Today’s discussion reminded me of my favorite academic of all time Dr. Barnett Rubin. Rubin is a world-renowned expert on Afghanistan and has written numerous books and articles on the subject. The following excerpts are from Chapter One of “Blood on the Doorstep: The Politics of Preventive Action”:
“In those regions where peace prevails, its pillars are strong states engaged in accountable governance that regulates transnational actors as well as purely domestic ones. The absence of an accountable state in Afghanistan enabled al-Qaida to root itself there.” (Rubin 2002:6)
“In my experience, what is most difficult to convey about foreign conflicts is not the foreign cultures, beliefs, or hatreds that make others different from us; rather it is the radically different circumstances that make people just like us behave differently. It is those situations – desperate impoverishment, fear for one’s life, collapse of institutions that once made sense of existence and gave a sense of security, the threat that not using violence will leave one prey to the violence of others – that propel people into bloody conflict. And these situations are not as far from us as we sometimes think. Often enough, when tracing back the links that lead to violence, one finds global institutions – arms dealers, banks, markets, corporations, intelligence agencies, governments, international organizations – whose immense power and resources form the context for the decisions of local actors.” (Rubin 2002:8, emphasis added)
By now, I suspect you have some ideas about why I chose the Burke & Yaghoubian text in the first place: because CONTEXT matters.
Context is certainly crucial in really gaining any sort of understanding about a situation as complex as the Middle East’s. Context is defined as the circumstances that form the setting for for an event, idea, of which it can be fully understood and assessed, The Burke and Yaghoubian text has educated and informed in terms of the context of the region. Each character has a unique history which most of the time, unfortunately involves oppression, economic depravity, and strife. However, without knowing about these backgrounds, we would not really gain a full understanding of their individual situation or the situation at large in the Middle East. The context in the MIddle East applies for everyone in the region, however it affects people completely differently depending on what political and economic strata they come from. For example, in Abu Jamal’s case (Chapter 18), he was a Qaysis (Hebronite) who lived in Ramallah. If any of us simply read that statement, it would not mean much. But after reading that chapter and learning about the hardships that Qaysis’ faced in Ramallah, we understood the hardships that Abu Jamal and the Qaysis’ underwent. They were Muslims, but more important to the context, was the fact that they came from Mount Hebron to Ramallah and were quite poor. They were disenfranchised by the Yaminis, who were the upper class group that had established themselves for a longer period in Ramallah. Moreover, we know that Ramallah was a Palestinian city in the West Bank, which of course brings Israel into the picture. Abu Jamal had to deal with not only the regional conflict with the Yaminis, but also with the ruthlessness of the Israeli iron fist policies. Furthermore, if we knew nothing about the situation between Israel and Palestine, then we would think that the Intifada was a terrible action by the Palestinians. Knowing the context of the situation allows us to say that in many regards, the Intifada was/is justified.
The Burke narratives have made the perfect introduction to a region I know so very little about. This is largely due to the role of context in each unique chapter.
Context is vital in that it gives the reader a detailed enough illustration of the history/background of the character to better understand that character’s motivation, purpose, and actions. Context is especially important when the reader is introduced to whole new societies and unable to wrap his/her head around the cultural rainforest that is the Middle East. The first, most natural way for the reader to make this connection with the character is often to relate the situation to personal experience. It is the role of the context to convince the audience that they are “people just like us.” Although it is the invaluable context of a piece that leads us in that direction, using personal experience to analyze a character’s actions can be misleading and futile. For example,
and yet the more we know, the more we try to simplify a situation and relate it to our experiences.
I think the really important explanation about the context is in the beginning of the book which is called “people without history”. This is the absolutely perfect summary of the context; but why is this statement significant? because in this book the authors wrote about the others. They wrote about imaginative geographies. People almost always fill in the blanks with stereotypes about these geographies. People generally tend to address issues in terms of their objectives, foreign policy by neglecting the others. When there is a lack of solid information, people turn to generalize within the culture like news and media, or politicians, or religion. However, thanks to this book, we have a great change to analyze the others daily life, their culture, their rituals and their point of views. I can easily say that It helps us to shape understanding of the world ethically, politically as well as cognitively.
The Burke narratives have made the perfect introduction to a region I know so very little about. This is largely due to the role of context in each unique chapter.
Context is vital in that it gives the reader a detailed enough illustration of the history/background of the character to better understand that character's motivation, purpose, and actions. Context is especially important when the reader is introduced to whole new societies and unable to wrap his/her head around the cultural rainforest that is the Middle East. The first, most natural way for the reader to make this connection with the character is often to relate the situation to personal experience. It is the role of the context to convince the audience that they are "people just like us." Although it is the invaluable context of a piece that leads us in that direction, using personal experience to analyze a character's actions can also be misleading and futile. For example, when the class was asked to make sense of Haddou’s disappointment in his success in Europe (Chapter 19) we had trouble keeping an impartial view of his situation. In American society, monetary success is considered to be largely connected to happiness. However our cultural norms are quite different from those in other countries, specifically Morocco. It wasn’t until we were asked the next question, “Do you think Haddou would see us as immoral?” that it clicked. Just because this individual was living in modern Europe (a region and time more common to the majority of us) we cannot solely use our personal experiences to understand the individual. This is why descriptive context is indispensable when exploring new identities and information. Reason and reliability will be acquired when attention is given to context rather than personal past experience.
I agree that an understanding of context is crucial in analyzing people's choices and actions, but I would hesitate to emphasize context to such an extent as to deprive individual actors of their agency. When looking at the factors that shape people's choices, there is a fine line between taking the context into consideration and invoking determinisms that effectively disqualify such an analysis. While the context of an action can limit individual agency, the narratives Burke and Yaghoubian present in Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East allow the reader to compare the various ways in which characters navigate the particular set of challenges, constraints, and opportunities each one encounters. In Talal's narrative (chapter 25), his friend Ahmad at the American University of Beirut provides support through his example: "Talal admired Ahmad for his honesty and integrity. Ahmad's father had been murdered in front of him early in the war, and he had come to Beirut destitute and desperate. And yet he had rejected sectarianism or revenge and managed to support his extended family in his village and to pursue an education" (414). Rather than allowing the context in which he found himself to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of terrorism or religious or political radicalism, Ahmad recognized the opportunities that remained open to him and made what Talal would consider the honorable choice. June Leavitt's narrative (chapter 24) presents another interesting point of discussion when it comes to examining choice and agency in context. June was born and grew up in the United States before becoming a settler in the West Bank; however, she "doesn't see her location on the frontline of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict as a deliberate choice because, for her, there is no longer any safe haven. The same €˜terror' which abounds in Hebron also erupts within Israel's borders, and even rears its head in international contexts" (401-402). June's understanding of her situation seems considerably more deterministic than Ahmad's, and I find it difficult to accept that she is entirely without a choice in the matter. But as long as one is conscious of the determinisms that often play into representations of people in the Middle East, context remains a powerful and essential tool in understanding the choices and limitations faced by individual agents.
I think context is an incredibly important concept to understand and take into account when dealing with everyday life situations. It is important not just when dealing with larger scales like people and cultures across the world, but also when dealing with smaller scales like circumstances in your own personal environment, such as Richmond. Something can take on a completely different meaning than was originally intended when taken out of context, so it is important to try and understand all the events leading up to a person's actions or words before judging and generalizing them.
Burke & Yaghoubian's narratives are perfect examples of how context is crucial in understanding the behaviors of people we don't actually come into contact with or experience. They get the reader on a personal level with the characters, filling them in on all the political and social surroundings before explaining the actions of the characters. This way, the reader is really able to relate to the characters and understand why they acted in various ways. Everyone has their own set of beliefs and morals that stem from historical or social ties. This variety in behaviors is what makes the world relationships so fascinating. By knowing the context of a situation, we are able to better understand the motivation of the characters actions and try to relate to them on an individual level. For example, in Chapter 23, Nadia the "Mother of Believers" continued to stay with her husband, Ahmed, even though she knew he had a significant leadership role in the GIA and she practically became a slave for him and his gang. Without taking into consideration the context of the situation, most people would wonder why she didn't just leave him. The fact was that during that time, the GIA was the "terror of the village" and "the law" and that under his, she was granted protection from their harmful acts (371).
Also in Jared Cohen's interview on the BBC morning show about his book "Children of Jihad", he explains the similarities youth around the world have with each other, such as music, sports, video games, defying authority figures and knowledge. This makes us realize how similar we really are to these people thousands of miles away, just put in different contexts.