Iconoclasm, Iconophobia, Iconophilism and Iconodules

This section discusses iconoclasm, iconophobia, iconophilism and iconodules in relation to this study. Mitchell (2015:27) defines iconoclasm as: “The effort to destroy images, usually for political and religious reasons.” Iconoclasm is a very ancient phenomenon and scholars such as Mitchell (2015) trace it back to the Bible’s Old Testament narrative where the Israelites’

Golden Calf was destroyed in a bid to roll back idolatry and debauchery: “And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it,” reads Exodus 32 Vs. 20 (The Holy Bible, New International Version). In fact, before the Golden Calf iconoclasm scenario in Exodus 32, the Israelites had been strongly and clearly warned against making any graven images in Exodus 20 Vs. 4 of the same books: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth,” reads one of the Ten Commandments.

Another classic example of ancient iconoclasm is the popular iconoclastic controversy in Byzantium which is alluded to by scholars such as Kastner (1980), Crone (1998), Freedberg (1990) and May (2012). The iconoclasm in question, which is chronicled in a fine-grained fashion by Kastner (1980:140-144), occurred in two distinct phases: 726-780 c.e. and 814-843 c.e. The first phase was characterized by the famous decree to abolish icons by Emperor Leo III in 726. Four years later, the 726 decree was followed by another which paved way for the actual destruction of icons. Thereafter, violence broke out between the iconoclasts (destroyers of icons) and the iconodules (venerators of icons). Iconoclasm in Byzantium stopped when Empress Irene ascended to the throne in 780. However, a second and mildly violent phase of iconoclasm in Byzantium emerged under Leo V in 814 and dissipated with the ascension to power of Empress Theodora (an iconodule) in 842. Crone (1998) cites Islam as a catalyst in terms of triggering iconoclasm in Byzantium.

Apart from the Byzantium iconoclasm classic example, Freedberg (1990) observes that post Byzantium Europe’s iconoclasm especially in the Reformation in countries like England, France and Germany remain a neglected phenomenon. In recent years, outside Europe, religious fundamentalist and extremist groups like the Islamic State have been destroying religious and political symbols and icons in Iraq and Syria (The New York Times, 2016, January 20). Terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab are also associated with acts of iconoclasm especially in Nigeria and Somalia respectively. In what fits neatly into iconoclasm, islamophobic and right-wing extremist groups in the US have been accused of vandalising mosques and other Islamic symbols (The Washington Post, 2017, August 8). Also, Mitchell (2006) alerts us to the fact that the extremist Taliban fighters became notorious for the destruction of sacred Buddhist icons in Afghanistan. In a bid to “decolonise” the University of Cape Town and other public spaces in South Africa, students under the banner of the

#RhodesMustFall movement, toppled the statue of the late imperialist Cecil John Rhodes in 2015. Thus, iconoclasm remains a notable phenomenon even in the 21^st century.

Acts of iconoclasm are not only limited to images but also to verbal and textual discourses. By the same token, Mitchell (2015:32) posits that iconoclasm is not just the destruction of graven images but also the purging of words and ideas to arrive at a purified language. In this regard, one can say that even censorship of the press for political and religious gain could be classified as an act of iconoclasm. As it shall be revealed in chapter six of this thesis, in Zimbabwe, at the height of the land reform programme in the early 2000s most foreign and independent

media houses were banned in the country (Willem, 2011). Some copies of newspapers critical of the government were destroyed on the streets by the ruling party’s (ZANU PF) fanatics and supporters. Probably, the worst case was the bombing of the Daily News premises by suspected state security agents in 2001 (BBC News, 2001, January 28). Such acts of destruction of newspapers, images, cameras and censorship amount to what Mitchell’s (2015:32) terms the

“purging of words and ideas to arrive at a purified language” and fits neatly into the iconoclasm grid.

In a lecture, and citing the image of the Taliban fighters during the destruction of Buddhist sacred statues in 2001, Mitchell (2006) alerts us to the perspective that iconoclasm is always double: it destroys an image but at the same time creates one, hence, “The destruction of an image is also the production of an image” (Mitchell, 2006). Therefore, iconoclasm is not only about destroying things but about producing an image of destruction as an ominous warning to those who are concerned about the image being destroyed. The image of the bombing of the Daily News printing premises in Zimbabwe in 2001 is a text book example of how an image from an act of iconoclasm was used by the bombers as a warning to the private media and other media houses deemed “hostile” to the government. Accordingly, Mitchell (2006) observes that:

“Iconoclasm is not to be a private act; the image of the destruction itself has to be seen to create an impact.” The images of the bombing of the World Trade Centre during the 9/11 attacks is also another classic example of how the destruction of an image created another image which also served the purpose of instilling “terror” in the US and the broader Western world.

It is also important to note that acts of iconoclasm lead to reincarnation of the destroyed images.

Therefore, Michael Taussig argues that iconoclasm (the destruction or suppression of images) is a sure way of guaranteeing them an even more potent presence in memory, or as reincarnated in new forms, hence, the fundamental law of the physics of the image is that images cannot be destroyed (Mitchell, 2015:32). As this research will later reveal, acts of iconoclasm (persecution of journalists, destruction of their cameras and images, mutilation of newspapers etc) by the state in Zimbabwe led to more media attention and the production of more documentaries (and images) about the political and economic crisis in the country (Willems, 2011:94). This is arguably an example of how difficult it is to suppress visual and verbal images even through brazen acts of iconoclasm.

Apart from the antagonistic iconoclastic and iconodule leaning camps, there are also two other opposed camps that feature prominently in iconology and visual culture in general: the iconophobes and the iconophiles. Mitchell (1986:3) posits that: “Iconology turned out to be, not just the science of icons, but the political psychology of icons, the study of iconophobia, iconophilia, and the struggle between iconoclasm and idolatry.” Also, iconoclasm cannot be discussed in isolation from iconopobia and iconophilia. Mitchell (2015) also suggests that image science should address iconoclastic and iconophile camps. Since iconoclasm has been addressed above, it is befitting to turn to iconophobia and iconophilia.

Iconophobia, which generally refers to the repugnance of icons and images, operates hand in glove with iconoclasm: iconophobia leads to iconoclasm. Larsson (2012) posits that:

If iconophobia is defined as the suspicion and anxiety towards the power exerted by images, its history is an ancient one in all of its Platonic, Christian, and Judaic forms. At its most radical, iconophobia results in an act of iconoclasm, or the total destruction of the image. At the other end of the spectrum, contemporary iconophobia may be more subtle. Images are simply withdrawn from circulation with the aim of eliminating their visibility.

Three critical points protrude from the above quotation: (1) iconophobia causes suspicion and anxiety about images; (2) iconophobia is a “highway” that leads to iconoclasm; and (3) modern forms of iconophobia are subtle and include withdrawal of images from circulation (censorship) in a bid to eliminate their visibility. In the context of Zimbabwe, one can say that the government was anxious and suspicious about the images under study, hence, the resort to eliminating such images especially from the state media. Oftentimes, the state in Zimbabwe behaved in an iconophobic and iconoclastic fashion. Even iconoclastic acts by the state (e.g., bombing of the Daily News premises, destruction of journalists’ cameras and images) can be traced back to iconophobia as the chief source which waters iconoclasm. Therefore, all the cases of iconoclasm discussed in this chapter are deeply rooted in iconophobia.

On the other hand, iconophilia is directly the opposite of iconophobia. The Thesaurus Dictionary defines an iconophile as: “one who loves icons, illustrations, pictures” as opposed to one who hates and is anxious about icons and pictures (iconophobe). Moreover, iconoclasm and iconophilism are related albeit in a contrary and antagonistic fashion, hence, Lendon (2016) observes that: “Iconoclasm may be defined either as what attacks idolatry or as what destroys iconophilia, two very different goals...the iconoclast dreams of an unmediated access to truth, of a complete absence of images.” Accordingly, one can say that iconoclasm is the anti-thesis of iconophilism. Iconophilia is intimately related with the idea of an iconodule (one who

reveres images and can take extreme measures to protect them). Therefore, when it comes to the love and disdain of images, there are two opposed and antagonistic camps and dialectics:

iconoclasts and iconophobes on one hand and iconophiles and iconodules on the other. The emergence of the camps mentioned above in Zimbabwe’s Crisis is discussed in chapter six of this thesis. The following section discusses the CNN effect.