Extra credit Bamyeh

In the article by Bamyeh, he discusses that the Muslim world (Dar al-Islam), could only function as a whole in three followed principles: partial control, free movement, and cultural heterglossia. These principles go beyond the Muslims view of a global system with minimal interruption. Many times though, attempts have been tried to change these principles but ended in an unsuccessful outcome. The principle of partial control discusses the European principle that the state is the ultimate organization and government body. But for Islams, the success came primarily from the highly shared spiritual beliefs among several tribes. Therefore, when times came to form a single major power, conflict arose do to the multiple diverse groups that had their own different forms of a powerful government.

Regardless of all these differences though, the free movement prevailed within Dar al-Islam. It is also contributed to the index of these many cities that developed certain urban centers. Unlike other sovereign states, the Islam society didn't have strict borders and territorial regulations. lastly, with all of this free movement, it allowed education and a variety of experiences throughout society which led to a lot of opportunity across the Dar al-Islam world. As for cultural heteroglossia, it started out describing the work of literature that had many voices with many viewpoints interacting. It allows voices to be heard within similar voices and views. This had an important aspect to opposing thoughts and voices which were in their view not harming society. So with this said, it is believed that heteroglossia along with the combination of the other two, society works best where there is no authoritarian government.

Overall I found this article by Bamyeh to be very intersting. Especially with how this whole entire Islam movement started and why they think how they do. But I onmly wonder, is a global culture/economy possilbe beyond Islam and be able to exists without competition. Many things come to mind and with that it leaves me wondering.

Extra Credit Bamyeh

            In the article by Mohammed Bamyeh he argues that the religion Dar al-Islam could only function as a whole if it followed three principles: partial control, free movement, and cultural heteroglossia. Past and present day attempts have been made to try and replace or reform these principles through acts such as colonialism, but each of these have proven to be unsuccessful and not as competent as some in the past.

            The principle of partial control differs from the traditional European principle with the notion that the state is the ultimate ruling power over society. Early Islam’s spread and success can be attributed to the shared religious land that created consistencies across the different acting groups.  Things such as government and public workings were open to all and if one group tried to triumph over another by forming a single state power the acting groups would engage in conflict in opposition to this idea.  The principle of free movement allowed for actors to communicate and exchange ideas, which lead to the development of a global society across many different regions.  The society acting in this differed from the sovereign state and borders were not defined according to ruler. Free movement also allowed for reliability in areas such as education and social norms.  The third principle of heteroglossia was originally used to describe a work of literature that had multiple voices representing several viewpoints. It describes the several different voices present in society and the different viewpoints that come along with those people. Heteroglossia is described as naturally invisible because actors were not competing amongst other similar voices to be heard. Because of its invisibility it was able to make advances toward universality in society. The main idea with this is that once individuals can come to a compromise and mutual understanding of religion society can become unified. Bamyeh argues that for a global society to work there can be no authoritarian government.

            If Bamyeh is arguing that these principles need to be in place for a society to function can a global society be possible beyond the religion of Islam? Similarly can societies exist if there is no competition amongst actors? If that is the driving force behind a functional society then isn’t globalization already occurring?

Another extra credit source

http://dmitryev.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/the-arab-spring/

This article talked about Marxist revolution with the oppressive regimes that have been in power over middle eastern populations. It invoked the name "Arab Spring" as a symbol of the resistance and fight of the people against those in power that have denied the people in Syria, Egypt, and Libya as instances of this revolution.

In this article, there seemed to be some estimation that it was doomed to fail in the immediate future based on the extremists taking over the revolution and corrupting into just another bad force of power. Egypt was given as an example with the muslim brotherhood taking over the power and instilling another militaristic version of the past dictatorship. In fact, the military which was once considered hand in hand with the people who wanted freedom is now taking away rights in the name of stability. Really they are just the hand of a new collective dictator named the Islamic Brotherhood.

Extra Credit link...

http://theoryintheworld.blogspot.com/2009/02/durkheim-and-arab-world.html i

is a great link that talks about the Arab condition based on Durkheims understanding of the mechanical vs. organic theory that defines the differences between Middle Eastern values and those of the United States. People in Arab societies are more or less are handed down a manual of values, and family pressures that should define their roles in society, where as the west and specifically the United states is defined by its organic value system where we can adapt to situations and progress by not holding on to values or beliefs that tend to prohibit change or individualism that may benefit us as individuals. We are less concerned with the collective if it goes against our own benefits unless we are protecting our individualism with laws that govern our society as a whole.

I think this is perpetuated by the dictators who want a uniform collective group think instead of a self determinate society who will eventually overthrow the oppressive regimes should they desire "freedom", human rights, and the pursuit of success. In the Arab community, the only success that matters to those in power is their own.

Arab World Final Post

The first article, “Waking From Its Sleep”, describes how Arab history continues to repeat itself due to authoritarian rule, divisions between nations and wars. The Middle East is especially prone to wars because of their natural resources (oil). Furthermore, the absence of democracy and lack of national pride enables violence. The second article, “The World of the Arabs”, distinguishes that the Arab World is made up of many different cultures and peoples. The nations are divided by ethnicities, languages and religions. Unlike Europe, the Arab World lacks a sense of unity as it has not established lasting connections of integrated government organizations. The last article, “Which Way Will They Go?”, also notes that the Arab world continues to repeat its violent cycles. The impact of outside countries, such as America, affects the policies of the Arab world. The article questions whether the Arab world will continue on its undemocratic violent path or erupt into revolutions.

The Wiki article on Arab protests describes the revolutions in the Middle East since December 2010. The article describes the numerous revolts that have occurred due to political and social oppression. I found this article to be especially interesting especially after reading the articles from “The Economist”. Although the violence continues, it seems that predictions that the Arab world would remain undemocratic forever could now be challenged.

The google article, “Karl Marx, part 8: Modernity and the privatisation of hope: The Arab spring is an example of the eternal desire for human liberation, which has often alighted on false utopia”, relates Marxists theory to the Arab spring as the desire for a utopia and freedom serves as human motivation. I found it interesting how easy it was to find articles that relate classic theories to current events. Because classic theories were developed so long ago I often questioned how relevant they still were in modern society (and obviously they are extremely relevant). <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/23/karl-marx-privatisation-of-hope>

Final Blog

The articles were fascinating because they touched on modern theory and current events. I found it interesting as the article started that it mentioned how the Arab world had been considered left behind from the times of the fall of the communist empires. No matter how much democracy seemed to creep into other parts of the developing and developed worlds, Arab nations seemed to hold onto the older form of dictatorships with the most oppressive means of keeping its people down. Several times American presidents had gone to solve the middle east power struggles and inequities from the west, but most often the governments had held on to power and the people had focused their ires on the Israeli/Palestinian debates. I found that interesting since their were many documented struggles between the muslim and Arab countries themselves over tribal issues. Instead of focussing on their own struggles and lack of freedoms, they unite against the Israeli conflict instead of uniting against their own oppressors. It's neat to see how their own governments probably love this since it keeps the people from uniting against them. I see how the people have so many legitimate concerns and complaints towards the west, but I also find it interesting why they then focus all of their energy towards the west or Israel and never try and solve the deeply routed distrust and hate towards each other that empowers their own leaders to keep them from uniting. I also see this democracy movement as another doomed effort to fight against oppression because they always seem to turn to the religious fundamentalist movements as the answer and being enslaved by religious constraints and intolerance instead of dictatorships of another kind. Poverty breeds the same torturous repetition of bad moves by the people and most lack the education to know the real history behind their cause. I do see how the western powers have manipulated governments in their favor regardless of the peoples interests, but I feel highly religious governments and people tend to be unable to adapt to alternative ways of finding peaceful answers. I don't buy the theory that Israel is at the route of all of their problems since I feel Israel only treats Palestinians as lesser citizens since they began violent uprisings. The many factions that make up the Middle-east will never find a peaceful answer so long as they refuse to address the human rights their own governments refuse to acknowledge and the US does little to help this while they buy oil from countries like Saudi Arabia that have just said the US is in for a rude awakening now that we continue to support Israel. Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Arab Spring

"Waking From Its Sleep" describes how the Bush invasion into the Middle East influenced the peoples’ sentiments towards American political leaders. It also talked about how the oil deposits in the area are the primary cause for struggle and war in the region. “The World of Arabs" discusses the differences among Middle Easterners. "Which Way Will They Go" talks about how nations outside of the Middle East affect Arab nations.

The Wikipedia article, “Arab Spring” discusses the current conflicts within the Middle East. The people are rebelling against corrupt leaders and oppression, as well as economic burdens. The largest of these uprisings include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

In the article, "The Arab Spring, Justice, and Moral Disaster" by Dr. Robert D. Crane, within the third part, it is discussed how Marx was naive in thinking that socialist ideals could be brought about, but it also argues that capitalist ideals have strained the Middle East greatly. In order to broaden ownership and improve conditions, as well as balance the governmental power, the solution is not to "fly planes into buildings," but to restructure the government, money, and banking system. Dr. Crane proposes that a revolution is the only means to bring about this restructuring. To read more about this article, see link : http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_arab_spring_justice_and_moral_disaster/0018608

I feel that Dr. Crane is correct, and that revolution is needed to bring about the change that the people desire, not only in the Middle East, but anywhere that the people feel oppressed by their governments and money systems. Hopefully the unrest in the Middle East will be a catalyst for further challenge to authority and will lead to further revolutions elsewhere, thus creating a more Utopian environment once the revolutionaries win and build a new society. One problem is that during revolution and rebirth, nations are weakened, and hostile nations may use the opportunity to invade and conquer.

Final Blog

The Yen article begins with its focus on the subsequent lack of advancement of the Arab nations. They blame it on several factors, such as the rise of terrorist organizations, the conflicts with Israel which seem constant, the absence of democracy, and most importantly a lack of nationhood between the nations of the middle east. The second sections discussed the Arab League, who’s 22 members are vastly different in many ways. For instance, many dialects of the same language cannot be understood by other members who speak the same language. Many also have differing religious beliefs, which often leads to bloodshed amongst fellow members of the Arab League. So, what we see in the Arab League is a title given to nations that contrarily makes them seem more like allies than they really are. The conclusion of the piece is that the problems in the Arab nations will not soon be solved. This is due to many factors including “interference of outsiders”, most prominently, the United States. It is said that the Arab arena shall remain in a struggle between U.S. and Iran and that ideological dimension of this is so complex that it should not be resolved soon. Iran is important because it uses the Palestinian’s to hold above America’s head from a distance as to not be directly involved enough to warrant a U.S. invasion, that could forever change the Arab arena.

I find it interesting about the languages of the Arab League. This hows just how drastically different many of these nations are from one another. It is interesting to see how a name like The Arab League can be so misleading.

I cannot help but wonder what it will take for these nations to put their differences aside and finally develop to their capabilities. I understand that to them, tradition is more important that societal advancement, but still, I mean, how do you sit still and bicker while the rest of the world around you advances at a never seen before rate.

Last Blog

The three articles on Arab conflict were "The World of Arabs", "Waking From it's Sleep", and "Which way they go". "The World of Arabs" really shows the reader how different countries in the Middle East are from one another, despite the western assumption that they're all similar.

"Waking From it's Sleep" begins with describing the affect the Bush invasion into the area affected the people's mindset and the attitude toward American political leaders. It goes into detail about how our invasion was felt as retaliation and that the people resented that decision. However, a large part of the article was devoted to explaining why the region is war-prone. With the oil industry, the region is destined for a rough road.

Lastly, "Which Way Will They Go", discusses how non-Arab nations affect Arab countries. This article also describes the differing actions and reactions of our recent political leaders to the Arab society.

The Wikipedia articles talks about current conflicts occurring throughout the middle east. The people are uprising in hopes to gain the things they want, and to dispose of all the political and economic burdens forced unto them. This including all of the western ideals and values being imposed. While western countries think this is aiding in the Middle East's "westernizing", it's only going to cause more instability and unrest in the mind of Arabs toward the West.

Many of these sections described the protests of the Arab people and their struggle for simple freedoms. I found an article by Weber titled, "Merkel's flip flop", which described Angela Merkel's (a notable conservative Christian democrat in high position) "flip-flopping" on the issue of nuclear power within Germany.

In an article by Nizar Awad titled, "The Lion versus the Lion-Tamer Or People Power versus State Power", Durkheim's Social Consciousness is referenced. Awad writes that it was an influential cause of much Arab Uprising. Because of the unified belief in values and their culture, they resorted to revolution.

In a final article by Anissa Haddadi called "Israel: Pro-Syria fighters Kill Palestinians",Marxist ideology is combine with Arab nationalism. Haddadi claims that the PFLP, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, sees "the destruction of Israel as integral to its struggle" to rid itself and all of the Middle East of Western influence. The article is primarily about the killing of 14 people for President Assad. The point, is to remove all influence of the West in order to restore equality within the PFLP and the Middle East.

I find myself perplexed by all the issues revolving around the Middle East. It appears that while much of these crimes are new, the real core of the issues is not, that they date back decades. I don't, personally, see an end in sight to all the Arab revolts and unrest, it just doesn't appear that any of the cores of society are stable enough to support anything. Reading all this has a dark and impressionable affect and right now I feel hopeless about their situation. Unless we can act in a way that isn't offensive or abrasive to their culture, and the Arab governments get their act together, it's just not going to happen.

Final Blog .... Also Marx /Arab conflict

The first articles "waking from its sleep", "the world of Arabs", and "which way they go" all focus are the Arab nations. "Waking from its sleep" first focuses primarily on the invasion into Arab countries by the United States, and how this affected each Arab country. Its also looks at how George Bush reacted to Sept. 11Th and why he decided to invade as retaliation. Through the second article "the world of Arabs" we learn how different the Arab nations really are from each other. They compare the Arabs to the Europeans in many different ways such as racial, religion, and ethics. Finally through the last article "which way will they go", the roles of the non-Arab countries are discussed and how they played a major part in Arab society. Also much is focused on the different way or reactions toward this world conflict from George Bush, George W Bush, and Barrack Obama.

The Wikipedia articles all dealt with the conflicts going on in our present day all over the middle east and Arab nations. I went on a similar route when trying to find an article dealing with this same dilemma and Karl Marx. I went onto Google and found a really good article called "Stories of Dogs" by Nathan Weinstock. This artilce primarly deals with the Israeli-Arab conflicts going on now and describes how Marx would have viewed it. The main part of this article is mostly Marx's observations and actual writings from him back in his day. Also the article points out how it is believed that Marx himself started the anti-Jewish uprising on the Holy-Land and made people into what they are today. It all starts out during the Marx's period and varies every 10-20 years going from the Zionist immigrants to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and then to the present day one going on. Weinstock says that Marx started this movement towards an anti-Jewish nation and believes that the key to this conflict is simply a resolution of attitudes on each side.

After reading several of these articles along with the one I chose, I found it very interesting in regards to the entire Arab conflict going on today. First from the three articles we were assigned to read, I thought it was quite interesting how the Arab nations were compared to Europeans and how much different they really are. Also it is neat to see how each American president was compared to one another and how each took a different approach to the conflicts over in the Middle East.

As for my reading that I chose dealing with Marx and the Arab conflict, I found that to be a little more interesting. Primarily because it was interesting to see how Marx viewed the Jews and how if you think about it did start the whole uprising of the anti-Jew reduric. Also to read and see how it seems Israeli's have been in conflict for a century is unbelievable too. It brings it all full circle though when it is happening now in our present day and especially on the Holy-Land that so many view sacred. It makes you think what will happen in the future and how will this all turn out. Because all of these conflicts happening now in the middle east is gradually affected the entire world and soon will become a major war. When all of this is said and done though my question is what will America do when the time comes. Will they help? Also what is next for the other countries that are close to conflict, including Iran and their unstable leadership. I feel overall though, there will be something big that will happen over there and it will not only affect the Arab people but the entire world as well, and this won't happen in the distant future but instead sometime near.

Arab Protests

One article from The Economist, "Waking from its Sleep" is about the fact that the Arab world is oppressed, divided, and war prone. Arab nations have been involved in wars not only against Western countries, but also other Arab nations. The article goes farther to explain why the region is prone to wars. Three main reasons are discusses: 1) the large amounts of oil that are present and play a huge role in the economies of the whole world, 2) the hostility towards the state of Israel, and 3) the lack of democracy

From the same paper, the article "The world of Arabs," addresses the diversity of people and languages in the Middle East that the Western world lumps together as the Arab world. Also there is a misconception present that all Arabs are Muslim. Al-Jazeera, a popular TV channel, attempts to give Arabs a sense of unity.

The final article, "Which way will they go?," is mainly about the external influences of America, Israel, Iran and Turkey in the Middle East in an attempt to dominate the oil market. Many Arabs would like to be independent of the Western World but do not support the violence of al-Qaeda. Then in goes on to describe "the opium of the Arabs" which is Israel. Not all Arabs are concerned with the state of Israel, for example, the countries Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These preoccupation with Israel is harmful to the Middle East because they use the country as a scapegoat and elect leaders based on resistance to Israel.

The Wikipedia page on Arab protests discussing the fact that most of these uprisings used social media sites such as facebook and youtube to gain supporters. Also protests spread from nation to nation at a rapid pace. This makes me think of the article that I found from Middle East Online titled "The Lion versus the Lion-Tamer Or People Power versus State Power" by Nizar Awad. The article focuses on the collective consciousness that the Arabs gained in Durkeimian terms. Through self-realization the citizens were able to gain the courage to rebel against the government

The Wikipedia article also focuses on the corruption that existed in many of the governments. This is also in the article "Israel: Pro-Syria fighters kill Palestinians" by Anissa Haddadi. It explores the Marxist ideology that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine of Palestine General Command (PFLP) embodied. The PFLP was part of Yasser Arafat's administration. Last week the PFLP was involved in staged distraction that killed 14 people for the benefit of President Assad. The PFLP is fighting to destroy the state of Israel to get rid of the inequality that was caused by Western presence.

The final article, "Cintra Wilson's 'The C-Word': Tariq Ali on the Arab Spring" speaks of the monopoly of force in Weberian terms. She wrote, "I was reminded of Max Weber, who defines the state as the sole political authority inside a territory that controls the monopoly of force." She argues that soldiers go against this monopoly, and if the monopolies are destroyed the wealthy will have to establish their own private military.

Looking at the protests of the Arab world is incredibly interesting because of the shear complexity of the issues. Also the modernity of these protests are fascinating, social sites are not an ordinary catalyst for revolt. It is also obvious that the citizens gained self-consciousness because nations were inspired by the success of other nations

Middle East Uprisings

        The readings in the Economist address the conflicts of the Arab world and how they continue to be a prominent issue with no resolution in sight. The Arab Israeli conflict has caused the United States as well as outside actors to step in and try to implement their own traditional ideals and values. Uprisings in the Middle East have become the norm this year and will most likely only continue to grow. When states within close proximity to each other are seeing uprisings and revolutions taking place it only causes them to push for change as well. It is a chain reaction, and as long as Western democratic ideals continue to be present in the Middle East conflict will be present amongst opposing ends.

            One of the main conflicts addressed in the readings is the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis. I will use this conflict as a way to exemplify Durkheim, Weber and Marx’s traditional workings.  The Arab-Israeli conflict has been ongoing since the creation of a Jewish state in 1947. Many groups from around the world, including active participants within the state have unsuccessfully tried to resolve the conflict between the two groups. Many outside influences have supported the various sides and actors seeking to promote peace within the region.  A one state resolution has continued to be a prominent issue between the two groups. The current state of Israel has historic religious background that both the Arabs and Israelis feel they have claim over the land without the other group being present. This has proven to be a difficult task to resolve since neither group is willing to live side-by-side in a one state resolution. The problem here is that the religious cleavages run too deep to simply split the land evenly into two separately governed sovereign states; having each group strongly opposed to the others ideals and religious beliefs, it seems as if neither side is willing to extend their solution set in order to come up with a win set.

             Durkheim would view this conflict as a conscious collective from the group and that their uprisings are due to religious ideals and value an act of worshiping social life. Durkheim would attribute the ongoing conflict as a growth in population and increasing interconnectedness problem. With outside international actors pushing for a one state resolution it only heightens the conflict and causes both sides to continue to resent the other. The United States is a stable ally to the state of Israel causing the Arabs to view this as a negative attack against them, which in turn causes actors within close proximity to the state of Israel to take the Arabs side. All of this can be attributed to the constantly growing conflict. Each side is unwilling to give up their land and refuses to live peacefully until the opposing side admits their wrong doing or surrenders the land. Both of which are unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.
           One of the main reasons the conflict has carried on with no solution set is because both the Arabs and Palestinians continue blaming each other for the problems that have caused civil turmoil for years, without taking into consideration the role the international community has played. It is important to view this civil conflict form a top-down perspective rather than a bottom-up. The Jewish and Arab populations continue to focus on previous years of unrest and turmoil, focusing solely on the bottom-up point of view. By not considering the top-down perspective, they miss the outside factors that have in fact played a large part in this conflict for many years. The theory of social construction used by Weber can be linked to the bottom-up viewpoint and can be used to explain why the Arabs and Israelis continue to have unrest; they have been conditioned to assign meaning to the conflict at hand and have acquired this point of view from years of learning and listening. Their shared understandings and expectations in relation to the social structure will ultimately determine how they perceive the knowledge of the conflict and how they have assigned meaning to their own interpretations of the situation, which has continued to link negative emotions to the opposing side. Years of conditioned hatred on both sides has continued to be the driving force behind why neither side is willing to give the other side a chance.  In this case human nature is a fundamental reflection of political behavior and will only change in the event that future generations break away from this learned conduct.

             Unless domestic society recognizes that their own leaders and international leaders are a large part of this problem they will continue blaming the other side, and thus the vicious cycle continues with no clear resolution in sight. Weber would argue that in order for this to happen the conflicting sides would need to recognize this on their own, without the help from outside actors. Weber would also argue that the Arabs and Israelis continue to focus on their own distorted views of reality and focus on the biased ways in which people have assigned motives and develop underlying explanations. When groups are involved in an ongoing conflict with no end in sight they tend to overestimate the importance of external factors when explaining their own sides’ behavior and underestimate factors when explaining the opposition’s behavior, leading to biased opinions on both sides only fueling the conflict.          

            The international community has worked toward a peaceful negotiation within the region by promoting peace talks and implementing new ideals into both communities. With outside actors persistent on making progress in the region it is important to understand why they are intervening in a situation that does not directly involve them. Israel’s geographic location makes it a target state for actors around it who do not approve of the state’s legitimacy. The United States is the main actor in the defense of Israel as a legitimate sovereign state within the international community. This causes tension with the rest of the world since they feel Israel should not be recognized and that the land was unfairly given to them. The United States views Israel as one of its main allies and supplies the country with aid. The promotion of democracy is very important to the United States. With Israel being the only democratic state in the Middle East they feel strongly about continuing their role in Israel and continue to recognize them as a legitimate state. This has caused great hostility both with the Arabs and Israelis as well as the surrounding states. They view the United States as a radical country threatening their traditional ideals and beliefs. This is another reason as to why the conflict has continued on for so long and why it will most likely continue until both conflicting parties, as well as the international community, come to an agreement that encompasses all actors win sets.

            Marx would argue that the United States is acting in a selfish manner as a way to control certain aspects in a foreign land. Marx would interpret the United States as acting in this manner as a way to maximize their own self-interested goals and as a way of exercising their power over the state of Israel but the entire Arab region as well. With the United States having influence over Israel it also hinders actors around Israel to come up with an agreement most suitable for the region. With the push of democracy it is no wonder that in a region such as the Middle East unrest and conflict continue to grow in present day. They are unfamiliar with the way the West functions and to try and implement these new regimes and governments only causes them to continue to view the West in a negative light. The geographic location of Israel is too precious to the international community to allow the two opposing sides to engage in resolution on their own. Israelis’ strategic location for the United States military bases and weapons is the driving force behind the United States presence and main linkage to the area. The conflict will continue on unless the United States cuts its ties with Israel, the international community recognizes Israel as a legitimate state, or the Arabs and Palestinians can come to terms with the conflict and live civilly in a one state resolution.

            All of these factors can be attributed to the growing uprisings and civil war in the Middle East. Some want change, some want things to stay the same. Either way, when a superpower such as the United States is pushing for democracy in a foreign land actors will either latch on to the idea of change or fight it. A similar conflict has emerged this year in the state of Egypt where the political leader Mubarak has oppressed the citizens for years. After the Egyptians caught wind of the uprisings in Tunisia due to social networking sites such as Facebook it only caused them to fight the regime even more. This uprising and uprisings in the Middle East can be attributed to the growth of globalization and how states are more and more connected to each other. Without tools such as the internet civilians would not have learned about other suppressive regimes and how other citizens were fighting back to have a voice. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?pagewanted=2&sq=middle%20east%20protests%20from%20karl%20marx&st=cse&scp=2) 

Arabs, Dictators, Protests, oh my!

The coming of this "Arab Spring" has been foreseen by some for many years. In a 2009 special report on the Arab world in The Economist, the piece "Waking from its sleep" tells a tale of the "Arab world" that has been politically stagnant for 20 years, divided over issues like Palestine and Israel as well as the increasing demand for energy resources from the region (oil); however, a fever has been "building up" under the surface, even as many citizens of these nations are rather unaffected by border wars and are somewhat proud of the progress made over the past several years. However, this term, "the Arab world," refers to something large and amorphous, difficult to pin down, especially when patriotism to one's nation is often not seen as paramount. Another article, "The world of the Arabs," explores this identity, describing the term as loose an identity as being "European" can be -- put on and taken off at will. The article also points out that the states have yet to form strong senses of nationhood, and that the people of this "world" are separated not only by long distances but by culture, far from the homogenous identity Americans tend to think of (especially with the union of Muslim with Arab in many US citizens' minds). The final article in the special report, "Which way will they go?" chronicles the ideological struggles that came with the US' emergence and brief spat as the world's "sole superpower" and the use of its "soft power" to inject democracy into the Middle East and thus the Arab world. The article notes that Obama's speech in Cairo, chastising Israel and supporting Palestine had an interesting effect, earning the support of Lebanese voters re-elected a pro-American government over Hizbullah; although the prospect of an American who heeds Arab complaints is described as "disconcerting," this article and the others from this special report imparted one thing overall to me: although the Arab nations are somewhat divided in terms of cultures and experience, the large role that countries like America, Iran, Israel and others (such as Iraq and Turkey) play in shaping internal politics as well as group relations indicate that the "Arab world" does exist, especially if groups like the Arab League are informing the US of some form of consensus amongst their member nations along the lines of one or more issues.

The wikipedia article on this "Arab Spring" takes the story from there, describing the multitude of different causes that incited revolutions and protests in countries as occurred in Egypt and Libya recently. Human rights issues that accompany dictatorships, the presence of well-educated but dissatisfied youth, and government corruption are all listed. The article indicates that this is a new phenomenon in the Arab World, although its roots lie in the years past (as mentioned in The Economist). The wide variety of opinions on this Spring involve theorists we have discussed in class: In an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, Joseph Massad argues that after analyzing the rise of Louis Napolean to power after the French revolution of 1848, Marx wrote that the overthrow of a dictatorship does not necessarily mean that the oppressed will assume control. Paralleling this analysis, Massad claims that the "Us-Saudi" axis is seeking to guide the course of these Arab revolutions in its own interest -- that is, put an end to those revolts whose regimes would not be pro-axis and co-opting those that benefit them and welcome their influence. In another article for Middle East Online, Nizar Awad mentions Emilie Durkheim in connection with his coined term "social conciousness," referring to it as one of the causes of the revolutions of many Arab countries; their shared cultural beliefs, values, and ultimately their indignation has served as a unifying force in this recent string of uprisings and protests. Finally, in an article on mobilization of these revolutions in relation to economic disparity, Cintra Wilson writes on Weber's argument that "the state [is] the sole political authority inside a territory that controls the monopoly of force. Non-state actors like mercenary soldiers and pirates erode the monopoly of force." Going off of this definition, Wilson wonders if Arab states will fall into systems similar to Edo period Japan, although without a government save for mini-military regions dominated by the rich elite, wealthy enough to hire their own private armies. She notes that these wars are no different than any other, seemingly taking a note out of Marx's book -- that these are wars between the rich and poor, and nothing but.

These are incredibly complex issues, not only for one country, but indeed because they encompass the experiences of an entire region of the world. In reference to our theorists, I found that it was the notion of class struggles and identity within society that were the two most popular ideas -- those surrounding political organization and theory, naturally. Marx was not directly mentioned in two articles, but it might as well as have been so -- the disparity between the rich and the poor is undoubtedly a continuing problem in a region where a large portion of the world's wealth is generated and most of the population never see the benefits because of ruling economic and political elite; true modern day dictatorships. I found much in common between Durkheim's idea of social conciousness and the much-discussed topic of the Arab World. I felt that this explained the relationship between these countries, however distant they may be -- media like Al-Jazeera tie them together, as do something of a common language and history; it is certainly fascinating to see how each of these nations continue to respond to one another as ideological revolutions arise. My question is this: when the dust settles, how will this relationship change? Will we see an increasingly unified Arab world, should each nation create a more solid identity (perhaps cultivated by democratic institutions?!), or will they grow more distant? Worth thinking about, in my opinion.