Identity or rather the multiplicity of identities, in my view, remains a fundamental problem in the Middle East. Most of us have hyphenated identities: Lebanese-Maronite-Christian, Syrian-Kurd, Egyptian-Copt and so on. How we express our hyphenated identities depends on who we are talking to and what the particular social situation is. So religious, sectarian or clan/ethnic affiliations may become the foremost identifier superseding national identity. It is these unresolved issues that have led to such paradoxes as: A secular, socialist party (Baath) dominated by a religious minority, the statue of Salahudin proudly displayed in Damascus but hundreds of thousands of Syrian kurds are deprived of citizenship, Lebanese shiites with dueling loyalties to Iran and Lebanon to name but a few. The cause of these dueling identities are multiple including the artificial borders of modern Arab states and the real and perceived marginalization of ethnic and religious minority groups.
The concept of Arab nationalism grew during the Arab Nahda in the late 19th century fueled by Arab intellectuals returning from Europe in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. This movement was aided by the antipathy many people felt for Ottoman rule. What is unclear (at least to me) is whether this movement awakened a dormant sense of Arab identity or whether it was a foreign construct imposed from above. How, for example, did the average Damascene merchant view their counterpart in Beirut or Jerusalem? Regardless, the concept stuck through the early most of the 20th century as the Middle East was arbitrarily divided up by colonial powers. Promoting Arab nationalism remained the public stance of all Arab leaders but their self-preservation was their real stance. While they preached unity, they effectively segregated us from each other. It was easier for an Westerner to visit an Arab country than for an Arab to visit a neighboring Arab state. Arab nationalism failed because individual Arabs states failed.
So is the concept of Arabism dead? I don't think so. The concept of an Arab nation does ring true for many people on a number of levels. While the Palestinian plight was often cynically used by Arab leaders to promote their particular agendas, popular support for the Palestinians was genuine. There are also the bonds of language, religion and a shared history. Ironically, these popular bonds may be getting stronger at a time when political commentators have declared the death of Arab nationalism. Over the past two decades large numbers of people have migrated from poorer to richer Arab countries for work mixing of previously segregated and diverse Arab cultures. The other factor is the proliferation of satellite TV. Now sitting in Beirut, you can watch a vast array of channels from across the Arab world. There are call in shows, from the trivial to the serious, receiving calls from a dozen different countries. There is clearly an affinity and commonality that is being expressed among the people across the Arab world as never before. So although the political concept of Arabism and Arab identity may be dead, it is being been replaced with a genuine, grassroots Arab identity. To be sure, this does not mean that borders will melt away. After close to three generations of independence, most Arab states, however artificially drawn by the colonial powers, have now distinct identities with a historical narrative of more than half a century that is particular to each. So no matter how close Syrians are to Lebanese, each identify with a different historical and political memory. To be successful, this Arab identity has to be expansive and inclusive so that it can accommodate the vast diversity within our midst while respecting the uniqueness and independence of individual states.
(Photo by AK: San Francisco)
8 comments:
I suspect your intentions are noble, though your premise is flawed and misleading.
You begin with the assumption that there must have been somewhere in history a "united arab world" that, through some imagined or real Western/colonial rapacity, got somehow divied up, thus sapping "Arab unity." Well, to begin with, that oft-harped-upon "Arab world" (al-Watan al-arabiyy) that got divided up by colonials contriving new states during the early 20th century was NEVER a political, cultural, or even an administrative reality. Yes, there WAS at somepoint a Muslim empire, but it was NEVER Arab!!! It devolved in modern times (modern, meaning from the Middle Ages on, 13th, 14th centuries) unto the turks and ottomans, but it remains Muslim, and was never referred to in any historical sources as an "Arab World". Except, of course, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Arab nationalist ideologues began a concerted effort to erase all vestiges of "pre-Arab" cultures, histories, and civilizations in the Middle East (hence, such superfluous meaningless and fairly recent expressions as "the Arab world", "the Arabian Gulf", etc..)
The second flaw of your premise, is your jaded assumption that it was the "colonials" who divied up and contrived random lines on the map of the Middle East. How convinced are you with this canard? Now, don't get me wrong! I am not arguing that those hated "colonials" had nothing to do with the current state system in the Middle East. But at the same time, I think it would be hypocritical and unscrupulous to claim that local (call them "Arab" if you must) players hadn't a MAJOR role, and were not eager and active participants in the creation of the Modern Middle East! Enough already! I think we should start moving away from that pitiful "dependency theory", which pits all the ills of the Middle East on an outside (preferably Western) evil. (and I have a feeling that this is, in essence, the line of thinking and the worldview you adopt in this blog.) Nevertheless, I still find fault in your instinctive harking back to Arab nationalism and Arab identity. The Middle East is a mosaic of cultures, ethnicities, languages, religions, civilizations, and historical narratives. Arabism and arab monoculturalism are silly stunted reductioniist explanations of the inherent diversity and cultural complexity of the Middle East. Your prognosis, although noble in my view--creating an "expansive and inclusive" Arab identity that would "accommodate the vast diversity within our midst while respecting the uniqueness and independence of individual states"--is still reductionist and negationist in its essence. Put simply, you're saying "yes, you ARE different, you DO have your own specificity, you ARE entitled to your own take on your history and cultural references, but you ARE STILL an Arab!!!!" Dainty, and seemingly tolerant, but arguably equally brutal and negationist as Sati' al-Husri's "You are an Arab in spite of you, and as long as I say 'you are'!!"
Completely Unacceptable, Levantine Dreamhouse! COMPLETELY unacceptable! But thanks for trying to address the issue.
Ecce Libanus,
Are you sure you read my post? somehow I have the feeling your comments would have been the same no matter what I said. I suggest you lose some of your cynicism and accept what I am saying at face value; I am not speaking in code.
My post is precisely to counter the facile notion of a rigid Arab identity that was being shoved down everyone's throat. However, like it or not and regardless of whether there was a notion of an "Arab Nation" prior to the late 19th century, there is now a sense of an Arab identity across many of the Middle Eastern countries. I am not talking about an identity borne of a force-fed ideology but of a more organic kinship between people sharing a common language, history and religion. You may not identify with that notion but many people do.
OK, I know, the word "Arab" is really what gets to you. It seems to invoke in your mind some nefarious racist ideology, but most people, including myself, use it as a generic reference to people with similar (not identical) cultures. What I am proposing, if you had bothered to read carefully my post, is that before you consider the possibility of a regional identity, build viable individual states. Viable states are ones that reflect and protect the diversity and interests of their individual populations. Any subsequent regional relationships -call it Middle-Eastern, Arab or whatever you want- will be one that is genuine as it will be not on a force ideology but on the mutual interests of the individual, unique states.
Dyed in the wool Arab nationalists may have contrived an Arab identity that did not exist. You, on the other hand want us to believe that there is absolutely no common threads that binds the people of the area. Both are wrong.
Abu Kareem, you're conflating many issues here, none of which are prerequisites to becoming a nation--although they might facilitate or contribute to the elaboration of that dreamt of nation; i.e: language, religion, history, etc...
Take Switzerland for instance. It has plenty in terms of shared history, language, geography, and religion with all of its contiguous neighbors. Yet, Switzerland remains Swiss; it is neither French, German, or Italian. The same applies to Belgium (and its shared histories, values, and languages with both France and Holland.) Norway is another example. Perhaps the most notable example is that of Great Britain and what remains of its erstwhile empire, namely Wales, Ireland, Scotland etc.. (all of which CERTAINLY have shared values, religions, and languages with England, but all of which insist on remaining distinct--and one day even separate--entities. The same goes with regards to the shared histories and values between Great Britain and its overseas former possessions (the USA, Australia, Canada...)
Long story short, being "related" to you, having a shared history with you (although many Lebanese would argue that this is a forced shared history, a history of subjugation to empire), and sharing a Modern Standard Arabic (which again, aside from being an arcane language that nobody speaks, is an imposed language, the result of Arab-Muslim colonialism, akin British colonialism) DOESN'T mean I have to melt my personality into yours. You would render "Arabism" and "Arab Nationalism" a greater service by maintaining them as elective identities--as all identities are--rather than mandated coerced ones. I suggest the Arabs began first by keeping their pre-existing house in order, before clamoring to claim the traditions, histories, and cultural accretions of others.
btw, abu Kareem, i did not misread or misunderstand your initial post. you reiterated, what i had taken away from the post, in your response "My post is precisely to counter the facile notion of a rigid Arab identity that was being shoved down everyone's throat." You've attempted to make it an easier pill to swallow; a more inclusive, pluralistic, user-friendly-equal-opportunity Arabism. My beef is that this Arabism, regardless of how you recalibrate it, will still maintain its reductionism, exclusivism, and finality. Being Lebanese and being an Arab will still remain mutually exclusive. It's like being French and Swiss. the word "Arab", like the word "French" have ethnic connotations, regardless of how liberal, inclusive, and tolerant the "Arabism" your are attempting to advance. If the issue were this clearcut, then turning a Corsican, and Angoran, or a Moneguasque into Frenchmen shouldn't be such a daunting issue. Yet, Mediterraneans, we both know how difficult and sensitive this question is.
Ecce Libanus,
Good, now we are having a constructive discussion. I hate it when blog discussions degenerate into shrill name-calling or dismissive one-liners.
If identity was easy to define, there would be no need for these heated discussions.
I don't think I am conflating issues. Some shared historical or cultural narrative is a prerequisite for nation building. Switzerland is the exception, not the rule.
I would argue that your take on the Lebanese historical narrative -that the current culture and language are imposed by Arab-Muslim imperialism- is not representative of all Lebanese. I am not arguing the merits of that narrative, but I doubt that a Beiruti Sunni Shopkeeper or a Shiite farmer from the South would identify with it. Any reference to an Arab identity may leave you cold, and that's fine, but why deny it to others as long as it does not subsume their Lebanese identity.
So what is the solution? Lebanon is too small to divide up into Swiss style cantons. Every ethno/religious community should be allowed to have its own separate -older- historical narrative, provided that each narrative refrains from taking on chauvinistic pretensions. Yet,in the end, one MODERN historical narrative, one that accounts for Lebanon as a modern political entity, has to be agreed upon by all the communities. Can you have a viable nation without that minimum understanding?
I started re-arguing the issue of Arab identity but realized that our views are too divergent to ever come to an understanding. So for the sake of peace, I will quit...for now.
Abu Kareem, sorry if i've offended you. that wasn't my intention! Indeed, I WAS trying to engage you, but NOT on a personal level. Show me where I've done that, and where i've resorted to "shrill name-calling [and] dismissive one-liners" as you call it, and i'll retract and apologize. My beef is with your premise, not you personally. and please, allow me to call that premise, again, jaded and flawed.
I had a feeling you were going to come back with the hackneyed "Switzerland is the exception not the rule". That's why I mentionned Belgium and Norway in the lot. but other examples abound; Luxembourg, Monaco, Angora (on that same continent.) Canada (in relation to the US AND Great Britain) and the spanish-speaking nations of Central and South America.
In essence, your premise proposes that we (the Lebanese) should hark back to our most recent ancestor (the Arab Muslim one), but let go of the one that preceded him.
I agree with you that the prevalent "phoenicianist" narrative of Lebanese history--falsified as it might be in the eyes of arabists--is not shared by all Lebanese, and it is not my wish to impose it on those hold other referents holy. By the same token, I refuse to espouse the narratives of others--narratives to which i have no affinities--whether brutal and coercive in the way al-Husri and Aflaq advocated them, or ostensibly anodine and liberal in the way you are attempting to package them. Why not come to terms with the reality that the Near East, and specifically the Levant, is deliciously complex and dynamically diverse, and let's move on??! Why not CELEBRATE our multiple identities rather than waste our energies trying to pigeonhole others into our own restricted and blinkered worldview??
Ha ha! "Switzerland is the exception not the rule"!! You hit the nail on the head, both of you! But, I dunno what the Middle East and Lebanon are, if not exceptional! Roger that one EL.
Ecce Libanus,
You did not offend me. That initial comment was NOT meant for you; just a comment on the tone of the blog discussions I often see.
Anyway, I fully agree with your last statement. The diversity of the Levant is its greatest strength and I do celebrate that. But in the end the different communities have to live together, so if not a common historical narrative then at least a common purpose going forward.
At any rate, EL, I think we have taken this discussion as far as it will go. There is more common ground between us than you think but at this point we are talking past each other so we call it a day. Peace.
Post a Comment