Advocating for an universal science

 

For all the wrong reasons - from ideological to sheer ignorance - the history of science(s) is predominantly Western/white - centered. Ignoring the very historical facts, the non-European figures are mostly absent from the general scientific narrative, although the exchange of influences and the free circulation of ideas contradicts this simplified official reality.

Fouad Laroui, Moroccan-born economist and writer currently based in Amsterdam, sums up in his Plaidoyer pour les Arabes the noticeable absences of references of Arabic authors and thinkers from the history of sciences as well as the simplified vision of the non-Christian world, reduced to emotional, terrorist-oriented tendencies. 

Although I am usually very careful with the temptation - which manifests as well in some ideological takes on science from Eastern European countries - of assigning a non-European author to generally patterned European ideas, when the genealogy is based on a careful selection and confrontation of sources, the official versions of the history of sciences deserve to be challenged. By outlining the circulation and meeting of ideas from one cultural space to another, the diversity and complexity of the human mind is actually stated. It is a proof that long before our worlds are connected by social media, the cultural afinities were always there.

On the other hand, the plurality of possible worlds has another consequence: it shows us that the extremes and religious exaggeration and intolerance do exist outside the non-Western realm as well. If someone may follow the far-right discourses of the religious extremism, he or she will easily recognize a pattern so easy labelled as anti-Western as being uttered by non-Western sources. Which is equally historically inadequate. The same with the extremism. the propension towards non-scientific interpretations and readings of the world, such as the alternative medicine or spiritual practices, are not the exclusive domain of the ´less developed´ areas of the world, but do co-exist in the midst of Western daily practices as well.

Plaidoyer pour les Arabes is a book which contributes to a shape a fresh, colonisation-free approach on sciences. Such approaches may further open the ways towards a different, more inclusive history.

Who are 'The Arabists'?

I went familiar with the writings of Robert D. Kaplan through his Balkan travelogue Balkan Ghosts - part of it I translated for a feuilleton published by a newspaper I was working on, in a time when the Balkans were on interest, although deeply misunderstood - which I've largely found relativistic, sensationalist and written in a very simplistic way. It rather has the style of blog posts, at a time when there were no blogs around, written fast, to cater an audience hunger for colourful descriptions and easy explanations of century-long conflicts. Those were the times...

Kaplan is a favorite of many South-Eastern European leaders who happily invited for an insightful chat, especially when they hope to have their name mentioned in his next travelogue, wrote also about South-Eastern Asia and went embedded with US troops in Iraq. He has the knowledge and the right connections for obtaining direct reliable information but don't expect his writings to be academically insightful. You might get the shape of things, but the content must be filled with something different if looking for a solid picture.

About The Arabists, which traces the roots of the Foreign Services elites in the Middle East, I had no idea it exists, until browsing a collection of books about this part of the world. The book was written at the end of the 1980s and republished. What is fantastic about this book is the big number of references and interviews regarding various diplomatic appointees in various positions in the Middle East. Not few of them were children of methodist protestant missionaries sent by their churches to converts Arab populations to Christianism in the 18th-19th century. In some places, like in what used to be called the 'big Syria', which included Lebanon of today, those missionaries clashed with the French representatives represented by the Catholic Church. Children of those missionaries were eventually born in the Middle East, spoke Arabic, returned in the State and were included in the white Protestant elites. They entered the Foreign Service but eventually their interest decreased and went to explore other 'exotic' part of the world, like Africa.

The Protestant religious activism shaped at a great extent the political activism and Arab nationalism, including through the university network created, such as the American Universities - in Lebanon and Cairo, that still remain important institutions of high education in this part of the world. Americans themselves prefer to study there for a full immersion into the elitist version of the local societies and for improving the language. The intellectual life was developed under the Protestant spell. For instance, the first Arabic printing press in Syria was brought by American missionaries to Beirut from Malta in 1834. 

But who really are those 'Arabists'. According to Robert D. Kaplan since the early 1950s onwards, there were two definitions that will exist side by side. One, for the use of the Foreign Service and the Protestant missionaries, referred to 'someone who spoke Arabic well and had substantial living experience in the Arab world'. The other one, public and according to the author embraced by the 'Jewish public' was: 'Someone who loved Arabs, often because he hated Jews'. The latter acception prevailed sometimes in the US diplomatic approaches to the Middle East peace process, including through the policies of the American embassy in Tel Aviv - very knowledgeable in Arab affairs, speaking the language, but not Hebrew (which is spoken in only one country, anyway). I might add that the current pathos of the US administration towards Israel is often based also on a religious basis, the neo-evangelical missionarism which is equally toxic and anti-Semitic in its origin.

However, that 'love' for the Arabic speaking realm has some limits, many of them. It did not have the state-building outreach of the Brits - who, like Lawrence of Arabia or Gertrude Bell were genuinely believing that they can change the course of events and the geopolitical configuration of the region. Many were just too desillusioned with their Western bubble and were looking for an exotic connection to the outside world. They pretended not only to 'understand the Arabs' but they assumed that their disgust toward the unreliable political elites and corruption would in fact help the local societies to change. More often those diplomats chose to change their location when apparently things were not following their designs.

Following the end of the Cold War, when the local - especially Republican - American elites lost their grasp of the realities as the binary US/Russia (which generously got involved in the elite building in many places in the Middle East, Syria being one of them) conflict ceased to exist. The life of the Arabists fell the victim of the 'rampant shallowness and careerism and the sterilization of embassy life. The Foreign Service, after all, mirrors the society from which it draws it recruits, and these recruits are consumed with status and advancement and less concerned with the subject of their expertise that their predecessors were'. 

Robert D. Kaplan avoids making any conclusion. But it is enough to read only for one day the flows of news regarding America's adventures in the Middle East to see how low the standards sunk. It can't get any lower. 

Book Review: Children of Paradise. The Struggle for the Soul of Iran, by Laura Secor

What man can do to man for the sake of ideologies, religion or just because he have been given the power to do so it's inimaginable. I've read about the Gulag experiences, about what happened during the Shoah, about the Chinese Revolution or the Latin American dictatorships. Also, extensively about the fate of individuals sent to Evin prison in Iran, especially during the so-called 'Green Revolution' (I would avoid to use the word 'revolution' without brackets as, actually, nothing really changed after those events). Hobbes' 'Homo homini lupus' sounds like a very elegant description of what fellow man can inflict to another creature.

Children of Paradise. The Struggle for the Soul of Iran by Laura Secor is a dramatic bloody account of the post-revolutionary intellectual history of Iran. Very often, the stories about intellectual influences - both local and foreign - are interrupted by accounts of terrible beatings and torture. 

The author gathered the information during around ten years of visits in Iran, extensive study of various local sources and contacts with local intellectuals both in the country and abroad. It is not sure if she speaks Farsi as well. Secor is familiar with post-Yugoslavia which was a complex political and ethnic structure, but I don't think it applies to the complexities and intricacies of the Iranian political and religious system.

A great merit of this book is that it traced admirably the sources of knowledge that made the intellectual history of Iran, as well as the genesis of the ideas and the translations of various Western/European contexts into the local ideological web. This is one of the most facinating part of the history of mentalities, because during the 'longue durée' of the adaptation the original ideas can be completely redefined and acquire a completely new sense. In the cases approached in the book, for instance, Heidegger - a chore atheist - was adapted to some local versions of Islam - particulary the concepts of 'truth' and being', while Popper was very popular among those looking to adapt the 'open society concepts' to a mix of Islam and Marxist (Popper was originally a marxist but his major works were a permanent dispute with this ideology). Hannah Arendt considerations about the French Revolution and the role of terror in the revolutionary practice was used as a compedium of understanding the post-revolutionary Iran. The fact that theological seminaries curricula include extensive study of Plato and Aristotle might offer an interesting topic of research for a further mapping of various interpretations in different centers of religious knowledge, in Qom and in other places. 

Intellectual histories and changes of mind among people that played political roles at certain moments are as well interesting. The perceptions are part of specific contexts. For instance Mir Hossein Mousavi considered a 'reformist' used to be a couple of decades ago a strong supporter of exporting the Islamic revolution abroad.

But the intellectual reception and interpretations are taking place in a landscape bordered by extensive violence and secrecy. 

Proeminent intellectuals continue to be the direct victims of various changes and conflicts of power among the layers of the establishment. Critical voices are made redundant after forced to sign and pronounce public denunciations of their works and of their colleagues. The idea of dissent and intellectual uniqueness, so vital to creating ideas are compromised. I witnessed myself such processes and extensively encountered such terrible stories during my communist childhood and post-communist coming of age. It's terrible for the credibility of intellectuals as such, and it only serves long term the pervert aims of the ideologues. They win on the long term because the intellectuals lost their credibility, by the simple fact that they were put to prison and forced to confess. It's part of the horrible destiny of the dictatorships and especially in a country with such a huge intellectual potential as Iran it definitely diminishes the chances of in-depth, long-term democratic change.

Although the author doesn't discuss extensively the repercursions of the mixture between religious interpretations and political pressure as such, there are a lot of ideas to think about such aspects too, especially from the point of view of the dangers of theocracies. What happened in Iran - and can easily happen everywhere where religious leaders were given the right to decide in political and social matters - is that the everyday relationships and interactions are defined and punished based on a religious code. 'Under the Islamic Republic draconian moral code, nearly every Iranian was guilty of something that could carry a prison  sentence: extramarital sex, drinking, even shaking hands with members of the opposite sex. What had begun as a religious imperative had become little more than a system of universal blackmail. The right information could afford an interrogator a good deal of leverage over a political prisoner'. Therefore, not only the trust in the intellectuals is eroded, but also the normal trust between humans is for ever compromised. 

Change is hard to endeavour and cannot be long-term without the contributions of those people who loved so much the country but were forced to go out. But once those people will be in, most probably they will live the drama of being rejected or the facts that were associated with various episodes of their lives will compromise an eventual political destiny in a new context. 

Children of Paradise. The Struggle for the Soul of Iran is a good start for understanding intellectual journeys as well as some terrible personal histories of both intellectuals and everyday Iranians (after many years when I've read about it from accounts of some of the people mentioned in the book, the stories about stoning continue to haunt me deeply). It has the merit of creating a different level of discussion that doesn't focus on political and international frictions but goes into the deep roots of the post-revolutionary Iran. It is a welcomed spin that requires though more and more discussion and reflection. 

Rating: 4 stars  

Movie Review: Luther

Financially supported by the Lutheran foundation based in the USA Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, this movie is both an official view on Luther as well as creates and enforces a founding German national myth.

It is directed by the Canadian film director Eric Till, which one year before this movie directed a production about the German resistance hero Bonhoeffer and admirably played by a selected list of actors, among which the impersonation of Luther, Joseph Fiennes, stands out as excellent. The movie was produced in 2003, more than 10 years before the 500 years of Reformation celebrated in Germany the last year. 

As a historical and religious character, Luther is both fascinating and controversial. He dared to fight against the powerful and deeply corrupt at the time Catholic Church, as well as created a German language-centered tradition and encouraged the spread of books and writings through the printing press. But he was as well highly controversial due to his strong anti-Semitism which was rarely brought into discussion during the 500 Years Reformation and it lacks as a critical approach of his life and works at his museum in Lutherstadt Wittenberg that I visited a couple of years ago. The movie do not tackle upon this issue at all, but at a certain moment it shows a Luther devastated that his writings created civil unrest leading to at least 100,000 deaths. However, the anti-Semitic tone of his writings is genuine and not the result of academic/theological interpretations. 

The Luther from the movie is going through pschotic episodes, of long solitude fights against the temptations of Evil, followed by serene moments of clarity. He looks like the tormented Romantic soul which cannot stand the corrupt system of the Catholic church and suffers deaply for the corruption of faith. Without the benefit of the strong support of a world institution, he dares to go on and defies the big power although at least at the beginning he was fighting mostly alone, if not the solidarity of the academic fellows from the theological university in Wittenberg.

The widespread use of the printing press and his courageous decision to translate the 'New Testament' in German, increased his credentials among the German nobles who will end up supporting him against the intrusions of Rome - particularly in the Catholic strongholds of Augsburg or Worms. 

Luther the movie has many strong images and a relatively simple, dichotomic structure - He versus Them. It is rich in symbols and meanings though that make it relevant for the student of the history of mentalities and with an interest in critical analysis of national and religious myths. 

The thing with the 'Hair'

One of my favourite movies when I was in high-school was 'Hair', given its message of freedom and independence from all adults rules - although I was not too much involved in the 'pros' and 'cons' of Vietnam though. As someone who broke free from the communism, I knew how much emphasis was put on the clean short cut of men and carefully arranged tresses for girls - that I never had, as my mother chose to keep me with the hair cut short. The hair was so important for my formative years that I even took part to a sit in in the school yard against the decision of a school director to cut the hair of some rebel youngsters. 

Even we acknowledge it or not directly, the way we look at hair plays an important role in the history of mentalities ad this book reveals several interesting aspects. Actually, we can easier read a culture through its ways to look at hair as 'all cultures have created clear rules and of dress and hair styling to vindicate gender and (usually) marital status'. Hair is more than part of an invidiual identity and personal statement, but is part of an intricated system of beliefs and cultural codes. New hairstyles are indicating a change of attitudes, more than a simple fashion. 

Although the book focuses extensively on the religious approaches to it - in my opinion, the Jewish one is quite underrepresented, but maybe it is because I know too much about it, but it also introduces the approach of almost unknown Christian groups, such as the strange House of David - it goes beyond it, trying to read the cultural messages and meanings. It is well documented, but written in an accessible way.

I recommend this book to any contemporary historian, and anyone interested in the history of mentalities. 

Disclaimer: Book offered by the publisher via NetGalley.com