Peter Gran - The Persistence of Orientalism

The Persistence of Orientalism

Middle East Studies Beyond Dominant Paradigms

Peter Gran, Series Editor

The Persistence of Orientalism

Select Titles in Middle East Studies Beyond Dominant Paradigms

Artisan Entrepreneurs in Cairo and Early-Modern Capitalism (16001800)

Nelly Hanna

Gender and Class in the Egyptian Womens Movement, 19251939: Changing Perspectives

Cathlyn Mariscotti

The Large Landowning Class and the Peasantry in Egypt, 18371952

Raouf Abbas and Assem El-Dessouky; Peter Gran, ed.; Amer Mohsen with Mona Zikri, trans.

Minorities and the Modern Arab World: New Perspectives

Laura Robson, ed.

Native Tongue, Stranger Talk: The Arabic and French Literary Landscapes of Lebanon

Michelle Hartman

Pragmatism in Islamic Law: A Social and Intellectual History

Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim

The Shiites of Lebanon: Modernism, Communism, and Hizbullahs Islamists

Rula Jurdi Abisaab and Malek Abisaab

Unveiling the Harem: Elite Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in Eighteenth-Century Cairo

Mary Ann Fay

For a full list of titles in this series, visit https://press.syr.edu/supressbook-series/middle-east-studies-beyond-dominant-paradigms/.

Anglo-American
Historians and
Modern Egypt

Peter Gran

Syracuse University Press

Copyright 2020 by Syracuse University Press

Syracuse, New York 13244-5290

All Rights Reserved

First Edition 2020

202122232425654321

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

For a listing of books published and distributed by Syracuse University Press, visit https://press.syr.edu.

ISBN: 978-0-8156-3697-7 (hardcover)
978-0-8156-3698-4 (paperback)
978-0-8156-5508-4 (e-book)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Gran, Peter, 1941 author.

Title: The persistence of orientalism : Anglo-American historians and modern Egypt / Peter Gran.

Description: First edition. | Syracuse : Syracuse University Press, 2020. | Series: Middle East studies beyond dominant paradigms | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: The Persistence of Orientalism is a study of Anglo-American historiography of modern Egypt, which emphasizes the work done by other professional historians, especially Edward SaidProvided by publisher.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020008444 (print) | LCCN 2020008445 (ebook) | ISBN 9780815636977 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780815636984 (paperback) | ISBN 9780815655084 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: EgyptHistoriography. | Orientalism.

Classification: LCC DT76.7 .G73 2020 (print) | LCC DT76.7 (ebook) | DDC 962.05072/41dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020008444

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020008445

Manufactured in the United States of America

For several decades, the student in modern Egyptian studies has been working in a field with no clear historythat is, with no way to judge where he or she was. Moreover, the field had only one paradigm, and this paradigm failed to account for very much.

Given this situation, this book initially set out to outline the history of American historical studies of modern Egypt, to provide a clearer understanding of the field. This chapter reviews some of the main findings of the book, beginning with the issue of periodization, then moving on to the issue of the Oriental despotism paradigm and identity issues, and, finally, taking up the issue of the role played by the UK in the creation of the field.

The history of the field appears to be comprised of three different, if somewhat overlapping, periods. The first coincided with the heyday of colonialism. In the case of the UK, this extended from the last years of the nineteenth century to the Suez War; in the case of the United States, it only extended to the late 1930s and early 1940s. The second of these periods (the late 1930s to the late 1970s) was bound up with the adjustment to the Cold War, the Development Revolution, the coming of decolonization, and Egyptian independence in 1954. The third period, which began in the 1970s and continues today, has witnessed the fields adjustment to globalization and postcolonial discourse.

The colonial heyday was marked by the British occupation of Egypt. During this time, British officials produced a number of works whose influence came to be felt in American studies of modern Egypt. Cleavages appeared in the field.

In this first period, one could see the beginning of one of the main internal cleavages in the field, one that still exists today. On the one hand, the government wanted policy-oriented knowledge, finding it more useful than the language and area-based expertise possessed by missionaries and then later by professors. On the other hand, many professors were more interested in questions of science than in those of policy. This cleavage was demonstrated quite dramatically by the decision on the part of dominant elements in the United States to align with Great Britain and to rely on its expertise in Middle Eastern affairs in preference to that of American missionaries. More recently, in the year 2001, the government createdor at least gave its blessing toa policy association for Middle East studies set up to address policy concerns still not adequately addressed by the academy.

Following the lead of British scholars, American scholars took the subject of Egypt to be a part of Middle East studies, a framework that included Turkey and Iran. The decision to organize the field within these parameters appears to have been a way of avoiding the need to confront the Arab world of which Egypt would have been a part; in other words, it was much more a matter of divide and rule than of science. As the policy priorities of the early twentieth century were the oil fields and the Palestine Question, Egypt became a subfield in what became Middle East studies.

The second period in the history of the field coincided with the Cold War and with Egyptian independence. The US governments response to the challenges of these years was to create a large number of personnel who could serve in development programs, with the intention of forestalling the spread of communism by encouraging capitalist development. To that end, the government sponsored the creation of Middle East centers in various universities, and Egyptian studies benefited from this development. At this point, students from middle-class backgrounds with no particular connection to the government, the oil industry, or policy studies were encouraged to learn Arabic and other languages and to enter public service. On graduation, some of these students did work for the government, while others found employment in the universities. As a result, the field of Middle East studies became larger and more scientific but less policy driven. Policy centers existed, such as the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, but by this point the actual field was spread out across the universities, and, for the first time, language skills became a prerequisite for ones research to be taken seriously. Last but not least, the field became much more American and much less British, especially after the Suez War. This period came to an end in the later 1970s, when those inclined toward the scientific end of the field began to produce a critique of US imperialism, at just the time when the government was promoting globalization and neocolonialism.