When revolutions erupt, the most crucial battleground is rarely the street corner or the presidential palace; it is the anxious mind of the middle class.
Revolutions demand extraordinary sacrifices, yet the comfortable majority often responds with persistent skepticism. In her seminal study, Authoritarian Apprehensions: Ideology, Judgment, and Mourning in Syria, Lisa Wedeen, a political theorist operating at the fertile boundary of political anthropology, offers a piercing inquiry into this phenomenon.
Why, when the intoxicating euphoria of 2011 yielded to atrocious violence, did a substantial portion of Syrian society remain stubbornly neutral toward Bashar al-Assad?
Professor Wedeen resists the conventional explanations favored by political scientists. She dismisses the notion that this silent majority was driven merely by narrow economic self-interest, raw sectarian allegiance, state propaganda, or terror of repression. Instead, she argues that the passivity of this pivotal constituency—whose support might have altered history—stems from the subtle ways ideology operates through emotion, and the rhythm of daily life.
Her analysis begins with the regime's economic pivot. Having shed its austere, Soviet-style apparatus, Syria embraced neoliberal modernization. Malls sprouted, specialty coffee flourished, and a vibrant consumer lifestyle took hold in urban centers.
Traditional state structures anchored in peasant unions were quietly supplanted by non-governmental programs promoting youth entrepreneurship and microcredit, often curated by the glamorous First Lady, Asma al-Akhras. Yet Wedeen contends that the middle class was not merely bought off by imported goods and financial promises.
Rather, neoliberalism subtly reshaped the very architecture of their emotional attachments. Their aspirations for an Aristotelian "good life" became inextricably linked with the existing order. Against this backdrop, taking the terrifying leap into revolutionary commitment felt like an emotional impossibility. Cruelly, reformist optimism became revolutionary paralysis.
This inertia was reinforced by what Wedeen terms an "economy of uncertainty." The Assad regime cultivated a murky information environment saturated with state falsehoods and political mythmaking, rendering objective truth frustratingly elusive.
Consider the murder of Ibrahim Qashoush, the young man credited with composing seditious revolutionary chants. While the opposition blamed regime death squads, state television broadcast a contradictory narrative…Qashoush was a government informant assassinated by rebels.
Faced with staged judicial proceedings and coerced confessions, citizens were plunged into moral ambiguity. Manufactured confusion did not merely blunt public outrage; it induced debilitating hesitation among potential dissidents.
Whispers of sectarian violence, cultivated by historical rivalries and exploited by state strategists, further deepened pervasive paranoia. The silent majority possessed ample information to recognize regime cruelty, yet found just enough ambiguity to justify neutrality.
Wedeen also turns to cultural production, examining television satire and revolutionary puppetry, such as Top Goon by Masasit Mati. Humor functioned as both a weapon of liberation and a shield of self-preservation, allowing citizens to maintain a comfortable distance from dangerous politics. Analyzing cinema by Khaled Abdulwahed, Ziad Kalthoum, and Ossama Mohammed, Wedeen reveals how grief complicates the formation of political judgment and solidarity.
Borrowing Hannah Arendt’s concept of "world-making," Wedeen treats these artists not as mere informants supplying ethnographic data, but as political theorists shaping discourse. At the theoretical core of her argument lies a psychological mechanism known as fetishistic disavowal… "I know very well, but nevertheless..."
The fact is, Middle-class ambivalence was not born of ignorance or gullibility. It was a conscious, partially acknowledged self-deception in which citizens recognized regime atrocities yet avoided the inconvenient political consequences. Ideology operates through seduction. It ignites imagination while paralyzing action, smoothing over glaring contradictions to manage collective anxiety and disavowing structural violence. It is also a way of displacing acute political trauma.
Crucially, Wedeen elevates "mourning" to a central political and ethical imperative. Following revolutionary failure, sharper analytical strategy is needed as much as the courage to grieve lost lives authentically. This failure is not exclusive to one faction; it represents a shared collective collapse.
Within this difficult work of mourning lies a fragile wedge of hope…a commitment to world-making amidst catastrophe. This intellectual framework offers a striking lens through which to examine post-revolutionary Bangladesh.
In the aftermath of the July mass uprising, a palpable atmosphere of "cautious unease" has settled over the urban middle class in Dhaka.
This sentiment is neither open counter-revolution nor unreserved enthusiasm, but a calculated distance. Dhaka's bourgeoisie does not deny July's bloodshed or sacrifices; many acknowledge the uprising's moral legitimacy. Yet, confronted with economic volatility and political disorder, they maintain cautious detachment.
Having grown accustomed under the previous regime to an image of stability and normal life, they remain quietly attached to that order. In Wedeen’s terms, this is not a conscious political betrayal, but an affective habit formed around the desire for a good life—an emotional disposition cultivated over years that cannot vanish overnight. This unease is further sustained by uncertainty.
In post-July Bangladesh, conflicting narratives and social-media campaigns swirl around key events, generating competing claims to truth. In this fractured environment, many middle-class citizens retreat into a convenient zone of agnosticism. Claiming that "we do not know the full truth" becomes a comfortable rationalization for political indecision.
This mirrors fetishistic disavowal: a partially acknowledged self-deception that blunts moral outrage and preserves political inertia. Crucial distinctions remain, of course. Syrian silence existed under an entrenched state waging war on its people; Bangladeshi unease responds to a society oscillating between a fallen dictatorship and an unknown future.
Yet the core similarity is striking. In both contexts, political positioning is not a pure matter of rational calculation or available information; it is deeply entangled with emotion and desire. There is rarely a direct, logical line between what people know and how they act.
Instead, fear, exhaustion, and uncertainty combine to produce a cautious, calculated silence. The final message of Wedeen’s work thus speaks powerfully to Bangladesh’s post-revolutionary moment.
Honoring July’s sacrifices requires more than institutional analysis or partisan rivalry; it demands completing the painful work of mourning. Middle-class hesitation must not be dismissed as mere betrayal, but understood through its emotional logic. In this intermediate, delicate space, revolutionary change survives or falls apart.
—
The author is a PhD Candidate in Anthropology at UC Irvine, USA