Rating: 
Summary: Excellent introduction to burning topic
Review: This is a short collection of chapters based on lectures. So the
book is not as comprehensive as a full-length treatment and is
awkward at a few places. No instant, post-9/11 book either,
which is exactly what an intelligent reader does *not* want.
The book was finished before September 2001.But it's enough to give a flavor of history at its best. The book
distills many essential points that only an historian of Lewis'
greatness could have full grasp of, but never in a way that
overwhelms the non-specialist reader. A few pages reach true
profundity about the nature of customs, mentality, technology,
and historical progress and decline. Best of all: Lewis is a real historian, a man of wide and liberal
learning and not in any way a politically-correct, postmodern
cultist :-)
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book, Misleading Title
Review: The title to this book is quite misleading, and one has to suspect that it was chosen for marketing purposes. The author tells us that the core of the book previously appeared in German under a title that translates as "Culture and Modernization in the Near East." That title remains a reasonably accurate one, but I doubt it would sell many books. (As I write, this book ranks number 15 on Amazon's sales list.) One can read current title in two ways. First, one can read it descriptively as "What Went Wrong?" - to which Professor Lewis replies: "Just About Everything." Secondly, one can read it more judgmentally as "Why Did Everything Go Wrong?" - to which Professor Lewis answers: "I've Studied the Matter Much too Carefully to Know." I don't mean to imply that Professor Lewis is one of those unfortunate persons who have read themselves stupid. On the contrary, he has cleared his mind enough to understand that those who went off on the wrong path would do themselves a big favor by being a little less obsessed with how they got where they are (and with who got them there -- a question that causes them to go completely haywire) and a little more concerned with correcting their own shortcomings. That shouldn't be too painful if the rest of us try to be as high-minded as Professor Lewis. If you want to read a brief and often entertaining history of certain major themes of Middle Eastern cultural history, buy this book. My only complaint is with the come-on on the title page.
Rating: 
Summary: What Went Wrong With Bernard Lewis?
Review: In his latest orientalist effort, What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford, 2002), Bernard Lewis attempts to identify the root causes behind the Middle East's tragic fall from the intellectual and cultural grandeur it commanded in the Middle Ages. The question, Lewis rightly notes, is a central preoccupation with the people of the region. A great many explanations have been made by Middle Easterners themselves, from theological to technological and internal to external causes. Dismissing these attempts as excessively emotional and utterly misguided, Lewis sets forth to answer the question as an authority on history. He provides an interesting perspective on the Ottoman Empire and its slow and painful collapse. Unfortunately, several problems beset the book as well as the author, ultimately warranting the dismissal of both. These include glaring factual inaccuracies, baseless social and political commentary, and Lewis's notorious denial of the Armenian Genocide. To begin with, Lewis insists on equating modernization with Westernization, and measures the cultural value of the Middle East against "Western standards". Hence, the very question of "what went wrong" with the Middle East implies that something "went right" with the West. This is a preposterous foundation from which to proceed. Given that the West has on its conscience such indefensible outrages as the Holocaust, the Atlantic Slave Trade, global imperialism, and the near-total genocide of the indigenous population of North America, "Western standards" hardly serve as any basis upon which to level cultural judgements against the Middle East. Nobody should confuse "Western standards" with moral excellence, the sheer absurdity of which does not escape Lewis's book. With this unjustified line of reasoning as the very premise of the book, Lewis then commits himself to the equally unjustified blunder of equating the Middle East with Islam. It doesn't matter to Lewis that the Arabs and the Turks combined make up less than 20% of the global Muslim population. It doesn't matter that Muslims thrive in the millions in such diverse regions as Africa, China, India, and South East Asia. Whatever is wrong with the Middle East is wrong with Muslims everywhere. It doesn't matter that a Muslim country like Malaysia can quite impressively compete with the West on its own economic and political terms. So long as the Arabs are run by dictators (many of whom are backed by the U.S.), the entire 1.2 billion people of the Muslim world must be undemocratic. Forget the fact that Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia, the most populous Muslim countries, can all boast of having had female leaders, while the United States has yet to do the same. So long as women do not enjoy equal rights in Saudi Arabia, the entire Muslim world is guilty of misogyny. The reader should notice that when talking about women's rights in the contemporary Muslim world, Lewis reduces Islam to the Middle East, and the Middle East to the Arabs. Western imperialism is given considerably pathetic treatment in the book. Lewis goes so far as to insist that imperialism is not responsible for the contemporary political problems of the Middle East, limiting its impact to cultural influences like music and theater. This notion violates outright everything we know about British and French colonialism. The very borders of the modern Arab states were arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers, conscious of the fact that they would lead to future conflicts. Another of the hallmark policies of British colonialism was the establishment of "friendly" regimes, in other words dictatorships, which guaranteed the flow of profits abroad. National resistance was violently suppressed, as was the case with India. In Algeria, the French slaughtered well over one million people in an attempt to suppress liberation, an atrocity that occurred in the lifetime of Lewis himself. Lewis describes British colonialism in the Muslim world as a "brief interlude", ignoring the fact that the British occupied India, hitherto governed by the Muslim Mughals, for 300 years. Also, to deny the violent and repressive nature of European imperialism is to make a complete mockery of the American Revolution, which was fought against the brutal imperial control of Mother England. The last couple of chapters are perfectly meaningless. Lewis actually belabors the delayed penetration of Western music and sports into the Middle East. Of what importance may we ascribe to the role of basketball (p. 147) of all things to the question of "what went wrong"? How exactly does the impact of the novel or theatrical play factor into the question? As though these issues were not pointless enough, Lewis sinks into shameless sycophancy by comparing Western politics to "harmonious music" (p. 129). Politics in the West, Lewis insists, is so seamless and cooperative as to resemble musical harmony. Surely he had something in mind other than the U.S., whose politics, were it to be represented by music, would yield anything other than harmony. Indeed, it would be downright offensive to human ears. I might mention the word "Enron" to illustrate my point. The most disappointing part of the book yet is the conclusion, in which Lewis has the audacity to talk about "respect for human rights". The glaring, almost earsplitting hypocrisy of Lewis's moralizing about human rights lies in his now infamous denial of the Armenian genocide. In 1994, Lewis earned the ire of human rights organizations after he publicly denied the Armenian genocide in France. French law maintains strict civil and criminal laws against any denial of the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Lewis was later convicted and fined tens of thousands of dollars (see "France Fines Historian Over Armenian Denial", Boston Globe, 22 June 1995). One might imagine that historical objectivity would, at the very least, figure into the "Western standards" that Lewis so obsequiously reveres. Given his criminal record for genocide-denial, a far more pertinent question we might ask is, What Went Wrong With Bernard Lewis? -------------------------------------------------------- Note: For a far more scholarly reading, see David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace (Owl Books, 1989).
Rating:
Summary: A Historical Perspective Of the Rise and Fall of the Middle
Review: Lewis' book is based on three lectures that he gave in Vienna concerning what has happened to the Middle East over the past 2000 years. A very detailed and analytical study of how the Islam countries of the Middle East expanded and dominated the borders of their surrounding neighbors in Europe and parts of Asia. Lewis explains that the power of the Ottoman Empire began to dissipate with the rise of modernization of the Europeon powers particularly in the areas of military and science. In addition, he discusses the ability of countries to develop secularism with separation of church and state, which develop more religious tolerance and government that does not rely solely on religious customs and laws. In addition, Lewis notes that Islam portends that the west are composed of infidels that limits the flow of information to the Middle East. Western culture and modernization is then stymied in the Middle East. He even notes that Western effects are still having an effect in the Middle East particularly in technology, communications and military. How interesting that the current structure of the Islamic religion and ruling power of Iran is based on recent restructing with various levels of authority among the Islamic leadership that has only become apparent in the last century and is not included in origins of Islam. The epilogue provides a short summary of how the Middle East, a once dominating world power has blamed the west currently the US and Israel for their poverty and inability to participate in the world's economic growth. Unlike their Asian neighbors, who were once behind, but now compete with the west for economic power, the Middle East has been unable to participate most likely due to, not because of Islam, but by those who represent Islam as fundelmentalists, to keep their world as they believe it should be not neceesarily in line with the intentions of Islam. The fact that technical support often comes from outside the Middle East has been difficult for the Middle East to tolerate as they were once and still are the religous center of the world and were at one time the dominant world culture.
Rating:
Summary: Is the Arab world able to avoid destroying itself?
Review: Bernard Lewis admires the past great Islamic civilization. Some 500 years ago the Muslim world dominated the arts and sciences. The West was backward and intellectually impoverished. Yet, today Western Civilization surpasses the Islamic culture in just about every important category. How did this occur? The author
possesses the overwhelming credentials to perspicaciously respond to this disturbing question. Lewis has literally written more books on the subject than most entire Mid Eastern departments of our major universities. It is very appropriate to colloquially compare Bernard Lewis to Basketball's Michael Jordan. Lewis is despised by those of the politically correct Left. They charge him with being an "Orientalist" bigot who exaggerates the collapse of Islamic culture. The latter are grievously in error for Bernard Lewis goes out of his way to portray the Arab world in a fair and balanced manner. Lewis describes the majority of Arabs as enraged by the successes of the so called infidel West. These Arabs often feel at least subconsciously entitled by God himself to the best of everything. It is therefore existentially difficult to concede the harsh fact that the Arab world is now so far behind the curve. Unfortunately, many Arabs have opted for nihilistic responses that only worsen their predicament. Lewis' book is tough reading. He is fairly pessimistic and sees little reason to be cheerful concerning the near future. The esteemed scholar even wonders if the West should seek fuel alternatives so that it can economically afford to abandon the seemingly suicidal Arabs! This book must be read by everybody. The situation since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 demands that Bernard Lewis becomes a household name. It is perhaps even a moral obligation to make sure you obtain a copy.
Rating: 
Summary: This book doesn't tell you what went wrong . . .
Review: In the classic modality of the academic, the author lays out the history and builds up the complexities of East/West relations . . . BUT . . . does not tell us or even adequately HINT at what went wrong. Other than to say, in effect, "never the twain shall meet." Not good enough -- and yet, if you're looking for a brief overview of history, there's no question this book will give it to you. And so, with a different (and if it had aless presumptuous title) it serves a worthwhile purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific insights, but a little disorganized
Review: What went wrong? Church and state never separated, as they did in the West, and it may well be too late. Buy this book, by all means, if you're looking for a calm, accessible, centuries-long view of the world of Islam and how east and west found themselves so far apart in understanding. It's even a fairly quick read. But to be honest, it's a bit of a mishmash, clumsily structured and oddly organized. His historic details are fascinating, but they end up burying many of the points he's trying to make.
Rating:
Summary: Occidentalism
Review: Occidentalism, a recent New York Review of Books article, is destined to become the landmark counterpoint to Orientalism, Edward Said's dishonest 1976 theory. Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma define a cluster of anti-Western and anti-American ideas that played a large role in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The haters see "arrogance, feebleness, greed, depravity, and decadence" as peculiarly Western or American traits, which they believe must be stamped out. Islamist anti-Western ideas, rooted in fascism, mirror those of Hirohito's Japan, and of course, Hitler's Germany. Jorge Semprun's 1997 Literature or Life also notes the similarity between the two ideologies. He doesn't develop that point, but I was reaching the same conclusion when articles by Benjamin Netanyahu, Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes, among others confirmed my thinking. In exploring Islamism's ideological predecessors, Occidentalism serves as a brilliant companion to Bernard Lewis' equally brilliant book. Readers familiar with Efraim and Inari Karsh's superb Empires of the Sand or David Fromkin's Peace to End All Peace may have an easier time absorbing myriad historical events in Lewis' thin but substantive volume. One need not know the history to understand what he says, however. Lewis explains not the Islamists' anti-Western ideas, but the background for them. The history of Islamic defeats at the hands of the West--in trade, technology, printing, science, philosophy, political development, modernization, diplomacy, war--stretches back 600 years. In 1502 Venice warned the Ottoman Sultans of the threat posed to the spice trade by the sea route Vasco de Gama had opened up between Europe and Asia. The Ottomans ignored the warning, just as they ignored many other problems, and the Muslim East eventually felt the results. To a Westerner this might seem odd. As Lewis has previously pointed out, Muslim peoples are both shaped by their history and keenly aware of it. The Muslim pulpit, schools, and media nourish the people's sense of history. While often slanted and inaccurate, teachings frequently reference events and personalities of the 7th century. But where in the West, historians consider the past partly to avoid repeating it, the Muslim East historically took different lessons from historical study. In Medieval times, Muslims wrote "vast, rich and varied historical literature," none of it on non-Muslims or even on pre-Muslim regional history. Lewis reviews both events centuries before the demise of the Ottoman Empire and the cultural incompatibility which colonial powers carried into the region. The British and French constitutional and parliamentary systems for example collapsed in places unable to understand or support them. The fascist ideological and political systems of 1930s Germany and Italy, on the other hand, gained wide support and rooted, even after those countries were defeated in World War II. Lewis covers myriad other cultural gaps as well. These include widely divergent attitudes on everything from women and science to music. Namik Kemal, a leader of the Young Ottomans, in 1867 expounded on the need to liberate and educate women and an Egyptian named Qasim Amin expanded the views in 1899. Concubinage fell by the wayside; Polygomy is now rare except in Arabia. (Slavery is still practiced in several Arab countries.) But Lewis notes that women's rights have become, for traditionalists, a noxious symbol of Westernization which must be barred from Islam, "and where it has already entered, must be ruthlessly excised." Profound differences also occur over separation of faith and state. In Islam, the two are inseparable. In the Christian West, they can and must be separated. Even the sense of time and space is different. Arabs may have divided the day into 24 hours, but as they gradually imported mechanical clocks from Europe, they still had to be reset daily according to an old tradition and locally-made clocks lagged those of Europe. Even the approaches to modernity differ sharply. Within a broad historical perspective, Lewis writes, "cultural innovation is not and has never been the monopoly of one region or people. The same is true of resistance to it." In short, neither the West nor Islam has a monopoly on success or failure. But Lewis nevertheless believes that for the Muslim Middle East, things have "gone badly wrong. Compared with its millennial rival, Christendom, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant." By the 19th century, as modernizers focused on military, economic and political reforms, results in Islam were disappointing. Quests for victory led to military defeats. Economic development nevertheless left whole nations impoverished, corrupt, in need of external aid and largely dependent on one resource--oil. Remedies failed. And the rise in nationalism--another European import--allowed and even encouraged Arabs to blame others for their failures. This included blaming Jews, and after 1948, Israel. If Lewis is right, the war now facing Western nations has roots in the 15th century. The current path could make the suicide bomber a metaphor for the Middle East. That would lead to yet another alien domination. The alternative, Lewis concludes, is for Muslims to "abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies and resources in a common endeavor" to again make the region "a major center of civilization." Whether or not one agrees with his conclusion, Lewis provides ample insight into the causes of the world's current strife. Alyssa A. Lappen
Rating:
Summary: Probing Analysis of the West's Single Biggest Threat
Review: The "reader" from Stockholm is apparently afflicted with the same blind zealotry that has hampered the ability of Muslim leaders to take a critical look at themselves. Mr. Lewis is arguably the West's greatest historian of Islam and the Middle East. In this well-reasoned analysis, he carefully lays out why Islam has fallen so far behind the West and why, unlike countries such as China and India, is not able/unwilling to learn from the West's many successes. He also gets to the root of the problem and explains why the Islamic world's fury is squarely aimed at America (and, no, it is not because of Israel). Mr. Lewis completes this splendid polemic with some highly thoughtful prescriptives. This book will hopefully serve as a clarion call to the leaders of the West (Bush, Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi and Schroder) and their citizens. We are perhaps faced with the biggest threat to our way of life since the last time the Islamists decided that they were going to challenge the very basis of the West's existence. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a Charles Martel or Charlemagne to save us this time around.
Rating:
Summary: Learned, open-minded (but may require handy encyclopedia)
Review: Here's a clue to the current situation: anybody who uses the word "Orientalist" to condemn Bernard Lewis is an example of what he's talking about, since they are 1) using the term as a slur to halt debate, and 2) looking to put the blame somewhere else than on Islam. These are in fact the two theses he explores, eruditely and with considerable sympathy: how theocracy made Islam rigid and resistant to progress at exactly the moment that rigid and theocratic Europe was opening up; and two, why the Islamic world still can't accept that this has happened and that it has anything to gain from the by-definition-inferior Christian world. That Lewis is no mere Fox News Channel Arab-basher is evident from the considerable space he devotes to subjects such as the rights of women (in which Islam in many ways was more advanced than the West until quite recently), or official toleration toward non-Muslims which often shaded over into actual favoritism in certain proscribed areas. And even his discussions of topics such as slavery (which, it is worth remembering, survived in Saudi Arabia until the 1960s) or the utter lack of separation of church and state in Islam, which you do not expect any western historian to be terribly sympathetic to, nevertheless present historical circumstances thoughtfully and without judgment. This is not a completely easy book for someone with a limited knowledge of Arab and Ottoman historical figures, and if you're mainly interested in a viewpoint on the current situation, you might be best starting off with the Conclusion (which also appeared in The Atlantic) and working backward. However, there's no question that Lewis will greatly improve your understanding of why the Islamic world is the way it is-- that is, if you have that trait commonly mistaken as a purely Western one, an open mind.
|
