Ziad Magdy Elmarsafy

Action, imagination, institution, natality, revolution

The article reinforces an evaluation of the 25 January 2011 revolution as opposed to conservative and traditional forces in Egyptian society and among the ruling elite. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s concept of natality, the article argues that a revolution cannot be imagined and enacted without women’s political action at its centre. Action, here, is envisaged as a challenge to the morbidity of moralising discourses which attempt to contain women/revolution. Here, natality, novelty and revolution go together; and natality provides the ontological ground for action. By looking at two early accounts written on the first 18 days of the revolution, Ahdaf Soueif’s Cairo: My City, Our Revolution, and Mona Prince’s Ismi Thawra (My Name is Revolution), the article highlights the linkage between women’s action and their imagination in configuring and expressing the revolutionary nature of the events which started on 25 January. Popular culture (the mulid) is also tapped for a reading that stresses the natality motif. Arendt’s natality is thus conceived as enabling newness and opening up possibilities previously unimagined. This is the substance of revolution; that is what makes it radical, unpredictable, creative and imaginative, as the article illustrates by unpacking the selected passages.

Orientalism: Legacies of a Performance

Books, as Catullus reminds us, have fates of their own. Our concern is with the fate of one book, Edward Said’s Orientalism. To many, this seminal work is an enduring touchstone, a founding text of the field of postcolonial studies and a book that continues to influence debates in literary and cultural studies, Middle Eastern studies, anthropology, art history, history and politics. To others, however, Orientalism has serious failings, not least in blaming the wrong people - namely, Orientalists - for the crimes of European imperialism. Thirty-five years after its first edition, popular and academic reactions to Orientalism continue to run the gamut from enthusiasm to apoplexy. Yet few assessments of this work ask the ‘so what?’ question, addressing the book’s contemporary relevance without lionizing or demonizing its author. This is our aim in Debating Orientalism. Bridging the gap between intellectual history and political engagement, the contributors to this volume interrogate Orientalism’s legacy with a view to moving the debate about this text beyond the Manichean limitations within which it has all too often been imprisoned. Too much ink has been spilled on what Orientalism got right or wrong - especially in its historical and political registers - and too little on taking stock of its impact and building on that to appraise its significance to current debates in multiple fields. This book seeks to consider Orientalism’s implications with a little less feeling, though no less commitment to understanding the value and political effects of engaged scholarship.