Ancient Roots - Modern States
Summary of Presentations
UC Berkeley's International and Area Studies Summer Institute for Teachers
July 31 -August 4, 2000
Summaries
written by Cheryl Roberts (cr)
and Tahir Naqvi (tn)
Speaker
Biographies
| Return to ORIAS home page |
| Return to Summer Institute Page |
Summaries
written by Cheryl Roberts (cr)
and Tahir Naqvi (tn)
Speaker
Biographies
|
|
Conflict,
Cooperation, Coercion and States (cr)
David Leonard, International and Area Studies, UCB
|
|
|
Regional
Diversity and Imperial Unity: The Roman Empire and the Creation of a Universal
People (tn)
Richard Hoffman, Department of History, SFSU
|
|
of Colonialism: Mexico
|
Shredded
Memories Among Indigenous Peoples in the Valley of Mexico, 1530-1580 (cr)
Amos Megged, Visiting Scholar to UCB
|
|
Nation Building in: the Middle East |
Legacies
of the Ottoman Empire in Modern Turkey (cr)
Leslie Peirce, Department of Near Eastern Studies, U. C. Berkeley
|
|
|
“Monarchs,
Merchants and Middle Classes in Russia’s Periods of Transition”
Lisa Walker, History Department, U. C. Berkeley
|
|
|
Empire
and Republic: The Ancient and Modern Chinese State(tn)
Frederic Wakeman, Institute of East Asian Studies, UCB |
David Leonard,
Dean of International and Area Studies and Professor of African Politics
and Development Administration,
“Conflict, Cooperation, Coercion and States” (cr)
David Leonard, Dean of International and Area Studies and Professor of African Politics and Development Administration, introduced the institute’s topic with a reexamination of the state and its role in promoting and maintaining social order. He began with two provocative questions which could very well serve as the grounding for a social studies course: Do states serve a public good? Or are they a source of exploitation? We tend to view “the state” as a necessary enforcer of social order in a society, to manage conflict and work toward cooperation for the development and prosperity of the society. By suggesting we “see states again for the first time,” Leonard raised interesting questions about just who benefits by the maintenance of social order,
The continent of Africa serves as a template for the study of state formation since, as Leonard argued, there were “state-less” societies successfully coexisting prior to the division of the continent into European colonial territories at the Berlin Conference. For example, the Nuer people of southern Sudan achieved social order without a formal state. Mainly cattle herders and traders, their society was organized around kinship networks or clans and depended on clan cooperation and assistance in times of need or conflict with other clans. The case of Nuer provides a splendid example for teaching students about the existence of social order in past societies without a state apparatus. (Social anthropologist E.E. Evans-Pritchard provides the classic case study of the Nuer. For more a recent ethnography see Sharon E. Hutchinson’s Nuer Dilemmas, University of California Press, 1996.)
Africa is also a useful example of the social construction of ethnicity. Since an ethnic group can have either a real or a fictional common history and ancestry, we can argue that ethnic groups are socially constructed. Many of the various ethnic groups living in Africa today, and particularly those in conflict with each other (as in Burundi and Rwanda, for example) are the result of colonialism on the continent. According to David Leonard, the colonial administrations imposed artificial boundaries and borders which encapsulated groups of people not previously bounded. These groups, often brought together under unfamiliar social, political, and economic circumstances in the colonial society, find themselves artificially labeled a homogeneous ethnic group by the official bureaucracy. Thus, ethnicity becomes defined by a foreign colonial administration. Using the case of Africa, Leonard asserted that ethnicity is a modern creation organized around imposed geographical spaces. And as is evident today, decolonization has destabilized these various artificially constructed “states” and the groups living within them.
States are convenient mechanisms for maintaining social order, and in
turn assist in the economic development of the nation. Yet, they
can also be “regions of exploitation” as in the example of colonialism.
For their very survival, states depend on the resources (both natural resources
and human labor) of the territory and this can only be exploited fully
through the cooperation of its citizens. Therefore, solving conflict
can provide for the collective good of the society since it helps to promote
economic development which can enable a higher standard of living for the
population.
Greg
Francis, Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural
Education
“Introducing Students to Conflict: A Hands-On Approach” (cr)
Given the overall picture presented by David Leonard of state formation and the role of the state both historically and presently, how can students then be introduced to the modern-day conflicts which plague many states (mostly in the former colonies)? Greg Francis, curriculum specialist at SPICE (Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education) introduced a curriculum unit he developed for high school students aimed at “analyzing deadly conflicts and prescribing strategies for preventing them.” The unit, Preventing Deadly Conflict: Toward a World Without War, is available from SPICE at http://spice.stanford.edu. Using research and activities, the unit defines catagories of deadly conflict, introduces tools of foreign policy employed in intervention, and considers case studies of recent conflict and resolution scenarios.
For a teacher review of another unit on human rights with a focus on China see the class curriculum page.
Richard
Hoffman, Department of History San Francisco State University
“Regional Diversity and Imperial Unity: The Roman Empire and the
Creation of a Universal People”
The popular period film Gladiator (dir. Ridley Scott) was the touchstone for classical historian Richard Hoffman’s presentation on Roman imperial conceptions of citizenship, space, and cultural difference. While not without its historical flaws, Professor Hoffman stated that the film nevertheless shows us two related principles of Roman Imperialism. These historically underemphasized, and related principles are: the inclusive nature of Roman citizenship, and relatedly, the immense cultural and geographic diversity the empire.
According to Hoffman, Rome’s most lasting legacy was its political and philosophic development of a “universality of human being.” This notion distinguished it from the exclusionist ideology of the Greek polis, and, was fitting to its expansionist designs. For instance, as a strong state, Roman leadership recognized that violence and militarization were insufficient means to gain the loyalty of newly conquered subjects. Guiding this thinking was an elaborate moral-political vision of the “cosmopolis,” or universal city, that idealized Reason as the basis for Roman citizenship. This cosmopolitical vision of the imperium reflected the biographies and political will of Rome’s rulers. Marcus Aurelius’ eloquent meditations on the relationship between civilization and reason thus spoke to the linguistic and cultural diversity that marked his own upbringing and education.
It was not until Claudius I, however, that the cosmopolitical vision of a Rome as unified totality and transcendental ideal was operationalized. Claudius lobbied to incorporate conquered non-Italians as citizenry, and, sought to include non-Italian elites (i.e., Gauls; Moroccans, Celts) in the legislature. In effect, this decreased the political emphasis on the distinction between conquer and conquered. Supporting this process was the more established Roman policy of annexation without the dissolution of pre-existing political systems (unlike modern French imperialism for instance). In fact, those conquered were given the option to be citizens of Rome or not. The only criteria of citizenship, (and this did spur conference-level debate about the actual “multiculturalism” of the Roman Empire), was the curtailment of tribal or nomadic social relations. As such, the Roman imperium equated citizenship with the fullest development of ones’ “human potential” through reason.
Following the same inclusionist lines was Rome’s policy of urbanization. Hoffman stressed the centrality of cities in the Roman understanding of empire. Cities were seen to embody the universal ideals and ethos Roman citizenship, which led in turn to the initiation of complex programmes of civic improvement, and municipalization in conquered regions. Such programs often occurred before a region’s formal incorporation into the Empire. And yet, as Hoffman emphasized, cities provided a flexible “cultural system.” The strategy of “Romanization” in fact allowed for a more “hybrid” relationship between indigenous aesthetic and political forms, and, the Romanizing municipal structure.
Through interrelated techniques of citizenship and urbanization, the
Roman Empire transformed itself and those it conquered. What emerged, and
was accepted by Rome, was this hybridizing relationship between Empire
and locality. This was so much the case that even as Rome began to lose
its own democratic structure, it continued to command authority in the
imperial hinterlands.
Marc
Vail: Department of History UC Berkeley
“Europe, the Nation-state and Transnational Visions”
U. C. Berkeley Department of History graduate student Marc Vail presented a highly substantive overview of the history, politics and prospects of European unification. According to Vail, two dominant outlooks characterize thinking on the subject of the European Union (EU). “EU optimists” characterize the official view, tending to pose unification as the culmination of Europe’s historical destiny. Many holding such a viewpoint also uphold that the nation-state concept as a whole is being outmoded with the rise of globalization. Critical to Vail’s presentation was the “EU pessimist,” who like himself believes that while the EU has made important strides in harmonizing key aspects of the continent’s economy, the unification process expressly supports what are largely domestic political interests. Here, the EU is seen as a movement of nation-states rather than the expression of a continental sentiment.
Vail then described the EU’s historical roots. Precedents are manifold, the most notable being the post-monarchic formalization of Europe’s nation-state system at Westphalia. The historical touchstone for formal EU planning was the traumatic experience of World World II. After the war, the EU was envisioned as a mechanism for maintaining peace through the combination of economic interests. France and Germany formed the core of this initiative, which for Germans provided a valuable means of restoring international political and economic standing. While this initially required Germany to subordinate its interests to France, Germany’s current status as Europe’s most productive economy has led to a reversal of sorts. Nevertheless, the France-German combine continues to dominate EU interests.
Through his prepared remarks, and in response to questions, Vail discussed some of the historic economic, legal, and policy-oriented bottlenecks to unification. Defense strategy was brought up as one such impediment to “true” unification. A general unwillingness exists on the part of EU members, particularly those who share borders with non-European countries, to limit their capacity to defend national and territorial integrity. In light of America’s modern military history, Vail did recognize the possibility that the EU’s consolidation of free-market economic interests could eventually lead to defense harmonization in the region.
Questions concerning the formal and informal criteria of EU membership were also addressed. Vail noted that despite broad-based formal criteria for inclusion (democracy, and liberal-capitalist economy), a range of informal criteria come into play when deciding the fate of EU aspirants among Western-European countries. For instance, while Turkey has been denied membership on grounds of its human rights record, its status as a Muslim country arguably affected the decision making process. Economic development represents another important informal barometer of EU support. Thus, Poland’s relatively underdeveloped and dominant agricultural sector is seen as potential drain on EU farm subsidies, which are organized to meet the agricultural production strategies of industrialized economies. One participant asked whether member countries could “opt out” of certain EU provisions, to which Vail responded in detail. While violation of certain treaty-based provisions can invoke sanctions from the EU Court of Justice, this has not curtailed resistance to certain mandatory requirements. An example would be England, Denmark and Sweden’s gripe with a common currency. Similarly, conflict surrounds attempts to harmonize social policy, and welfare reform. In effect, these national-level divergences have led to the view of unification as a “two speed” process. This implies a situation whereby certain members support the entire EU mandate, while others are more selective. Those falling in the latter camp, particularly the less powerful economies, face diminished bargaining power at the EU level. With an increasing number of EU mandates having to be passed through majority-based voting the possibility of Europe’s political unification does not seem imminent.
Amos
Megged, Visiting Professor of Latin American Studies, U. C. Berkeley
“Shredded Memories Among Indigenous Peoples in the Valley of Mexico,
1530-1580” (cr)
Amos Megged, visiting professor at U. C. Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies, opened his discussion of colonialism in Mexico with a look at how the disciplines of anthropology and history merge when we examine cultures through both historic events and the interpretations of these events by the people themselves. The combination of the “fact” of historical events and the “stories” told about these events can be useful when teaching a social studies course on colonial history, according to Megged. In examining these stories, we can begin to understand the processes of colonialization and how cultures were transformed in the process.
To concretize this discussion, he used paintings (códices) which were pictorial representations of mistreatment of the indigenous Mexicans by the Spanish colonials during the 16th century. These códices were used as evidence in court cases where the indigenous Mexicans’ grievances were heard. In these pictorial representations, we get a glimpse of the value the indigenous peoples placed on land, for instance, or the manner in which colonial officials employed abusive labor practices. Megged also pointed out that these códices show cultural changes in language, religion, and dress of the indigenous Mexicans toward a more Spanish cultural enunciation. Because the Spanish colonial administration allowed indigenous Mexicans to bring their grievances to court and legitimated this process, there exist court records of these actions and of resistances to colonial exploitation in the 16th century. By combining oral history, pictorial representations, and “hard historical facts,” students can gain a clearer understanding of the indigenous interpretation of the conquest of Mexico by the Spanish.
Ariana
Reynolds, Department of History, U. C. Berkeley
“Renegotiating Tradition in Post-Apartheid South Africa” (cr)
When Deputy President Thabo Mbeki gave a speech before those assembled
at the United Nations University in the Spring of 1998, he urged Africans
to look to the pre-colonial past for “African traditions” which he argues
will enable the continent to move forward toward an African Renaissance.
History graduate student Ariana Reynolds from the Center for African Studies,
posed the question, what is “African tradition” given the diversity in
language, religion, and ethnicity of the African population? Reynolds’
presentation focused on South Africa and its efforts to “re-write” (or
re-right) the history of the oppressed majority whose history was misrepresented
during the apartheid era.
This misrepresentation became embedded within the South African society
through all apartheid institutions, including text books used in public
education. Reynolds’ spoke of the national effort of post-apartheid South
Africa to expose these erroneous interpretations of history which valorized
Afrikaners especially, and Europeans generally, and at the same time depicted
Africans as inferior.
The re-interpretation of history has a particular salience in South Africa in that it has been employed by both Afrikaners and by the Zulu, through the nationalism of Buthelezi and his efforts to valorize Zulu culture through the icon of Shaka, the Zulu warrior and leader. Yet, history cannot be re-written “willy-nilly”; there must be a utilization of “real” historical events which can be interpreted for the purpose making meaning of a peoples’ past. To make real this aspect of re-interpreting history, Ms. Reynolds described a Zulu virginity ceremony which is seen as a traditional festival by the locals. However, when researching this festival, a student at the University of Natal found that the festival had not included virginity testing. This part of the ceremony was added to address the very real contemporary and devastating epidemic of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases among the youth of the community. Thus a “traditional” festival has been adapted to meet a contemporary need. Reynolds’ concluded that history and tradition, especially as it is employed in the South Africa example, may have many interpretations to serve the needs of a population, but that any interpretation of history or tradition must also include “real” events in order to be legitimized.
Deana
Heath, Department of History, UC Berkeley
“India and the Colonial Encounter: the 19th Century” (tn)
Deana Heath, a graduate student at UC Berkeley’s Department of History, gave an overview of “India and the Colonial Encounter: The Nineteenth Century.” Heath’s presentation focused on how colonial ideological representations of caste, gender and race were central to the negotiation of power relations between ruler and ruled. Drawing upon Thomas Metcalf’s (History, U. C. Berkeley) seminal Ideologies of the Raj, Heath pointed out that British colonialism should not be seen as an historically or ideologically unified movement, but rather as an often contradictory set of transformations in the construction of colonial power through modes of cultural, racial and gendered difference. The need for this conception is made evident by key administrative and ideological transformations that are associated with the “New Imperialism” of the later nineteenth century. It is this period that Heath emphasized in her talk.
British East India Company rule in the late eighteenth century differed from this period in several critical respects. Managing the tension between its mercantile and increasingly administrative role, the Company relied upon history to justify its role in India. This in turn led Company administrators to cast themselves in a benevolent light against what they constructed as an unchanging precolonial India, mired in despotic forms of rule. At this time Company officials were also involved in establishing systems of private property settlement for which a “just” system of native legal operations was seen as prerequisite. This prompted their efforts to codify sacred law and custom which carried reifying assumptions of a unified and stable Hindu or Muslim religion. The production of organized Hinduism was largely the effect of forms of colonial/orientalist knowledge that saw Indian religion and society as the same thing. Heath noted that despite this equation, administrators during the eighteenth century drew upon a romantic and appreciative conception of Indian history and language, which helps explain their greater willingness to intermingle with, and learn from the “native” population.
By contrast, Heath suggested, the nineteenth century strategy of liberal “reform” in India signaled the decline of this romanticist vision. The principle agents in bringing about this transformation were utilitarian thinkers, evangelicals, and free traders. The ideology of Reform, or “Improvement” emphasized the civilizing role of the British, while recognizing the inherent capacity of all human beings to aspire to such dizzying cultural heights. This period saw the formation of a colonized elite class, whose exposure to liberal doctrine could not hide the deindustrializing effects of colonial economic policy. Not only was “Improvement” found to be concretely lacking, native power structures continued to be cast by the British in prescriptive and communal terms. According to Heath, this period also saw the rise of anthropological (as opposed to historical) modes of understanding Indian society that took “caste” to be the core basis for regulating Indian society.
The late nineteenth century saw the rise of racial ideologies of rule that diverted from the liberal-universalistic assumptions of “Improvement.” British rule was now justified along the explicit grounds of Indians’ racial inferiority. Notions of gender were also critical in legitimizing this chauvinist position: native men were cast as “effeminate” and consequently ill equipped for self-government, while the Anglo-Indian woman was valorized as an “institution” whose protection after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 gave ideological succor to British justifications for coercive rule.
Colonialism
Roundtable: Moderated by Deana Heath
Eugene Irschick, Professor of History at UC BerkeleyA more informal roundtable session on colonialism, including scholars of India, Australia and Latin American, was then moderated by Deana Heath. The panel focused upon the social, economic, and cultural differences between settler and indirect forms of colonialism. Put broadly, settler colonialism entails the actual presence of a settler population in colonized space as owners and residents of colonized territory (i.e., Algeria, Morocco, Australia). This contrasts with indirect forms of colonial rule, such the British in India, that emphasized revenue based extraction of indigenous capital. Government employment was the primary form of European presence in this system of rule.
Amos Megged, a Visiting Scholar at U. C. Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies
Anne Keary, Ph.D. candidate in History at U. C. Berkeley
Eugene Irschick, Professor of History at UC Berkeley and specialist in South Indian cultural and political history, pointed to India’s severe climate, as well as dissatisfaction with working conditions and salary as important factors that deterred British subjects from staying on in India after independence. Since these colonialists (“Anglo-Indians”) were largely government employees with few productive assets in India, national independence offered few prospects. This can be contrasted with the Portuguese settler system that thrived in south India before the onset of formal British Crown Rule (1857). Here, intermingling and conversion to Catholicism was encouraged. Irschick stated that rather than a population of converts, the British left a bureaucratic system that is still valorized as the “steel frame” of India. For Irschick this points to the peculiarity of British colonial power. Relatively less violent than other colonial systems, British ascendancy was achieved through the administrative organization of social knowledge, and, through an orientalist reading of history that came to be accepted by the colonized elite. The colonial reading of India’s history cast it as a decaying and static society in need of “Improvement” by an external force (see Heath’s lecture). British colonialism’s legitimacy and transformative force therefore hinged upon the production of knowledge about colonized subjects. This had prompted certain critical movements in South Asian historiography to claim the “invention” of India at the hands of such knowledge. Citing his own research (Dialogue and History, California 1994), Irschick suggested the alternative possibility of looking upon colonial knowledge-production as a more “dialogic” process of negotiation between colonizer and colonized.
Amos Megged, a Visiting Scholar at U. C. Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies and Anne Keary, Ph.D. candidate in History at U. C. Berkeley, shared their research experience on settler colonialism. Keary stressed that while settler systems sought to appropriate indigenous land, they often required the institution of indigenous labor regimes (i.e., plantations, mines). This often required creating trade relationships with local political elite, as happened with the fur trade in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Keary mentioned that in Australia and other regions, settlers emerged as a “third” class that sat between elites and peasants, and, organized its material advantage through state protection and commodity exchange with both indigenous classes.
As Amos Megged related, this points to the cultural importance of labor
recruitment in settler systems. For instance, the system instituted by
the Spanish was an extensive form of recruitment that effectively expanded
the plantation labor supply while bringing Spanish settlers into much closer
contact with indigenous cultural practices. This led to intermarriage,
which points to another distinguishing feature of settler colonialism:
the production of a large-scale “creole” community.
A final point of the roundtable discussion was the relationship between
colonialisms’ religious and material interests. Megged argued that the
earliest period of Spanish expansion was driven largely by the pursuit
of religious glory, while later colonial efforts reflected a shift towards
secular free market interests. Similarly, Professor Irschick noted
how the British East India Company’s immersion in competitive trade led
it to ban missionary work within its territories for fear of the economic
consequences of local unrest.
Leslie Pierce,
Department of Near Eastern Studies, U. C. Berkeley
“Legacies of the Ottoman Empire in Modern Turkey”(cr)
Prof. Leslie Pierce spoke about historical memory and its role in the building of the modern states which were once part of the Ottoman Empire. With a specific examination of modern Turkey, she explored the ways historical narratives of the Empire’s past shape modern Turkish society. The Ottoman Empire consisted of territories which today make up over 20 different states. What is interesting about the historical narratives of the empire is there are as many different “takes” of what life was like for people living under the empire’s domination, as there are states. Most narratives are obviously negative, since state independence was achieved at the expense of the empire. Pierce highlighted some key points of these varied narratives to cover in a social studies course.
The Ottoman Empire was a family dynasty which ruled for six centuries. It was a medieval empire at its roots, yet it modernized itself continuously during the course of its long domination. It was built through conquest in a process which took about 300 years. According to Pierce, this gave the dynasty the opportunity to learn from its mistakes. The empire governed over a plural society, and of course was able to do so because of its large and growing military apparatus. But another reason the empire was strong, as asserted by Pierce, is that it was able to gain the support of the people it governed. States were weak during this period and were unable to protect its citizens. The empire also utilized local elites in positions of power within local territories. Also according to. Pierce, the Ottomans were “tolerant”; i.e., though there was certainly a hierarchy in administration and control, the empire allowed for autonomy in religious belief and practice, for example, and it encouraged dispute resolution through local courts. Resistance to the empire was kept minimal, since subjects were able to maintain loyalty to their localities and did not feel necessarily like dominated subjects.
As for ethnic differences and the tensions that we normally associate with plural societies, Pierce argued that this was a period when “ethnicity” was viewed in opposition to “urbanity”; i.e., an urban identity was sought since it was indication sophistication and cosmopolitanism, as opposed to provincial “ethnicity.” However, as the Ottoman Empire begins to weaken and lose its hold on its territories, we see ethnicity and difference again move to the fore and tensions increase.
Finally, it is with this issue that Pierce noted the legacy of empire
on modern Turkey and the states which were once ruled by the Ottoman Empire.
She sited three broad aspects of this legacy: the role of the military
and religious leaders, and tensions surrounding a pluralist society.
Young officers were often the vanguard of reform in the Ottoman territories.
Presently, people in Turkey still look to the military to defend the principals
of modernization, yet the military tends to be wary of democracy.
This creates the potential for instability around the tensions that exist
between secular modernists and religious authority and the rise of religious
fundamentalism. Pierce did offer that Turkey has gone farther than most
Ottoman states in secularizing the government. The ability to deal with
a plural and differentiated society is difficult and still presents enormous
problems for the state.
Allan
Solomonow: Director, Middle East Program, American Friends Committee in
San Fransciso
“Israel: Lessons and Insights and Challenges of Emerging Nations”
The recent breakdown of talks at Camp David, and other major political events occuring in the Middle East, bring the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace into the political foreground once again. How does one teach internecine forms of global conflict such as this in new ways?
Dr. Allan Solomonow, a veteran peace activist and director of the Middle East Program for the American Friends Service Committee in San Francisco, gave a personally informed, and historically nuanced perspective on this longstanding issue. Dr. Solomonow approached the conflict from the context of Israel’s unique status as an “emerging” religious nation-state. Not only is Israel positioned between the historical demands of military security and a global market for Israeli commodities and expertise, it confronts the mounting politicization of its non-European Jewish citizens. For instance, the settlement of incoming Russian Jews on the West Bank means that their ethno-political mobilization will have repercussions on questions of regional peace and security. Similarly, Israel’s orthodox community continues to dominate organized religious expression in Israeli society. At the bottom of this internal hierarchy are Arab Israelis, whose status as “fourth class citizens” has limited their access to state development and political voice. These, and more encompassing domestic tensions such as a 9% unemployment rate, have not been properly addressed due to the priority of regional security in nationalist and political discourse. An immediate outcome of this has been the birth of an arms race in the region.
Dr. Solomonow then provided a reading of Israel’s nationalist history. He noted that while Zionist sentiments were in play since the nineteenth century, and while the Jewish orthodoxy maintained that a proper state of Israel could only be founded under God, it was the Holocaust that led to the mobilization of Zionism as a nationalist ideology. Despite the catalytic effect of the Holocaust, this uneven ideological terrain has left its mark on the Israeli polity, which is manifest in its inability to decide upon the organizing principles of a constitution. Dr. Solomonow urged that the history of Israel’s formation should not be read in monolithic terms, and that analyses of contemporary conflicts should take multiple histories into account.
Returning to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dr. Solomonow again stressed
the value of historical perspective. The historical understandings of Palestinians
and Jewish-Israelis are inseparable from their conceptions of national
belonging, disenfranchisement and justice. Israelis therefore saw their
state’s creation as both a form of “divine justice” for their original
(biblical) exile, and as a necessary form of self-protection after the
Holocaust. Palestinians relate a more recent and militarized history of
territorial dispossession and everyday threat. Central to the tensions
between these two communities, argues Dr. Solomonow, has been the “intractable”
character of earlier claims made by both sides. One which stands out today
concerns the territorial status of Jerusalem. As Dr. Solomonow illustrated
through a recent documentary on popular Jewish and Muslim Israeli sentiments
about this sacred city, both sides feel it to be an irreplaceable source
of religious and political identity.
Efforts are being made, however, to recognize the limits of these intractable
claims, with a number of popular initiatives (such as summer peace camps
and new media) aimed at moving public opinion towards a more “rational”
and contemporary formulation of the problem. In addition to “relearning”
history, Solomonow stressed the need to devise popular and official frameworks
through which both sides could “save face” while making “compromises.”
In conclusion, he pointed to the relevance of the Israeli-Palestine conflict
as a means to educate around global issues of conflict resolution and refugeeism.
Lisa
Walker, History Department, U. C. Berkeley
“Monarchs, Merchants and Middle Classes in Russia’s Periods of Transition”
Lisa Walker, graduate student in history at U. C. Berkeley, presented a view of Russian history through the lens of modernization and suggests that a focus on the development of the middle-classes might be a way of including Russia in a Modern Civilization course, in terms of the history of modernization, industrialization, and the development of social classes. Modernization in Russia has its “peculiarities,” according to Walker. For instance, the impetus for development was the state and this development proceeded in “fits and starts.” However, the development of social classes occurred in Russia as it did in the rest of Europe. Also, Russia did not develop in isolation from the rest of Europe, as can been seen in the blending of conservative Russian and European dress and attitudes, for example. Walker suggested that it is useful to study the development of the merchant classes in Russia, and to look to accounts of the daily life of the privileged class, for clues to the modernization process in Russia. She suggested several texts and activities for teaching about Russia in comparative perspective, and lists as possible classroom activities:
Christine Kulke,
History Department, U. C. Berkeley
“Revolution in Daily Life: Views from Home and Work in the Former
Soviet Union”
Christine Kulke, graduate student in history at U. C. Berkeley, presented a picture of national identity in the Soviet Union as it begins to weaken and fall apart. She first addressed the issue of the loss of legitimacy due to the differences between the myth and daily realities in the society. Ms. Kulke looks first to the “Myth of the Great Patriotic War.” Utilizing video footage from “The World at War” series, it is clear that many Russian citizens suffered a great deal during the war. Though the war experience brought the country together and fashioned a sense of pride in Russian culture and sense of loyalty to its government, there were fissures. Soldiers began to realize that Stalin had murdered many of the best soldiers and officers, thousands of people died during the war, and Russia was on the losing end of many battles. Later generations began to lose their belief in the ability of the government to build the so-called “social utopia” and foster equality among its citizens. Kulke also raised the issue that the myth created of Russian society silenced other non-Russian ethnicities. Finally, the war in Afghanistan marked the beginning of contemporary dissent for the USSR’s superpower status.
The assembled video clips Christine Kulke used to illustrate her talk are available on tape for loan from the ORIAS office.
Frederic
Wakeman: Professor, Department of History; Director, Institute of East
Asian Studies.
“Empire and Republic: The Ancient and the Modern Chinese State”
Frederic Wakeman, Professor of History at University of California, Berkeley and Director of the University’s Institute of East Asian Studies, closed the lecture series with a presentation on the “ancient roots” and modern predicament of the Chinese nation-state. Wakeman offered an alternative reading of the history of the modern Chinese state, beginning with the officially downplayed fact of its medieval Manchu roots. The historical priority of the Manchu, as well as the larger centrality of Sino-“barbarian” relations in the constitution of Chinese identity, have not been given adequate attention due to vested nationalist interests. The hostility of China around the issue of Taiwan’s sovereign status points to this prolonged historical anxiety of the Chinese concerning their potential lack of territorial control. The roots of this tension, as Frederic Wakeman illustrated, extend back to the unsung period of Manchu dominance over the Chinese.
Pre-revolutionary China had evolved a complex bureaucratic system that operated as a meritocracy based on examinations. Before the nineteenth century intrusion of the West, this elite system relied upon mnemonic mastery of select topics. Marking its difference with the West was the holistic and ethical nature of Chinese pedagogy, with its emphasis on philosophy and the classics. Technological and military knowledge, therefore, had less intellectual priority in this system. Professor Wakeman stressed the need to appreciate pre-revolutionary China historically, as an effective bureaucratic empire that preceded European modernity. Chinese classical bureaucratic consciousness remains vital to understanding the “inner pose” of the post-revolutionary Chinese. Wakeman argued that when looking at potential Chinese constitutional reform, one must also consider the cultural conflict between a Confucianist bureaucratic system that values the “qualities” of the person and the modern European system which emphasizes the idea of rational universality and legality.
Looking to the contemporary Chinese scene, Wakeman suggested that the
ethical character of the medieval bureaucratic system has declined due
to the infusion of capitalist wealth into China. Corruption, and its obvious
links to emerging domestic and diasporic capitalist interests, now mars
the bureaucratic system. Despite its limited success in isolated regions,
capitalist exchange does not appear to be creating a “trickle-down” of
wealth to the peasantry.
| Return to ORIAS home page |
| Return to Summer Institute Page |
| Top of page |