On Forgotten Shores: Migration in Middle East Studies and the Middle East in Migration Studies

Andrew Arsan, John Karam, Akram Khater

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Abstract

For all their apparent differences, the colonial and nationalist discourses of the twentieth century shared a vision of the world as an aggregate of discrete bundles of land and people, hermetic units sealed off from one another and defined by their particularities. Whether they spoke in terms of nations or empires, regions or civilizations, they worked to produce the reality they described – one of bounded territories and populations, each one neatly delineated and differentiated from the next. In so doing, they created truncated histories, narrowed-down narratives shorn of wider connections. In the following pages, we will address the implications of such schemes for Middle Eastern studies, and propose an alternative, diasporic vision of this field. A consideration of the population movements that have marked the modern history of the “Middle East” can open up new avenues and approaches for research, and put into question the implicit stress upon fixity and enclosure which still underpins scholarship on the region.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
JournalMashriq & Mahjar Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Middle East
Colonies
Particularity
Modern History
Nationalists
Population Movement
Enclosure
History
Discourse
Fixity
Bundle
Civilization

Keywords

  • migration
  • diaspora
  • Middle Eastern studies
  • Middle East
  • modern history
  • fixity
  • enclosure

Cite this

@article{40373974689845aba8d9e505b72e34c6,
title = "On Forgotten Shores: Migration in Middle East Studies and the Middle East in Migration Studies",
abstract = "For all their apparent differences, the colonial and nationalist discourses of the twentieth century shared a vision of the world as an aggregate of discrete bundles of land and people, hermetic units sealed off from one another and defined by their particularities. Whether they spoke in terms of nations or empires, regions or civilizations, they worked to produce the reality they described – one of bounded territories and populations, each one neatly delineated and differentiated from the next. In so doing, they created truncated histories, narrowed-down narratives shorn of wider connections. In the following pages, we will address the implications of such schemes for Middle Eastern studies, and propose an alternative, diasporic vision of this field. A consideration of the population movements that have marked the modern history of the “Middle East” can open up new avenues and approaches for research, and put into question the implicit stress upon fixity and enclosure which still underpins scholarship on the region.",
keywords = "migration, diaspora, Middle Eastern studies, Middle East, modern history, fixity, enclosure",
author = "Andrew Arsan and John Karam and Akram Khater",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.24847/11i1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Mashriq & Mahjar Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies",
issn = "2169-4435",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On Forgotten Shores: Migration in Middle East Studies and the Middle East in Migration Studies

AU - Arsan, Andrew

AU - Karam, John

AU - Khater, Akram

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - For all their apparent differences, the colonial and nationalist discourses of the twentieth century shared a vision of the world as an aggregate of discrete bundles of land and people, hermetic units sealed off from one another and defined by their particularities. Whether they spoke in terms of nations or empires, regions or civilizations, they worked to produce the reality they described – one of bounded territories and populations, each one neatly delineated and differentiated from the next. In so doing, they created truncated histories, narrowed-down narratives shorn of wider connections. In the following pages, we will address the implications of such schemes for Middle Eastern studies, and propose an alternative, diasporic vision of this field. A consideration of the population movements that have marked the modern history of the “Middle East” can open up new avenues and approaches for research, and put into question the implicit stress upon fixity and enclosure which still underpins scholarship on the region.

AB - For all their apparent differences, the colonial and nationalist discourses of the twentieth century shared a vision of the world as an aggregate of discrete bundles of land and people, hermetic units sealed off from one another and defined by their particularities. Whether they spoke in terms of nations or empires, regions or civilizations, they worked to produce the reality they described – one of bounded territories and populations, each one neatly delineated and differentiated from the next. In so doing, they created truncated histories, narrowed-down narratives shorn of wider connections. In the following pages, we will address the implications of such schemes for Middle Eastern studies, and propose an alternative, diasporic vision of this field. A consideration of the population movements that have marked the modern history of the “Middle East” can open up new avenues and approaches for research, and put into question the implicit stress upon fixity and enclosure which still underpins scholarship on the region.

KW - migration

KW - diaspora

KW - Middle Eastern studies

KW - Middle East

KW - modern history

KW - fixity

KW - enclosure

U2 - 10.24847/11i1

DO - 10.24847/11i1

M3 - Editorial

VL - 1

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Mashriq & Mahjar Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies

JF - Mashriq & Mahjar Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies

SN - 2169-4435

IS - 1

ER -