BY: Hana Saada
ALGIERS- In a thought-provoking stance that embodies his self-established identity as both neocolonized and neo-indigenous, journalist and author Kamel Daoud has once again stirred the pot by speaking out against the decision to ban the highly controversial film, “Barbie.” Daoud’s viewpoint, however, has drawn sharp criticism for overlooking his own past affiliations with Islamists during a period marred by obscurantism and terrorism.
Exploring the Layers of Critique, Selective Memory, and Societal Responsibility
Daoud’s criticism comes across as somewhat selective, given his amnesia about his own history, notably his 2019 conviction for domestic violence against his former wife – a behavior reminiscent of the very obscurantists he currently condemns. While championing social change and progressive values, he must also reconcile with his own actions that fall short of the ideals he promotes.
Turning to the heart of the matter, the ban on “Barbie” is not a decision taken lightly. The film’s content clashes with deeply rooted Algerian values that stand in stark contrast to the narratives propagated by neoliberalism and the open society of globalization. It raises pertinent questions about cultural preservation and the potential erosion of traditional norms in the face of external influences.
Daoud’s narrative portrays him as a hostage to his neo-colonial profile, as depicted in the work of Algerian author Ahmed Bensaada in his book “Kamel Daoud: Cologne Counter-Investigation.” This perspective casts Daoud’s ongoing critique of Algerian society as a curious contradiction, where he both challenges and distances himself from his own roots, seemingly betraying an environment that should be close to his heart.
A notable aspect of Daoud’s activism lies in his silence on pressing issues within French society, where a rising tide of violence and societal unrest challenges the very “civilization” he holds in high regard. Critics question why he refrains from addressing the increasing curtailment of freedom of expression by heavy-handed police tactics, notably the use of batons and less-lethal weapons.
It’s possible that Daoud’s calculated avoidance of addressing these issues stems from a fear of losing the privileges bestowed upon him, including his nationality, as a result of his fervent criticisms aimed at his country of origin. This raises concerns about the sincerity of his intentions and whether his stance against “Barbie” is truly driven by an altruistic desire for societal improvement or if it’s a calculated effort to secure his personal standing.
In the end, Kamel Daoud’s defense of “Barbie” serves as a thought-provoking case study in the complexities of identity, cultural preservation, and personal accountability. As his words continue to resonate across various platforms, it’s crucial to examine the motivations and context behind his stance, shedding light on the intricate interplay between personal beliefs, public perception, and the complex tapestry of modern society.
