What this short essay intends to discuss is the role of one of the key figures of Orientalism; Bernard Lewis, a man without whom a great deal of the present-day ‘knowledge’ in the field of Middle Eastern studies would come into view differently.
Though a difficult task at times, especially trying to look unbiasedly multifaceted apropos this very critical person’s academic emergence, a profound coverage of various layers of his personality and thereof the prevailing thought at the back of his abundant number of published works proves to be indispensable. Comprehending this character entirely, if possible, not only illuminates the authenticity of a vast portion of the ‘knowledge’ of the area, but also assists the fervent (re)searchers of the field to trail a more accurate direction towards their studies.
It could be established that the leading thought in most of Lewis’s works lean towards certifying the undeviating disagreement between the East and the West on which he unobservedly relies to gain his own racial advantage, meaning that the permanent ‘clash’ keeps the two sides of the play permanently engaged, and the actual victor of the tragedy is the sole observer of neither sides who divided and conquered; no pain, ample gain.
Reading some of Lewis’s available autobiographies one might propose this question that why he typically passes the beginning stages of his life ignoring even a brief background of his family to swiftly jump into his primary academic stages. His first experience as an undergraduate student dates back to 1933 (Lewis, 2004). He mentions his familiarity with the field originated from the experience he had had for Bar Mitzvah. In 1936, he graduated from SOAS at the University of London, and three years later completed his PhD at the same place; the former specialization in History with the focus on the Near and Middle East, and the latter, History of Islam (Lewis, 2006). He did a variety of things among which being in the Royal Armored Corps and Intelligent Corps during World War II is noticeable. He also knows a number of languages.
Once a person wants to grasp any slightest notion(s) of Lewis, a list of ‘for and against’ scholars formulates all claiming their own truthfulness. Among his disciples one would expect Martin Kramer, Martin Peterz, Judith Miller, Charlie Rose, etc. On the other hand, Edward Said, Alam Shahid, Michael Hirsh, and a number of others are extremely against his views. Before referring to any of these pros and cons, a direct review of What Went Wrong? – one of his semi-recent works in which one could somewhat effortlessly trace the cyclically frequent motifs Lewis always pushes forward in support of the aforementioned clash/disagreement – looks to be a helpful aid in this investigation.
What Lewis presents throughout this specific work is hatred and violence in one way or another; the trend which for he is a one-way route, and in fact has been the same since the commencement of the two sides, namely Islam and Christianity which he naively sets as representatives of the East and the West (Lewis, 2002). He counts a number of factors including success, development, and civilization which he falsely argues all belong only to the West, and are the conspicuous absent factors for the East. This absolutely taken-for-granted foundation of him facilitates substantiating his claim: an everlasting abhorrence of the Easterners towards the Westerners which is the natural consequence of all the lacks they feel comparing themselves to those all-having people of the West.
Here an essential query vis-à-vis Lewis’s stance/stand would clarify the ‘whyness’ of most of his works. The question is, being neither a Muslim or in his generalization an Easterner, nor a Christian or to him a Westerner, why he, a Jewish to the core, is that much concerned for this so-called clash between the two.
Reading some of Lewis’s works aside from other scholars’ interpretations, a person, in particular a one categorized in one of his two opposite sides, would straightforwardly, though from time to time intricate, sense a pre-planned idea in search of benefits. To put it simple, the writer chases his/her own troops’ advantages, in this case Jewish people, by proposing a conflict for the two sides that could threaten his power. Once again, the idea of divide and conquer is revealed.
References
Alam, M. S. (2003, June 28). Scholarship or sophistry? Bernard Lewis and the new Orientalism. Counterpunch.
Alam, M. S. (2002, November 26). A predatory Orientalism, What went wrong? Counterpunch.
Hirsh, M. (). Bernard Lewis revisited: what if Islam isn’t an obstacle in the Middle East, but the secret to achieving it? The Washington Monthly.
Lamb, C. (2001, December 30). [Interview with Bernard Lewis, author of What went wrong?: the clash between Islam and modernity in the Middle East]. Retrieved from http://www.booknotes.org/Tran/?ProgramID=1657
Lewis, B. (2010, November 1). Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Emeritus. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~nes/faculty_lewis.html
Lewis, B. (2002). What went wrong?: the clash between Islam and modernity in the Middle East. United States of America: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, B. (personal communication, December 30, 2001)
