by Mitchell Bard
Martin Kramer, an erudite
and respected scholar who now edits Middle
East Quarterly, has taken a long overdue
look at the state of Middle East studies in
the United States and his findings, though
predictable, are disturbing. Essentially,
he has documented what anyone in the field
has long known, and that is the principal
practitioners in Middle East Studies programs
are more polemicists than scholars, with an
overwhelming anti-Israel bias, and funded
largely by Arab interests.
It was not always thus. Kramer gives an excellent
history of the field and explains how the
study of the Middle East was once considered
a noble and scholarly pursuit and its foremost
proponents were respected thinkers and researchers
such as Leonard Binder, Elie Kedourie, and
Gustave von Grunebaum. Today, Bernard Lewis
is one of the few people who warrant inclusion
in this pantheon.
It should not really be surprising that Middle
East studies in the United States should have
taken the direction that it has. In many ways
it mirrors the State Department's Arabist
orientation. Given that there is just one
Jewish state and about two dozen Arab/Islamic
nations to study, it is clear where research
interests will be directed. Still, it was
disappointing when I went to speak at my alma
mater, UC Santa Barbara, and learned Hanan
Ashrawi was the featured speaker at the inauguration
of a new Middle East studies center the year
before. Talk about sending a message about
that center's credibility from the get-go.
As Kramer notes, besides an inherent bias
toward Arabist views, the biggest problem
in the field is its lack of scientific methodology.
While much of the political science world
has adopted an increasingly rigorous, and
quantitative approach to research, the Middle
East studies practitioners rely almost entirely
on old-fashioned historical and qualitative
research. Given its subjectivity, and the
biases of the researchers, it is unremarkable
that the professors in the field have such
an abysmal record of predicting events and
why they are held in such low esteem in the
policymaking community. Of course, they also
face a daunting task, as did the old Kremlinologists
and current Sinologists, and that is the inaccessibility
to the decision makers in the autocratic Middle
Eastern nations. How can anyone predict or
explain the actions taken by the monarchy
in Saudi Arabia or the strongmen in Iraq and
Syria when they rarely discuss their views
publicly and only their closest advisers know
what they are thinking?
Another interesting aspect of the field,
one that frustrates Jewish students to no
end, is the enthusiastic involvement of professors
in anti-Israel activities inside and outside
the classroom while the often prominent Jewish
professors remain silent and unwilling to
engage in the campus debate or assist students
trying to make their case heard.
I would have liked to see Kramer delve more
deeply into the funding of the Middle East
centers and their associated scholars because
he is likely to have found that Arab petrodollars
are trying to buy academic credibility and
boost the Arab states' public relations efforts
among the general public. He does note the
indiscriminate pursuit of Arab government
funding by Georgetown's Center for Contemporary
Arab Studies, and the image of intellectual
corruption that this and other academic solicitation
efforts promote.
It also seemed that Kramer gave Edward Said
more credit than he deserves for distorting
the study of the Middle East. Given his advocacy
efforts on behalf of the Palestinians, it
is understandable that most people don't even
realize Said teaches English and comparative
literature and not political science. I didn't
think reputable Middle East scholars took
his work seriously, but he gave voice to the
increasingly popular view that white American
males have inherent biases that make them
incapable of analyzing or interpreting anything
that is not also produced by white males in
the United States. The idea that no one can
understand the Islamic world, for example,
except Muslims from that part of the world
is little more than an effort to shield groups
from outside criticism. Not surprisingly,
as Kramer notes, the only American white males
who are accorded any sympathy in the field
are those who are apologists. Thus, Kramer
observes, you have people like John Esposito
and Richard Bulliet trying to portray radical
Islam as a kind of democratic reform movement
and accusing critics of trying to smear Muslims.
Predictably, representatives of this school
of thought became popular in the post-September
11 propaganda campaigns to portray Islam as
a religion of peace and tolerance to counter
the practical reality that radical Muslims
are engaged in a holy war against those they
consider infidels.
Perhaps the most depressing
aspect of Kramer's research is that so little
hope is offered for reform. Given tenure,
which protects incompetents and the polemicists
masquerading as scholars, and the militant
third worldism that remains the dominant influence
in the field, it is unlikely Middle East studies
in America will return to its scholarly roots.
This is an important book for anyone who is
interested in how the history and politics
of this important region of the world is taught.
Sources: Mitchel Bard is the Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise |