Monthly Archives: November 2014

The emotional roller coaster of the peaceful Syrian revolutionaries of 2011

24 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Courses

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Today a MESA panel discussed how the people committed to the Syrian revolution of 2011 experienced and continue to experience their lives. The most powerful was a presentation by Professor Wendy Pearlman of Northwestern University. In 2012 and 2013 she interviewed revolutionaries who had fled Syria to Jordan and Turkey. She speaks of four phases of fear:

  1. Fear as the coercive authority of the state: Before the revolution, “the walls have ears” and rumors of information about torture are everywhere.
  2. Fear as a barrier to be broken: During the protests, people muster a new ability to act through or despite fear. Some quotes: “Is that protester a man and I’m not a man?” “My generation could go out and protest, my parents experienced Hama 1982 [a massacre of protesters by the Hafez Assad regime].” “I engaged my humanity for the first time.” “It was better than my wedding day.”
  3. Fear as way of life: As the revolution devolves into a civil war, fear becomes the backdrop. People experience terror physically – breaking out in acne, having digestive problems. Horror becomes normalized – bodies buried in every public park, weekly routine planned around Friday massacres. From “Thank goodness the walls no longer have ears” to “Yeah, but now we don’t have walls.”
  4. Fear of the future: Now many of these young peaceful leaders are in exile. To some extent they have lost the sense of solidarity. They are closing in on themselves. They fear the radical Salafi trend: “All people could talk about in October 2013 was “Da’ash: ‘We did all these things for the revolution, and then Da’ash came and did all these things.’ The fear of the regime is gone, but now there is a fear of revolution itself.”
Advertisements

Emotion, experience and academic distance?

24 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Courses

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Yesterday I attended the Middle East Studies Association meeting in which panelists and members discussed the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, in front of a meeting tomorrow to consider the Association joining the movement somehow. Professor Noura Erekat of George Mason University spoke in favor and Professor Ilan Troen of Brandeis University spoke against BDS. Then various professors and graduate students in the audience advocated for or against the idea of boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israel.

A few interesting points. Professor Erekat thinks a. Israel is treating Palestinians terribly (war on Gaza, settlements, ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, the wall on West Bank land, etc.) b. all other options have failed and therefore c. MESA should support the BDS movement, even though it is only “a pathetic counterforce.” Professor Troen argues that a. Israeli Palestinians are well integrated into the Israeli educational system (1/3 Haifa U students are Palestinian, 22% of pre-med students are Palestinians, the most successful school is in the Arab triangle, there are many outreach programs for Palestinians) and Jews are native to the land, so this is not apartheid, b. academic organizations should not take stances on difficult political issues that are not apartheid and therefore c. MESA should not support the BDS movement.

Other speakers joined the debate. Several anti-BDS speakers argued hypocrisy, or in the words of one (Prof. Josh Teitelbaum) the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that we don’t discuss boycotting Libya, Iran, the corrupt PA, etc. Another argued that “BDS is an extension of warfare,” not a peaceful move. A conflicted Israeli professor argued that he does not want to be cut out of his “home” in MESA, but that “we need pressure from the outside. It is legitimate – I don’t see any internal force in my country that will change the situation.” Pro-BDS speakers, especially Professor Judith Tucker, noted that MESA can tailor its type of BDS and not isolate Israeli colleagues.

The room, I believe, held Israeli actions primarily responsible for the situation of the Palestinians, as indicated by applause when speakers pointed out Israeli injustice. Most of the discussion was polite. Several comments caused significant muttering disapproval. One was when Prof. Teitelbaum called BDS anti-Semitic, another when Prof. Troen’s responses to questions were heard as unrealistically portraying Palestinian Israelis as happy and successful. By far the most censure (perhaps disappointment?), however, was expressed against the pro-BDS Professor Lisa Hajjar when she described Prof. Troen as having limited intellectual ability. (Those words may not be exactly right, but they are close.) People were quite upset by that ad hominem attack, which she said that she “withdrew.”

When does it become incumbent on an organization of academics to take a political (ethical? moral?) stance? When is consensus a form of working together in unity, and when is it enforcing conformity?

So much for modernity

08 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Islam in Global Affairs class

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Once again I find myself deeply thankful to Dr. Muqtedar Khan. I was his guest at the Jerrahi tekke, or Sufi Lodge, in Istanbul.ilminfazileti_1337523976184

The spaces are small but rich in history. The complex has about six rooms that I saw, with the main room having some attributes of a mosque. The focus is a beautifully tiled mihrab pointing the direction of Mecca. A balcony for women surrounds several sides, and the walls are completely covered in framed calligraphy – names of Allah, the Prophet, the Companions, and the founder and leading Shaykhs of the tekke. They did not allow photography, but after some searching I found this photo on a website featuring a list of tekkes in Istanbul.

We entered at about 7pm to find men sitting around in small groups, most wearing white caps. Women and kids were passing back and forth through to the balcony. There was quiet talking, and as Dr. Khan described it, fellowship. Some of the men are just members of the lodge, and some are darwishes – those who seek to follow this particular shaykh’s path to awareness of God. Over the next hour the rooms filled, and at about 8:30pm all aligned to say the Isha, or night prayer. After the prayer, people shifted a bit and the prayer leaders started to sing and chant. Occasionally there were full responses from all – mostly Amen, sometimes praises to God. Slowly the congregation took over from the prayer leaders with repetitive chanting. They began to bow slightly to one side and another. The chant was very simple – often just “Allah”.
Sometimes what is being chanted changed, and the volumes and speed rose or fell. Occasionally the prayer leaders sang a melody over the chant.

As the chants and swaying continued, I ceased registering time. At some point those less experienced shifted into the outer rooms, which had archway views into the main room. The men into main room circled and started a different chant, this with a strong breath component. The sound was “Hu” meaning, I believe, “Him” – God. The whole room breathed as one.

The circle started to rotate, with several men in the center moving counter to the main rotation. One wearing a tall light brown cap began to spin slowly, one hand up and one down. Again time was not registering. At some point the circle and the spinner slowed and stopped. The chant continued for some time, and it too came to an end. The sheik proceeded to a seat where he would deliver a sermon. We slipped out – 11:30pm.

The title of this entry, “so much for modernity”, is something Dr. Khan said to me. Consider so many people, spending a whole evening together, voluntarily, “unproductively” and with no technology. I am, generally, a big fan of modernity – especially the expanding circle of empathy, the chance for improved health, and the dissemination of knowledge. It is true, however, that we must continue to strive for genuine contact with one another and with enduring truths.