The Arabism Debate and the Arab Uprisings
This article explores how the Arab Uprisings have affected academic debates over the importance of Arab identity in regional and domestic politics. Does the spreading of protest from one Arab state to another in 2011 indicate Arabism's continued salience, or does the subsequent rise of regional sectarianism represent its death-knell? Are older debates between ‘New Arabists’ and ‘post-Arabists’ still relevant or is a new framework needed that better reflects the post-2011 Arab world?
The Redefinition of Arabism Through Satellite Channels
This chapter draws on the new forms of Arabism that are produced by transnational Arab media, mainly satellite channels. It will be discussed whether nationalism is a transitory or a permanent phenomenon. The argument advanced here is that nationalism will persist as long as individuals and the political groups use it as an identification or survival mechanism. The distinction between the old form of Arabism which is considered to be a spent force and the new forms of Arabism produced through transnational Arab media are presented. The perspectives of the scholars claiming that communication channels fueled a new form of Arabism are analyzed. The findings regarding role of satellite channels with a particular focus on Al-Jazeera during the Arab Spring in the contagious nature of the protests and in strengthening the Arab public sphere are noted.
Toward a ‘Mesopotamian Turn’: Disciplinarity and the Study of the International Relations of the Middle East
Abstract: The question of disciplinarity in the study of the international relations of the Middle East, in the past, present and future, is the subject of this article, which begins with the observation that contrary to intuitive expectations, the borderland between ‘the River of International Relations (IR)’ and ‘the River of Middle Eastern Studies (MES)’ has in the past been far from an ‘Academic Mesopotamia’. This lack of inter-disciplinary exchange can be attributed to differences as well as similarities between the two academic fields. While belonging to different camps within the Area Studies Controversy has left them with very different if not downright incommensurable approaches and understandings of international relations in the Middle East, both have also been marked by a similar inward-looking ghetto mentality fostering isolation and a lack of academic dialogue. Developments within IR and MES since the 1990s suggest, however, that both fields are experiencing a simultaneous opening which is also expressed in a narrowing of the gap which has divided them in the Area Studies Controversy. This raises the possibility that a ‘joint irrigation’ can turn the borderland between these two academic streams into a prosperous and fertile Academic Mesopotamia.