Vorkosigan

http://www.amin.org/eng/edward_said/2003/mar20.html

"The other, more hopeful side of the story concerns what seems to have been Prince Al-Walid's later change of direction, about which I can only surmise. But I do know that apart from a few courses and seminars on American literature and politics scattered throughout the universities of the Arab world, there has never been anything like an academic center for the systematic and scientific analysis of America, its people, society, and history, at all. Not even in American institutions like the American Universities of Cairo and Beirut. This lack may also be true throughout the Third World, and maybe even in some European countries."

Celsus will like:

• The great fallacy of Fukuyama's thesis about the end of history, or for that matter Huntington's clash of civilization theory, is that both wrongly assume that cultural history is a matter of clear-cut boundaries or of beginnings, middles and ends, whereas in fact, the cultural- political field is much more an arena of struggle over identity, self-definition and projection into the future.

Celsus

Thanks Vork!

Once again, Edward Said impresses. There is just so much I could say on his essay, but I'll confine it to what you point out I would like.

I'm not surprised that Said criticises both of Fukuyama and Huntingdon. As the leading postcolonialist, it's really his job to do so. I'm not that sure how much the criticism of clearcut boundaries is applicable to either of them though. As far as Fukuyama is concerned, the left has argued against his end of history by citing anti-globalisationists, and of course there's Huntingdon. However, a much more robust critique is Geoffrey Hodgson's (of whom I'm a big fan), who recognises the impacts of a learning economy, and adduces the extension of learning to the field of social sciences, which are by any standards, still in their infancy. The other significant factor he points to is variation within capitalism itself--absolutely necessary for institutional evolutionary perspectives--and of course he would be the best person to point this out. I think his vision is broad enough to incorporate cultural diversity and postcolonialism, as well as other strands like feminism and socialism, all the while refuting postmodernist approaches.

Huntingdon's thesis can work at an institutional level--that is, the actors in the international system represent a quasi-stereotypical version of their countries. He is completely wrong on many things about Singapore, for example (which he makes plenty of special mention), but inasmuch as the government runs the country and shapes its future, their actions work out as he would predict. Similarly, the differences between Republicans and Democrats in the US are not sufficient to influentially refute his overall idea of American actions.

Regardless, I still don't like Huntingdon, but I still see his analysis as functionally sound. Hodgson would most certainly criticise the metanarrative nature of Huntingdon's thesis, and probably come out sounding a lot like Said. Said's critique of both of them would be stronger if he could show a stronger link between American plurality affecting American policy. Incorporating plurality (with much stronger methodology) into mainstream academia is Hodgson's target. Incorporating plurality into political analysis is Said's target. There is hope yet.

Joel

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...the way I read Said, he was trying to find a way to express his insight that the rest of the world really only thinks it understands America, but fundamentally does not grasp our pluralistic society and its many deep contradictions, BUT, at the same time, he wanted to point out how the current administration had simply adumbrated that pluralism by ignoring it. Perhaps if he had been giving tactical advice and not merely analysis, he might have been able to steer through that to something that sounded like "you, the palestinians, can cultivate these divisions in American society." Except that American society is hardly very divided on the whole issue of Israel! For varying reasons, Israel enjoys broad support among all sectors of the US. Anyway, I felt that he had problems with this contradiction between emphasizing how complex the US really is, and yet how Bush has simply steamrollered over those complexities.

Rambling...

I just re-read Orientalism again, as timely now as when it was written right when Hussein was elbowing aside the President of Iraq and stealing the government for himself.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Oh well...

I have plenty of preconceived notions about Said I guess. I was a little unclear: you are right in that he is pointing out the misunderstandings of plurality with respect to the US. Anyone who's been on the ground knows the fallacies that get flung around, much more so in nations that no one has really paid attention to before (e.g. Afghanistan, Kurdistan), but the dangers are also present in countries people think they know (especially the US). But the last paragraph in which he snipes at Huntingdon and Fukuyama seem a little off-base. Inasmuch as plurality has had a negligible effect on American policies, his way of criticising both of them seems to miss its target. That said, I recall reading his critique of Fukuyama several years ago, I'll have to go and look that up some time.

Joel