|
Thematic Conversations |
| Reprinted from the Middle East Studies
Association Bulletin, Summer 2002 (with changes in orthography to HTML standards). Copyright 2002 by the Middle East Studies Association of North America |
| Imagining Central Asia and the Caucasus at the Nexus of World History and Area Studies Seteney Shami Social Science Research Council The idea of organizing this thematic conversation emerged from on-going discussions and activities within the Eurasia Program and the Middle East and North Africa Program of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC). The departing point for the discussion, in the broad sense, was the realization that the collapse of the Soviet Union and ensuing geo-political reconfigurations highlight the acknowledged need for scholars to rethink the boundaries of traditional area studies. Yet rethinking the production of knowledge on Central Asia and the Caucasus has far-reaching implications and presents particular challenges to scholarship, given the almost total encapsulation of this region within the field of Soviet/Russian studies over the past decades. SSRC has organized dissertation workshops and brainstorming meetings on these issues. The purpose of the session was to continue this cross-disciplinary dialogue on the various problems related to researching and teaching the region, especially in the light of its ‘reemergence’ as a world issue after 11 September. The discussants in the thematic conversation were Dru Gladney (The East-West Center), Adeeb Khalid (Carleton College), Roberta Micallef (University of Utah), Sean Pollock (Harvard University), and Nayereh Tohidi (California State University, Northridge). The session was attended by around thirty participants. The starting point of the discussion was that even a decade after renewed accessibility of these regions to scholars, research on Central Asia and the Caucasus remains marginal to central interests in the study of other ‘world’ areas: Russia, the Middle East, and China. Not only are the peoples and polities of the region not studied on their own terms, but also they are often studied in terms of their relations to one other region (Russia or the Middle East) to the exclusion of longstanding historical connections with other regions. The aim of the session was not to reach a decision about ‘where’ to locate the region but rather to think about how to promote multi-optic approaches that take into account its pivotal position at the nexus of many crossroads. In this connection, Tohidi discussed the necessity of rethinking and readjusting the boundaries between Middle East Studies and Post-Soviet Studies. She argued that these readjustments would necessarily point to the pivotal place of Central Asia and the Caucasus in the new geo-politics and geo-culture of the world. She added that new challenges for the comparative study of the region would include reexamination not only of Euro-centric and Russo-centric traditions, but also of existing Persian-centric and Turco-centric veins of scholarship. Khalid followed up on the issue of geographical and disciplinary boundaries, stating that there would always be some hazard in too rigid a definition of the region. He suggested that there should be instead a flexible calibration of the boundaries, depending on what is studied and what analytical goals are pursued in this or that particular study of the area (the way Central or Inner Asia needs to be defined for environmental or ecological history may possibly be irrelevant, for example, to the study of nation-building in the twentieth century). Pollock specifically addressed the issue of Euro-centrism in Russian scholarship and Russo-centrism in Western scholarship. He offered a historical perspective on how scholars had predominantly focused on the problem of Russian state building to the detriment of our understanding of Russia as a multiethnic empire. He questioned the ways in which Russian borderlands had been depicted and represented in intellectual history, political discussions, and contemporary academic scholarship. Pollock further encouraged the participants to reflect on their role as academics in promoting research and teaching on these neglected areas of study. Micallef focused on the longstanding historical and cultural ties between the Middle East and Central Asia. She attempted to show how recent geopolitical events, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union into separate states, the Gulf War, and the current military campaign in Afghanistan have affected or may affect these ties. She discussed the complexity of the issue of cultural, national, and ethnic identities in the region and pointed to the need for more thorough research in this area. Gladney examined the changing role of Islam and the changing nature of cross-border relations in the region. He further analyzed China’s response to the 11 September attacks and their bearing on China-Central Asian relations. The trends, Gladney noted, indicate that the region is becoming more integrated but at the same time more concerned about internal instabilities and domestic challenges. He ended his presentation by sharing with the participants some information collected during his most recent fieldwork in Central Asia. After the presentations, there was a general discussion, in the course of which several issues that could constitute the core of next year’s discussion were mentioned. These included problems of how to re-organize and make accessible necessary language teaching; how best to organize interdisciplinary coursework on the region; problems of funding; whether there is a critical mass of scholars that would enable the production of specialized journals, training programs, and publications; and what kinds of institutionalization are possible and/or desirable. The thematic conversation will resume at the annual MESA meeting in 2002. All those interested are invited to join. *** Issues in Publishing and the Internet in Medieval Islamic Studies Josef W. Meri University of California, Berkeley The discussants in this conversation were Marigold Acland (Cambridge University Press), Richard W. Bulliet (Columbia University), Lawrence I. Conrad (Hamburg University), Fred M. Donner (University of Chicago), and R. Stephen Humphreys (University of California, Santa Barbara). It was a continuation of a MESA 2000 thematic conversation panel on “Issues in Teaching and Research in Medieval Islamic Studies.” A summary of the panel proceedings was published in the Summer 2001 issue of the MESA Bulletin Approximately fifty-five audience members were in attendance at this discussion which focused on the theme of publishing and the internet in the fields of medieval Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies. The five discussants assessed the state of the scholarly monograph and trends in electronic publishing by highlighting such themes as the importance of brand in publishing, electronic publishing, its potential and impact on scholarship and the tenure process, and the reliability of electronic publishing formats. Acland offered a publisher’s insight into the importance of brand in an electronic publishing environment. First, she effectively challenged the myth which continues to be perpetuated, that the electronic book will mean the extinction of the printed book. In fact, on-line book retailers have stimulated sales in scholarly monographs. Second, the imprimatur of an academic press ensures the quality of a monograph through validation and legitimation by the scholarly community. Third, contrary to popular belief, production costs are associated with electronic publishing. Finally, short run reprints and print on-demand have made it possible to order books through on-line book resellers and the Cambridge University Press website (http://uk.cambridge.org/) and to revive monographs which would not ordinarily be profitable for the Press. Bulliet discussed the decline of publishing subsidies and the various factors that have contributed to a marked change in publishing priorities for academic publishers. He reflected on a time when university presses heavily subsidized monographs. With decreasing library budgets and declining sales, academic presses and universities were often underwriting such losses. Bulliet presented electronic publishing as a viable option, particularly for publishing doctoral dissertations which might be presented in the form of linked essays. Nevertheless, in order for professors to better guide doctoral students and assess the publication potential and parameters of theses, they must be more sensitive to the ever-changing nature of the publishing climate. Conrad explored electronic publishing trends and the problem of existing and emerging technologies. Reflecting on his experience as an editor of two monograph series, he highlighted several issues concerning obsolete software and retro-compatibility and problems in transcription. He advocated the development of more stable hardware and software technologies and formats which do not change constantly. Donner discussed the ‘b-book,’ or the traditional scholarly monograph, and argued that the needs of academic publishers and individual research agendas are not irreconcilable. He contrasted younger scholars doing research on what they think is important with senior scholars being commissioned to produce works which publishers deem desirable. Commissioning works often fills needs as in reference works and attracts non-specialists to the field. Nevertheless, it also creates a situation whereby senior scholars cannot pursue their own research and leads to a distortion of the field through reinforcing existing categories and periodizations. He asked why publishers are not encouraging filling the need for basic research tools, such as an Arabic lexicon. Humphreys echoed the views shared by Bulliet and Conrad concerning the lack of permanence in the development of electronic resources. He further expressed that new and emerging technologies will eventually enhance the old, not replace them. The printed book will always remain reliable. He stressed that time and labor costs are often much greater in electronic than in print publications. Such costs are mainly passed along to authors and consumers. Funding bodies do not possess the resources to underwrite publications on a large scale and governmental bodies do not have any imperative to contribute. It is anticipated that a follow-up workshop will be organized at some point in the future. *** Organizing an Ottoman Archive Virginia Aksan McMaster University The discussants in this conversation were Mark Stein (St. Mary’s University), Metin Cosgel (University of Connecticut), Merlijn Olnon (University of Leiden), and Walter Andrews and Didem Havlioğlu (University of Washington) The live conversation began as a continuation of the virtual conversation on the H-Net, posted most recently on 22 October 2001 to H-Turk, H-Levant, and H-MIDEAST-MEDIEVAL. The archives of each can be searched for the threads of this conversation. As moderator, I described aims of the live conversation as I conceived of it, which would be to see where we are and to set out an agenda for action. I stressed my deliberately vague word ‘archive’ as a provocation to see what people meant by it. About twenty or twenty-five individuals attended. Stein talked about the relationship between the Turkish Studies Association (TSA) and H-net (H-Turk), and spoke to the possibility of expanding the use of the H-Net server, including for book reviews, as an enlarged TSA website, or even as a platform for “An Ottoman Archive.” Cosgel gave us a demonstration of his analysis of the tahrir defterleri, working from printed and transcribed versions of the defter (and their accompanying kanunnames). He is able to derive tax data on various localities over long periods of time, and is creating a glossary of terns as a by-product. This and similar projects could move to a website and become a collective enterprise as it is based on standard database construction. Olnon, author of the “Memalik-i Mahruse” (The Ottomanist’s Domain) emphasized the need for cooperation on a large scale, especially in the matter of platform and proprietary (copyright) rights of libraries and other archival institutions, for whom reproduction and use fees serve as revenue sources. Andrews and Havlioğlu demonstrated “The Ottoman Text Edition/Text Archive Project.” This venture involves converting a “fully accented electronic transcription text” to a universal code consisting of “digraphs” which are then usable on any platform, and become capable of searching and analysis. The project begins from a transcribed text. Historical dictionaries, glossaries, and so forth, could be built off such a database which could be assessed and added to by scholars from all over the world. Andrews and Havlioğlu handed out a brief questionnaire that they also hope to mount shortly on a website and gather more information on those working with transcribed Ottoman texts. Andrews and Havlioğlu summarized for us the “issues of concern” which focused the discussion that followed: enlisting the cooperation of the community of Ottoman scholars; providing adequate recognition for contributions of texts and entries; funding, funding, funding. It quickly became clear that there were other definitions of ‘archive’ in the room. Scanned Ottoman manuscripts in public domain, which could be mounted on the web as pictures (jpeg for example) were one; maps, monetary data, prices, and so forth, were also offered as possible collective projects that could work as online databases built by participants rather than as single projects. The conversation ranged over a number of topics from the problem of funding to manpower and standards/conventions for transcription and input. There was some consensus that autonomy could be maintained. The web is precisely the kind of environment that allows for variety and connection. TSA could act as a nexus or oversight location for such things as project(s) information and web conventions around Ottoman texts. Several speakers expressed a sense of urgency around conservation and preservation of archives and libraries in Turkey. The need for caution about manuscript copies not in the public domain was expressed, but photocopies (facsimiles) do not seem to be a problem. The general sense of the meeting was that the time is ripe for an “Ottoman Archive.” Who should do it, and how to encourage younger scholars to participate was also discussed. Text editions (electronic or otherwise) should be encouraged, legitimating the enterprise, perhaps, with a TSA prize. Manpower (and interest) of course in the major problem but the sense of the meeting was that we need to start now, somewhere. Collaborative, international arrangements make sense. Andrews is already cooperating with Mehmet Kalpaklı of Bilkent University. I suggested that TSA form a standing advisory committee on “Ottoman Sources on the Web,” as a place to begin. We adjourned with the following immediate agenda for action: 1) compile a list of standards, series of conventions for transcription of Ottoman texts, and the use of Ottoman on the web (Andrews and Kafadar); 2) create a TSA Advisory Ottoman Web Committee (Aksan to go to TSA Board); 3) investigate platform possibilities; 4) create a space for compiling a list of manuscripts for scanning; and 5) consider major project and funding (NSF, Getty, NEH, Ertegün, Packard Humanities Institute, and the Library of Congress were mentioned in the course of the conversation). |
|
|
