By Spahic Omer
Bohemianism means to live a free and somewhat dissipated life, despising conventionalities and having little regard for social standards.
The word was first derived from French bohemien, which means “a gypsy”. It implied the unconventional lifestyle of the Romani people (gypsies). A bohemian was “a gypsy of society” (www.etymonline.com).
As an idea and lifestyle, bohemianism promotes nonconformity and eccentricity. It involves major life segments, such as spirituality, morality, music, art, fashion and literature.
Bohemians live alternative lifestyles, which are powered by their strong imagination rooted in peculiar beliefs and values. They are an intelligent and creative lot, too.
They are fond of isolating themselves, both physically and emotionally, from the rest of society’s conventional circles, creating their own often utopian realms. Permanent and faithful relationships are not their strength. They live in their own paradises.
They tend to form small companies of like-minded individuals, meeting in special and unconventional spaces and practicing as well as advancing their interests.
Ordinary people and their ordinary pursuits are seen as banal and tasteless, and so, a source of perennial ennui and predictability.
Whereas the institutionalised norms and rulebooks, woven into the operational systems of life, are perceived as an impediment to the ingenious beauty and finesse.
Their thinking and behavioural patterns are regularly interpreted as degrees of egocentrism. Their unconventionality yet tend to morph into a sentiment of defiance and insubordination.
They wish to influence the masses and to offer alternatives to ordinariness. However, their excesses prevent them from doing so on a large scale. Ordinariness is a rule, exclusivity an exception.
Anti-popular and romantic individualists
Bohemianism is an antithesis of popular art and culture. Bohemians are mavericks and freewheelers.
They are likewise wanderers, adventurers and vagabonds, but not in the narrow sense of the terms, but rather in the wider metaphorical sense. They are nomads and drifters, albeit inside their own materially limited and immaterially infinite, realms.
They ostracise society, and society, in turn, ostracises them. Neither seems to fully understand the other.
While society battles its specific and palpable problems, bohemians have their own abstract and indefinite battles. They are victims of their own preferences and flairs.
They are often purists, seeking perfection in the imperfect world. They are neither here nor there.
They live their lives torn between their excessive idealism and the compelling reality that features all its imperfections. They can neither realise the former, nor get rid of the latter.
That is why many bohemians live solely in order to capture those rare perfect moments in life, trying then to immortalise them in their art, poetry, novels, music, philosophical theorising, etc.
Few succeed in doing so, but those who do quickly become exemplars and sources of inspiration.
To be a bohemian, it follows, is not easy. Rather, it is a punishing experience.
They live on the edge with their backs turned towards this world, and their fronts facing the abyss of abstraction and uncertainty.
Thus, most bohemian lives remain unfulfilled. Happiness and peace are not their specialities. Depression and suicide are common.
For example, Joy Heaton wrote about Vincent van Gogh – a Dutch painter who is among the most famous and most influential figures in the history of Western art and who committed suicide at the age of 37 after suffering from psychotic episodes and delusions:
“The curse and blessing of artists like van Gogh is the ability to see the world in a different light and to pursue that light until all that seems different is recognised as variations of light on a starry, starry night.”
The case of Samiri
Samiri was a follower of Prophet Musa who after the exodus, or departure, from Egypt rebelled against Musa and his religious teachings. He created a golden calf, trying thereby to lead the Children of Israel from monotheism to idolatry.
He did all this while Musa was away on Mount Sinai talking to Almighty God and receiving from Him the Ten Commandments.
When Musa returned, he was understandably incensed. He immediately confronted Samiri: “And what is your case, O Samiri?” (Ta Ha, 95).
Samiri replied: “I saw what they (the people) did not see, so I took a handful (of dust) from the track of the messenger and threw it, and thus did my soul entice me” (Ta Ha, 96).
To this, Musa said: “Then go. And indeed, it is (decreed) for you in (this) life to say ‘No contact’ (‘Touch me not’). And indeed, you have an appointment (in the Hereafter) you will not fail to keep. And look at your ‘god’ to which you remained devoted. We will surely burn it and blow it into the sea with a blast. Your god is only Allah, except for whom there is no deity. He has encompassed all things in knowledge” (Ta Ha, 97-98).
Samiri’s case signifies the origins not merely of the ideology, but as well the practice of bohemianism. That is so due to the following.
First
Samiri was a mutineer. He rebelled against traditions and also Musa as the source of their legitimacy. He looked down on orthodoxies and had no regard whatsoever for religious standards.
He supported a free and dissipated lifestyle, not restricted by any strict procedures of monotheism. Self-indulgence sanctioned by the opacity of polytheism was his goal.
Second
Samiri thought he was above the ordinary people owing to his intelligence, sagacity and overall talents. He professed that he knew what they did not know, and he perceived what they were unaware of.
Hence, what was binding for the masses was not binding for him. He was untouchable and so, qualified to carve out his own world with his own special rules and privileges.
Creating the calf was a symbol of all those beliefs. It was at once a statue and a piece of resourceful (artistic) creation.
It was a confirmation of Samiri’s abilities as well. It was a gateway leading to the new and falsely assuring world of his.
The calf was of gold, which denoted a close relationship between the glitter of the world and the value of immaterial ideas and sensations that Samiri cherished.
Third
Samiri also challenged the establishment of the Children of Israel which was in the form of the prophet-hood, leadership and guidance of Prophets Musa and his brother Harun.
Due to his superiority claims and non-conformist tendencies, he regarded the establishment as an inhibiting force. He defied it and came forward with another “better” alternative.
Fourth
Samiri was all out for unregulated freedom and individualism, premised on spiritual and ethical relativism. Beliefs and values should be individual, together with elitist, constructs.
The existence of the calf was just a decoy. Hedonistic and nihilistic penchants were meant to dominate.
Fifth
Samiri was just fantasising and therefore confusing himself and others. He was sure neither about his purpose nor definitive goals.
Driven by his ego and whims, he only knew that he wanted to elevate himself above the others, including Musa, and misguide the people thereby.
He was a world of contrasts. He wanted popularity and recognition by being anti-popular; he pined for support by being rebellious; and he longed for a direction by being a fugitive from the divine guidance.
Explaining to Musa why and how he did what he had done, Samiri said: “I saw what they (the people) did not see, so I took a handful (of dust) from the track of the messenger and threw it…” (Ta Ha, 96).
Although the commentators of the Qur’an dwell extensively on the potential meaning of this statement, the truth is that Samiri tries to avoid the most pressing issues, i.e., disobeying Musa’s and Harun’s orders, rejecting tawhid (monotheism) and embracing idolatry, creating the calf as a symbol and instrument of the latter, and cheating as well as misguiding the masses.
He thought he was clever. But actually what he said made no sense whatsoever and was not related at all to the problems at hand. He only demonstrated his shameless effrontery and arrogant waywardness, unmistakably revealing his inner intellectual and spiritual conditions.
The outside was the image of the inside. When hard-pressed, Samiri had nothing concrete to offer. He could only say, further underscoring his inner confusion and chaos: “I saw what they (the people) did not see” and “thus did my soul entice me” (Ta Ha, 96).
Samiri saw most fitting just to withdraw to his cocoon (self) and his own self-concocted world of fantasies.
Those fantasies were so unrealistic and wrong that no expressions could describe them. They were furthermore so eccentric that no worldly standards could match them.
The best thing for him therefore was to beat around the bush and, as indistinguishably, pass all responsibilities to his soul (his inner alleged aptitudes and talents), as if saying: “I just thought that way, and that should be authoritative enough. Since I reside on a higher plane than others, I should not be questioned any further.”
Sixth
Musa knew the crux of the matter, but gave Samiri a chance. Having heard the folly, Musa did not waste his time addressing it as such. He simply said that Samiri should go away: “And indeed, it is (decreed) for you in (this) life to say ‘No contact’ (‘Touch me not’)” (Ta Ha, 97).
The words la misas (‘no contact’ or ‘touch me not’) mean that Samiri will live the rest of his life banished and in total isolation. He will live alienated as much in the wilderness surrounding Mount Sinai as in the wilderness of his mind and soul.
Nobody will “touch” him and he will not “touch” anybody, that is to say, there will be no contact whatsoever between him and any other member of society.
This way, Samiri was sentenced to the pain of total loneliness and the curse of eternal social ostracism.
Not only Samiri, but also all of his kind: those who are arrogant, proud, self-deluded, misguided and disobedient, were to become, one way or another, social lepers and recluses. Their situation is sometimes self-imposed and at other times imposed by certain factors in society.
According to some accounts, Musa initially intended to kill Samiri, for his crime (treason) had warranted so, but was instructed by God to exile him. The latter was more dreadful and was a more enduring lesson for posterity.
Thus the seeds of bohemianism were sown and Samiri was the first envoi of its rather extreme form. He suffered for his purported extraordinary “capacities” and “gifts” and for the ways he (mis)used them.
At any rate, as a final point, only with a combination of the revealed guidance and human reason, assigning to the former the primary and to the latter the secondary role, can man succeed in his existential undertakings without committing any excesses. All other options are either incomplete or outright misleading.***