By Edward Said
Harper's, July 2002
The history of trying to
come to terms with this somewhat fictionalized (or at least constructed) Islam
in Europe and later in the United
States has always been marked by crisis and
conflict, rather than by calm, mutual exchange. There is the added factor now
of commercial publishing, ever on the lookout for a quick bestseller by some
adept expert that will tell us all we need to know about Islam, its problems,
dangers, and prospects. In my book Orientalism, I argued that the original
reason for European attempts to deal with Islam as if it were one giant entity
was polemical—that is, Islam was considered a threat to Christian Europe and
had to be fixed ideologically, the way Dante fixes Muhammad in one of the lower
circles of hell. Later, as the European empires developed over time, knowledge
of Islam was associated with control, with power, with the need to understand
the "mind" and ultimate nature of a rebellious and somehow resistant
culture as a way of dealing administratively with an alien being at the heart
of the expanding empires, especially those of Britain
and France.
During the Cold War, as the
United States vied with the Soviet Union for dominance, Islam quickly became a
national-security concern in America, though until the Iranian revolution (and
even after it, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) the United States
followed a path of encouraging and actually supporting Islamic political
groups, which by definition were also anti-Communist and tended to be useful in
opposing radical nationalist movements supported by the Soviets. After the Cold
War ended and the United
States became the "world's only
superpower," it soon became evident that in the search for new
world-scale, outside enemies, Islam was a prime candidate, thus quickly
reviving all the old religiously based clichés about violent, antimodernist,
and monolithic Islam. These clichés were useful to Israel
and its political and academic supporters in the United
States, particularly because of the emergence of Islamic
resistance movements to Israel's
military occupation of the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.
Suddenly a rush of what appeared to be respectably expert material spouted up
in the periodical press, most of it purporting to link "Islam" as a
whole to such absurdly reductive passions as rage, antimodernism,
anti-Americanism, antirationalism, violence, and terror. Quite unsurprisingly,
when Samuel Huntington's vastly overrated article on the clash of civilizations
appeared in 1993, the core of its belligerent (and dishearteningly ignorant)
thesis was the battle between the "West" and "Islam" (which
he sagely warned would become even more dangerous when it was allied with Confucianism).
What wasn't immediately
noted at the time was how Huntington's
title and theme were borrowed from a phrase in an essay, written in 1990 by an
energetically self-repeating and self-winding British academic, entitled
"The Roots of Muslim Rage." Its author, Bernard Lewis, made his name
forty years ago as an expert on modern Turkey, but came to the United States in
the mid-seventies and was quickly drafted into service as a Cold Warrior,
applying his traditional Orientalist training to larger and larger questions,
which had as their immediate aim an ideological portrait of "Islam"
and the Arabs that suited dominant pro-imperial and pro-Zionist strands in U.S.
foreign policy. It should be noted that Orientalist learning itself was
premised on the silence of the native, who was to be represented by an
Occidental expert speaking ex cathedra on the native's behalf, presenting that
unfortunate creature as an undeveloped, deficient, and uncivilized being who
couldn't represent himself. But just as it has now become inappropriate for
white scholars to speak on behalf of "Negroes," it has, since the end
of classical European colonialism, stopped being fashionable or even acceptable
to pontificate about the Oriental's (i.e., the Muslim's, or the Indian's, or
the Japanese's) "mentality."
Except for anachronisms
like Lewis. In a stream of repetitious, tartly phrased books and articles that
resolutely ignored any of the recent advances of knowledge in anthropology,
history, social theory, and cultural studies, he persisted in such "philological"
tricks as deriving an aspect of the predilection in contemporary Arab Islam for
revolutionary violence from Bedouin descriptions of a camel rising. For the
reader, however, there was no surprise, no discovery to be made from anything
Lewis wrote, since it all added up in his view to confirmations of the Islamic
tendency to violence, anger, antimodernism, as well as Islam's (and especially
the Arabs') closed-mindedness, its fondness for slavery, Muslims' inability to
be concerned with anything but themselves, and the like. From his perch at
Princeton (he is now retired and in his late eighties but still tirelessly
pounds out polemical tracts), he seems unaffected by new ideas or insights,
even though among most Middle East experts his work has been both bypassed and
discredited by the many recent advances in knowledge about particular forms of
Islamic experience.
With his veneer of English
sophistication and perfect readiness never to doubt what he is saying, Lewis
has been an appropriate participant in post-September discussion, rehashing his
crude simplifications in The New Yorker and the National Review, as well as on
the Charlie Rose show. His jowly presence seems to delight his interlocutors
and editors, and his trenchant, if wildly unprovable, anecdotes of Islamic
backwardness and antimodernism are eagerly received. His view of history is a
crudely Darwinian one in which powers and cultures vie for dominance, some
rising, some sinking. Lewis's notions (they are scarcely ideas) seem also to
have a vague Spenglerian cast to them, but he hasn't got any of Spengler's
philosophic ambition or scope. There isn't much left to what Lewis says,
therefore, than that cultures can be measured in their most appallingly
simplified terms (my culture is stronger—i.e., has better trains, guns,
symphony orchestras—than yours). For obvious reasons, then, his last book, What
Went Wrong? which was written before but published after September 11, has been
faring well on the bestseller lists. It fills a need felt by many Americans: to
have it confirmed for them why "Islam" attacked them so violently and
so wantonly on September 11, and why what is "wrong" with Islam
deserves unrelieved opprobrium and revulsion. The book's real theme, however,
is what went wrong with Lewis himself: an actual, rather than a fabricated
subject.
For the book is in fact an
intellectual and moral disaster, the terribly faded rasp of a pretentious
academic voice, completely removed from any direct experience of Islam,
rehashing and recycling tired Orientalist half (or less than half) truths.
Remember that Lewis claims to be discussing all of "Islam," not just
the mad militants of Afghanistan
or Egypt or Iran. All of
Islam. He tries to argue that it all went "wrong," as if the whole
thing—people, languages, cultures—could really be pronounced upon categorically
by a godlike creature who seems never to have experienced a single living human
Muslim (except for a small handful of Turkish authors), as if history were a
simple matter of right as defined by power, or wrong, by not having it. One can
almost hear him saying, over a gin and tonic, "You know, old chap, those
wogs never really got it right, did they?"
But it's really worse than
that. With few exceptions, all of Lewis's footnotes and concrete sources (that
is, on the rare occasion when he actually refers to something concrete that one
could look up and read for oneself) are Turkish. All of them, except for a
smattering of Arabic and European sources. How this allows him to imply that
his descriptions have relevance, for instance, to all twenty-plus Arab
countries, or to Indonesia or Pakistan or Morocco, or to the 30 million Chinese
Muslims, all of them integral parts of Islam, is never discussed; and indeed,
Lewis never mentions these groups as he bangs on about Islam's tendency to do
this, that, or the other, backed by a tiny group of Turkish sources.
Although it is true that he
protects himself at first by saying that his polemic "especially but not
exclusively" concerns an area he vaguely calls the Middle
East, he throws restraint to the winds in all of what follows.
Announcing portentously that Muslims have "for a long time" been
asking "what went wrong?" he then proceeds to tell us what they say
and mean, rarely citing a single name, episode, or period except in the most
general way. One would never allow an undergraduate to write so casually as he
does that, during the nineteenth century, Muslims were "concerned"
about the art of warfare, or that in the twentieth "it became abundantly
clear in the Middle East and indeed all over
the lands of Islam that things had indeed gone badly wrong." How he
impresses nonexpert Americans with generalities that would never pass in any
other field or for any other religion, country, or people is a sign of how degraded
general knowledge is about the worlds of Islam, and how unscrupulously Lewis
trades on that ignorance—feeds it, in fact. That any sensible reader could
accept such nonsensical sentences as these (I choose them at random) defies
common sense:
For the whole of the
nineteenth and most of the twentieth century the search for the hidden talisman
[an invention of Lewis's, this is the supposed Muslim predilection for trying
to find a simple key to "Western" power] concentrated on two aspects
of the West—economics and politics, or to put it differently, wealth and power.
And what proof is offered
of this 200-year "search," which occupied the whole of Islam? One
statement, made at the start of the nineteenth century, by the Ottoman
ambassador in Paris.
Or consider this equally
precise and elegant generalization:
During the 1930s, Italy and then, far more, Germany offered new ideological and
political models, with the added attraction of being opposed to the Western
powers. [Never mind the dangling "being opposed"—Lewis doesn't bother
to tell us to whom the models were offered, in what way, and with what
evidence. He trudges on anyway.] These won widespread support, and even after
their military defeat in World War II, they continued to serve as unavowed
models in both ideology and statecraft.
Mercifully, since they are
"unavowed models," one doesn't need to offer any proof of their
existence as models. Naturally Lewis offers none.
Or consider, even more
sublime, this nugget, which is intended to prove that even when they translated
books from European languages, the wretched Muslims didn't do it seriously or
well. Note the brilliant preamble: "A translation requires a translator,
and a translator has to know both languages, the language from which he is translating
and the language into which he is translating." (It is difficult for me to
believe that Lewis was awake when he wrote this peculiarly acute tautology—or
is it only a piercingly clever truism?)
Such knowledge, strange as
it may seem, was extremely rare in the Middle East
until comparatively late. There were very few [sic] Muslims who knew any
Christian language; it was considered unnecessary, even to some extent
demeaning. For interpreters, when needed for commerce, diplomacy, or war, they
relied first on refugees and renegades from Europe
and then, when the supply of these dried up, on Levantines. Both groups lacked
either the interest or the capacity to do literary translations into
Middle-Eastern languages.
And that is it: no
evidence, no names, no demonstration or concrete documentation of all these
Middle Eastern and Muslim incapacities. To Lewis, what he writes about
"Islam" is all so self-evident that it allows him to bypass normal
conventions of intellectual discourse, including proof.
When Lewis's book was
reviewed in the New York Times by no less an intellectual luminary than Yale's
Paul Kennedy, there was only uncritical praise, as if to suggest that the
canons of historical evidence should be suspended where "Islam" is
the subject. Kennedy was particularly impressed with Lewis's assertion, in an
almost totally irrelevant chapter on "Aspects of Cultural Change,"
that alone of all the cultures of the world Islam has taken no interest in
Western music. Quite without any justification at all, Kennedy then lurched on
to lament the fact that Middle Easterners had deprived themselves even of
Mozart! For that indeed is what Lewis suggests (though he doesn't mention
Mozart). Except for Turkey
and Israel,
"Western art music," he categorically states, "falls on deaf
ears" in the Islamic world.
Now, as it happens, this is
something I know quite a bit about, but it would take some direct experience or
a moment or two of actual life in the Muslim world to realize that what Lewis
says is a total falsehood, betraying the fact that he hasn't set foot in or
spent any significant time in Arab countries. Several major Arab capitals have
very good conservatories of Western music: Cairo,
Beirut, Damascus,
Tunis, Rabat, Amman—even Ramallah on the West Bank.
These have produced literally thousands of excellent Western-style musicians
who have staffed the numerous symphony orchestras and opera companies that play
to sold-out auditoriums all over the Arab world. There are numerous festivals
of Western music there, too, and in the case of Cairo (where I spent a great
deal of my early life more than fifty years ago) they are excellent places to
learn about, listen to, and see Western instrumental and vocal music performed
at quite high levels of skill. The Cairo Opera House has pioneered the
performance of opera in Arabic, and in fact I own a commercial CD of Mozart's
Marriage of Figaro sung most competently in Arabic. I am a decent pianist and
have played, studied, written about, and practiced that wonderful instrument
all of my life; the significant part of my musical education was received in Cairo from Arab teachers,
who first inspired a love and knowledge of Western music (and, yes, of Mozart)
that has never left me. In addition, I should also mention that for the past
three years I have been associated with Daniel Barenboim in sponsoring a group
of young Arab and Israeli musicians to come together for three weeks in the
summer to perform orchestral and chamber music under Barenboim (and in 1999
with Yo-Yo Ma) at an elevated, international level. All of the young Arabs
received their training in Arab conservatories. How could Barenboim and I have
staffed the West-Ostlicher Diwan workshop, as it is called, if Western music
had fallen on such deaf Muslim ears? Besides, why should Lewis and Kennedy use
the supposed absence of Western music as a club to beat "Islam" with
anyway? Isn't there an enormously rich panoply of Islamic musics to take
account of instead of indulging in this ludicrous browbeating?
I have gone into all this
detail to give a sense of the unrelieved rubbish of which Lewis's book is made
up. That it should fool even so otherwise alert and critical an historian as
Paul Kennedy is an indication not only of how low most people's expectations
are when it comes to discussions of "Islam" but of the mischievous
ideological fictions that pseudo-experts like Bernard Lewis trade in, and with
which they hoodwink nonexperts in the aftermath of September 11. Instead of
making it possible for people to educate themselves in how complex and
intertwined all cultures and religions really are, available public discourse
is polluted with reductive clichés that Lewis bandies about without a trace of
skepticism or rigor. The worst part of this method is that it systematically
dehumanizes peoples and turns them into a collection of abstract slogans for
purposes of aggressive mobilization and bellicosity. This is not at all a
matter of rational understanding. The study of other cultures is a humanistic,
not a strategic or security, pursuit: Lewis mutilates the effort itself and
pretends to be delivering truths from on high. In fact, as even the most
cursory reading of his book shows, he succeeds only in turning Muslims into an
enemy people, to be regarded collectively with contempt and scorn. That this
has to do neither with knowledge nor with understanding is enough to dismiss
his work as a debased effort to push unsuspecting readers toward thinking of
"Islam" as something to judge harshly, to dislike, and therefore to
be on guard against.
Karen Armstrong is the
other best-selling author tossed up by the mass anxiety so well traded on by
the media in recent months. Like Lewis, she wrote her book long before the
September events, but her publishers have pushed it forward as an answer to the
problem of our times. I wish I could say more enthusiastically that in its
modest way it is a useful book, but, alas, for too much of the time it’s too
humdrum for that. Yet her intentions seem decent enough. Most of the book is
potted history that chronicles events since Muhammad’s birth without much
insight or particularly fresh knowledge. The reader would get as much out of a
good encyclopedia article on "Islam" as from Armstrong, who seems to
be a very industrious if not especially knowledgeable author. Her Arabic is
frequently flawed ("madrasahs" for mada¯ris, for example), her
narrative often muddy, and, above all, one reads her prose without much sense
of excitement. It is all very dutiful and, like Lewis’s book, too frequently
suggests great distance and dehumanization rather than closeness to the
experience of Islam in all its tremendous variety.
Unlike Lewis, however, she
is interested in concrete aspects of Islamic religious life, and there she is
worth reading. Her book’s most valuable section is that in which she discusses
the varieties of modern fundamentalism without the usual invidious focus on
Islam. And rather than seeing it only as a negative phenomenon, she has an
admirable gift for understanding fundamentalism from within, as adherence to a
faith that is threatened by a strong secular authoritarianism. As an almost
doctrinaire secularist myself, I nevertheless found myself swayed by her
sympathetic and persuasive argument in this section, and wished that instead of
being hobbled by a rigid chronological approach she had allowed herself to
wander among aspects of the spiritual life of Islam that, as a former nun, she
has obviously found congenial.
Of course one can learn
about and understand Islam, but not in general and not, as far too many of our
expert authors propose, in so unsituated a way. To understand anything about
human history, it is necessary to see it from the point of view of those who
made it, not to treat it as a packaged commodity or as an instrument of
aggression. Why should the world of Islam be any different? I would therefore
suggest that one should begin with some of the copious first-person accounts of
Islam available in English that describe what it means to be a Muslim, as in
Muhammad Asad’s extraordinary book The Road to Mecca (a gripping account of how
Leopold Weiss, 1900–92, born in Lvov, became a Muslim and Pakistan’s U.N.
representative), or in Malcolm X’s account in his memoir, or in Taha Hussein’s
great autobiography, The Stream of Days. The whole idea would be to open up
Islam’s worlds as pertaining to the living, the experienced, the
connected-to-us, rather than to shut it down, rigidly codifying it and stuffing
it into a box labeled "Dangerous—do not disturb."
Above all, "we"
cannot go on pretending that "we" live in a world of our own;
certainly, as Americans, our government is deployed literally all over the
globe—militarily, politically, economically. So why do we suppose that what we
say and do is neutral, when in fact it is full of consequences for the rest of
the human race? In our encounters with other cultures and religions, therefore,
it would seem that the best way to proceed is not to think like governments or
armies or corporations but rather to remember and act on the individual
experiences that really shape our lives and those of others. To think
humanistically and concretely rather than formulaically and abstractly, it is
always best to read literature capable of dispelling the ideological fogs that
so often obscure people from each other. Avoid the trots and the manuals, give
a wide berth to security experts and formulators of the us-versus-them dogma,
and, above all, look with the deepest suspicion on anyone who wants to tell you
the real truth about Islam and terrorism, fundamentalism, militancy, fanaticism,
etc. You’d have heard it all before, anyway, and even if you hadn’t, you could
predict its claims. Why not look for the expression of different kinds of human
experience instead, and leave those great non-subjects to the experts, their
think tanks, government departments, and policy intellectuals, who get us into
one unsuccessful and wasteful war after the other?
Edward Said
Harper's, July 2002
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par un administrateur du blog.
RépondreSupprimer