In search of ‘historical correctness’: the Ba'th Party in Syria

Abstract

'How do we write our national history?' Under this title, the journal alMa'rifa, published by the Syrian Ministry for Culture and National Guidance, opened a debate in 1965 which involved 15 Arab intellectuals of various nationalities, political outlooks and professions.' They were asked to answer seven questions in writing. The aim was not to take stock of the achievements of Arab historical writing to that date, as had been attempted by a seminar at the American University of Beirut in 1959.2 Rather, as a short glance at the questions shows, the main concerns were with the need for revisionism, the possible approaches to such a task and the practical advantages this process might entail.3 Twelve years later, in 1977, a conference was held in Damascus, once more under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture, to launch a 'Project for the Revision of Arab History', which was discussed by a group which consisted predominantly of historians. These two official attempts to revise and re-define Arab history will be the focus of this article. They highlight the tension between ideological and scholarly approaches to history which can be found in all contexts where history is endowed with a political mission. That is to say that while the examples and the historical context of this essay are specific, the phenomenon as such is universal. It has been convincingly argued that all research in history, as in the other humanities, will always be deeply influenced by the contemporary concerns of the scholars involved in the process and thus itself be subject to historical change.4 It nevertheless seems legitimate to uphold the distinction between the ideological and the scholarly approach. Clifford Geertz has proposed that we regard both ideology and scholarship as a combination of cultural symbols to make sense of unfamiliar things in order to help us to orient ourselves in a situation where we have lost our orientation, and thus to provide symbolic answers to essential questions.5 The difference between the two lies, according to Geertz, in their approach or 'symbolic strategy':