 |
28 July, 2009 0:35 AM
|
 |
         |
 |
| Newsletter No. 1365
MY MISSION TO DESTROY
THE MIDDLE EAST I am sometimes asked why the Shingetsu Institute uses the somewhat unfamiliar term “West Asia” rather than the term “The Middle East” which is conventional in both journalism and academia. Some of you, who have background in these matters, probably know the reasons already. For others, what I will write here may come as fresh information. In any case, I think it may be useful to have a Newsletter to which I can direct people when I will inevitably be asked this question again in the future. Let’s start with a little IQ test. Your task is to read through the set of geographical terms below and find the one that doesn’t match with the others:
The older term for The Middle East, generally used in the early 20th century, was Near East. The term Near East was matched with another region called the Far East. Sometimes, another distinction was made between a Near East in the Eastern Mediterranean and a Middle East from the Persian Gulf to the borders of British India. In this context, the term’s meaning becomes much clearer: The Near East is near to Europe and the Far East is far from Europe. The unstated assumption was that Europe was the center of the world and that all other geographical points on the globe gained their identity only in reference to the European center. Moreover, the concepts of West and East, Occident and Orient, gained a heavy layer of ideological content in the late 19th century. Most famously, Rudyard Kipling wrote in The Ballad of East and West that “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” As discussed in detail in the work of Edward Said and the many academic debates about “Orientalism,” the European-American ideology that prevailed asserted that “The West” was masculine, logical, active, and superior while “The East” was feminine, mysterious, passive, and inferior. Much of that late 19th century European ideology has been rolled back in recent decades, but it would be a serious mistake to assume that it is no longer a potent force in the world. One reflection of this reality is precisely the enduring popularity of the term The Middle East. Perhaps it was easier for the Far East to transform into East Asia, because the word “East” was preserved through the transition. However, the transformation from the Near East / The Middle East to West Asia seems to have been much more difficult to manage. It is not difficult to understand why. For those who still cherish the idea of The West, it may be difficult to bestow that sacred term on a bunch of Arabs, Turks, and Iranians. From their point of view, there is subversiveness about the term West Asia, because it undermines their whole ideological project. An alternative to West Asia that sometimes appears is “Southwest Asia.” My objection to that term is not philosophical but geographical. If we are going to specify a region as being Southwest Asia, we should assume that it needs to be held distinct from another region called “Northwest Asia.” However, take a look at a map—in particular the location of the Ural Mountains that divide Europe from Asia. If there were in fact a “Northwest Asia,” its location would be in the vicinity of Moscow, a major Eastern European capital. As a result, it seems to me that the term West Asia works fine enough to describe the region in question.
Even more ridiculous than the survival of the term The Middle East in American media and academia is the widespread use of the exact same term, Chuto, in the Japanese language since about the 1950s. Lamely, Japanese simply translated the American term The Middle East into their own language without attempting to consider their nation’s differing position. Think about it: What the Japanese call Chuto (The Middle East) actually lies far to the west of the Japanese archipelago. In other words, Japan has uncritically adopted a geographical term that describes a certain region’s location vis-à-vis Europe, not their own land. If there is something that might be called an American “corruption” of Japanese culture, it can be found right here. However, the fact is that even in the 1920s Japanese were using the British term Kinto (The Near East) to describe the region, which of course made no sense at all from the geographical perspective of Japan. The only time that Japanese made a half-serious attempt to put their own stamp on the geographical terminology was in the late 1930 and early 1940s during their Revolt from the West. In those days, Japanese scholars and eventually the media began using the term Kaikyoken (The Islamic Zone). Originally derived from a word used for the Muslims of China, the term Kaikyoken possessed an admirable neutrality about it that is certainly preferable to the Kinto that preceded it and the Chuto that followed it. In sum, Japanese went from copying the British, to a generally neutral term, and then to copying the Americans. It is remarkable how much the Japanese understanding of global geography has followed the political alliances of the day.
Nothing of the previous discussion involves any new idea. I had thought through these issues long before I even established the Shingetsu Institute. When it came time for me to establish the categorization system for the Shingetsu Newsletter, it was clear in my mind that West Asia, or Nishi-Ajia in Japanese, was the most appropriate term, and the one that I would use consistently. I fully realize that The Middle East is still a far more recognizable term in the world at large. I realize that some people will give me a cocked eyebrow when I insist on using the relatively unfamiliar term West Asia. So be it. I’m willing to be considered an intellectual snob if that is necessary, because I believe that this is actually a pretty important issue. Terminology does matter. It shapes perception and thought. I will use the term The Middle East if it is in the name of an organization or something of that nature, but otherwise I will use the term West Asia whenever describing the region we are discussing. In short, I am a man on a mission to destroy The Middle East.
1) From Marwan Noman, ambassador of the Republic of Yemen in Tokyo, on May 24, 2009: After the fall of the British Empire and the withdrawal from the region in accordance with its East of Suez policy, the term "Near East" disappeared. The term "Middle East" appeared together with the new US involvement in the region. This occurred in the years following World War II. The term Middle East prevailed until the appearance of the ideas of the neoconservatives of the Bush administration, who brought forth concepts such as the "New Middle East" and the "Broader Middle East," together with the term "the MENA region" -- the Middle East and North Africa. This "MENA" term corresponds with the terminology employed by Japan's MOFA and other Japanese organizations. It is also used by China to identify the same areas. MENA also has an affiliation with the Pentagon. The characteristic of this terminology
is that it includes Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel; but
it also separates the North African Arab countries from sub-Saharan
Africa, including Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, and the Comoros
(which are all members of the Arab League!).
Granted everything you say in your argument, but wouldn't Southwest Asia not only be more accurate geographically, but also be a translation of the Japanese term, Seinan Ajia? It's just so you don't do like those Japanese history textbooks I've seen that put Egypt in Southwest Asia.
I will respond to John Edward Philips' suggestion that perhaps the term "Southwest Asia" might be preferable to "West Asia" as a replacement for the lands currently known as "The Middle East." As I indicated in the Newsletter, I find Southwest Asia to be the most acceptable alternative to West Asia, but my personal preference would remain for West Asia. I can think of three reasons to support my view. First, as I already argued, there is no region called "Northwest Asia" and therefore I see no imperative to specify that West Asia lies in a more southward location. The distinction seems unnecessary. Second, as a logician I prefer simplicity over complexity whenever it is possible. Since the term West Asia is shorter and simpler than Southwest Asia (and nothing is really lost in using the shorter term), I think it deserves the nod. Third, I take some satisfaction in using the term West Asia precisely because it is a more direct challenge to the 19th century East-West ideology. The question of Egypt is undoubtedly problematic, and I seem to recall thinking a long time about how Egypt, which spans the continents of both Africa and Asia, should be categorized. Ultimately, I decided that Egypt's primary identity is African. No one can deny that the heart of Egypt is not the Sinai Peninsula but the Nile Valley. Unambiguously, the Nile is an African waterway. As such, I am content to categorize Egypt as an African state, just as we tend to see Russia as primarily a European state. I think Ambassador Noman has made a valuable point in regard to Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, and the Comoros Islands, which are all members of the Arab League and yet thought to lie outside "The Middle East" as it is usually conceived. Although there is probably no perfect categorization scheme, for Shingetsu Institute purposes we recognize a West Asia (including Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Israel), an Islamic Africa, as well as something called Japan-Arab relations, signifying Japanese connections with the countries and peoples of the Arab League, spanning West Asia and Northern and Eastern Africa.
Do you think that "The Middle East" is equal to Arab? Why? In my opinion, being an Arab state but outside the "The Middle East" is not a contradiction. The Arab League is the organization of Arab countries -- and "Arab" is a culture (or race), while "The Middle East" or "West Asia" is a geographical term. There are non-Arab countries in "The Middle East" (like Iran) are there are some Arab countries outside "The Middle East." Isn't it acceptable as it is?
I would like to belatedly add to the previous discussion. It is important to be aware of the ideological baggage inherent in the "area studies" approach to research. If anything, this approach highlights surmised insurmountable differences ("East is East/West is West"). This is no less true with the conceptualized "Asia" which originated with Western cartographers. During the Cold War, institutional scholarship even attempted to discern the "good" Asia (Japan) from the "bad" (China). Hence the rise of "modernization" theory -- successful in the former but not the latter -- as the acceptable historical approach intended to preclude a Marxist-oriented approach based on conflict. It is conceivable an "area studies" approach to Islamic studies intrinsically limits the perceived influence of Islamic civilization on "Western culture." For example, the al-Hambra in Granada supposedly represents Spain's Islamic period, but how often is it referred to as Islam's "European Period"? A better example might be the Italian Renaissance: The Florentian architect Brunelleschi formulated linear perspective in the 15th century, a basic element of Renaissance art. This would not have been possible had he not studied the 9th century algebraic treatises of the Baghdad-based mathematician al-Khwarizmi introduced to Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries. The point is that it becomes easier to merely footnote these facts as unique moments of "interaction" when scholarship aims to draw borders between different parts of the globe. Of course, "area" histories can draw attention to certain specificities the way "national" histories can. However, like "national" histories, they have their own specific agenda which is often in tandem with political desires to subordinate one group below another.
|
| ©1995-2006
SHINGETSU INSTITUTE, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use. |