From: Enrico Piccinini
List Editor: Shira Robinson
Editor's Subject: Re: Reinvigorating Middle Eastern Studies [Piccinini]
Author's Subject: Reinvigorating Middle Eastern Studies [Piccinini]
Date Written:
Date Posted:
Firstly, in response to Professor Heydemann: If I didn't think there was a way to respond to the Pipes, Kramer et al critique without resorting to a 'bunker mentality', then frankly I wouldn't have bothered airing this subject in the first place. I am not 'easily, even summarily dismissing alternative perspectives as evidence in support of [my] own.' When I wrote that your rebuttal of my remarks actually helped demonstrate my point, I was responding specifically to your implication that my criticisms should be classed with those of Pipes, Kramer et al. You wrote: 'It is far too simplistic to suggest that the field has brought this on itself through some combination of its own intellectual insularity, political ineptness and rigid commitment to a pro- Palestinian perspective.' You added that 'this argument requires us to accept as our starting point an understanding of Middle East studies that is defined by Kramer, Kurtz, Pipes et al...' My last post should have made eminently clear that I do not share their critique, and frankly, considering my enthusiasm for 'postmodern', 'post-positivist' thought, I don't know that they would appreciate my company anyway. When I privilege our own responsibility for the plight of Middle Eastern studies over, say, the post-11 September political context, it is not out of ignorance or spite, but to drive home a point: We do not have much control over the political currents that are presently sweeping America, nor - given the unfortunate divide between the academy and the general public - can we reasonably expect to, at least for the time being. (This is why I do not think situating the attacks of Pipes, Kramer et al in the current political context is very productive; for strictly analytical purposes, maybe it is, but it will not generate much in the way of self-examination.) We do, however, have control over how we respond, as a discipline, to the political and intellectual challenges of our day, and it is here that we should be focusing our energies and efforts - not on making overblown and ineffectual pleas of 'McCarthyism', etc. Here I am fully on board with Professor Brown's recommendations; perhaps we can start a new debate along the lines that he proposes? An initial remark: I happen to think that bridging the 'divide' I cited above is integral to the future health of our discipline...
Secondly, in response to Professor Smith: When I write about the 'harmful effects' of the Orientalism debate, I am referring not so much to the work of particular individuals as to broader trends of prioritization and political conceptualization/interpretation within the discipline itself. Examples include the privileging of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the expense of other, equally critical areas of study; a related tendency to use the Arab-Israeli conflict as a veritable default explanation for other political developments in the region; a dependence on conflictual dichotomies of power and resistance (eg American policy vs Arab nationalism, Western vs Arab or Muslim identity, etc) that overlooks the complex interactions and syntheses between them; a corresponding tendency to minimize the agency of local political actors by privileging the role of American power in regional affairs; and so forth. Some of these issues are broached by Professor F Gregory Gause III in his critical review of Ivory Towers on Sand (Foreign Affairs, vol 81:2, 2002), though he does not tie them to the debate on Orientalism. I, however, believe that there is a clear correlation between these trends and the political priorities that emerged in our discipline after 1978. This does not discredit 'post- Orientalist' perspectives (I fully agree with Dr Chalcraft that these have enriched our discipline immensely); on the contrary, it suggests - to me anyway - that their full potential has yet to be realized.
Lastly, my reference to 'radical leftism' has to do with the tendency of postmodern and especially postcolonial scholarship to be radical leftist in orientation. I was simply saying that one does not have to be a leftist (radical or otherwise) to be enthusiastic about these paradigms.
I hope this answers your question. If my explanation is inadequate, then please let me know - I would be more than happy to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Best wishes,
Enrico Piccinini
Enrico Piccinini is responding to the e-mail below
From: Steven Heydemann
List Editor: Shira Robinson
Editor's Subject: ME Studies [Heydemann]
Author's Subject: ME Studies [Heydemann]
Date Written:
Date Posted:
A question for Enrico Piccinini --
You said: "This is precisely the kind of 'bunker mentality' that I described - a sort of regretful, 'The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in ourselves but in our stars.'
Question: do you think it's possible to reject the critique that has been framed by KKP in a way that would NOT represent what you call a"bunker mentality?" It seems to me you've put yourself in the (enviable?) position of easily, even summarily, dismissing alternative perspectives as evidence in support of your own. No?
I'm arguing for a position that seeks both criticism and improvement of the field, on one hand, and rejects the KKP diagnosis of the field on the other. Doesn't seem to me that this is inconsistent with view of ME scholars as having and needing to exercise agency -- seems to me that my post made that fairly clear. I also don't suggest ignoring the political challenge posed by the KKP critique. We need to recognize it for what it is and not extend to it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve, but that doesn't mean we treat it dismissively or reject it out of hand. I certainly don't. Nor is my take on this consistent with the notion that we should hunker down, circle the wagons, and congratulate ourselves on what good work we do -- seems to me my posts made this pretty clear, as well.
It is not the case, however, that any effort to open a different line of debate about the field simply confirms what you call its bunker mentality. Personally, I don't believe such a mentality exists. The "field" -- such as it is -- is enormously diverse, politically as well as intellectually. It suits the political purposes of KKP to pretend otherwise. But that doesn't make it true. It is simply false to suggest that there exist only two, polar, ways of thinking about the field: the bunker or KKP. It is false to suggest that critiques of KKP are just more evidence of the field's delusional denial of its own pathologies.
Respectfully,
Steve Heydemann