Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age.

Daniel, Elton L.

R. Stephen Humphreys. Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. 272 pages + notes and index to p. 297. Hardcover $29.95.

This book is a refreshing change from the flood of sensationalized and alarmist treatments of contemporary Middle Eastern politics unleashed in recent years in the popular press and media. It is expressly addressed to an essentially American audience of "interested nonspecialists" seeking to make sense of events and cultural developments in this important and often volatile region (understood here to include all of North Africa, the Sudan, and Afghanistan as well as the core territories of Egypt and Southwest Asia). The author, a well known authority on medieval Islamic history, brings to bear both scholarly expertise and personal experience in his writing, which provides the book with a welcome sense of depth and perspective. His treatment also represents what might be called a post-Orientalist approach to his subject: He rejects the notion that the Middle East is any more "mysterious" or "exotic" than other areas(including the United States), questions whether foreign "experts" have insights or knowledge a bout this region that are innately superior to or more "objective" than those of its inhabitants, and is keenly aware of the dangers of stereotyping or over-generalizing when dealing with what is in reality a vastly complex and diverse world of individuals and cultures.

The first chapter of the book is entitled "Hard Realities" and paints a generally bleak picture of the Middle East in terms of its demographic problems and the failure of most countries to develop modern, technological, export-oriented economies. It is followed by a chapter surveying the historical forces that have shaped attitudes in the contemporary Middle East, most notably the shattering experience with imperialism over the last two centuries. The remaining eight loosely connected chapters deal with a number of topics that tend to figure prominently and often erroneously in the American imagination of the Middle East: its fascination with radical ideologies, its seeming preference for authoritarian governments and erratic despots, its incendiary mixing of religion and politics, its militancy and anti-Westernism, its oppression of women, and its disregard for issues of human rights. In each case, Humphreys argues that things are neither so dismal as conventional wisdom might dictate nor as problem-free as apologists might like to pretend. At the same time, he reminds his readers that when interpreting such matters, first, it is necessary to understand them in the light of the historical experience of the peoples of the Middle East and not according to ones own culturally determined expectations of what they should or ought to be. Second, he points out that the history of this region is very much a work in progress; there are no absolute, monolithic positions on these issues, but rather a nuanced range of responses and approaches that have the potential to develop in a variety of directions not easy for anyone to foresee.

Typical of Humphreys approach is his debunking of the "myth of the Middle East Madman" so dear to American journalists, movie-makers, and government pundits. To show that this is a "mythological beast," he examines in some detail the history of Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Suez Crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Hostage Crisis, and Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War. He finds that each leader, far from being an irrational and reckless fanatic, made shrewd, carefully calculated moves that were perfectly understandable, especially when given the historical circumstances which shaped them and the premises on which they were based. The American fondness for demonizing its adversaries and labeling them war criminals certainly needs some skewering, and in that sense Humphreys interpretation is a welcome one. On the other hand, it also highlights some of the limitations of his work and may leave well-informed or skeptical readers dissatisfied. At least in terms of the individual cases Humphreys chooses to discu ss, the myth is largely one of his own making and thus easy to attack. It is most unlikely that anyone today or, apart from Anthony Eden, at the time would really consider Nasser an example of an irrational madman. Khomeini was often hailed by opinion-makers as "some kind of saint," not a raving lunatic, and even at the height of the Hostage Crisis had his share of sympathizers abroad. Saddam Hussein, at least after invading Kuwait, has certainly been subjected to the most intense vilification and villainization, but even his critics generally allow that there has been a method to his madness (although, as Humphreys admits, all analyses of his "logic" are ultimately based on little more than informed speculation). At the same time, it is obvious from Humphreys own account that the leaders he discusses, however rational in their thinking, were perfectly willing to take enormous risks, including that of confrontation with superpowers, in gambles that would yield at best short term tactical gains; and that may w ell be the best definition of political madness. In any case, there are certainly a number of other candidates for a list of "Middle East madmen" that would be much harder to explain away and we will know real progress has been made in acquainting American readers with the realities of the Middle East when it is possible to include without fear of retribution (or lawsuits) the likes of Ariel Sharon among them.

A part from suspecting that he occasionally invents a myth to attack, it might also be objected that Humphreys has a tendency to go overboard in his desire to be nonjudgmental and even-handed by glossing over controversies, refraining from taking definite stands, and wryly dismissing possibly legitimate criticisms because they apply to others (especially Americans) as well. This tends to create confusion and an impression of wishy-washines (e.g., in the first chapter, where the Middle East is held to be either overpopulated, not overpopulated as compared to the population density of a country like Germany, or possibly to be overpopulated in the future). It may also explain one of the books strangest features: the distinctly muted attention given to Israel and its impact on the Middle East, even though this is every bit as fundamental, and probably more important, for understanding the region and its future as whipping the dead horse of imperialism.

That said, this book does represent a commendable effort to bring insight and fairness into discussions of the Middle East, and it may be warmly recommended to the audience for which it was intended.

Elton L. Daniel is Professor of History at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and Associate Editor of the Encyclopaedia Iranica at Columbia University.