Author: Martin Kramer

Assigning Ivory Towers

On By Martin Kramer

I’ve already given a couple of recent examples of how my book Ivory Towers on Sand is assigned in university courses. Here are two more.

The first is from a Georgetown course offered last fall, called “The Middle East and the Political Economy of Development,” taught by Stephen J. King. (He’s author of a book on economic reform in Tunisia.) King assigned one chapter of the book (“Islam Obscured”), along with critical reviews by Greg Gause and Rex Brynen. Syllabus here (pdf).

The second is from a graduate course at Georgia State University, called “Politics of the Middle East and North Africa.” It’s taught by Michael Herb, author of a book on Middle Eastern monarchies. Herb assigned the entire book, along with the Gause review and the introduction to Edward Said’s Orientalism. The syllabus also sends students to my website, as well as the websites of Juan Cole and Campus Watch. Syllabus here.

Again, I’ve no idea how Ivory Towers is taught in these classes, but the main point is that it’s being taught. Are you teaching the book? Drop me a line, and I might mention your course here.

A policy toward Shiism?

On By Martin Kramer

Back in October, I made a presentation at the annual fall conference of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on a panel entitled “Shiites and U.S. Policy: Between Allies and Adversaries.” I’ve been sent the proofs of my remarks for publication, and they look clean, so I’m posting them here. My main argument: two discourses are competing for Shiite allegiance, democracy and resistance. Read on.

If you want more basic information on the location of Shiites in the Middle East, consult this interactive map. And I admire this article by Vali Nasr, on regional implications of the Shiite revival in Iraq.

Why Harvard isn’t Columbia

On By Martin Kramer

Today’s Harvard Crimson runs an article on the crisis at Columbia. There isn’t much new there, except at the end, where the reporter asks a Harvard professor of Middle Eastern history, Roger Owen, why Harvard isn’t plagued with a similiar problem. Owen’s reply: “Columbia, being in New York, gets invaded by the ideologies of the city itself. The Arab-Israeli dispute, which is hot in New York, tends to be represented on campus in a much more direct way than it would be on the Harvard campus.”

Owen has the order of things wrong. Columbia was invaded not by the “ideologies of the city” (to my ear, a suspect phrase). It was invaded, conquered, and occupied by the ideologies of radical third worldism and Arab-Palestinian nationalism, sometimes borne directly to it from the Middle East. The reason Harvard doesn’t have a comparable problem (at least not yet) is because the administration has pretty much blocked the development of the modern Middle Eastern field. Why? Perhaps it doesn’t particularly trust Owen and his colleagues to bring in the right people.

Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversity, which it marked by publishing a slick 200-page celebration of the Center’s history and ideas for its future. Many of the contributors to the volume complained that the university has avoided authorizing appointments. (“The primary weakness in the study of Middle East politics at Harvard,” wrote one contributor, is “the failure to make senior appointments in Middle East politics.”) But Harvard doesn’t need a Columbia-style train wreck, and if the Columbia disaster hasn’t resonated at Harvard, it means that prudence has paid off. Until Owen and friends acknowledge that the field has an internal problem, and propose a strategy to circumvent it they’ve done neither there’s no reason for the university to change course. Roger, over and out.