While studying the Crusades in a class at Hamilton last year, history major Kelsey Rice '10 was intrigued how Middle Eastern thinkers were "light years ahead" of intellectual thinkers in Medieval Europe, yet little-studied in traditional history courses. Seeking to better understand the history of this region, Rice applied for and received an Emerson Summer Research Collaboration Grant with Associate Professor of History Shoshana Keller to investigate the foundations of the rapidly growing field of Middle Eastern History. Her research specifically examined flaws in the Western conception of the Middle East, with her project titled "Misinterpreting the Middle East: Western Bias in Approaches in Middle Eastern History."
Rice focused on the "founding fathers of Western Middle Eastern history," who were 19th century British and French imperialists writing about the history of the regions their countries had colonized. The viewpoints of these writers were colored by Social Darwinism and white supremacy, which led them to be critical of Middle Eastern people and culture. European travelers, and later historians, would tend to perceive their travels in the Middle East through the lens of the stereotypes associated with the "Orient," ignoring contradictory information and maintaining their attitude of superiority.
One reason for such stereotypes, according to Rice, was that they allowed early European writers to negate the perceived threat from Middle Eastern societies. Because the cultures of Persia and Egypt had long histories, including prolonged periods where these societies were more intellectually developed and "civilized" than contemporary European nations, imperialists felt they had to denigrate the inhabitants of the region and indicate clear differences between Middle Easterners in the past and in the present.
European writers described residents of formerly developed cultures, such as in Persia and Egypt, and those with lighter skin (and so closer to the imperialists in their racist hierarchy) in feminized terms emphasizing these individuals' lack of "manly exuberance" and lowering their status below the writers. Conversely, individuals from nomadic cultures without a history of development were described according to the more friendly stereotype of the "noble savage," since they were not seen as a threat to Europeans' status. Maintaining these stereotypes allowed European writers to view the Middle East as the "barbarian land of fallen empires" that featured prominently in the Bible and classical texts without threatening Europeans' legitimacy to rule these areas in the 19th century.
These stereotypes were able to persist because of the low quality of evidence available to initial historians. Because travel to the Middle East was infrequent, and British imperialists felt no need to talk to the locals, many writers made judgments about the past from fragmentary statues or coins that could be interpreted as the writers wished. While Rice emphasized that the study of artifacts is still a valid historical technique, early European historians tended to draw conclusions that overreached the evidence available and confirmed the writers' biases.
While maintaining these stereotypes, European writers tended to avoid critically examining their own cultures. For example, many writers criticized elements of fanaticism and fantasy in the Koran without comparing these to the equally fantastic Biblical text of the Book of Revelation. However, some writers adopted a more accepting attitude towards Islam, devoting study to the subject because of their intellectual interest. Rice emphasized how this mixture of racism and fascination requires modern historians to be empathetic to the views of imperialist writers, not simply condemn their writings as irreparably biased.
However, Rice mentioned a few major areas of Middle Eastern history in which the bias of Western writers shone particularly clearly. Women's history in the Middle East is problematic because Western writers viewed the Middle East as a "sensual" place dominated by harems, concubines, women as spoils of war, and "forbidden beauties locked away in hidden gardens." The proliferation of these unrealistic views of Middle Eastern women makes it "hard to know what Middle Eastern women were like" for a modern historian. Western writers also tended to view the Orient as place where citizens lacked free will, and thus had to be governed for their own good (a convenient fiction for an imperialist power).
Rice mentioned that biased portrayal of the Middle East remains relevant today; she cited establishing shots of crumbling mosques in news coverage of the region, which convey the idea of an area stuck in the past. Even Harry Kissinger, a recent intellectual contributor, viewed the Middle East as underdeveloped because the area had failed to realize the Newtonian Revolution of scientific inquiry; to Rice, this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging partitioning and imperialism by European powers as a contribution to the region's difficulties.
Rice's research has confirmed her observation that Westerners have been "misconceptualizing" the Middle East "for a really long time"; her research this summer thus reflects a "bid for understanding" of these misconceptions.
-by Kye Lippold '10
Rice focused on the "founding fathers of Western Middle Eastern history," who were 19th century British and French imperialists writing about the history of the regions their countries had colonized. The viewpoints of these writers were colored by Social Darwinism and white supremacy, which led them to be critical of Middle Eastern people and culture. European travelers, and later historians, would tend to perceive their travels in the Middle East through the lens of the stereotypes associated with the "Orient," ignoring contradictory information and maintaining their attitude of superiority.
One reason for such stereotypes, according to Rice, was that they allowed early European writers to negate the perceived threat from Middle Eastern societies. Because the cultures of Persia and Egypt had long histories, including prolonged periods where these societies were more intellectually developed and "civilized" than contemporary European nations, imperialists felt they had to denigrate the inhabitants of the region and indicate clear differences between Middle Easterners in the past and in the present.
European writers described residents of formerly developed cultures, such as in Persia and Egypt, and those with lighter skin (and so closer to the imperialists in their racist hierarchy) in feminized terms emphasizing these individuals' lack of "manly exuberance" and lowering their status below the writers. Conversely, individuals from nomadic cultures without a history of development were described according to the more friendly stereotype of the "noble savage," since they were not seen as a threat to Europeans' status. Maintaining these stereotypes allowed European writers to view the Middle East as the "barbarian land of fallen empires" that featured prominently in the Bible and classical texts without threatening Europeans' legitimacy to rule these areas in the 19th century.
These stereotypes were able to persist because of the low quality of evidence available to initial historians. Because travel to the Middle East was infrequent, and British imperialists felt no need to talk to the locals, many writers made judgments about the past from fragmentary statues or coins that could be interpreted as the writers wished. While Rice emphasized that the study of artifacts is still a valid historical technique, early European historians tended to draw conclusions that overreached the evidence available and confirmed the writers' biases.
While maintaining these stereotypes, European writers tended to avoid critically examining their own cultures. For example, many writers criticized elements of fanaticism and fantasy in the Koran without comparing these to the equally fantastic Biblical text of the Book of Revelation. However, some writers adopted a more accepting attitude towards Islam, devoting study to the subject because of their intellectual interest. Rice emphasized how this mixture of racism and fascination requires modern historians to be empathetic to the views of imperialist writers, not simply condemn their writings as irreparably biased.
However, Rice mentioned a few major areas of Middle Eastern history in which the bias of Western writers shone particularly clearly. Women's history in the Middle East is problematic because Western writers viewed the Middle East as a "sensual" place dominated by harems, concubines, women as spoils of war, and "forbidden beauties locked away in hidden gardens." The proliferation of these unrealistic views of Middle Eastern women makes it "hard to know what Middle Eastern women were like" for a modern historian. Western writers also tended to view the Orient as place where citizens lacked free will, and thus had to be governed for their own good (a convenient fiction for an imperialist power).
Rice mentioned that biased portrayal of the Middle East remains relevant today; she cited establishing shots of crumbling mosques in news coverage of the region, which convey the idea of an area stuck in the past. Even Harry Kissinger, a recent intellectual contributor, viewed the Middle East as underdeveloped because the area had failed to realize the Newtonian Revolution of scientific inquiry; to Rice, this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging partitioning and imperialism by European powers as a contribution to the region's difficulties.
Rice's research has confirmed her observation that Westerners have been "misconceptualizing" the Middle East "for a really long time"; her research this summer thus reflects a "bid for understanding" of these misconceptions.
-by Kye Lippold '10
