Difference between revisions of "Gilles Kepel"
(→Role in the reinvention of the term 'Islamism') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Role in the reinvention of the term 'Islamism'== | ==Role in the reinvention of the term 'Islamism'== | ||
| − | + | According to [[Gilbert Achcar]]: | |
:“A landmark in the history of the post-1979 crop of French Orientalism came in 1984, with the publication of Gilles Kepel’s book on radical fundamentalist groups in post-Nasserite Egypt. Kepel never really adhered to “Orientalism in reverse”, but stood halfway between it and traditional Orientalism. His first book actually featured a preface by none other than [[Bernard Lewis]], Said’s chief target. Adopting a relatively neutral tone in describing Egyptian radical fundamentalists, Kepel contributed to the confirmation of the “Islamist” label by arguing in its favour in his conclusion. His neutral stance could be seen as warranted by the fact that he dealt mainly with the most fanatical and most violent fringe of Islamic fundamentalism. | :“A landmark in the history of the post-1979 crop of French Orientalism came in 1984, with the publication of Gilles Kepel’s book on radical fundamentalist groups in post-Nasserite Egypt. Kepel never really adhered to “Orientalism in reverse”, but stood halfway between it and traditional Orientalism. His first book actually featured a preface by none other than [[Bernard Lewis]], Said’s chief target. Adopting a relatively neutral tone in describing Egyptian radical fundamentalists, Kepel contributed to the confirmation of the “Islamist” label by arguing in its favour in his conclusion. His neutral stance could be seen as warranted by the fact that he dealt mainly with the most fanatical and most violent fringe of Islamic fundamentalism. | ||
:On the other hand, Kepel quickly became the most blatant embodiment of all the characteristics of the new generation of Orientalists as described above (including a trajectory that began on the far left). His book displayed a pattern that was to typify all his abundant subsequent production: a wealth of useful information – later facilitated by privileged access to governmental sources – with a limited theoretical conceptualisation that became shallower in book after book. He became a star of the mass media – the Bernard-Henri Lévy of French Orientalism, somehow – as well as an adviser to Western and other governments in their fight against radical Islamic fundamentalism. He ended up actively promoting and defending the ban on the veil in French schools. <ref>Gilbert Achcar. “Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism”. Apple Books. </ref> | :On the other hand, Kepel quickly became the most blatant embodiment of all the characteristics of the new generation of Orientalists as described above (including a trajectory that began on the far left). His book displayed a pattern that was to typify all his abundant subsequent production: a wealth of useful information – later facilitated by privileged access to governmental sources – with a limited theoretical conceptualisation that became shallower in book after book. He became a star of the mass media – the Bernard-Henri Lévy of French Orientalism, somehow – as well as an adviser to Western and other governments in their fight against radical Islamic fundamentalism. He ended up actively promoting and defending the ban on the veil in French schools. <ref>Gilbert Achcar. “Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism”. Apple Books. </ref> | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 25 February 2020
Role in the reinvention of the term 'Islamism'
According to Gilbert Achcar:
- “A landmark in the history of the post-1979 crop of French Orientalism came in 1984, with the publication of Gilles Kepel’s book on radical fundamentalist groups in post-Nasserite Egypt. Kepel never really adhered to “Orientalism in reverse”, but stood halfway between it and traditional Orientalism. His first book actually featured a preface by none other than Bernard Lewis, Said’s chief target. Adopting a relatively neutral tone in describing Egyptian radical fundamentalists, Kepel contributed to the confirmation of the “Islamist” label by arguing in its favour in his conclusion. His neutral stance could be seen as warranted by the fact that he dealt mainly with the most fanatical and most violent fringe of Islamic fundamentalism.
- On the other hand, Kepel quickly became the most blatant embodiment of all the characteristics of the new generation of Orientalists as described above (including a trajectory that began on the far left). His book displayed a pattern that was to typify all his abundant subsequent production: a wealth of useful information – later facilitated by privileged access to governmental sources – with a limited theoretical conceptualisation that became shallower in book after book. He became a star of the mass media – the Bernard-Henri Lévy of French Orientalism, somehow – as well as an adviser to Western and other governments in their fight against radical Islamic fundamentalism. He ended up actively promoting and defending the ban on the veil in French schools. [1]
Affiliations
Notes
- ↑ Gilbert Achcar. “Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism”. Apple Books.
