, but the creation of a special place for reading, performance and discussion of the new and challenging.  The article quotes a patron about a recent reading.  “‘In a culture that loathes dialogue,’ the evening represented something different, said Mr. Sawah, the editor of a poetry Web site. ‘What is tackled here,’ he said, ‘would never be approached elsewhere.’”

Cynics would say that the Polish theater and the Syrian salon are safety valve mechanism, through which the young and the marginal can let off steam, as a repressive political culture prevails.  But in Poland, the safety valve overturned the official culture, even before the collapse of the Communist regime, as I explained in my book Beyond Glasnost: the Post Totalitarian Mind.

I don’t want to assert that this happy ending is always the result of such cultural work.  Clearly, it’s not.  But I do want to underscore that the very existence of an alternative sensibility in a repressive context changes the nature of the social order.  Poland was not simply a repressive country then, and Syria is not simply repressive now.  They are places where the possibility for dialogue was established, places where poetry can prevail, and because of this, political culture can be reinvented – in Syria, at least for a discrete number of people in a particular location at a particular time.  But the limits of today may be very different tomorrow.  This I learned as I observed my Polish friends.