books on the Arab mindset

[wierdbeard]

Looking for books on the Arab mindset/thought process, i've seen may mixed reviews on books on Amazon but would like to know what is rec'd from the Anthropological, COIN, and of course the Intellgence side. Maybe a top three for each with a quick why?
-Thanks

[Jedburgh]

First off, there isn't really any all-encompassing "Arab mindset/thought process". (i.e. they are all associative rather than linear thinkers) There are plenty of decent general cultural awareness products that you can pull up with a simple search, but if you're looking for what I read into your statement, it ain't gonna answer the question.

Patai's book is often touted as the thing to read; you'll find plenty of substantive criticism and descriptions of the weaknesses of that work right on this board.

Just my unlettered opinion, but I feel you'll have better luck if you focus your search a bit tighter.

[wierdbeard]

thanks for the response, yes i am aware that i won't find an all encompassing book to cover it all, i have followed the threads on Patai's book but still am looking for more on the thought process in addition to that. Primarily my focus would be how to understand the mindset in places such as Afghanistan (the different tribes within), Pakistani vs Pathans in the border region, as well as the sunni vs shia mindset in Iraq - if there is a major difference other then the religious aspect. I do study culture religion and what i can find on the politics in the region. In a nutshell i'm looking for some varying resources that i can recommend to some of my Soldiers to help them prepare for some classes. I have gone through the BCKS forums but am also looking for sources other than whats found there.

[marct]

Hi Weirdbeard,

I've been looking around for general stuff for the past couple of months and, truthfully, most of it is very "surface". McCallister's little piece is quite decent for the Pashtun, but it doesn't really capture a lot of the highly sophisticated politicking that is influencing current reality. As far as "mindset" is concerned, the trick, IMO, is in the methodology not the product since the product will change along with the reality. Given the limitations you are under, I would recommend that you get hold of a copy of The Study of Culture at a Distance and check out part I. It's considered out of date by a long shot, but it may be your best option.

Marc

[Norfolk]

This isn't exactly what you're looking for weirdbeard, but in some ways this article may shed a little light on the subject matter - if you haven't already read this: Why Arabs Lose Wars: Fighting as you train, and the impact of culture on Arab military effectiveness, by Colonel Norvell B. De Atkine, U.S. Army (ret'd.), in American Diplomacy, Fall 2000 - Vol. V, No. 4.) This may, or may not, serve as a useful, if limited, adjunct to your research.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by marct

As far as "mindset" is concerned, the trick, IMO, is in the methodology not the product since the product will change along with the reality.

I am not comfortable useing the term Arab, but this is how the question was couched.

My experience of "Arabs" is that they are a vastly diverse of folks but generally a significant number are hamstrung and crippled by popular sets of beliefs. From my own experience, but also from two friends of mine who speak Arabic but are not Arabists (VERY rare in my experience), they tend to adopt "Stories/ Narratives" as absolute fact. For example holocaust denial is very widespread in the Arab/Muslim world, as are conspiracy theories that most educated people would dismiss out of hand. These ideas are just as prevalent amongst doctors and teachers are they are taxi drivers. Education does not change the story.

I have never understood the reason for this, but it is definitely cultural. Now some say "oh but we are the same," and I have to point out, "Oh no we are not," and I see exactly the same problems in a lot of Asian cultures. Telling you what you want to hear is almost an absolute given. Straight talking is considered very rude, and unnecessary. - and just to put this in context, the Royal Thai Army could defeat the insurgency in the south, overnight, but they never will. The reason is nothing to do with training or money. They just choose not to do stuff known to work.

[MountainRunner]

I'm also not comfortable with "mindset", however...

A book I suggest is a little referenced text by the Arab Machiavelli, a Sicilian Arab Muslim by the name of Muhammad ibn Zafar al-Siqilli. Writing 350 years before the Florentine, his book Sulwan al-Muta' Fi 'Udwan al-Atba' (Consolation for the Ruler During the Hostility of Subjects) is remarkably similar to The Prince but with differences (sometimes significant) in the means even if the ends are close to the same.

The English text is by Joseph A. Kechichian and R. Hrair Dekmejian's, The Just Prince: A Manual of Leadership, and includes some comparisons to Machiavelli.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by MountainRunner

I'm also not comfortable with "mindset", however...

A book I suggest is a little referenced text by the Arab Machiavelli, a Sicilian Arab Muslim by the name of Muhammad ibn Zafar al-Siqilli. Writing 350 years before the Florentine, his book Sulwan al-Muta' Fi 'Udwan al-Atba' (Consolation for the Ruler During the Hostility of Subjects) is remarkably similar to The Prince but with differences (sometimes significant) in the means even if the ends are close to the same.

The English text is by Joseph A. Kechichian and R. Hrair Dekmejian's, The Just Prince: A Manual of Leadership, and includes some comparisons to Machiavelli.

Excellent. Being a devotee of Niccolo, I really look forward to this. Many thanks

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am not comfortable useing the term Arab, but this is how the question was couched.

I'm not particularly happy or comfortable with it either - in all too many ways, it is a cop out and oversimplification . And I have to echo MountainRunner's unhappiness with the term "mindset" as well. "Arab" is closer to what some Anthropologists would call a "culture area"; sort of like when I talk about the Anglo Culture Complex (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.).

"Mindset" is a tricky term when applied to a population, which is how it was done in this question - the term actually works better when applied to individuals. Talk about an "Arab mindset" means that we are talking at a fairly gross population level, covering many different cultures and countries. There are some commonalities, as there are in the Anglo Culture Complex, but there is also a real danger that people will confuse the general (population) with the specific (individual).

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

My experience of "Arabs" is that they are a vastly diverse of folks but generally a significant number are hamstrung and crippled by popular sets of beliefs. From my own experience, but also from two friends of mine who speak Arabic but are not Arabists (VERY rare in my experience), they tend to adopt "Stories/ Narratives" as absolute fact. For example holocaust denial is very widespread in the Arab/Muslim world, as are conspiracy theories that most educated people would dismiss out of hand. These ideas are just as prevalent amongst doctors and teachers are they are taxi drivers. Education does not change the story.

I've been thinking a lot about this, Wilf. Personally, I don't think that this is unique by any means to the Arab/Muslm world (and they are different from each other). I do think that the prevalence has to do, in part, with the requirement to learn the Qu'ran in 7th century Arabic and, in part, with the implicit epistemology which defines "knowledge" via a study of the Qu'ran. Both the Qu'an and 7th century Arabic come out of a primary oral culture where "story-telling" is the way in which cultural negotiation takes place. While here is an application of what the West would call "logic" (cf any of al-Ghazali's work), this does not seem to be the primary form of "logic" applied to day to day living.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I have never understood the reason for this, but it is definitely cultural. Now some say "oh but we are the same," and I have to point out, "Oh no we are not," and I see exactly the same problems in a lot of Asian cultures. Telling you what you want to hear is almost an absolute given. Straight talking is considered very rude, and unnecessary. - and just to put this in context, the Royal Thai Army could defeat the insurgency in the south, overnight, but they never will. The reason is nothing to do with training or money. They just choose not to do stuff known to work.

Wilf, I think we are the same, but that we operate on different epistemological forms and with different assumptions about the nature of reality. Then again, that's something to talk about over beers . I've had a fair number of students from both Arab and Asian cultures (and boy do I hate using that generality ), and my observations match your own. In many of these cultures, as you note, "strait talking" is an insult to the listener - it implies that you are too stupid to understand. At least in many academic disciplines, it also implies that you are not only stupid, but incompetent as well, which is one of the reasons many students from the ME and Asia do not use references.

What I have always found intriguing is that every one of the cultures also has a set of, hmmm, call it "character roles", which is much closer to what the West considers to be "normal". It gets interesting figuring out which of these roles to assume in order to create a different persona amongst your students .

Marc

[bismark17]

Thanks for posting that book suggestion! I just ordered one of the few reasonably prices copies left.

[MountainRunner]

Looking at the bookshelf, a few more suggestions that might help understand the different perspective:

Marc Lynch's Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today is more contemporary and looks at the development and influence of media on the shape of the "New Arab Public."

William Rugh's (ed.) Engaging the Arab and Islamic Worlds Through Public Diplomacy is collection of essays on U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. Some of the essays are dated already, others are historical anchors for other discussions, and others might be obvious to some SWJ members. For me, this book had some nuggets and some "yeah, and?" bits. It is aimed more at the PD person of yore than the PD/SC person of today.

A book Rugh wrote, American Encounters with Arabs: The "Soft Power" of U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East, is most useful for its historical view of American engagement with the Middle East. I don't think it would be too useful for this crowd.

Reza Aslan's book, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, is a good book I should have mentioned before (disclaimer: he's a friend). This book helps bust the "Clash of Civ" argument.

I have some good books on Arab nationalism, but these (like Dawisha's and Ayubi's) aren't worth mentioning anymore as the world's changed dramatically since 2003. Nice reads but we're too far from that world now. Although, they might help anchor some of the rhetoric.

[Rex Brynen]

Originally Posted by MountainRunner

Looking at the bookshelf, a few more suggestions that might help understand the different perspective:

Excellent choices, MontainRunner.

I'm not sure Ayubi is really obsolete... his main contribution isn't so much on Arab nationalism, but on "articulated" social formations, the evolution of "fierce" state, and the particular role of corporatist (patron-client) -based political consolidation in the absence of (Gramscian) regime-class hegemony. He is, however, an enormously difficult read at the best of times.

On the issue of consiracy theories, Wilf is right that they are common in the Middle East. I would note, however:

1) The region has been subject to more than its fair share of conspiracies (Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mossadegh, the 1956 Suez war, etc).

2) I think we underestimate the deep-rootedness of conspiracy theories in our own societies. After all:

• 80% of Americans believe UFOs have visited earth, and 37% believe the US government has been in secret contact with aliens (CNN)
  
• 68% of Americans believe the US government covered up the plot that killed President Kennedy (ABC)
  
• one year after the moon landing, 30% of Americans were suspicious as to whether it had actually occurred (Knight newspapers via wiki)
  
• 43% of Britons believe that Princess Diana's death was not an accident (BBC).
  
• 36% of Americans believe that the USG either conspired to bring town the World Trade Center, or deliberately allowed the attack to go forward, so that it could launch a war in the Middle East (Scripps Howard/University of Ohio). In New York, almost half (49.3%) believe the USG "consciously failed to act" to prevent 9/11 (MSNBC/Zogby)
• 41% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (Newsweek via wiki).

Most ominously of all, 1930s European/Western perceptions of Jewish conspiracies—coupled with widespread anti-Semitism—generated the Holocaust.

My broader point is to point out the dangers of cultural awareness training that over-emphasizes the differences without recognizing the similarities—and assumes that there is a fixed "mind set" which determines the behaviour of all of the locals, regardless of class, gender, education, occupation, interests, etc.

[Rank amateur]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

II see exactly the same problems in a lot of Asian cultures. Telling you what you want to hear is almost an absolute given. Straight talking is considered rude.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, reminds me of Alabama. I've never been knifed in the back more politely than in Alabama.

[MountainRunner]

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I'm not sure Ayubi is really obsolete... his main contribution isn't so much on Arab nationalism, but on "articulated" social formations, the evolution of "fierce" state, and the particular role of corporatist (patron-client) -based political consolidation in the absence of (Gramscian) regime-class hegemony. He is, however, an enormously difficult read at the best of times.
...
1) The region has been subject to more than its fair share of conspiracies (Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mossadegh, the 1956 Suez war, etc).

Good point on the depth of Ayubi and even better on #1: history matters in this region, unlike in the U.S. They have long memories and learning the narratives they have learned would certainly help.

[Tom Odom]

As a generalist approach accepting Arab as a linguistic group versus a distinct culture, read Margaret Nydell's Understanding Arabs. It is up to date--as opposed to Patai's work based on 1930 Bedouin.

Tom

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

My broader point is to point out the dangers of cultural awareness training that over-emphasizes the differences without recognizing the similarities—and assumes that there is a fixed "mind set" which determines the behaviour of all of the locals, regardless of class, gender, education, occupation, interests, etc.

There is a point to be made in reference to training. As concerns differences, I think it is worth noting that the Western conspiracy theories, only rarely support violent acts. Those that do support violent acts, tend to mirror ideas commonly found in the Middle East.

Despite growing up as soldier, I used to believe in the power of rational argument, discussion and logic. Time in Middle East, just made me realise that a large number of people are unreasonable, though rational, and want to find an excuse to justify the violent actions they think give them credibility.

...and on a more humorous note, a friend and I were discussing, if in military thought terms, were we, the "Classical Clausewitz and Foch guys," the militants, or where the "OODA-loopy Effects Boydain Manoeuvrists" the un-washed infidels of the deviated teaching.

[Jedburgh]

This paper (I believe I linked it on a thread somewhere on here about two years ago) addresses conflict resolution as influenced by Islam at the local level: Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle East Conflicts

Again, this is a general view. There are significant variations in conflict resolution/mediation rituals and traditions between ethnic groups (i.e. Arabs vs Pathans) as well as regionally (i.e. the Middle East vs Central Asia), that go along with the clearer rural-urban divide.

Another one worth a read, keeping the same context in mind:

Beyond Western-Oriented Communications Theories: A Normative Arab-Islamic Perspective

[arty8]

I got back from a tour in Iraq a couple of months ago and by far the most useful book I read before I left was "The arab mind considered" by John Laffin. Although published in the 1970's it described exactly the mindset I would work with for a year. Most westerners just don't understand that Arabs think differently from most other cultures, most especially american.