Re: Economics of Islam

[Colin Danby <danbyc@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Barkley,

>      By "the West" I mean specifically those powers
> in the West that exercised colonial or imperialist
> control in the Middle East (is this an acceptable term
> for you?).  That would include UK, France, and the
> United States, although arguably could include some
> other powers as well.  I think it is a waste of time
> to specifically list countries when a reference to
> imperialist conduct clearly indicates certain countries.
> The discussion involved "imperialist conduct," both
> in Lewis' article and in my remarks.

I'm sure we can both agree that the category needs to be handled with some
care, especially when cultural attributes are attributed to it.  This is
probably the most basic logical problem with Lewis -- the way "The West" and
"western civilization" are treated as obvious categories and never seriously
questioned.

>     I am a fan of Said's book, _Orientalism_ and well
> aware of its arguments.  But, just because Said
> criticized the use of certain terms does not mean
> therefore that they are useless.  His book is not
> perfect either, brilliant as it is.

Nor have I said it is.  Said has been very carefully and usefully critiqued
within the field of Post Colonial studies.

>       Your remarks here suggest that you are capable
> of a serious critique of Lewis's article.  So far, I have
> not seen one.  You are welcome to try.  I agree that
> "pretty good" is vague, but I disagree that it is empty.
> I have already provided my own disagreement with
> Lewis.  I think that the current Wah'habist fundamentalist
> movements are not "anti-modern."  Rather, they
> advocate what I and my wife have labeled in print, the
> "new traditional" economy.

We both seem to agree that traditional|modern is a misleading dichotomy.  I'll
look for your work on this.

> Would you like to read the
> sources I provided on that and engage this in a serious
> manner?

If somebody wants to state a clear proposition relevant to PK theory I'm happy
to engage it here.  I have not found this list, in the past, to be a useful
place for discussing matters falling well outside PK theory, which is why I
have been a little circumspect in characterizing Lewis here e.g. I said
"problematic" not "noxious."

Let me sketchily suggest one area that might be amenable to PK analysis.
Another logical flaw in Lewis' article is that arguments around "imperialism"
are dealt with by turning "imperialism" into a strange, caricatured category
-- half attitude, half past history -- which then lets Lewis demolish it as a
plausible issue.  What's missing is a sense of the way long-term and ongoing
U.S. support for what one might (loosely) call
secular-military-developmentalist governments in places like Pakistan, Egypt,
and Turkey might have contributed to the way that oppositional politics within
civil society has drawn on political derivatives of Islam.  Part of this story
is surely the way these national economies have developed (most obviously
Egypt's over the last 3 decades) under U.S. tutelage.

At a broad level, we're arguably looking at the historical fallout from
containment.  (There, I managed to link it all back to Russia!)

> Or are you going to confuse remarks directed
> at talk radio bigots

I have no idea where this comes from Barkley.  I have indicated precisely what
I was responding to using the standard e-mail quoting conventions.  You
persist in reading me into some other conversation.

Best, Colin

> with a serious article by a great
> scholar like Lewis (and, yes, he is a great scholar, even
> if one disagrees with him)?  Maybe this is not what you
> intended to do.  But it certainly appeared that you did.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Danby" <danbyc@xxxxxxx>
> To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "pkt"
> <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Economics of Islam
>
> > Hi Barkley,
> >
> > >   I think the Lewis article is pretty good.  He
> > > does not refer to "Islamic nations" as you imply
> > > below, but to "Muslim nations."
> >
> > I did not imply that.  I was responding to the Mason Clark's post
> > (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00493.html), and in my
> response
> > (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00501.html) I carefully
> quoted
> > the use of  the phrase "Islamic nations" *by* Clark, with a little ">".
> How
> > much clearer would you like me to be?
> >
> > > The former are
> > > those that impose a shari'a form of Islamic
> > > law as for example in Iran.  Lewis is well aware
> > > of such distinctions.
> > >       He did not mention the reimposition of the Shah
> > > or the shelling of Lebanon.  But he did agree that
> > > the West had behaved in an imperialistic manner
> > > toward both the Muslim and Arab worlds.
> > >       Most of the discussion in the article you cited
> > > is directed at ignorami on talk radio, not Lewis, a
> > > great scholar of Islam, whatever Said might say.
> >
> > Said's critique is directed at how issues are framed (among other things
> his
> > work questions the very stability and coherence of your category "the
> West").
> > Said's critique does not preclude the possibility that Lewis knows a lot
> of
> > things.  As I said in my last message this is not something that can be
> > discussed via soundbites, which is why I will not respond to your empty
> > "pretty good."
> >
> > Best, Colin
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
____________________________________________
Colin Danby
Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
University of Washington, Bothell
(425) 352-5285
fax (425) 352-5335
danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bothell.washington.edu/IAS/danby/
____________________________________________