Columbia Prof: "No Gays In Middle East"
Thank you JTA for pointing out this unbelievable but worse yet truly believable piece in the New Republic. Titled “The Columbia Professor Who Doesn’t Think Gay People Exist in the Middle East” TNR doesn’t even need to give any editorial commentary. It is just ridiculous!
Here is just a taste of it:
According to [Joseph Massad, Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History], a Palestinian Christian and disciple of the late Columbia professor Edward Said, the case for gay rights in the Middle East is an elaborate scheme hatched by activists in the West. Massad posited this thesis in a 2002 article, “Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World,” for the academic journal Public Culture, and he has expanded it into a book, Desiring Arabs, published this year by the University of Chicago Press. In it, he writes that such activists constitute the “Gay International” whose “discourse … produces homosexuals as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” The “missionary tasks” of this worldwide conspiracy are part of a broader attempt to legitimize American and Israeli global conquest by undermining the very moral basis of Muslim societies, as the “Orientalist impulse … continues to guide all branches of the human rights community.” Massad’s intellectual project is a not-so-tacit apology for the oppression of people who identify openly as homosexual. In so doing, he sides with Islamist regimes over Islamic liberals.
That really is the core of the argument that is outlined in the article, but he goes on and on about how people who are fighting against different injustices against GLBT individuals in the Middle East are “anti-Arab” or “anti-Islam” and other such stupidity. He even calls Arab gays “so-called ‘gays.’”
Academic freedom aside, this is plain and simple homophobia. I have not read the entire Massad article, but I can’t imagine it is much better than the long excerpts from TRN. While Massad does call upon the theory that gayness is a social construct and if a particular society does not utilize a certain set of values, this construct will not exist. Outside of that theory being dismissed years and years ago, we currently live in a global world where our societies are exposed to more than ever before, including different social constructs from different cultures.
This guy is up for tenure and if he is turned down, articles like these will be the cause. However he will blame the Israelis and Jew lobby for his rejection. Cross Posted at POLJ
Join the Conversation
The book is actually about Arab sexual attitudes more generally, not homosexuality alone, I think there is one chapter dealing specifically with homosexuality, though I haven’t read the whole book (I’ve skimmed through parts of it in the store). As for there being no homosexuals in the ME, obviously there are. Mossad’s arguement that advocacy for the rights of gays in the ME is part of a Western “plot” are a bit over stated, but it has been the case, especially in recent years, to compare Arab societies with Israeli or other Western societies with respect to their attitudes on this issue. Commentators and others in the media have said that in Palestinian, Arab, Iranian, etc. society, the lot of people are worse off because the rights of gays are not respected in the way they are in Israel or Western Europe, with the insinuation almost always being that this makes these societies culturally and civilizationally inferior to Western ones. It is used in parts of Europe as a way of stirring anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feeling, which already exists for a variety of other reaons, and has political implications. It is not entirely altruistic phenomenon. And it is not false that homosexuality was regarded differently and constructed in a different manner in Middle Eastern countries than in Western ones for many many years (and has differed across the globe). Simply to say that we live in a globalized world and that we are now exposed to alternative social constructions does not discredit one or another arguement. The debate over whether or not homosexuality is “natural” (as whether or not one is born gay or not) is not decided in many Western countries, including, but not limited to, the Western Hemisphere (the USA and Latin America in particular). Many people here (in the W. Hemisphere) believe that homosexuality is choice, and this is the case with many (if not most) people in the Middle East. The Middle East lags behind a lot of places in its treatment of gays, but it is not alone in this and one should not take it for granted that one or the other view of homosexuality will be accepted by all parties, Western Middle Eastern, African, East Asian, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, or whatever simply because one or the other narritave has been globalized. A better arguement for accepting that narrative is needed. Very few of Mossad’s critics actually attack him on such a basis as to argue the superiority of the so-called Western view of homosexuality as they assume that the opposite view is superior by virtue of its own existence. I think Mossad’s notion of a “Gay International” is sort of, well, ridiculous (though there are gay NGOs and political organizations that do much of what he describes; it’s too vague a concept and if it actually did it would be too politically insignificant to actually matter). However, I wouldn’t dismiss his entire article as homophobic, because it is more complicated than that and some of what he says has merit, though not necissarily with respect to homosexuality. for instnace, as I said before, there is quite a bit of punditry and scholarship devoted to comparing Arab/Muslim societies to Western ones, with the aim of “undermining the very moral basis of Muslim societies” in a missionary fashion; homosexuality is tiny part of this arguement most of the time (especially outside of north-western Europe); mostly it is on the basis of Islamic religious teachings, Arab cultural practices, the historical spread of Islam, the historical treatment of minorities in Islamic societies, etc. It is almost never on the basis of homosexuality alone and the emphasis is almost certainly on religious or minority-right grounds, as most people in the West and the scholars who pen these critiques do not identity readily with the homosexual experience. But his emphasis on homosexuality is comical, at the very best.
And as for the book, the book is not about homosexuality; it is about Arab views of sexual morality through history. Me being rather un-interested in historical views of sexuality, I do not find it tremendously useful except peripherally in the context of Middle Eastern (primarily Levantine) Arab intellectual history, which is somewhat obscure. The geo-politics of it are more important in my view. But I think Mossad’s emphasis is wrong, many of his conclusions are wrong, and a good part of his general approach to the issue is wrong. I agree, if he does not make tenure it will be because of his more recent writings, and also because of a very concerted effort for some time before most of his sexual writings came out by some actors (yes, primarily Jewish ones, notably Campus Watch and its affiliates) to achieve that outcome.
Best regards,
KNL
Hi Peter, I think you’ve misunderstood Massad’s argument. He’s not against gay rights or gay people; in fact, he is very sympathetic to them. He is simply questioning the boxes we create for people and whether a category, box or code that is relevant in one context (ie the West) is importable as a whole, without changes, to another context. Gay rights provides a complicated example of how a cause deemed as very just and progressive can in fact make use of implicit ideas about the “other” and the backwardness of other cultures who fail to adopt the same definitions.
This is different than claiming that men who choose to have romantic and sexual relationships with other men, or women who choose to have romantic and sexual relationships with other women are welcomed as such in mainstream culture in the Middle East. The question is whether academics and societies in the West use this issue, or the issue of women or minority rights, for example to a. export our uncomfortability with these issues in our own society or b. provide fodder for preconceived notions of uncivilized behavior in other societies.
I don’t think I miss understand this at all. Some things are right and some are wrong. I have studied Said and have read Massad in the past. But this is just silly. The idea that the construct of the Gay doesn’t exist in the ME is just dumb. It may not be accepted, but the construct does exist. Without said social construct it would be impossible to legislate against it.
Massad is an Orientalist. He believes that the West is out to get all those who are behind. In someways this is convincing, while in others it is not. The main idea is that whatever is going on in one location is best for the majority of those living there. (VERY simple reading I know) but really how is it good for minorities to be accused of “degradation of religion” by practicing another religion or not following the rules of the majority religion? That is not a good aspect of a society. Sorry. I can’t stand for that. I also don’t stand for the violations of human rights the western society. When a thinker says something ridiculous that excuses the bad behavior in my country, better believe I will write about it.
(The failure of the US to pass strong health care for our children is a shame. The pundits and thinkers who will say this is a good thing should be called to task as well.)
So you come here to re-post something from The New Republic of all places, and pretend you are here preaching liberal and progressive values. Please, if you don’t even know how to read, don’t bother writing. This is the most twisted perversion of Massad’s argument and views that I have seen yet–but then again, Massad, who has been a favorite of Zionist smear campaigns ever since they failed to have him ejected from Columbia University on fabricated charges, is much more sophisticated than anything you could come up with. You are conflating homosexuality, simple sex acts between same sexes, something that obviously and undeniably occurs in the Middle East and the rest of the world, with a “gay identity,” that, that does not exist in the same way outside of the West, even within the West.
If you think that the statements “homosexuality does not exist in the Middle East” and “gays do not exist in the Middle East” are equivalent, then you are proof of some of his propositions.
Crying “Zionist conspiracy!” every time someone criticizes an Arabist thinker does not excuse the prosecution of gays in the Middle East. The idea is about tolerating an alternate lifestyle within ones’s society. All gays want is to be treated equally by society. They have never used violence to advance their goals. Most prefer to avoid confrontation with political and religious authorities but since their rights aren’t respected they have no choice.
I hate every political leader/thinker who wants to deny gays their full rights, whether George Bush, Pat Robertson, the pope, Joseph Massad, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They and all their appologists are intolerant biggots who must be exposed.
Of course there are “gay” people all throughout the Middle East, not just homosexuals. They’ve just been forced to live in hiding, but at private parties they express themselves with clothing, hair, language, attitude, etc. You make the assumption that the only legitimate representations of culture are public. But gays thrive in the Middle Eastern underground. The reason why it’s easy to claim that they don’t exist in the Middle East is because they’ve been repressed under a sociopolitical structure that traditionally has sought to control their identity so they’re out of sight and out of mind, not because Middle Easterners have no organic desires to create identities based upon sexual feelings.
I can guarantee you that there are LOTS of people throughout the Middle East who would set up house and share their lives intimately with a partner of the same sex if they were allowed to.
I don’t need to read someone’s hypothesis on whether homosexuality is praticed here in the ME or if ME homosexuals exist. The fact is that it and people who are homosexual does exist. I know gays of both sexes that live and work here, and I know people who consider themselves straight but like to have some variety (not really bi and won’t admit to being bi). Some are Bahraini, others are from other Gulf counries and some are expats (professional white collar, artisans and unskilled laborers). They are not isolated to a certain demographic profiile and all I have talked to regarding sexuality have said it was something they knew all along or it was something they discovered afterwards. Everybody goes through a period shortly after the onset of puberty where they are questioning their sexuality. If you tell me you didn’t, I will call you a liar. It’s just a natural thing. On a scale of 1-10, people will have varying degrees of homosexual and heterosexual tendencies.
How one decides to construct/live their lifestyle is an independent choice regardless of their ethnic background or nationality. Lifestyle does not imply sexual lifestyle. Yes, some are more exhibitionist in their sexuality than others, and I think if one lives in a world where one’s sexual preference is either respected or attacked, well… one either hides it or moves away. Some will marry and front a heterosexual lifestyle and have a secret life, and some will carry the auspices of heterosexual life where both the man and woman are homosexual and arranged their marriage and have children just to keep the heat off of them while not alienating themselves or embarrassing their parents. I’ve seen some homosexual men who are not afraid to flaunt it because they hold some sort of special place/position within their group of people (a certain family, a certain tribe who carries a lot of power).
Here’s one for you all to ponder… a man who is effeminate, cross-dresses yet is heterosexual and is flamboyant about it. How would you treat him? The flipside- a woman who is butch, yet does not like women and loves men and the lifestyle of men? How would you treat her? So, please take all of your hypothesis and waste of instituional money just to get tenureship or something else and shove it. I’m tired of hearing crap from people who have a tendency to write on something when they have not even put themselves into the situation of the people they write about. These people are like economists who call themselves experts, yet have never spent a day outside academia in the real world.
Yaman…chill out. I am not calling for his rejection. I am just pointing this out. I understand his point, I personally think it is wrong. The treatment of GLBT people in the countries where the “social construct” doesn’t exist, is awful. So what if that is my personal and western (and therefore clearly anti-Arab or something) belief. My values are such that even if you can explain something through convoluted and complex literary analysis (look up what Said really did at Columbia) it doesn’t justify the actions.
Peter Jacob,
During the American Revolution, there was no concern for gay, women or racial/ethnic minority rights. THe first step was getting the yoke of colonialism off of their back. Eventially those rights were addressed. SO this is why I think Professor Massad speaks that way. First get rid of the brutal occupation, than he will talk about gays. You may not agree with this, but that is how it was done in Western countries.
You wrote “This guy is up for tenure and if he is turned down, articles like these will be the cause. However he will blame the Israelis and Jew lobby for his rejection.”
He has already had problems with pro-Israeli students. See http://www.counterpunch.org/dols04112005.html
Peter, you posted an article that pretends Joseph Massad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have the same position regarding gays. The implication here is that Massad denies gay people exist. His argument is much more complicated and nuanced than that suggests, and his terms have different definitions than somebody who has not read his book would understand. If you disagree with his argument, then argue against it, but don’t throw all these libelous smears at him when you clearly have not read his book, and clearly do not understand his argument.
Fine. I will read the book next. But here is the deal: The argument put forth both by TNR and his article, is pretty clear. It states that trying to fight the idea of on kind of oppression in favor of an other is acceptable due to colonialism. Very much I understand that. But, RandallJones and Yaman, who is colonizing Egypt? Or Iran? I don’t see it. I get the issues in Iraq, that makes sense. But the other independent countries…what are they fighting?
I don’t want to conflate the two positions on GLBT individuals and neither does TNR. What it points out is that on the same campus wrong ideas about differences are being preached. But the diffecens is on is booed and the other is published.
Sorry – typo: What it points out is that one the same campus wrong ideas about differences are being preached. But the differences ONE is booed and the other is being published.
” who is colonizing Egypt? Or Iran? ”
A very strong case could be made that Americans are and have been colonizing (in the neo-colonial or modern understanding of it) Egypt for quite some time, especially since the time of Sadat. Most of the Sunni Arab states a basically vassals of the United States and the stability of their governments and economies are dependent on either American military aid or a combination of that an a single natural resource.
Well, with that said, one may as well throw China in there as well with their buying of favors with outright cash and with projects in Africa. Anyway, the term “colonizing” doesn’t even fit. If you mention “bloc”, that would be the most fitting term, since it is more of an aligning than the former term implying colonizing.
“Well, with that said, one may as well throw China in there as well with their buying of favors with outright cash and with projects in Africa. Anyway, the term “colonizing” doesn’t even fit. If you mention “bloc”, that would be the most fitting term, since it is more of an aligning than the former term implying colonizing.”
I would throw China in there. But they weren’t particularly relevant to the conversation. As for “bloc” you could say that Egypt under British “influence” wasn’t colonized, because it was more so aligned with Britian than it was actually colonized. The effect and nature of the relationship is mostly the same today as it was then, especially in the countries “aligned” with the US, as they have very little freedom of movement with respect to their foreign policy and are dependent on the US to provide for their own security.
When do we ever see any outside pressure on the persecution of gays (or anyone really) in Egypt?
To an extent, that is true. The difference is that the British took the time to understand the intricacies of local politics, found out who was the most influential and basically rendered the places they went to dependent on the BE for everything. The BE was not so much a figurehead-driven empire, but an organization, pretty much on the lines of a corporation that had been in existence since the defeat of the Spanish Armada off of Scotland. Go back into history and see it for what it really was and what was driving it. That’s why they were so successful of walking in with trade, followed up by occupation, followed up by influencing the political machines in every place they went and most importantly, they had the backing of the British public who thought it was their manifest destiny to rule the world. Americans, on the other hand, don’t have the discipline nor the tenacity to do that. With every leadership change every four years, policies are either scrapped or stagnated. There is no continuity. As for your last sentence, that’s too generalized without anything really to back up that opinion. These countries here in the ME and oter places in the world where there is US presence can basically do what they want. You may disagree, but there’s nothing the USA can do about it if someone said they are tired of playing with the USA.
The British Empire and the United States are different kinds of countries, obviously. I never said they were exact parallels, but they are overwhelmingly similar in their result.
“Americans, on the other hand, don’t have the discipline nor the tenacity to do that. With every leadership change every four years, policies are either scrapped or stagnated.”
Not necissarily. There is quite a bit of continuity, especially in ME policy. Small features of policy are changed, symobolic things, but the overall strategy and the main pillars of that strategy do not change. American foreign policy is very rarely a partisan issue, most foreign policy initiatives have bi-partisan support, and the only real disagreements are about methodology.
“That’s why they were so successful of walking in with trade, followed up by occupation, followed up by influencing the political machines in every place they went and most importantly, they had the backing of the British public who thought it was their manifest destiny to rule the world.”
Most Americans are indifferent to foreign policy as long as it does not directly affect them (large numbers of casualties, increases in prices, etc.). Silence is as good as support. And most Americans are comfortable with using force, especially against weak countries. Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq (and most still did until a couple of years ago), the Gulf War, and the Vietnam war (until about mid way through). If Americans think they are under threat or being targeted, they will agree to almost any foreign policy plan presented to them. The history of the Republic attests to this. It’s only when things go wrong that they stop supporting them, really. This has been true in Latin America, the ME, Europe, and Asia.
“As for your last sentence, that’s too generalized without anything really to back up that opinion. These countries here in the ME and oter places in the world where there is US presence can basically do what they want. You may disagree, but there’s nothing the USA can do about it if someone said they are tired of playing with the USA.”
That’s wishful thinking. What happened when Saddam got tired of playing with the Americans? What would happen if Jordan or Egypt decided to toss their peace treaties with Israel and mobilize their troops on their borders with Israel? Or better yet, what of the Gulf monarchies? They have no military to speak of, and they are entirely dependent on American and European weaponry and American military support. Without the US, they wouldn’t be around. They’d be crushed by either Israel (more likely) or the US. Those countries can do what they like so long as it doesn’t affect the United States. And outside of, well, probably Africa, that’s just about any foreign policy issue.