|
“The irony is that as tension builds toward an explosion point, both the Arabs and the West are entrapped by many of the same insecurities, constrained by the same levels of intolerance, and plagued with their own internal conflicts over the definition of who they are as a people” -Sandra Mackey, A Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict
Book Review: A Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict |
|
Sandra Mackey has a superb talent for story telling. Her latest work, A Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict (WW Norton & Company, 2008), is another addition to her volumes of narration on the drama of the Middle East.* Mirror is an engaging and provocative depiction of themes woven through the never ending conflicts of the Arab world. Mackey’s book is a valuable read for both the Arab and Western reader. Its reader, states Mackey, is “undertaking an exercise in learning and perception that is crucial because the stakes are enormous, for the Arab world and the West are standing at the very precipice of a tragic conflict that could prove catastrophic for both”.
The most compelling reason to read Mirror is that it challenges accepted “truths” about the Middle East. It flows effortlessly from a Western perspective to a Middle Eastern perspective and back again. Mackey does not hesitate to point a finger of judgment—at everyone. There are no prized favourites in Mackey’s depiction of personalities and politics of Lebanon and the Middle East. That in itself is a welcome rarity in contemporary writing on the subject.
Its strength does, however, run parallel to its weakness: lack of analytical foundation. Firstly, a key theme of Mirror is that the Arab states are ineffectual because these states suffer disparity between cultural and political identity. While it is a valid point that the political boundaries of the Arab world have often been arbitrarily drawn by external powers, the notion that the Arab tends to identify more with his tribal clan than with his country is insufficient to explain the weak nation-state. The notion of identifying with groups we feel closest to is in no way unique to the Arab world. Mirror suggests, for example, that the US, Japan, and the European countries have longstanding alignment of political and cultural identities. But ask an American to describe himself, and he will inevitably cite family status, profession, and state of birth and/or residence. And probably in that order. Ask people from Devon, from London and from the North Midlands and what it is to be English. You’ll get three different answers, none of them “fish & chips and god-save-the-queen”.
Secondly, analysis falters as Mackey frequently asserts attitudes and motivations of the characters of Mirror without substantiating those assertions. While a colourful term such as “stalked” or “strutted” propels the tale, it also entails subjective judgements, which detract from the validity of political analysis. By the same token, presumed motivations can challenge the logic of the arguments. For instance, Mackey states that
“Arabs generally fear secular Western institutions. To an Arab, relationships within faith and tradition provide the very foundation of Arab society and government. Individual freedom, the golden chalice of Western political thought, demands the questioning of assumptions, which implies to an Arab the most dreaded of ends—the breakdown of community. Unlike the West that glorifies the individual, Arabs define self in personal relationships with others. And it is mutual obligation of one to the other that knits Arab society together. . . . modernization challenges Arab societies because it requires them to surrender their various forms of tribalism to the common identity required by a nation. Because the nation-state comprises the system on which the twenty-first century world functions”.
But if, as Mackey maintains, the concept of national identity is what makes a strong, stable and effective country, then which is closer to that concept: the West that glorifies individual freedom or the Arab that glorifies community relationships and mutual obligation? Surely “community” is closer to “national identity.” It might be more accurate to say that Arabs “reject” rather than “fear” secular Western institutions, for it seems the Arab notion of “common identity” is already found in its “community” and does not need “modernization”, which as Mackey concedes, Westerners assume requires the Western model.
Mirror is perhaps too harsh on some characters, perhaps too lenient on others. But few readers would agree on which was which. It is extremely difficult to discuss the Middle East with a completely objective tone. If it were achieved, it would lack the passion which drives the drama of the Middle East. This is where Mackey makes the most valuable point in Mirror: the fundamental flaw has been and continues to be a failure to listen to each other, a failure to see each other’s needs and motivations. As long as “them” is defined in terms of “us”, then we will never understand how to achieve “cultural accommodation”. The title A Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict is explained to mean that Lebanon can be used as a mirror, a reflection, a microcosm of the Arab world. But I also see the title as offering a mirror to the reader to look at himself through another perspective. To be able to acknowledge how others perceive you to be is surely a step toward cultural accommodation, which, in the end, is the only alternative to continued tragedy.
Sunrise over Lebanese Pine |
|
Please note: · When we refer to a country we are referring to the government of that country. There will always be a mixture of people in a country: some supporting their government’s positions, some not, some just too overwhelmed by the media to be able to make a sound decision. · We aim to use primary, first-hand information whenever possible; otherwise, we will refer to information consistently reported from reputable sources. Citations are given as needed and we would encourage all readers to view original sources of information. |