Intellectual Corruption of Intersectional Academics: Ted Swedenburg’s Palestinian Anthropology

In the Phyllis Chesler case, one of the three authors of the letter (fisked here) that got her disinvited was Ted Swedenburg. The letter embodies everything about the current field of post-Oriental Middle Eastern Studies that leads me to conclude that most of its denizens are proleptic dhimmi – the fear of offending Islam, the use of terms like “Islamophobia” to silence dissenting infidels, their invocation of “safe spaces” and allusions to potential violence as a reason to drop a speaker. In turns out, Swedenburg has been at this for a long time.

In an article he wrote in 1989, Swedenburg lays out his methodology, which coincides quite remarkably with the hegemonic discourse across the “humanities” and “social ‘sciences'” of today. How much headway have they made in the last two decades! (HT: YM)

One of the first days after I had moved to Nablus, in November 1984, I had an experience that has now become a daily routine for Israeli settlers in the West Bank. I was driving downtown, when suddenly, bam! the car shook under the impact of a heavy blow to its side. A Palestinian youth, whom I never saw, had darted out of an alley, hurled a large stone, and rapidly vanished. He only man-aged, luckily, to put a large dent above my gas cap and did not break the wind-shield, the usual goal of hurled stones. I guess he singled out my car as a target from all the others on that busy street because its yellow license plates and my appearance led him to believe I was an Israeli settler. (As the holder of a tourist visa, I had to register my car in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, so its yellow plates stood out amidst the distinctive blue-plated vehicles driven by West Bank Palestinians.) I was so shaken that I was ready to give up fieldwork and go straight home.

Earlier anthropologists, who risked far more serious assaults in far less controlled environments – no recently annexed offices and registrations for Napoleon Chagnon, or any of those working a century ago. If an anthropologist wants to understand up close a culture in which violence is a quotidian presence, then he or she needs to be ready to experience some of it. No serious anthropologist feels entitled to safety (talk about white privilege).

My immediate thought was that I, of all people, should never have been stoned. After all, unlike those other Westerners one saw in the West Bank-the settlers, tourists, and embassy officials-I was a good foreigner, working in the best interests of the Palestinians. My response was typical of a mentality I shared with other Westerners who worked as teachers, journalists, or researchers in the occupied territories and sympathized with the Palestinians.

Precisely. When Alan Johnston was kidnapped, the cry went up from some, “why kidnap him? he was on the Palestinian side.” It makes absolutely clear that the way that information professionals of the last generation have dealt with the violence of Palestinian society (and how many others) has been to cry out, “but we’re on your side!” No wonder top (NYT)journalists like Jodi Rudoren and Ethan Bronner (and so many other journalists I’ve spoken with) say, without a trace of irony or self-awareness, “there’s no intimidation.” As one photographer said to me when I raised the issue of intimidation: “They don’t threaten us. They welcome us.” The appeasement is so pervasive, there is no need for violence.

Interestingly, as he might have guessed, he was not alone in this experience of information professionals who think that the people they champion will be appreciative.

This was a frame of mind that I shared but also, in calmer moments, criticized. We “good foreigners” practiced constant rituals of self-purification, designed to guarantee that we-unlike the settlers, tourists, and diplomats-were part of the Palestinian community. We spoke Arabic, dressed modestly (no shorts, low-cut blouses or wild haircuts), avoided tourist haunts, rarely ventured into Israel proper and, whenever possible, purchased Palestinian rather than Israeli products. We were often more obsessive about these latter practices than our Palestinian friends.

Swedenburg apparently does not know that he has just given us a good description (from the perspective of a triumphalist Muslim), of good dhimmi behavior: do everything to appease them (dress, public behavior, conversation – plus palestinien que les palestiniens), reject, criticize, and attack their enemies (Israel). From his point of view (and theirs) he’s just showing respect. The key here is the intellectual failure: it’s one thing not to gratuitously offend (dress, behavior), it’s another to put your scholarship in the service of their irredentist cause.

Robert Fisk suffered a much more seriously violent attack in Afghanistan, three months after 9-11. His description and analysis resemble those of Swedenburg’s.

I had spent more than two and a half decades reporting the humiliation and misery of the Muslim world and now their anger had embraced me too…

I’ve been on their side, depicting them as victims, telling their story the way they want it told, and now the turn on me?

And — I realised — there were all the Afghan men and boys who had attacked me who should never have done so but whose brutality was entirely the product of others, of us — of we who had armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and laughed at their civil war and then armed and paid them again for the “War for Civilisation” just a few miles away and then bombed their homes and ripped up their families and called them “collateral damage”.

In classic humanitarian racist style, “they,” the victim colored people, have no agency. Anything they do wrong is our fault. They shouldn’t have done it (attack me) not because they shouldn’t be violent, but because I was on their side. (Apparently if it weren’t for the West, Afghanistan and Palestine, not to mention the rest of the victim world, would be thriving civil societies.)

Swedenburg continues:

My point is not that these actions were incorrect, but that in somuchas [sic] they demonstrated our radical difference from “other” Westerners, they allowed us to disavow our real connections to the centers of power. (Swedenburg, 265)

Uncanny. Without using the term “intersectionality” (which only made its appearance on the scene the year this paper was published, 1989), he has pre-articulated the current hegemonic paradigm. “We were all, not matter how ‘good,’ still Westerners, still guilty of connections to power that we either denied or tried to disown, but that fatally corrupted us.” The West owns it “original sin.”

Rephrased in Islamic terms:

No matter how good we were as dhimmi we were still kufar (infidels) guilty (of having rejected Allah), and deserved whatever Muslim hostility came our way. They are innocent – heaven forbid we accuse them of anything! – and we are blameworthy (root of the term dhimma).

Either way (as PoCo activist or as proleptic dhimmi), this is a pathetic show of systemic appeasement – indeed a surrender to a 1400 year-old intersectional system of Muslim oppression of infidels. When Swedenburg thought more about his dilemma, it wasn’t to realize that there was something intellectually dishonest about it, that he needed to open up his lens and take in a larger picture rather than adopting the war (“national resistance“) narrative of a violent culture (not their fault) that readily lies to outsiders (not their fault). On the contrary, in his mind all this dhimmi behavior, including taking the Palestinian side completely, is “not… incorrect.” He, like Fisk, just needed to meditate further on his intersectional sins of white privilege.

No wonder we Western infidels can’t figure anything out in the Middle East! Since Edward Said, our information professionals have systematically blinded us. With Ted Swedenburg we have a fine example of the long haul – from Palestinian lacky in the late 20th century, to academic enforcer of Muslim blasphemy laws in the 21st.

The letter opposing Phyllis Chesler’s invitation boldly states:

Our work is to educate students on the Middle East, not to promote bigotry.

Put differently:

Our work is to promote a positive view of Islam, not to educate them on the Middle East.

Thank you, King Fahd Center for the study of the Middle East at Arkansas University.

5 Responses to Intellectual Corruption of Intersectional Academics: Ted Swedenburg’s Palestinian Anthropology

  1. Steve J. says:

    Ted Sweden is part of a growing group of democratic party communist operatives. People like him should be stopped.

  2. Walter Sobchak says:

    The name of the place tells you everything you need to know.

    Why can’t the US government stop the Saudis from propagandizing Americans?

  3. David says:

    Dear Richard,

    Many thanks for this fascinating blog post, Richard. First off, I think your talent for neologisms (Pallywood) and epithets “proleptic dhimmitude” remains undiminished: Your opening in which you define this as “the fear of offending Islam, the use of terms like “Islamophobia” to silence dissenting infidels, their invocation of “safe spaces” and allusions to potential violence as a reason to drop a speaker” is, in my view, the unholy trinity that now characterizes Middle Eastern Studies in Western institutes of higher learning.

    As I think I mentioned over lunch, before my ME Studies course even began we were assigned one – and only one – book that we were expected to have read before we arrived at Oxford and that was Said’s ‘Orientalism” – a bloated and fundamentally disingenuous book in my humble opinion.

    I also note what I observe to be a recurrent and valuable theme of your writing – namely the employment of humour to subvert: “No serious anthropologist feels entitled to safety (talk about white privilege).”

    Having travelled extensively in the Islamic Middle East including Gaza and the West Bank this quotes makes me laugh aloud for so many reasons that I’m sure I don’t need to spell out to you. “ We were often more obsessive about these latter practices than our Palestinian friends.” There is simply so much to unpack here and this one sentence is so instructive as regards the mindset you – correctly – battle against it is – bitterly – hilarious.

    Your discussion of Fisk is then almost inevitable. I wonder if you know about his reputation in the UK? Namely, that we is well-known not for just this kind of absurd reporting but outright fabrication – at times at a Stephen Glass level – it’s an open secret. I have several stories I will share with you at our next meeting.

    Finally:

    “Our work is to promote a positive view of Islam, not to educate them on the Middle East.”

    YES YES YES.

    My question to you is a simple one. I have long feared the deleterious effects of higher education in the humanities and social sciences. Especially the rise of theory, which I believe to be responsible for much if this type of garbage and simply put: bad thought. In 20 years today’s College students will be tomorrow’s Senators and MPs. So…

    What do we do about it?

    • Richard Landes says:

      i’m not quite sure how to answer that last question. there have been efforts to try alternatives, which, in the age of internet, shd be much easier than in the days when a physical presence (library, classrooms) was necessary. none, to my knowledge, have worked. meantime the augean stables of academia are much more powerful (stinky) than we imagine.

      but i learned some impt stuff from my late father, David S. Landes, about capitalism, reality-testing, and market demand. no matter how impressive the infrastructure, no matter how “too big to fail,” the big, when they lose touch with reality and the needs of the market, will fall.

      right now, in both social sciences and humanities, virtually everything to do with Islam, Israel, and more generally post-colonial theory is not only false/useless, but actually noxious. my guess is that this had bled into other topics and fields. an historian friend of mine who left academia told me that his chosen field had been race-relations in USA. he left because, as he put it, as soon as race became the topic, the general IQ of the discussion dropped ten points. When it comes to Israel, it’s twenty points.

      this means that at a certain point, consumers (college students, and more importantly, their parents) will begin to realize this is not worth the investment. modern universities are now primarily there for STEM education. Social “Sciences” and humanities lead to a “social justice” so misconceived that it fuels racial hatred and anti-semitism more than serious knowledge.

      that means that someone with a product in humanities and (what we might more modestly call) social studies, will have buyers. how to produce and market such products… it might be your generation that has the energy to do it. i’d be happy to help. I have a course in honor-shame culture that i think young people might benefit from. more generally, Cary Nelson’s website Israel and the Academy is well worth a look.

  4. Daniel Livni says:

    How Robert Fisk promoted the Jenin massacre hoax
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26988

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *