Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (33907)	7/8/2002 9:44:46 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I liked several points in Said's review. I only wish I could find a digital version to post here so we could comment about specifics. The first was his argument that Lewis drew much too large generalities, that the Arab world was far more differentiated than these generalities would permit. Or, barring that, should Lewis wish to generalize at this level, he would need to at least note how he dealt with the exceptions to the rule. Second, he argued that Lewis lacked evidence for his points. Frequently, Said argued it was lack of footnotes, which is an unnecessarily picky academic point for a general publication. However, he made the much larger and more important point that Lewis advanced arguments without evidence within the text. I've read enough of Lewis' essays to agree. I found that to be true of his earlier work. And, definitely, true of this latter work. Your point about grand old poohbahs being forgiven these sins is true, but should not be. It's, to my way of thinking, one of the more troublesome things about the academy, that older grandees get away with argumentative murder, drawing on things from their youth that are no longer applicable. Third, Said argued that the only serious scholarly work Lewis had ever done on the ME was on Turkey; that Lewis knew nothing else, first hand. All three of these charges are serious. As for Said's style, that's his style, I don't think it derives from some sort of media jealousy. There are more than a few academics who are sort of no holds barred when it comes to disagreements. I find it entertaining but look to the serious arguments to see what to take and leave. Good morning to you.

To: carranza2 who wrote (33907)	7/8/2002 1:01:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Said dislikes Lewis intensely, it is obvious. Given the poisonous invective, one wonders if professional jealousy is the backdrop for the scathing review. I don't think there's been any love lost between the two since Said wrote Orientalism in the the late seventies, where he basically accused Lewis's entire field of being a racist and colonialist conspiracy designed to patronise the wogs. Lewis, in his writings, has compared this to someone claiming that the field of classicism was really a vast conspiracy to disparage the Greeks. Lewis is getting the lion's share of the media attention while Said is relatively unknown. It surely must rankle Said, and his prose may reflect more jealousy than analysis. Said is relatively unknown? You've got to be kidding; he reshaped the field, his viewpoint is now the mainstream in academic circles. Say rather that the tables have turned once again since September 11th. Resentment at this unaccustomed state of affairs may indeed be a motive.