Narrative and the perception of the value of life: a vision of the "Other" between the shores of the Mediterranean

Insight by Pasquale Porciello

Carl Gustav Jung, a colleague and admirer of Freud, soon distanced himself from the Viennese theorist. Freud, according to Jung, reduced every human experience to sexual drive. For Jung, this was a symptom of obsessive sexuality, which made Freud unable to give due importance to other equally significant drives. With Freud, sexuality became all-encompassing, an idea to which the entire world had to conform. Jung gave shape to the "explosion of all psychic contents that could not find a place within the oppressive confines of Freudian psychology and its worldview," considering psychic energy as something that changes throughout different phases and moments of life—an energy influenced by multiple forces, not just one.

The 20th century in the West, which favored Freud's approach over Jung's, often adopted a simplified, binary, and dualistic perspective. This gave rise to ideological, polarized, and polarizing views. These, even when based on brilliant insights like those of the father of psychology, tend to make reality one-sided. Systematic physiological change in content does not always guarantee a change in the oppositional and exclusionary approach.

Where do language, narrative, and perception fit into all of this? The war that began in the Middle East on October 7, 2023, serves as an interesting example of how an ideological approach and language can become key elements in understanding certain manipulative dynamics of discourse.

The impact that language has on the perception and creation of reality is the subject of modern neuroscience studies. However, as early as his Tractatus, Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein stated that "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world." A polarized language is the necessary condition and vehicle of a polarized vision.

Nadda Oddman, writing for Middle East Eye, reviews the language used by Western media (particularly in the U.S.) to describe the war in Gaza and highlights how the tone changes when it comes to describing Palestinians. Oddman identifies three categories: dehumanization, the use of vague language, and the use of inaccurate terminology.

What emerges is a West that looks at the East, yet continues to see the West, perpetuating orientalist and colonial patterns. The issue between Israel and Palestine, and Israel and Middle Eastern countries, is also one of colonialism and post-colonialism, as well as the narrative and language associated with them.

Israel is an associate member of the European Union and, in the collective imagination, is considered part of the West. Its history is perceived as deeply connected to Western sensibilities, and therefore, narratives—whether instrumentalized or not—tend to privilege the Israeli perspective, which is seen as somewhat "internal" by default.

In the case of the war in Lebanon, for example, Israel's critical actions only became evident through strong language when Israel attacked UNIFIL; reactions that had not surfaced after a year of war and massacres in Gaza, particularly during the last escalation in Lebanon. The imbalance is clear. But in this case, it is the West attacking the West, and the discourse around Israel changes its tone.

The media narrative following the Israeli attacks on UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and the unusual reactions from the Meloni government—the Defense Minister Guido Crosetto spoke of "war crimes"—highlight a central issue: how the practical application of the value of life changes depending on whether the discourse takes place within a West-to-West framework or a West-to-non-West one. And here lies the entire issue of the West's colonial view.

Continuing with the example of Lebanon, the narrative around Hezbollah is similarly simplified. It is instead worth broadening the discussion to account for some of the dynamics driving this militia-party. Hezbollah is a hegemonic, counter-hegemonic force that emerged in 1982 following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon during the 1975-1990 civil war. It strengthened the Shia community in Lebanon and assumed the role of a military, political, and cultural bulwark against U.S. and Israeli power in the region, with resistance—or muqawama—being the ideological cornerstone upon which the "Party of God" is founded. It operates as a state within a state, providing its own social and welfare services, and maintaining a hegemonic management of the community. All of this takes place within a multicentric Lebanese power system marked by corruption and family-communal management of politics and related affairs, in which Hezbollah has been and continues to be an integral part, being a full-fledged political party. It has always had both strong detractors and strong supporters, both within and outside Lebanon.

It is equally evident how such a complex and controversial phenomenon from a historical, political, social, and cultural perspective like Hezbollah is perceived in a much more simplified and one-sided manner. Western narratives about this war in the Middle East are thus aligned with a unilateral and ideological view that favors Israel and provides few elements to understand its nature. As early as January, a report by The Intercept revealed how U.S. media coverage of the war in the Middle East "heavily favored" Israel.

Once the dynamics, various levels of action and interaction are lost, and once phenomena are isolated without the need to understand contexts, places, languages, and times, there is a risk of stripping them of their original meaning and filling them with a meaning they do not have. It is important to avoid, unlike what Freud did, forcing every manifestation of reality into a predetermined frame of meaning.

Instead, careful attention to narrative is necessary, using precise and appropriate terminology and considering, even though no discourse can be fully exhausted in a single intervention, the underlying complexity of this part of the world and a commitment to taking it into account. Rationalizing and giving space not so much to counter-hegemonic arguments, running the risk of getting stuck in yet another oppositional linguistic framework, but beginning to break free from oversimplification. Choosing a less unilateral, less absolutist approach, one more open to a multidimensional structure in which facts and stories require careful contextualization.

In short, the history unfolding on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, right before our eyes yet slightly out of focus, presents us with a structural problem of self-perception and perception of the "other." Along with it, it also offers the opportunity to reflect on the valid approaches to escape the "oppressive confines" of thought, into which language manipulations try to push us.