Middle Eastern Studies and the Politics of Intimidation

Abstract

A deep paradox besets the field of Middle Eastern studies in the United States these days. On the one hand, there is a wide recognition of the critical need for expert knowledge and deeper understanding of the Middle East and the Muslim world as the United States faces some of its most vexing and high-stakes challenges in this troubled region. Whether it is in dealing with the problems of religious extremism, human rights, or political reform and democratization; the war against international terrorism or the prevention of nuclear proliferation; securing reliable access to the region’s vast energy resources; coping with the consequences of an ill-conceived war in Iraq; or helping the Palestinians and Israelis achieve a just and durable peace, the Middle East seems destined to remain at center stage of U.S. foreign policy for many years to come. However, in spite of these pressing policy issues, and at a time when America’s relations with much of the Muslim world are fraught with misunderstanding, distrust, and hostility, the field of Middle Eastern studies and the preeminent academic association that represents it in the United States and Canada (the Middle East Studies Association of North America [MESA]) are subjected to a barrage of unfair attacks and are accused of irrelevance to the nation’s foreign policy concerns, ideological bias, and distortion of the truth in their portrayals of the political realities in the Muslim world and the threats they pose for U.S. national interests. As with other area studies, the field of Middle Eastern studies has certainly had its share of controversies since its inception in the aftermath of World War II. It has both benefited from and at times been constrained by the various intellectual and ideological currents that swept through the social sciences and the humanities, as well as fads and fashions indigenous to the field itself, over the past half century. These include the modernization paradigm; dependency and world-systems theories; uncritical or even apologetic assessments of “political Islam” as an ideology that is conducive to “democratization from bottom up”; and somewhat optimistic expectations that the growth of “civil society” (meaning social formations of all types outside the state apparatus), even in societies in which democratic norms and individual rights are largely absent, can help weaken authoritarian rule and promote a transition to democracy. Furthermore, as the intellectual heir to Oriental studies, the field found itself vulnerable, both intellectually and politically, to Edward Said’s trenchant critique in his