B151871 Tutorial Paper #1

B151871
Modern Middle Eastern History A
Dr Anthony Gorman
Tutorial Paper #1
7 October 2021

On Bernard Lewis’ ‘On Writing the History of the Middle East’ from his book, Islam in History:
ideas, men and events in the Middle East

The book chapter from Lewis’s book from 2001 shed light on what and how a ‘proper historian’
should write their own work. He precisely lists that to be a good historian, one must stay subject,
and purely use empirical ways. He claims that knowing the language from the area of study is
crucial, and if someone can understand the language, they can understand and know the culture. He
states his argument with the background of the historiography of writings on the medieval Middle
East. He claims that writing on the modern Middle East has been scarce, mainly journalism,
because it is subjective and not critical enough.

Although the source is his own book, he does not cite or credit any of his claims and provides vague
examples besides a few names of past historians. The chapter is chronological on how Oriental
writing developed and critical of newer histories. Lewis is too focused on how historians should
remain objective, which seems hypocritical. Lewis was an Orientalist, and Edward Said’s definition
is quite subjective in itself1. If one knows the debate on Orientalism, Lewis’ work reads as if he is
adamant on defending himself as an objective party on the topic of modern or medieval Orient, and
not influenced strongly by his western background2, however much he tries to be empirical in his
research. This chapter could also be interpreted as an attack on Said. Many critics of Said’s work
state him out to be a subjective and invested party because of his ethnic and cultural background3.
Therefore, Lewis could also be dismissive of Said’s interpretation of Middle Eastern historiography.

As was discussed during the tutorial session, Lewis was resolute about his notions of ‘the Arab
mind’, or the outright racism and Islamophobia that he and his colleagues place on the medieval
Middle East. What fails to make sense is how a debate regarding the morality of such a notion still

1
From Said’s Orientalism (1978), which I haven’t read myself although can reference through Dr Groman’s lectures.
2
From Said’s understanding of Orientalism.
3
Halliday, Fred, ‘Orientalism and its Critics’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 20: 2 (1993) 145-163.
B151871 Tutorial Paper #1
exists4, especially in academia. Any other ideas of xenophobia would be rejected if they were to
come up in scholarly works now. It can be argued that that the debate on the Middle East is valid
because media and public opinion on the Middle East are still contested. However, that is exactly
was Lewis is arguing against: good historical writing should not be propaganda. Then why does he
continue to defend his preconceived ideas on the Middle East?

Word Count: 401

Bibliography

Lewis, Bernard, ‘On Writing the Modern History of the Middle East’, in Islam in History: ideas,
men and events in the Middle East (London: Alcove Press, 1993), 43-50 [e-book]

4
Or at least up till the 1970s and 1980s, when the debate was most prominent; see “The MESA Debate: The Scholars, the Media, and
the Middle East.” Journal of Palestine Studies 16, no. 2 (1987): 85–104.