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.