Went to my first class for three weeks tonight. I had missed one session about the feminist aspects of conflict and peace, and one about the role religion plays. But don’t worry Mary has provided me with her notes so I will be sharing whatever I can glean from them soon.
Tonight’s class was interesting. ‘Holistic Visions for Peace and Conflict’: a discussion of theorists who contend that ‘inner peace’, ‘social peace’ and ‘harmony with nature’ are all connected. It was fun really.
My book review assignment is the post before this. I should also write a little about ‘Occupational Hazards’ by Rory Stewart. It is about his time as assistant governor in an Iraqi province.
But this is for another day. Back as soon as I can.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Culture and Resistance. A book review.
Culture and Resistance: Conversations with Edward W. Said. Interviews by David Barsamian. Pluto Press, London 2003. (Footnotes, unfortunately, did not survive my cutting and pasting from Word and neither, it seems, did my spacing.)
Edward Said, now sadly departed, was, according to a most informative New York Times obituary, a ‘polymath scholar and literary critic [as well as] the most prominent advocate in the United States of the cause of Palestinian independence’. Said first established himself in his specialist field as an outstanding academic before becoming well-known as an advocate for the Palestinian cause . His 1978 book Orientalism was more than an immensely scholarly documentation of the history of Western misrepresentation of the East: it became a founding text of the new discipline of Post-Colonial Studies. The Gramscian theme of ‘domination through culture’ was then further articulated in his 1993 Culture and Imperialism and other works. The volume under review is one of two published collections of interviews by David Barsamian . This one, the second, features interviews conducted between February 1999 and February 2003. It takes the form of question and answer sessions, so its content and tenor owes something to Barsamian whose own interests and priorities point Said in certain directions. This means an emphasis on current affairs, personalities and controversy . My interest in presenting this review, however, is not to discuss Said’s polemical skills, though worthy of study, but to go beyond the merely ephemeral and try to draw out from this potpourri Said’s contribution to the understanding of violent conflict and possible approaches to its peaceful resolution.
The interviews are indeed studded with attacks by Said; by the end of the book seventy-five individuals, whose views he opposes, are named. He is tireless in counter-balancing what he perceives as pro-Israeli propaganda and exposing the darker side of Israeli conduct. His tone is professorial: his evident purpose to educate the public. Said, I suggest, should be understood not as an advocate for the Palestinian cause per se, a mere partisan, but as an advocate for Enlightenment values. His criticism of Israeli policy is couched in terms of human rights and proportionality ; his criticism of the US and the UK polities , in terms of the failure of democracy and public discourse; his criticism of Arab leadership and educated classes , in terms of corruption and failure to understand their own predicament. Said’s stance is humanistic, rather than religious, universal rather than ethno-centric . Opponents choose to characterise his position differently : far from being a renaissance man fighting for truth and justice, he is a propagandist and apologist for terrorism. Even if one concedes that occasionally he is less than generous to his opponents positions, his account of events and their meaning is generally entirely credible . Nowhere in this volume does Said expound a comprehensive philosophy or belief system as such, but everywhere his outlook is evident: not as an ideology but as a cultural stance, ‘a structure of feelings’ .
As well as seeking to re-educate the public and plead his case in the court of public opinion, he also makes a special point of taking to task ‘the intellectual classes’ whose duties should include ‘reminding everyone that we are talking about people. We are not talking about abstractions ‘. He attacks American Pragmatism, French Deconstruction and Arab intellectuals . His side swipe at Baudrillard is particularly interesting , for it is at this point that his intellectual footing is revealed most clearly. His work on texts is not intended as a philosophy of meaning, but as a means of serving the cause of human liberation. The accusation laid against his fellows is that they have ‘turned away from the great narratives of enlightenment and emancipation’ . He has surely earned his entitlement to make these criticisms. As a Palestinian-American he engaged in a life-long dialogue with the West of the most profound sort. His knowledge of Western thought and in particular literature is of the highest order and is well displayed in his frequent references to Western writers of fiction, poetry and political analysis. By listening to the best of the West he has learned well the highest aspirations of Western humanism and is a master of playing these ideals back against those who have abandoned them so readily for a sterile pragmatism or self-indulgent ‘petty squabbling over definitions’ . Whilst, for example, US figures routinely denigrate the United Nations, he says ‘the framework of the UN is absolutely essential ‘. Referring to the reception he received at SOAS, he believed that outside the US the Palestinians were winning the argument . He is enough of a realist, however, to recognize that whilst ideas and understandings can go so far in influencing policy makers, the balance of military power is a major factor is dictating policy options. He cites the decline in the power of the USSR as another reason why US imperialism has been unleashed .
Said’s power comes not so much from his ideas alone, as from the coupling of his undoubted intellect with humanity. There are references throughout the book to poets, musicians, feelings; not so much to philosophies, theories or creeds. His attack on the failings of the intellectual class is made poignant by reference to Aimé Césaire’s poem The Rendezvous of Victory ; their failing being one not so much of the mind but of the heart. Whilst portraying the very picture of calm reflection and rational analysis Said none the less conveys the depth of his feelings. On the one hand, the anger felt by Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa incident , and on the other hand, the warmth he expresses towards men like Daniel Barenboim . This is not a question of nationality, ethnicity or an Oriental mentality: it is a question of human feelings he recognises and shares in. This may be contrasted with the writings of Michael Ignatieff - another student of the feelings behind conflict – who portrays himself as a baffled outsider, even in his own adopted country. The result is an intellectual analysis without empathy, without heart, without hope. Said seems particularly bitter with Michael Ignatieff whom he accuses of betraying his ‘leftwing’ roots and propagating a spurious and tendentious ‘Islamo-fascism’ thesis . Another traitor to the Enlightenment, perhaps.
In addressing Western audiences Said is an educator, a polemicist and an erudite representative of his people and, I propose, a champion of Enlightenment values. He also addresses the Palestinians themselves and their fellow Arabs. His Israeli critics always start by demanding he denounce terrorism: he does. Israeli terrorism and Palestinian terrorism (And, of course, 9/11 and the holocaust ). Does he denounce violence itself? He says he is not a pacifist but is willing to advocate pacifism because ‘armies are useless ‘. He says ‘there is no military option ‘, but this prudential rather a matter of principle . Said is a advocate of greater intercourse between Palestinians and the rest of the world, particularly the Arab world; of civil society. He chides Arab intellectuals and academic institutions for isolating Palestine and ignoring Israel as part of a supposed policy of refusing ‘normalisation’ , which is simply a denial of reality. Based on his own frequent visits to the Occupied Territories Said rejected the 1993 Oslo accords and the so-called ‘peace process’ but is an ardent advocate of ‘coexistence between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs’ in one bi-national state. This despite the wrath he incurred from fellow members of the Palestine National Council. Here is a man who dares to dream. A man who dares to denounce illusions of progress and state the uncompromising truth: Jews and Palestinians have to find a modus vivendi. Neither is leaving and they are too geographically interwoven to make a two state solution viable . Personally, I find his arguments convincing both as to the aimed for outcome and the means of getting there. These means are not in origin political or military; they are personal and civil. Before political arrangements stand a chance of working each side must, like Said and his Israeli friend Daniel Barenboim, work on establishing a human connection without which ‘the Other is always going to be dehumanised, demonised, invisible’.
Said had his critics as well as his admirers. His academic work though highly praised in some quarters was criticised in others as ‘over-drawn, hyperbolic, and over-simplistic’ , ‘so pretentiously written, so drenched in jargon’ . His political work earned him the accolade ‘Professor of Terror’ and, reportedly, a place on the Jewish Defence League’s hit list . This book, despite its rambling nature, goes someway to providing a portrait of the man and his thinking. Someone, a quintessential homme engagé, with the intellect to analyse and understand, the heart to care and the courage to do something about it. He was criticised for making his attacks ‘personal’ but for him the politics of conflict and peace was deeply personal. With his values grounded in those of the Enlightenment and his heart finding inspiration in Aimé Césaire, I’ll take his vision of the way to a better future over the partisanship and power plays of his opponents any day. Finis.
Edward Said, now sadly departed, was, according to a most informative New York Times obituary, a ‘polymath scholar and literary critic [as well as] the most prominent advocate in the United States of the cause of Palestinian independence’. Said first established himself in his specialist field as an outstanding academic before becoming well-known as an advocate for the Palestinian cause . His 1978 book Orientalism was more than an immensely scholarly documentation of the history of Western misrepresentation of the East: it became a founding text of the new discipline of Post-Colonial Studies. The Gramscian theme of ‘domination through culture’ was then further articulated in his 1993 Culture and Imperialism and other works. The volume under review is one of two published collections of interviews by David Barsamian . This one, the second, features interviews conducted between February 1999 and February 2003. It takes the form of question and answer sessions, so its content and tenor owes something to Barsamian whose own interests and priorities point Said in certain directions. This means an emphasis on current affairs, personalities and controversy . My interest in presenting this review, however, is not to discuss Said’s polemical skills, though worthy of study, but to go beyond the merely ephemeral and try to draw out from this potpourri Said’s contribution to the understanding of violent conflict and possible approaches to its peaceful resolution.
The interviews are indeed studded with attacks by Said; by the end of the book seventy-five individuals, whose views he opposes, are named. He is tireless in counter-balancing what he perceives as pro-Israeli propaganda and exposing the darker side of Israeli conduct. His tone is professorial: his evident purpose to educate the public. Said, I suggest, should be understood not as an advocate for the Palestinian cause per se, a mere partisan, but as an advocate for Enlightenment values. His criticism of Israeli policy is couched in terms of human rights and proportionality ; his criticism of the US and the UK polities , in terms of the failure of democracy and public discourse; his criticism of Arab leadership and educated classes , in terms of corruption and failure to understand their own predicament. Said’s stance is humanistic, rather than religious, universal rather than ethno-centric . Opponents choose to characterise his position differently : far from being a renaissance man fighting for truth and justice, he is a propagandist and apologist for terrorism. Even if one concedes that occasionally he is less than generous to his opponents positions, his account of events and their meaning is generally entirely credible . Nowhere in this volume does Said expound a comprehensive philosophy or belief system as such, but everywhere his outlook is evident: not as an ideology but as a cultural stance, ‘a structure of feelings’ .
As well as seeking to re-educate the public and plead his case in the court of public opinion, he also makes a special point of taking to task ‘the intellectual classes’ whose duties should include ‘reminding everyone that we are talking about people. We are not talking about abstractions ‘. He attacks American Pragmatism, French Deconstruction and Arab intellectuals . His side swipe at Baudrillard is particularly interesting , for it is at this point that his intellectual footing is revealed most clearly. His work on texts is not intended as a philosophy of meaning, but as a means of serving the cause of human liberation. The accusation laid against his fellows is that they have ‘turned away from the great narratives of enlightenment and emancipation’ . He has surely earned his entitlement to make these criticisms. As a Palestinian-American he engaged in a life-long dialogue with the West of the most profound sort. His knowledge of Western thought and in particular literature is of the highest order and is well displayed in his frequent references to Western writers of fiction, poetry and political analysis. By listening to the best of the West he has learned well the highest aspirations of Western humanism and is a master of playing these ideals back against those who have abandoned them so readily for a sterile pragmatism or self-indulgent ‘petty squabbling over definitions’ . Whilst, for example, US figures routinely denigrate the United Nations, he says ‘the framework of the UN is absolutely essential ‘. Referring to the reception he received at SOAS, he believed that outside the US the Palestinians were winning the argument . He is enough of a realist, however, to recognize that whilst ideas and understandings can go so far in influencing policy makers, the balance of military power is a major factor is dictating policy options. He cites the decline in the power of the USSR as another reason why US imperialism has been unleashed .
Said’s power comes not so much from his ideas alone, as from the coupling of his undoubted intellect with humanity. There are references throughout the book to poets, musicians, feelings; not so much to philosophies, theories or creeds. His attack on the failings of the intellectual class is made poignant by reference to Aimé Césaire’s poem The Rendezvous of Victory ; their failing being one not so much of the mind but of the heart. Whilst portraying the very picture of calm reflection and rational analysis Said none the less conveys the depth of his feelings. On the one hand, the anger felt by Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa incident , and on the other hand, the warmth he expresses towards men like Daniel Barenboim . This is not a question of nationality, ethnicity or an Oriental mentality: it is a question of human feelings he recognises and shares in. This may be contrasted with the writings of Michael Ignatieff - another student of the feelings behind conflict – who portrays himself as a baffled outsider, even in his own adopted country. The result is an intellectual analysis without empathy, without heart, without hope. Said seems particularly bitter with Michael Ignatieff whom he accuses of betraying his ‘leftwing’ roots and propagating a spurious and tendentious ‘Islamo-fascism’ thesis . Another traitor to the Enlightenment, perhaps.
In addressing Western audiences Said is an educator, a polemicist and an erudite representative of his people and, I propose, a champion of Enlightenment values. He also addresses the Palestinians themselves and their fellow Arabs. His Israeli critics always start by demanding he denounce terrorism: he does. Israeli terrorism and Palestinian terrorism (And, of course, 9/11 and the holocaust ). Does he denounce violence itself? He says he is not a pacifist but is willing to advocate pacifism because ‘armies are useless ‘. He says ‘there is no military option ‘, but this prudential rather a matter of principle . Said is a advocate of greater intercourse between Palestinians and the rest of the world, particularly the Arab world; of civil society. He chides Arab intellectuals and academic institutions for isolating Palestine and ignoring Israel as part of a supposed policy of refusing ‘normalisation’ , which is simply a denial of reality. Based on his own frequent visits to the Occupied Territories Said rejected the 1993 Oslo accords and the so-called ‘peace process’ but is an ardent advocate of ‘coexistence between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs’ in one bi-national state. This despite the wrath he incurred from fellow members of the Palestine National Council. Here is a man who dares to dream. A man who dares to denounce illusions of progress and state the uncompromising truth: Jews and Palestinians have to find a modus vivendi. Neither is leaving and they are too geographically interwoven to make a two state solution viable . Personally, I find his arguments convincing both as to the aimed for outcome and the means of getting there. These means are not in origin political or military; they are personal and civil. Before political arrangements stand a chance of working each side must, like Said and his Israeli friend Daniel Barenboim, work on establishing a human connection without which ‘the Other is always going to be dehumanised, demonised, invisible’.
Said had his critics as well as his admirers. His academic work though highly praised in some quarters was criticised in others as ‘over-drawn, hyperbolic, and over-simplistic’ , ‘so pretentiously written, so drenched in jargon’ . His political work earned him the accolade ‘Professor of Terror’ and, reportedly, a place on the Jewish Defence League’s hit list . This book, despite its rambling nature, goes someway to providing a portrait of the man and his thinking. Someone, a quintessential homme engagé, with the intellect to analyse and understand, the heart to care and the courage to do something about it. He was criticised for making his attacks ‘personal’ but for him the politics of conflict and peace was deeply personal. With his values grounded in those of the Enlightenment and his heart finding inspiration in Aimé Césaire, I’ll take his vision of the way to a better future over the partisanship and power plays of his opponents any day. Finis.
Saturday, 19 May 2007
"I am like a ripe shit"
I am reading Peter Ackroyd's Life of Thomas More betweentimes. In it he quotes Luther as saying "I am like a ripe shit and the world is a gigantic arsehole. We probably will let go of each other soon". (Obviously he said it in German, so something may have been lost in translation.) I feel the same about my paper on 'Culture and Resistance'. It is the s**t, and I am the ar*eh*le: my ideas are starting to cohere into a mass and the urge to get it out of my system is builiding.
Jean Baudrillard
First though, I must do a little more research. In the interviews there are quite a number of references to people either as heroes or enemies. Some I have heard of, some I haven't. Said decries Jean Baudrillard for being one of those who have turned away from the "great narratives of the enlightenment and emancipation". I'm ignorant of his work. My indispensable Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers describes him as a 'French philosopher and sociologist, considered by many to be the quintessential postmodernist'. (Would he accept that classification, I wonder). To fill this gap in my education I try to read Paul Hegarty's 'Live Theory', which includes an interview with Baudrillard and an account of his work. Should I be 'against' Baudrillard too? I find Said's impassioned plea in defense of the enlightenment very inspiring but feel I should try to understand what he is railing at. ( I disloyally reflect that these intellectual types often fall out and accuse each other of the most diabolical crimes viz. Dawkins and Midgely). So with some trepidation I dip into the book. Page after page of incomprehension. What the hell is he driving at? He seems pretty certain about something. Explanations aren't working, but there seems to be a core of 'something realised' there somewhere. IT CLICKS as I read this section, a quote from 'Simulacra and Simulation':
"Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum.
Such would be the successive phases of the image:
- it is the reflection of a profound reality,
- it masks and perverts a profound reality,
- it masks the absence of a profound reality,
- it bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum".
I kid you not. I'm no intellectual, but something clicked. The guys is saying that 'THIS WORLD IS AN ILLUSION', except he is saying it in French and from within the discourse of postmodern philosophy. Ah ha! Yes, a very interesting topic and one that does indeed lend itself to many interesting avenues of research and speculation.
Said and Baudrillard
No wonder Said 'hates' him. Said's work has largely involved showing how Western conceptions of the Orient are based on, to boldly paraphrase, 'false impressions'. Baudrillard appears superficially to be working in a similar field: generalizing and extending Said's work, as it were. But, now I see the difference. It is one of intent. Said's aim was essentially political: to expose dangerous errors in Western thought and reestablish Oriental self-confidence to address the problem of imperialism. Baudrillard, with little interest in praxis at all, is making a deeper point, but for its own sake, perhaps; a point that, by its nature, has no apparent political utility.
Said's friends and enemies
So, on with my research. I need to know more about Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Michael Walzer, Theodore Adorno, Eqbal Ahmad, Fouad Ajami, Hannah Arendt, Geoffrey Aronson, Daniel Barenboim, Yossi Beilen, Azmi Bishara, Max Boot, Jorge Luis Borges, Martin Buber, John Burns, Aime Cesaire, Alexander Cockburn, Emmanuel Constant, Hamid Dabashi, Mohammed Al-Dura, Abba Eban, Steven Emerson, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Norman Finklestein, Thomas Friedman....(and that's just A-F)
Jean Baudrillard
First though, I must do a little more research. In the interviews there are quite a number of references to people either as heroes or enemies. Some I have heard of, some I haven't. Said decries Jean Baudrillard for being one of those who have turned away from the "great narratives of the enlightenment and emancipation". I'm ignorant of his work. My indispensable Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers describes him as a 'French philosopher and sociologist, considered by many to be the quintessential postmodernist'. (Would he accept that classification, I wonder). To fill this gap in my education I try to read Paul Hegarty's 'Live Theory', which includes an interview with Baudrillard and an account of his work. Should I be 'against' Baudrillard too? I find Said's impassioned plea in defense of the enlightenment very inspiring but feel I should try to understand what he is railing at. ( I disloyally reflect that these intellectual types often fall out and accuse each other of the most diabolical crimes viz. Dawkins and Midgely). So with some trepidation I dip into the book. Page after page of incomprehension. What the hell is he driving at? He seems pretty certain about something. Explanations aren't working, but there seems to be a core of 'something realised' there somewhere. IT CLICKS as I read this section, a quote from 'Simulacra and Simulation':
"Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum.
Such would be the successive phases of the image:
- it is the reflection of a profound reality,
- it masks and perverts a profound reality,
- it masks the absence of a profound reality,
- it bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum".
I kid you not. I'm no intellectual, but something clicked. The guys is saying that 'THIS WORLD IS AN ILLUSION', except he is saying it in French and from within the discourse of postmodern philosophy. Ah ha! Yes, a very interesting topic and one that does indeed lend itself to many interesting avenues of research and speculation.
Said and Baudrillard
No wonder Said 'hates' him. Said's work has largely involved showing how Western conceptions of the Orient are based on, to boldly paraphrase, 'false impressions'. Baudrillard appears superficially to be working in a similar field: generalizing and extending Said's work, as it were. But, now I see the difference. It is one of intent. Said's aim was essentially political: to expose dangerous errors in Western thought and reestablish Oriental self-confidence to address the problem of imperialism. Baudrillard, with little interest in praxis at all, is making a deeper point, but for its own sake, perhaps; a point that, by its nature, has no apparent political utility.
Said's friends and enemies
So, on with my research. I need to know more about Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Michael Walzer, Theodore Adorno, Eqbal Ahmad, Fouad Ajami, Hannah Arendt, Geoffrey Aronson, Daniel Barenboim, Yossi Beilen, Azmi Bishara, Max Boot, Jorge Luis Borges, Martin Buber, John Burns, Aime Cesaire, Alexander Cockburn, Emmanuel Constant, Hamid Dabashi, Mohammed Al-Dura, Abba Eban, Steven Emerson, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Norman Finklestein, Thomas Friedman....(and that's just A-F)
Friday, 18 May 2007
Edward Said's interviews on Alternative Radio
Missed class.
Preparing to write my book review assignment on Edward Said's collection of interviews with David Barsamian entitled 'Culture and Resistance'. Everybody but me is probably familiar with David Barsamian and alternativeradio.org. I have downloaded the classic lecture by Edward Said entitled 'Culture and Imperialism' and listened to it twice now. Once driving across the city, once doing the washing up. It is helping me crystalize an approach to the book review. I'm looking for key concepts, themes, something to help me structure and invigorate my review. I think I have found something I like. He says a 'culture' is a 'structure of feelings'. I like that. You can then juxtapose that with the fact that an 'ideology' is a 'structure of ideas'. It fits in with my approach to the review.
The book, you see, is a series of interviews over a four year period from February 1999. The content is to some degree driven by David Barsamian and his interests which, by the nature of the medium, are more topical, news driven, than philosophical and reflective. The interviews are revealing however. The way I'm looking at it is this: I need to look at the work principally as it relates to the discipline of Peace Studies. So as well as what the interviews reveal about Said as a man, his feelings, his ideas, I also want to relate these ideas and feelings to academic thought on the subject of the causes of violent conflict and potential approaches to its transformation. Much of what is said could be characterized as 'polemic': attacks on the words and actions of the enemies of Palestinian freedom. These enemies include Israeli politicians, US politicians, Yasir Arafat and his so-called cronies, other Arab states and their leaders and numerous named western 'intellectuals', historians and pundits.
This invective, though, is part of a most carefully articulated theory of the role 'culture' plays in the dominance game of imperialism as expounded in his seminal works 'Orientalism' and 'Culture and Imperialism'. He proposes that it is the intellectual's duty to fight for 'liberation' in the arena of public discourse; to challenge and expose untruths and proclaim real human values.
So my brain is trying to process as much of Said, his thoughts and feelings as I can and to try to formulate a piece that will fit in the context of my course, and, of course, express my own thoughts and feelings.
More soon.
Preparing to write my book review assignment on Edward Said's collection of interviews with David Barsamian entitled 'Culture and Resistance'. Everybody but me is probably familiar with David Barsamian and alternativeradio.org. I have downloaded the classic lecture by Edward Said entitled 'Culture and Imperialism' and listened to it twice now. Once driving across the city, once doing the washing up. It is helping me crystalize an approach to the book review. I'm looking for key concepts, themes, something to help me structure and invigorate my review. I think I have found something I like. He says a 'culture' is a 'structure of feelings'. I like that. You can then juxtapose that with the fact that an 'ideology' is a 'structure of ideas'. It fits in with my approach to the review.
The book, you see, is a series of interviews over a four year period from February 1999. The content is to some degree driven by David Barsamian and his interests which, by the nature of the medium, are more topical, news driven, than philosophical and reflective. The interviews are revealing however. The way I'm looking at it is this: I need to look at the work principally as it relates to the discipline of Peace Studies. So as well as what the interviews reveal about Said as a man, his feelings, his ideas, I also want to relate these ideas and feelings to academic thought on the subject of the causes of violent conflict and potential approaches to its transformation. Much of what is said could be characterized as 'polemic': attacks on the words and actions of the enemies of Palestinian freedom. These enemies include Israeli politicians, US politicians, Yasir Arafat and his so-called cronies, other Arab states and their leaders and numerous named western 'intellectuals', historians and pundits.
This invective, though, is part of a most carefully articulated theory of the role 'culture' plays in the dominance game of imperialism as expounded in his seminal works 'Orientalism' and 'Culture and Imperialism'. He proposes that it is the intellectual's duty to fight for 'liberation' in the arena of public discourse; to challenge and expose untruths and proclaim real human values.
So my brain is trying to process as much of Said, his thoughts and feelings as I can and to try to formulate a piece that will fit in the context of my course, and, of course, express my own thoughts and feelings.
More soon.
Sunday, 13 May 2007
Resolution, transformation and transcendence
Before I go to class this week I go to the college library. I have only just started going there and, semi-recluse that I am, find it a little uncomfortable with so many people. But they are an impressive crowd: mostly in the their twenties and, seemingly, from every country of the world. They study hard in front of rows of computer screens, drinking bottled water. I’m sure you’ve seen it. The school library is even bigger: a huge factory of learning. Looking at shelf after shelf of journals and reports from minor UN agencies I can’t help wondering what the ‘outcome’ of all this study will be. Somebody help me. Where does all this lead?
An admirer of Said
I find an empty desk on the fourth floor looking out over a rainy and, therefore, deserted square. I have a spare hour to start re-reading ‘Culture and Resistance, interviews with Edward Said’, with a view to using this text for my book review assignment. I love the book because it provided the inspiration for my last essay. His rebuke to Western intellectuals for having deserted the Enlightenment project and his joining of the call to work towards the ‘Rendezvous of Victory’ got my juices flowing. Since then I’ve read ‘Orientalism’ and started to understand why he was so widely respected as an academic: such painstaking analysis of such a wide range of texts and such a coherent thread of argument.
As I pack up my things to go to class, my neighbouring library-user sees the book I’m reading and silently indicates his approval. I don’t know who the guy is, or where he’s from, but there seems to be something about Edward Said that attracts a lot of people and their respect.
Session five
Class this week is about conflict transformation. We launch into the ideas of John Paul Lederach, a Menonite sociologist who developed peace-building techniques and theories based on his practical work with communities in Nicaragua. The ideas flow over me without really adhering: ‘conflict is socially constructed’, ‘it emerges in our relationships and the interpretation we give them’, ‘we are actively involved in creating our own conflicts’, ‘we create meaning by comparison’. Conflict is ‘natural’, ‘not negative’, a ‘motor of change’. Peace is more than ‘ending conflict’, it is ‘constructive social change’, it is ‘empowerment to get needs met’. The method is ‘dialogue’. Dialogue, not debate. Listening, not point scoring. Peace is a ‘structure’, a ‘process’: something embedded in the quality of relationships. Like I said, the guy’s a sociologist.
I’m nodding. Yeah, sounds fine, makes sense. I am having a little difficult in placing this approach in the scheme of things. What makes it distinctive? I figure this approach must have worked for Lederach, so I should listen some more. A contrast helps: the paradigm being displaced is ‘conflict resolution’ which didn’t necessarily include ‘change’. What we are talking about with Lederach is ‘conflict transformation’. We have to go ‘broader and deeper’. On four levels. Personal: ‘minimize the destructive, maximise the constructive’. Relational: ‘build constructive communication, acknowledge interdependency’. (You still with me on this?) Structural: ‘root causes of conflict, social conditions, non-violent alternatives, justice, human needs’. Cultural: ‘understand patterns leading to violent conflict, identify alternative non-violent modes IN THAT CULTURE’. ‘Conflict resolution’ (mistakenly) focuses on ‘content’, whilst ‘conflict transformation’ focuses on ‘process’.
Our teacher, Irene, finishes the section on Lederach by touching on criticisms of his approach. Those who say he’s too "utopian", in as much as he doesn’t sufficiently acknowledge the reality of violence, the power of greed. Hmm. Yes and no, I’d say. I can see how his facilitation approach could work with a ‘will-to-peace’ on all sides. But how to achieve the ‘will-to-peace’? It usually takes a long and bloody war.
A five minute break and here comes a what seems a beefed up version of the same thing: Johan Galtung’s ‘Transcend Approach’. (Check out transcend.org) This being my first venture into the study of ‘peace making’ I am still a little disorientated. I guess we haven’t touched on the ‘peace making’ paradigms that dominated before Lederach and Galtung: the orthodoxy that they were kicking against. I’d have to think about that. ‘Conflict resolution’ is one that’s been mentioned. (I guess the problem wasn’t really so much of an issue before the end of the cold war. Inter-communal conflicts were largely seen in that context. Mind you, I bet a history of attempts to resolve the Ulster conflict probably would give a pretty good history of the different approaches. Attempts to bargain, to subdue: carrot and stick…)
Galtung. We start with his analogy: peace is to violent conflict as health is to sickness. To cure violent conflict we must have a diagnosis, a prognosis and therapy. Creativity is the new ingredient. Don’t try to find a compromise, try to ‘transcend’. Find an approach, a solution, that breaks out of the limited perspectives. I’m sure we are all up for this. Irene mentions an example of an ‘out of the box’ idea. Two ‘virtual states’ in Israel/Palestine sharing the same space, but with two co-existent political, social and legal structures. Dig it? I make the point that this is pretty much how it was under the Ottomans. Yes! Irene agrees there is such a parallel to be drawn. (The fact that Ottoman Jews and Christians had to pay a different rate of tax from Sunni Muslims does not diminish the comparison; in fact it is exactly the sort of differences you could expect to develop under the ‘two virtual states’ model.)
I need to find out more about what Galtung actually achieved. Theory is fine, but does the approach work? ‘Peace is the ability to handle conflict with empathy, non-violently, creatively’. ‘Empathize with yourself’. He also wants to move away from ‘negotiation’ to ‘endless dialogue’ (what lies beneath the goals, be creative, find better broader goals). He has a formula. Conflict is the sum of Attitudes, Behaviours and Contradictions. (OK, so we are into therapy now.) Again, I accept that when people are highly motivated to make peace, these approaches would be useful. But how to reach that point? Where’s the model for that?
Now we have a couple of class presentations. The first one is from a young woman whom, because she says so little, I have seriously underestimated. She talks clearly about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Truth, justice, mercy, peace. A process that had success because it was preceded by a negotiated political settlement, was explicitly based on shared Christian values and chimed with traditional African concepts of humaneness and compassion. Why did such an approach fail in Rwanda? A number of reasons are advanced: other countries interfered, priests betrayed or abandoned their parishioners, hate of ‘the Other’ had become completely internalised.
The second presentation is less routine, more zen. Could transformational peace-making techniques be used to bring peace to a proto-parliamentary peace group? There is a project to establish a ‘Ministry of Peace’ in the UK. No, not a new nightclub. A government department like the Ministry of Defence. (If the name seems vaguely sinister that maybe because there is such a ministry in Orwell's 1984.) An all-party parliamentary group for ‘conflict issues’ has been formed; they couldn't manage the word ‘peace’ apparently: it has a very negative image with Tories. Ho hum, ho hum.
We also get to hear about the concept of ‘peace research’. You aren’t a 'peace activist' anymore, but a ‘peace researcher’. ‘Peace researchers’ don’t preach or debate: they enter into dialogues, they listen. They ask of defence specialist 'Why we need nuclear weapons? What is our ultimate goal? Could the same goals not be achieved some better way?' Sounds a bit cutesy, but it makes some sense to me. Peace, surely, can’t happen if there is no dialogue on the subject even among members of the same society. The warriors prepare for war. Ok. Maybe it comes to that. But aren’t there other ways, sometimes? End of session.
An admirer of Said
I find an empty desk on the fourth floor looking out over a rainy and, therefore, deserted square. I have a spare hour to start re-reading ‘Culture and Resistance, interviews with Edward Said’, with a view to using this text for my book review assignment. I love the book because it provided the inspiration for my last essay. His rebuke to Western intellectuals for having deserted the Enlightenment project and his joining of the call to work towards the ‘Rendezvous of Victory’ got my juices flowing. Since then I’ve read ‘Orientalism’ and started to understand why he was so widely respected as an academic: such painstaking analysis of such a wide range of texts and such a coherent thread of argument.
As I pack up my things to go to class, my neighbouring library-user sees the book I’m reading and silently indicates his approval. I don’t know who the guy is, or where he’s from, but there seems to be something about Edward Said that attracts a lot of people and their respect.
Session five
Class this week is about conflict transformation. We launch into the ideas of John Paul Lederach, a Menonite sociologist who developed peace-building techniques and theories based on his practical work with communities in Nicaragua. The ideas flow over me without really adhering: ‘conflict is socially constructed’, ‘it emerges in our relationships and the interpretation we give them’, ‘we are actively involved in creating our own conflicts’, ‘we create meaning by comparison’. Conflict is ‘natural’, ‘not negative’, a ‘motor of change’. Peace is more than ‘ending conflict’, it is ‘constructive social change’, it is ‘empowerment to get needs met’. The method is ‘dialogue’. Dialogue, not debate. Listening, not point scoring. Peace is a ‘structure’, a ‘process’: something embedded in the quality of relationships. Like I said, the guy’s a sociologist.
I’m nodding. Yeah, sounds fine, makes sense. I am having a little difficult in placing this approach in the scheme of things. What makes it distinctive? I figure this approach must have worked for Lederach, so I should listen some more. A contrast helps: the paradigm being displaced is ‘conflict resolution’ which didn’t necessarily include ‘change’. What we are talking about with Lederach is ‘conflict transformation’. We have to go ‘broader and deeper’. On four levels. Personal: ‘minimize the destructive, maximise the constructive’. Relational: ‘build constructive communication, acknowledge interdependency’. (You still with me on this?) Structural: ‘root causes of conflict, social conditions, non-violent alternatives, justice, human needs’. Cultural: ‘understand patterns leading to violent conflict, identify alternative non-violent modes IN THAT CULTURE’. ‘Conflict resolution’ (mistakenly) focuses on ‘content’, whilst ‘conflict transformation’ focuses on ‘process’.
Our teacher, Irene, finishes the section on Lederach by touching on criticisms of his approach. Those who say he’s too "utopian", in as much as he doesn’t sufficiently acknowledge the reality of violence, the power of greed. Hmm. Yes and no, I’d say. I can see how his facilitation approach could work with a ‘will-to-peace’ on all sides. But how to achieve the ‘will-to-peace’? It usually takes a long and bloody war.
A five minute break and here comes a what seems a beefed up version of the same thing: Johan Galtung’s ‘Transcend Approach’. (Check out transcend.org) This being my first venture into the study of ‘peace making’ I am still a little disorientated. I guess we haven’t touched on the ‘peace making’ paradigms that dominated before Lederach and Galtung: the orthodoxy that they were kicking against. I’d have to think about that. ‘Conflict resolution’ is one that’s been mentioned. (I guess the problem wasn’t really so much of an issue before the end of the cold war. Inter-communal conflicts were largely seen in that context. Mind you, I bet a history of attempts to resolve the Ulster conflict probably would give a pretty good history of the different approaches. Attempts to bargain, to subdue: carrot and stick…)
Galtung. We start with his analogy: peace is to violent conflict as health is to sickness. To cure violent conflict we must have a diagnosis, a prognosis and therapy. Creativity is the new ingredient. Don’t try to find a compromise, try to ‘transcend’. Find an approach, a solution, that breaks out of the limited perspectives. I’m sure we are all up for this. Irene mentions an example of an ‘out of the box’ idea. Two ‘virtual states’ in Israel/Palestine sharing the same space, but with two co-existent political, social and legal structures. Dig it? I make the point that this is pretty much how it was under the Ottomans. Yes! Irene agrees there is such a parallel to be drawn. (The fact that Ottoman Jews and Christians had to pay a different rate of tax from Sunni Muslims does not diminish the comparison; in fact it is exactly the sort of differences you could expect to develop under the ‘two virtual states’ model.)
I need to find out more about what Galtung actually achieved. Theory is fine, but does the approach work? ‘Peace is the ability to handle conflict with empathy, non-violently, creatively’. ‘Empathize with yourself’. He also wants to move away from ‘negotiation’ to ‘endless dialogue’ (what lies beneath the goals, be creative, find better broader goals). He has a formula. Conflict is the sum of Attitudes, Behaviours and Contradictions. (OK, so we are into therapy now.) Again, I accept that when people are highly motivated to make peace, these approaches would be useful. But how to reach that point? Where’s the model for that?
Now we have a couple of class presentations. The first one is from a young woman whom, because she says so little, I have seriously underestimated. She talks clearly about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Truth, justice, mercy, peace. A process that had success because it was preceded by a negotiated political settlement, was explicitly based on shared Christian values and chimed with traditional African concepts of humaneness and compassion. Why did such an approach fail in Rwanda? A number of reasons are advanced: other countries interfered, priests betrayed or abandoned their parishioners, hate of ‘the Other’ had become completely internalised.
The second presentation is less routine, more zen. Could transformational peace-making techniques be used to bring peace to a proto-parliamentary peace group? There is a project to establish a ‘Ministry of Peace’ in the UK. No, not a new nightclub. A government department like the Ministry of Defence. (If the name seems vaguely sinister that maybe because there is such a ministry in Orwell's 1984.) An all-party parliamentary group for ‘conflict issues’ has been formed; they couldn't manage the word ‘peace’ apparently: it has a very negative image with Tories. Ho hum, ho hum.
We also get to hear about the concept of ‘peace research’. You aren’t a 'peace activist' anymore, but a ‘peace researcher’. ‘Peace researchers’ don’t preach or debate: they enter into dialogues, they listen. They ask of defence specialist 'Why we need nuclear weapons? What is our ultimate goal? Could the same goals not be achieved some better way?' Sounds a bit cutesy, but it makes some sense to me. Peace, surely, can’t happen if there is no dialogue on the subject even among members of the same society. The warriors prepare for war. Ok. Maybe it comes to that. But aren’t there other ways, sometimes? End of session.
Sunday, 6 May 2007
All this Conflict is Getting Depressing
Head down reading Michael Ignatieff’s ‘Blood and Belonging’: an easy read but depressing. Poor Michael. He trails round the pre-9/11 world getting depressed about the way the world is going: Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Germany, Quebec… The book was originally published in 1993 and has have become a bit of a classic. My, but how things change. War in the 90s was all about ‘ethnicity’ and ‘identity’. What is it all about in the 00’s? Fantasy and reprisal?
I’m all stacked up with books now. It’s funny I read all the time, but now I’m meant to read I’m finding it harder. I have to do a book review assignment in a couple of weeks. Probably going to write about ‘Culture and Resistance – Interviews with Edward Said’. His analysis of the Palestinians’ situation has a certain authority, though not representative of Palestinians as a whole, I think. Most of all I like his rant against post-modernist abandonment of the Enlightenment. Also his discussion about the opening of the first Palestinian casino.
Finally for today I have composed a reply for our Chinese friend who was advocating the building of 20 aircraft carriers. I am trying to navigate the Chinese language sign-up screen so that I can post it:
The young heir proudly claims his birthright.
Fearing the bandits will return,
He sharpens his weapons.
Fire consumes his barns and store houses,
The joy of springtime turns to the bitterness of winter.
Back soon.
I’m all stacked up with books now. It’s funny I read all the time, but now I’m meant to read I’m finding it harder. I have to do a book review assignment in a couple of weeks. Probably going to write about ‘Culture and Resistance – Interviews with Edward Said’. His analysis of the Palestinians’ situation has a certain authority, though not representative of Palestinians as a whole, I think. Most of all I like his rant against post-modernist abandonment of the Enlightenment. Also his discussion about the opening of the first Palestinian casino.
Finally for today I have composed a reply for our Chinese friend who was advocating the building of 20 aircraft carriers. I am trying to navigate the Chinese language sign-up screen so that I can post it:
The young heir proudly claims his birthright.
Fearing the bandits will return,
He sharpens his weapons.
Fire consumes his barns and store houses,
The joy of springtime turns to the bitterness of winter.
Back soon.
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Ethnicity and Nationalism
Saturday school. The room has been set out as a horseshoe. One of our Quaker friends has brought her own kettle, milk, cups, coffee and tea and offers it round. This never happened in the other classes.
Today the topic is Ethnicity and Nationalism and how they contribute to violent conflict with reference to Burton’s ‘human needs theory’, ‘democratic peace theory’ and ‘democratisation’ as a theory and practice.
We start with different perspectives on ethnicity. There is the ‘primordialist’ view, discredited in academic circles, but beloved of certain US politicians. Remember? “Those people in the Balkans: who can explain their animosities? It’s useless to try to help, they are trapped in an ancient feud dating back centuries.” The view that hatreds between groups are somehow part of their fundamental genetic makeup: in their blood. (Irene mentions that ‘Balkan Ghost’, a book endorsing this view, was the one chosen by Bill Clinton to educate himself on the region.)
We academics prefer to see it as ‘ethno-political’ conflict. An ‘intrumentalist’ view. Ethnicity is used and manipulated by politicians for their own political goals. Seems about right to me.
Irene proceeds to distinguish between ‘ethnic’ and ‘national’ groups. A group may share common origins, language and customs but only a ‘national’ groups also aspires to their own TERRITORY (and have this aspiration recognized by other nations). So the Roma (Gypsies) are considered an ‘ethnic’ group, but not a ‘national’ group. It seems this distinction is one of terminology not of kind. Various native American groups fought long and hard for their territory: they failed. Is a ‘national’ group just a successful ‘ethnic’ group? (Israelis and Jews). An ‘ethnic’ group just a failed ‘national’ group? (The Sioux Nation and native Americans).
Oh, and now the ‘state’ thing. The ‘nation-state’. France is popular in this regard. They say it became one ‘state’ before it became one ‘nation’. (Benedict Anderson says nations are ‘imagined communities’ fostered by the print revolution.) Irene suggests maybe only in Iceland is the ‘state’ and the ‘nation’ coextensive (cover exactly the same area); even there, of course, there is a sense in which the Icelandic nation is not entirely discrete. Iceland, as a nation, has long been part of a greater Scandinavian cultural entity.
Now we get to the problem cases. Serbia and its expansionist agenda: ‘Greater Serbia’; the aspiration to unite all Serbs in the territory of former Yugoslavia. (Irene refers us to Michael Ignatieff’s Blood and Belonging.) Peoples’ right to ‘self-determination’ was promulgated in the UN Charter 1945. (The language unspecific. The British Empire still a reality: the US ideologically opposed to Empire but pragmatic.) But what about Chechnya? Kosovo? Quebec? The English speaking minority in Quebec? (It's not by chance that Thomas More’s Utopia was an island.) [As we discuss city-states, empires, post-modern states, post-colonial states, the EU I am reflecting that smaller states, surely, only exist by virtue of an over-arching international system under the auspices of, in our time, the US. Like Timor-Leste.] States come into existence because they are recognized by other states; can therefore form treaties.
We move on to consociational or power-sharing democracy. (Arendt Lijphart’s the man.) Lebanon… power sharing but changes in relative population of different groups threaten stability or justice of prior fixed agreements. Switzerland… Malaysia (the system broke down)… Burundi (more and more groups rebelled and gained seats at the table.
Time's up.
Today the topic is Ethnicity and Nationalism and how they contribute to violent conflict with reference to Burton’s ‘human needs theory’, ‘democratic peace theory’ and ‘democratisation’ as a theory and practice.
We start with different perspectives on ethnicity. There is the ‘primordialist’ view, discredited in academic circles, but beloved of certain US politicians. Remember? “Those people in the Balkans: who can explain their animosities? It’s useless to try to help, they are trapped in an ancient feud dating back centuries.” The view that hatreds between groups are somehow part of their fundamental genetic makeup: in their blood. (Irene mentions that ‘Balkan Ghost’, a book endorsing this view, was the one chosen by Bill Clinton to educate himself on the region.)
We academics prefer to see it as ‘ethno-political’ conflict. An ‘intrumentalist’ view. Ethnicity is used and manipulated by politicians for their own political goals. Seems about right to me.
Irene proceeds to distinguish between ‘ethnic’ and ‘national’ groups. A group may share common origins, language and customs but only a ‘national’ groups also aspires to their own TERRITORY (and have this aspiration recognized by other nations). So the Roma (Gypsies) are considered an ‘ethnic’ group, but not a ‘national’ group. It seems this distinction is one of terminology not of kind. Various native American groups fought long and hard for their territory: they failed. Is a ‘national’ group just a successful ‘ethnic’ group? (Israelis and Jews). An ‘ethnic’ group just a failed ‘national’ group? (The Sioux Nation and native Americans).
Oh, and now the ‘state’ thing. The ‘nation-state’. France is popular in this regard. They say it became one ‘state’ before it became one ‘nation’. (Benedict Anderson says nations are ‘imagined communities’ fostered by the print revolution.) Irene suggests maybe only in Iceland is the ‘state’ and the ‘nation’ coextensive (cover exactly the same area); even there, of course, there is a sense in which the Icelandic nation is not entirely discrete. Iceland, as a nation, has long been part of a greater Scandinavian cultural entity.
Now we get to the problem cases. Serbia and its expansionist agenda: ‘Greater Serbia’; the aspiration to unite all Serbs in the territory of former Yugoslavia. (Irene refers us to Michael Ignatieff’s Blood and Belonging.) Peoples’ right to ‘self-determination’ was promulgated in the UN Charter 1945. (The language unspecific. The British Empire still a reality: the US ideologically opposed to Empire but pragmatic.) But what about Chechnya? Kosovo? Quebec? The English speaking minority in Quebec? (It's not by chance that Thomas More’s Utopia was an island.) [As we discuss city-states, empires, post-modern states, post-colonial states, the EU I am reflecting that smaller states, surely, only exist by virtue of an over-arching international system under the auspices of, in our time, the US. Like Timor-Leste.] States come into existence because they are recognized by other states; can therefore form treaties.
We move on to consociational or power-sharing democracy. (Arendt Lijphart’s the man.) Lebanon… power sharing but changes in relative population of different groups threaten stability or justice of prior fixed agreements. Switzerland… Malaysia (the system broke down)… Burundi (more and more groups rebelled and gained seats at the table.
Time's up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)