Online since 1997 What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern ResponseClick on a title to get information such as reviews, price comparisons, and availability or to purchase. Search Again-Enter Keyword, Title, or ISBN: |
|
What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response
by: Bernard Lewis |
||
 |
|
or |
|
Binding: Hardcover Dewey Decimal Number: 956.015 EAN: 9780195144208 Edition: 4th edition ISBN: 0195144201 Label: Oxford University Press Manufacturer: Oxford University Press Number Of Items: 1 Number Of Pages: 180 Publication Date: 2001-12 Publisher: Oxford University Press Studio: Oxford University Press |
||
| Customer Reviews | ||
  - Should Have Been Much BetterIt's hard to say anything new about Bernard Lewis, or about this short book, based on lectures delivered ten years ago. It is essentially an essay on possible causes of and remedies for the decline of the Islamic world since about the 1700s. It is not a history book per se; history is merely the backdrop to Lewis' analysis. The writing is clear and accessible (I read it in a day and a half), so a beginner should not have too much difficulty -- although a background in the Middle East would certainly be helpful. I recommend it to general readers, or to students of political science, international relations, religion, or anthropology, at the undergraduate level and beyond. Prof. Lewis is well-known and respected as one of the foremost scholars of Islam and the Middle East in the world. The book therefore contains interesting and helpful anecdotes and pieces of evidence to illustrate and support Lewis' argument, although the citations are few and far between, so much of the narrative must be taken on Lewis' word alone. This book, however, is a poor specimen of Lewis' writing style. The paragraphs are occasionally redundant, or out of place. The text therefore reads (unsurprisingly) like a series of lectures. The book would have profited from more aggressive editing. The most eggregious example of this is in framing the central question. The Introduction is an extremely brief historical overview, from the advent of Islam to the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century. The overview is designed to establish the premise that Islamic Empires were once dominant and began a long decline. What was the cause of the decline -- or in Lewis' words, what went wrong? But the terms of the question itself are not subjected to more rigorous analysis until much later in the book, and then only in piecemeal fashion. Modernity -- in a clash with Islam, according to the cover of the book -- is not defined until page 150: "...modernity, or some equivalent term has meant the ways, norms, and standards of the dominant and expanding civilization." We will take that definition for granted for the moment. On page 73, Lewis discusses the "difference between modernization and Westernization. Even the most extreme and most anti-Western fundamentalists nowadays accept the need to modernize and indeed to make the fullest use of modern technology, especially the technologies of warfare and propaganda. This is seen as modernization... The emancipation of women is Westernization..." On page 128, Lewis makes an off-hand comment about what constitutes "an essential feature of Western civilization." These themes can be collated to frame the central question: something has gone wrong, everyone agrees the Muslim world must "modernize" to solve the problem, but how do we modernize (remedying the problem) without Westernizing (abandoning our core culture)? But Lewis nowhere so plainly sets out his terms; I had to cobble them together from different chapters. Even then I've made a hash of it, for Lewis defines modernity as including the norms and standards of the dominant civilization (here, the West), and asserts that even the fundamentalists accept the need for modernity. But no one can plausibly argue that Osama bin Laden esteems America's norms and standards. After the final chapter, Lewis has a brief conclusion, in which he finally sets forth a basic list of competing ideas about What Went Wrong, and how to fix it. Proposed solutions include (1) military, economic and political reform; (2) blaming outside parties (Mongols, Turks, Arabs, European imperialists, America, Jews); (3) internal reform; (4) adoption of alien notions and practices; (5) rejecting all alien notions and practices; (6) separation of religion and state; (7) feminism; (8) socialism; and (9) nationalism. Others have blamed the exhaustion of precious metals, in-breeding, desertification, and the disuse of wheeled vehicles in pre-modern times. Lewis ends the book with his own prescription: "If they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies and resources in a common creative endeavor, then they can once again make the Middle East, in modern times as it was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization." P. 160. This list is helpful. It focuses the competing arguments so the reader can make his own evaluations and reach his own conclusions. The problem is that it comes at the very end of the book. Until the very end, the text is unfocused and disjointed, and the reader may frequently wonder what a given passage or piece of evidence has to do with What Went Wrong and how it can be made right. The seven chapters between the historical introduction and the conclusion focus almost exclusively on how certain attempts at modernization were tried and failed, omitting why they failed, or why they were not tried at all. [In a comment to this review, I will discuss my personal views on the various theories.] The book, for all its serious, disappointing flaws, is still worthwhile. Few scholars can muster the facts and understand historical currents as well as Bernard Lewis, and it is apparent in this book. We see his usual penchant for the telling detail, the well-used quote, the persuasive evidence, the reasoned argument. These make the book both accessible and entertaining, and more importantly, they arm the student with the means to converse intelligently about the issues, and provide a starting point for further research. The biggest problem is that, due to poor organization and faulty editing, what should have been a five-star book barely merits three. Ultimately, I was disappointed. NOTE: If you find my review unhelpful, please tell me why in a comment. Rating:  - "What Went Wrong" with the editing of this book?I don't doubt that Bernard Lewis is deeply knowledgeable on this topic, but the book is not a good piece of writing. Compiled as it was from a few different lectures and papers, it circles back on itself, and does not draw any clear conclusions. I was deeply disappointed. It borders on sloppy. There are so many interesting and informative books regarding the Middle East and Islam available today. An easy and fun way to get introduced would be to read "The Haj", an entertaining but well-researched historical novel by Leon Uris. I picked up the official 9-11 Commission Report when stranded without other reading, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it is very well-written, deeply informative, and strikes me as non-partisan... you should read it. Finally, "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson is a compelling story from an American with, probably, more experience in the region than just about anyone. Rating: - Valuable but not enough to be the final wordSummary: At 160 pages, this is a very readable book and it also has reasonably solid bibliographical notes. There are 7 chapters plus Intro & Conclusion, and a nice map of the chronological waves of Muslim expansion and retrenchment. Lewis writes in an engaging style for the most part. He provides a hypothesis as to the post 15th century fall of the Islamic world after its meteoric rise. Essentially his argument is that Europe had greater intellectual and practical curiosity that fueled technical and organizational advancement while the Caliphate became complacent, maintained a myopic worldview while stuck in a superiority complex, and thus lost its innovative drive. It is a good read with some valuable points, but it doesn't blow you away with comprehensive explanatory power. Intro & Chapt 1 are a bit slow in the setup. They lay out evidence and cite specific examples of the rise and decline of the Islamic world from medieval to modern times. This is largely gratuitous (though perhaps not uninteresting)because presumably one has the book in their hands precisely because they already know the decline happened. Lets get to the "why" already. Lewis makes the point early and often, that Europe was interested in traveling outside Europe, learning foreign languages, studying foreign cultures, and adopting foreign ideas. Until the 18th century, the Muslim world was not so inclined, and even then it was sort of a too-little-too-late reaction to try and keep up with the West politically. Chapt 2 is okay. The focus is that cultural factors were behind advancement of the West, for example, superior education. A detailed explanation of why the West embraced certain such factors, while the Islamic world did not, is generally lacking. It wasn't called the Dark Ages in Europe for nothing! Why did Europe radically alter its trajectory such that it claimed ownership of modernity from the Islamic world? Perhaps there needs to be more structural, Jared Diamond type thinking at this point. Chapt 3 and 4 are the best I think. Chapt 3 keys on three critical cultural differences that underlay Europe's ascension over the Islamic world: status of women, science, and music. Music discussion occurs in later chapters and is largely unsatisfying in my opinion. The emancipation of women is the most profound difference, according to Lewis, and this also leads to discussion of how attitudes towards slavery and non-believers held the Islamic world back. The science discussion basically says that yes, the Islamic world was the beacon for science at a certain point, but this changed because of the attitude that the Caliphate was supreme and thus further innovation beyond what was known was not worthwhile. Basically a mix of hubris + tunnel vision regarding science. Eventually the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim spheres acknowledged and adopted superior Western technology and processes where it seemed prudent. But what Lewis seems to be trying to say is that the Islamic world either lost or never grasped the institutional importance of science in society. For some reason (Lewis doesn't explain), the West embraced science at a fundamental level for the sake of pushing boundaries of knowledge while also continuously applying it to enhance tools and improve techniques. Though the Islamic world tried to modernize along Western lines in some areas (e.g. military), it could buy guns or whatever, but lacked the underlying societal capacity to design, produce, and improve such. In other words, the West wore well both the academic hat and the engineering hat, while the Islamic world lacked intuitive and strategic vision. Chapt 5 is pretty good; it tackles secularism. The post-Westphalia move to secular nation-states in Europe is often pointed to as a vital moment in the differing trajectories of West and East. I think the most insightful point Lewis makes is about the attitude of the Christian world versus the Muslim world. Christianity started out as the underdog and this lasted for centuries. Islam was defined and triumphant within Muhammad's lifetime. Lewis says this is why hubris and and a loss of steam was such a factor for the Caliphate. And Christianity, once it did make its way to prominence, provided grievous lessons learned that mixing political and religious administration was a recipe for disaster. A great conclusion would have really boosted the overall book, but the one presented is merely okay. It talks about scape-goating and whether the important question for Middle Easterners is "who did this to us?" or "how did we let this happen?" It touches on anti-Semitism. The main problem is it doesn't do much to summarize; to wrap up the content of the chapters and lay it out in a coherent unified theme. The main value of this book is that it highlights important insights here and there, which can be considered in the context of regional studies and other structural and multi-dimensional theories, such as put forth by Jared Diamond. final note: there is a short post 9/11 afterword Rating:  - A comparative historyAs many other readers have suggested, this is not Bernard Lewes' best work, and it is a bit of a failure in one important respect: it doesn't answer the rhetorical question from the title. Lewis is much better at describing historic events and finding out insightful and important tidbits of information than he is at deeper analysis. This is quite understandable, since he is a historian of the old school and neither political nor social scientist. Nonetheless, this is a fascinating and interesting book, and anyone who is not familiar with the history of the Middle East, especially compared to the history of Europe, would benefit from reading it. The book was completed shortly before 9/11 attacks on the US, but in its themes it proved extremely prescient and relevant. Lewis is very sympathetic towards his subject matter, the peoples and cultures of the Middle East, and is fair minded and balanced when presenting historical facts. His is not the goal of condemning and denigrating Middle Eastern peoples and the Islamic word, but a genuine concern for explaining that part of the world, and through explaining aiding in its understanding. This is an admirable book that goes a long way towards achieving that goal. Rating: - okThe subject matter is very interesting, the quality of the book is ok,pages a bit yellow, a little musty - but then again, I paid .98 cents for it, so no gripes. |
||