In my very first book, Islam Assembled (1986), I devoted a chapter to the (unsuccessful) efforts of the Crimean Tatar reformer, Ismail Bey Gaspirali, to convene a pan-Islamic congress in Cairo in 1907. Now that chapter has been translated into Turkish and included in a huge collected volume on Gaspirali, published in Ankara by the Association of Crimean Turks for Culture and Mutual Aid. I’m flattered to have been included. And this gives me the opportunity to note that if you’re on a campus, you can read Islam Assembled online, via the History E-Book Project of the American Council of Learned Societies. (Yeah, I know. I should have stuck to that stuff.)
Author: Martin Kramer
Orientalism and the Jews
Back in 1996, to honor Bernard Lewis on his 80th birthday, I organized a conference. The proceedings appeared as a book, The Jewish Discovery of Islam. Now there appears a new book, Orientalism and the Jews, edited by Ivan Kalmar and Derek Penslar, who develop other aspects of the subject. (Jacket blurb here.) It’s got some interesting pieces, but a few of the contributors are firmly in the orbit of Edward Said. I’ll grant them this: just as an Arab can be an anti-Semite (even though he’s a putative Semite), a Jew can be an (anti-Arab) orientalist (even though he’s a putative oriental). But the notion that Zionism in toto is just a variety of orientalism is riddled with contradictions, because Zionism is contradictory, simultaneously embracing (and repelling) East and West. There isn’t any room for such ambivalence in Said’s us-and-them framework, which is just one of its many flaws. Why anyone would still want to operate in such an intellectual straightjacket should be a mystery. But fashion slavery in academe has its rewards, and some of these authors are sure to collect them. (You can read the intro to the book here.)
Mideast studies in a “sorry state”
Over the break, Gilles Kepel, the French Arabist, published a Tocquevillian opinion piece on Middle Eastern studies in America, in the Financial Times. Kepel, who recently traversed America on a book tour, stakes out a position between the rival camps—but not exactly in between.
Kepel writes of how the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), once “the central forum for intellectual debates in the field… is now a shadow of what it was. Debate takes place instead inside think-tanks, which all have agendas, be they political, cultural or religious. They are usually stimulating places, but not for scholarship and pursuit of knowledge.”
During Kepel’s tour, he and I did debate at one of those nefarious think tanks, and it was stimulating. The disappearance of real debate at MESA is the legacy of Edward Said, whose disciples turned the association into a popular front for the liberation of their field. MESA is as despotic as any satrapy in the Middle East; its militant leaders garner standing ovations in plenary sessions that look like political rallies. Kepel has provided important external validation for what he now calls the “sorry state” of Middle Eastern studies in America. Americans should take note.
Addendum: Tim Cavanaugh at Hit and Run wonders how I could endorse the views of Gilles Kepel, when Daniel Pipes so dislikes him. Well, I have my own view of Kepel, and Pipes has his, and they are different. Shocking, isn’t it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.