في حنايا النفس زوايا أرحب

Once, I wrote an article titled "The Fall of the Fall," and writings generally do not withstand the test of time, especially journalistic writing; it is consumable writing that appears and disappears according to what is stirring in societies. Because reality is ever-changing, journalistic articles respond to the daily fluctuations, and there is no journalistic article that has managed to endure for a year or two, especially if it is a commentary on a fleeting event. Let's take a step to change the perspective in this article.

Philosophers (throughout the ages) have considered the public to be those who adopt simple thinking, forming a mechanism or pump to transfer soft narratives without scrutiny. They are often a good medium for conveying accusations and rumors. This consideration was built on what philosophers find in the mistreatment of their ideas when relying on the public to combat any philosophical idea that contradicts or opposes the prevailing norms.

In past eras, philosophers or proponents of enlightened thought were persecuted and accused of being heretical innovators and purveyors of corrupt visions. The public diligently transmits these accusations and encourages the rejection of any new idea or a scientist who transforms the abstract into the concrete, or a thinker who stands in opposition to old ideas. Indeed, a group of (the hearers) or those who transmit by hearsay sow what they hear in the corners of the earth, and they do not care to examine what they hear or say, whether it is good or bad.

In light of the belief that those with sound opinions are the ones who set the rules of what is more likely and less likely, it has become customary to consider the public as the disease, and several terms have been coined for these people: the rabble, the mob, the dregs of society. Yet, people did not retreat or submit; instead, they rose up, eager to exchange insults with thinkers.

The public said that thinkers are merely people out of touch with the times, having nothing but the pouring of words... pouring words that are not understood. Here, both judgments fall short since each has taken generalization as a path, and generalization often contradicts the truth.

In a later time, the term "elite" emerged, referring to those with sound opinions among philosophers, thinkers, intellectuals, and writers. The emergence of the term "elite" was closely associated with a small group of individuals who dominated social life and had a more effective ability to influence and change than others.

It also happened that this term (elite) was appropriated by its owners, becoming attached to writers and thinkers, while the rest of the populace was considered general (out of shame to say they are rabble), and thus the term "elite" was also applied to various categories, such as political elite, economic elite, social elite, etc.!

These cultural tensions are not a product of the present; rather, they are renewed according to the era, its events, and the ideas produced by the minds of wise men or philosophers who do not appear in the picture but are at the forefront of the frame.

When Gustave Le Bon, the French social psychologist (May 7, 1841 - December 13, 1931), wrote his book "The Psychology of Crowds," it was translated into Arabic by the thinker Hashim Saleh.

This book is considered by scholars to be the main pillar for judging peoples or crowds as an acknowledged classification, especially after the emergence of social psychology. It is evident that (Le Bon) judged his time based on the circumstances of that era, and one cannot consider the psychological psychology of crowds as a fixed psychology; the changes are immense, and the tools of the time have undergone fundamental changes. People now live in one room; does this mean unifying the opinions of the public? Certainly not. However, what distinguishes the present time in the age of social media is that it has undermined the term elite. Did the public triumph over those minds that consider themselves the drivers of societies?

Returning to the beginning, journalistic articles do not last long, and in light of the last question, I find it bold to say that the public cannot pilot a spacecraft with the reins of camels...

And there are still words within the depths of the soul that need a broader space.