New Texts Out Now: Niki Akhavan, Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution

[Cover of Niki Akhavan, \"Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution\"] [Cover of Niki Akhavan, \"Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution\"]

New Texts Out Now: Niki Akhavan, Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution

By : Niki Akhavan

Niki Akhavan, Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2013.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Niki Akhavan (NA): As an early and eager participant on the Iranian Internet, I was both excited and disturbed about the kinds of content and communities that were flourishing online. I saw new connections being made across geographical and ideological borders, participants pooling resources together, experimenting in new modes of self-expression, and generally having a good time. But alongside these, I noticed troubling tendencies. For example, I saw that the spaces on the Iranian Internet seemed particularly well suited for the rise of exclusionary ideologies. At the same time that the Internet allowed for the gathering of dispersed Iranians with similar views, it provided the mechanisms for blocking opposing voices. One could easily create private or semi-private spaces where participation was exclusive or heavily moderated. Even in cases where participation was relatively unimpeded by site administrators, many participants took it upon themselves to shout down contrary views. In other words, the Internet was not functioning to transcend polarized politics among Iranians outside and inside the country; it was reproducing and reinforcing them.

Similarly, the connections enabled between and among diasporic and resident Iranians did not always have positive consequences such as enhancing mutual understanding. Individuals or small groups with a website could claim to represent broader political currents and constituencies when none existed. Following the 1999 student protests in Iran, for example, a number of websites sprang up claiming affiliation with the student movement and its leadership. For diasporic Iranians, these websites were often the only link (literally and figuratively) to the student movement. Given that the Iranian press did not give fair coverage to oppositional movements, it was easy to take the claims of such websites at face value.

At the same time that individuals or small groups could use the Internet to make exaggerated claims about representing Iran and Iranians, there was an increasing influence of state actors and state funding (both Iranian and non-Iranian). Funds coming directly or indirectly from the United States and European governments enabled the creation of various media outlets that were either exclusively online or included prominent online components. The Dutch-funded Radio Zamaneh, which started Internet broadcasting in 2006, is one such example. The Iranian state was also active in encouraging particular types of digital political and cultural content. The Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, for example, openly sponsored websites and online competitions as early as 2003.  

Despite these complexities, popular and scholarly discussions about Iran remained optimistic about its possibilities and largely silent about its actual or potential pitfalls. This was all the more surprising given that discourses on New Media in general had become more nuanced by the turn of the new millennium, dampening some of the enthusiastic fervor that had accompanied such media in the previous decade. In the 1990s, the confluence of the popularization of the Internet with the information technology bubble inspired much excitement among participants and observers alike. In 1993, Howard Rheingold, who is credited with coining the term “virtual community,” lauded the Internet for allowing the creation of communities based on choice that are unimpeded by physical or political restrictions. Similarly, some argued that the shrinking of geographical space enabled by the Internet would erode the importance of political borders and nationalisms. As early as 1998, however, Benedict Anderson warned of the opposite tendency: namely, new communication technologies provided ideal conditions for particularly intense forms of nationalism, or “long distance nationalism,” as he called it. Vinay Lal’s 1999 study of the relationship between the rise of fundamentalist Hinduism and the Internet and Ien Ang’s 2001 analysis of ethnic Chinese militancy online are two early case studies confirming Anderson’s argument. Other celebratory claims about the Internet, such as its potential for strengthening democracies and democratic values, were also tempered during the first decade of the new millennium. On the one hand, some (such as Cass Sunstein) argued that new technologies were undermining pluralist principles by allowing individuals to sequester themselves from any opposing view-points; on the other hand, others claimed that both authoritarian and democratic states alike use new technologies as a means of enhancing their political power and control.

Again, however, much of the discourse around Iran and the Internet remained immune to such nuanced readings of the role of the Internet; instead, claims about its democratic and liberating potentials remained dominant. All of this motivated me to take a closer look at the Iranian Internet. I was especially keen to explore those aspects of the Iranian Internet that were rendered invisible in dominant accounts and to attempt to explain this exclusion.

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

NA: I consider the book to be both a response and supplement to both mainstream and scholarly accounts of contemporary Iran. I focus on works that address Iranians’ engagement with digital media, such as pseudonymous Nasrin Alavi’s We Are Iran: The Persian Blogs, as well as Annabelle Sreberny and Gholam Khiabany’s Blogistan: The Internet and Politics in Iran. There are also countless journalistic reports (almost always generated outside Iran) about the Iranian Internet. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with these accounts will likely recognize a number of recurring cliches about the liberatory potentials of new media for Iranians, and for women in particular. In many instances, these accounts are right to point out the ways that digital media offer unique opportunities for circumventing or challenging repressive state policies and/or social mores. Yet a focus on these aspects of the Iranian Internet both overblows its promising aspects and obscures its various other facets.

Happily, a number of new and emerging works have questioned some of the prevailing sensibilities related to Iran and Iranian media specifically, and the book also situates itself in conversation with this range of literature on Iran. For example, Sima Shakhsari has revealed the ways that the Iranian blogosphere functioned as a site of heteronormative disciplining where gendered subjectivities are produced. Babak Rahimi is another scholar who has highlighted under-examined aspects of the Iranian Internet, such as the active role of the state online; he is currently working on a manuscript entitled “i-IRAN: The Internet Publics and the Politics of Technological Imaginary.”

Outside of the literature specifically on Iran, the book has greatly benefited from conversation with two categories of scholarship on New Media. One comes from within Media Studies, especially the work of historians that helped me situate digital media in relation to their predecessors. Lisa Gittleman’s Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture, as well as Carolyn Marvin’s When Old Technologies Were New, are examples of two well-known books in the field that interrogate the notion of “newness,” providing much-needed perspective for researchers of contemporary media. The other set of works that have influenced my thinking are diverse case studies of various transnational “locations” online that have also addressed some of the issues I cover, such as how digital technologies are uniquely suited for the flourishing of absolutist nationalisms and politics. In addition to the earlier mentioned work of Ien Ang and Vinay Lal on the Chinese and Hindu diasporas respectively, for example, Matsuoka and Sorenson have examined the rise of Absyninnian fundamentalism among the Ethiopian diaspora online.

J: How does this work connect to and/or depart from your previous research?  

NA: I started working on the cultural politics of the Iranian Internet in graduate school, and while only parts of one chapter from my dissertation ended up in this book, it is very much in continuity with my previous research interests. What is significantly different is my heightened attention to the role of state actors and supporters as cultural content producers, something I touched on in my past research but was not focused on. While the Iranian state’s attempts to control and restrict Internet access are well-known, little attention has been paid to the role of state actors and institutions as media users and proactive members of the New Media landscape.

I became particularly interested in looking at the Iranian state as a producer of knowledge and culture that is uniquely situated to magnify and expand offline content onto online spaces. Whereas oppositional and/or independent users without ties to the Iranian or foreign states face various limitations in terms of access or funding, state actors not only have the benefit of financial resources and freedom from speed and content filters, but they also have access to offline media such as television (including archival materials). For these reasons, they are at an advantage when it comes to making the most from the convergence of online and offline media. Some examples of this that particularly fascinated me were the online appearances of war footage and films related to the Iran-Iraq war and how they were being used to enhance official versions of the war and its legacy. Of course, while state actors and state institutions may have an advantage in their ability to get this content online, the digitization of this material opened it to being challenged and re-purposed by opposing voices from within and outside of the ruling system. I found such diversity of views and intense contestations of national narratives very interesting.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

NA: Among academic audiences, I hope to draw readers working on Iran and West Asia as well as those interested in New Media (whether or not they work on Iran). I hope that both my approach and my findings will prove useful to other scholars in these fields whose research also critically engages dominant accounts of Iran, West Asia, and New Media more broadly. For readers outside of academia whose only exposure to information about the Iranian Internet comes from mainstream media, I hope that the book prompts them to question widespread cliches and misinformation about contemporary Iran.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

NA: In keeping with my interests in state power, media, and cultural production, I am working on two separate but related projects focusing on women in post-revolutionary Iran. The first looks at state-endorsed media projects aimed at addressing a perceived crisis in the institutions of marriage and family in Iran. The second, which is a much larger project, considers the construction of a post-revolutionary, militarized culture in times of crisis and the ways that women’s roles have been defined in relation to those crises, as well as how women have challenged these prescribed roles.

Excerpts from Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution

Few aspects of the Iranian Internet have been more widely celebrated than the blogosphere. Weblogistan, which was at its prime from late 2002 to 2008, has been the subject of scores of popular and scholarly accounts, most of which emphasize its oppositional and liberatory goals. Such characterizations of the Iranian blogosphere generally take two overlapping forms. Drawing on several high-profile instances of the government’s persecution of bloggers, one set of accounts identifies the blogosphere as primarily a political and politicized space (Bucar and Fazaeli 2008; Rahimi 2003). Other accounts highlight how Weblogistan broke taboos. Such accounts often mention how blogs provided a liberating space for women (Alavi 2005; Amir-Ebrahimi 2008b). Whether their focus is on the social or political aspects of Weblogistan, these analysts usually emphasize how bloggers push against the state. The non-governmental[1] and think tank sectors have played a key role in providing knowledge about the Iranian Internet and its blogosphere in particular. Although such accounts underline the repressive measures of the state, they also emphasize the potential of digital media, especially blogging, to circumvent restrictions and create conditions for democratic change.[2]

To be sure, the government’s repressive measures, in particular those directed at online spheres, are important for understanding the development of the Iranian Internet. All bloggers writing from Iran, regardless of genre or political persuasion, at some point will have to get around blocked access to content.[3] And although the well-publicized accounts of persecuted bloggers did not prevent Weblogistan from thriving and expanding, they likely played a role in the decisions of at least some bloggers to protect their identities and to go to great pains to remain anonymous online. In addition, the blogosphere’s role in opening avenues for pushing social boundaries cannot be discounted, nor is it unique to Iran. However, reading Weblogistan primarily through this lens overshadows the richness of its landscape, in some cases providing skewed assessments that exaggerate the extent to which security concerns and resisting the ruling power structure dominate the blogosphere.

Several works have stepped outside the strict confines of these models, providing revealing glimpses into largely unexamined territory. Alireza Doostdar’s 2004 study offers a linguistic analysis of blogging as a new kind of speech genre and highlights how Weblogistan created opportunities for intellectual confrontations among those with disparate access to cultural capital. Annabelle Sreberny and Gholam Khiabany (2007) have gone beyond a focus on sensationalized bloggers to highlight Weblogistan as an arena of diverse intellectual production. They have also critiqued accounts that draw a monolithic portrait of the Iranian blogosphere, instead calling for frameworks that understand digital media in relation to previous and existing policies, technologies, and political dynamics (Sreberny and Khiabany 2011). Others have critiqued the liberation model, pointing out that narrowly conceived narratives can be exclusionary: focusing only on secular or anti-state forms of resistance, they leave out other forms of challenging social and political systems. (Akhavan 2011). Others argue that far from breaking free from gender-based constraints, bloggers are subject to gendered discourses of militarism and neoliberalism (Shakshari 2011). While Masserat Amir-Ebrahimi’s work on gender on the blogosphere has repeated some of the claims about its liberatory powers, her work on religious Iranians online casts light on often-ignored segments of Weblogistan. Her work considers blogging and other Internet practices of seminary students, showing that their engagement is not confined to the officially promoted activity of propagating state sanctioned ideas about Islam (Amir-Ebrahimi 2008a).

Even in policy-oriented publications—a body of work that has largely followed the model of Weblogistan as one that is almost exclusively dominated by oppositional writers—at least one observer has argued that it is important to pay attention to the large numbers of bloggers who do not fit this mold and who offer policy makers a more accurate sense of the Iranian public’s views on key topics, including the nuclear issue (Pedatzur 2008). Similarly, in an interdisciplinary study combining human and automated content analysis, researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society concluded that “the early conventional wisdom that Iranian bloggers are mainly young democrats critical of the regime” contrasted with their own findings that the Iranian blogosphere is diverse in terms of political opinions and topics covered (Kelly and Etling 2008, 24). This small but compelling body of work indicates that there is much unexplored terrain in the transnational blogosphere that reveals the complexities of contemporary Iran and Weblogistan itself.

For entirely different reasons, the Iranian state has also fought to challenge the prevailing portrayal of Weblogistan as primarily oppositional and/or secular. The Ministry of Culture and Guidance took an interest in examining the blogosophere, and in 2006, it published the first of a multiyear series of studies about Weblogistan. This study and a range of proposals by the ministry and other governmental institutions or affiliates (discussed below) are an indication of the state’s acute interest and active investment in using the blogosphere as a site of cultural and political production.

[…]

Examining the conditions of the Iranian Internet’s conception and the trajectory of its development provides some clues about what the future might bring. The conflicted situation surrounding its infancy inside Iran, when state organs promoted the technology and enabled the telecommunications infrastructure at the same time that they devised the parameters for restricting it by filtering content and limiting speeds, set the stage for the state’s active but often contradictory relationship with digital media. Outside the country, the embrace of the new medium within the Diaspora brought the promise of reconnecting with a lost homeland, but it also provided evidence of the depth of the chasm between an imagined Iran and the real Iran.

NOTES

[1] I use the term “nongovernmental” with caution here. Many self-described international nongovernmental organizations receive direct or indirect funding from government entities. While commentators are often astute at pointing out the state connections of Iran-based organizations that claim nongovernmental status, foreign funded organizations based in Europe or North America whose work focuses on human rights, civil society, and/or the prospects for democracy in Iran often escape such scrutiny. A body of work has raised critical questions about the implications of hidden sources of governmental funding. See, for example, Rodriguez (2008). Similarly, others have questioned the interventionist drive behind the work of such organizations: That is to say, they have criticized interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign countries, especially when such interference is state funded and/or is justified on the basis of values that are asserted to be universal.  See, for example, Wallerstein (2006).

[2] See, for example, Reporters Without Borders (2008); and Freedom House’s annual publication Freedom on the Net; A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media.

[3] The fact that the inconsistent and largely inexplicable restrictions force even the most hardline supporters of the government to use illegal proxies to access content online has raised some noteworthy debates in various arenas on the Iranian Internet. These debates, which are most visible in the realm of social media such as Friendfeed, where users of various political orientations can face each other in real time, reflect the diversity and contradictions of the Iranian Internet.

[Excerpted from Electronic Iran: The Cultural Politics of an Online Evolution, by Niki Akhavan, by permission of the author. ® Copyright 2013 Rutgers University Press. For more information, or to purchase this book, click here.]

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Review of "What People Do with Images: Aesthetics, Politics and the Production of Iranian Visual Culture in Transnational Circuits"

      Review of "What People Do with Images: Aesthetics, Politics and the Production of Iranian Visual Culture in Transnational Circuits"

      Already apparent in the 1990s when Iranian cinema began to receive international attention, the turn of the century saw an expansion in the visibility and movement of Iranian creators and creative works across borders. As in the case of developments in the realms of Iranian politics and society more broadly, artistic productions and practices in this period were deeply shaped by rapid technological changes unfolding in a geopolitical context of global tensions. Yet attempts to make sense of the arenas of Iranian politics, society, and art–either individually or in relation to one another– have largely operated within a rigid framework of authority versus resistance. Mazyar Lotfalian’s What People Do with Images: Aesthetics, Politics and the Production of Iranian Visual Culture in Transnational Circuits explicitly rejects this insufficient framing and the fixation on finding set meanings, instead taking a critical anthropological approach that highlights the material practices and relations undergirding the new “aesthetic regimes” (p. 119) that emerged in the first fifteen years of the new millennium.

       

      In his introductory chapter, Lotfalian draws on Rancière’s notion of dissensus and Fischer’s concept of worlding to lay out the how and why of his focus away from textual meaning.  Rancière holds that aesthetic practices can be disruptive of what is considered sensible in society, thus “shifting boundaries of what is acceptable, rather than engaging in opposition or consensus building” (p. 12). Using this concept of dissensus allows Lotfalian to explore the ways that art may act to destabilize meanings and open spaces for new meanings and practices to emerge. Similarly, the concept of “worlding” as has been used by Fischer and other anthropologists allows Lotfalian to “look into the set of technological, institutional and political spheres” in which people make and interact with images. Building on Rancière’s claims about the disruptions of the sensible, Lotfalian introduces the term “meta-politics'' to examine how aesthetic practices can avoid being “stifled by pre-ordained or stereotypical signs, symbols, or forms.” (p.30) Lotfalian also uses his introduction to make two key assertions that are foundational to this book: namely, he identifies the rise of political Islam and digital technology as the two most important political and technological forces that have shaped cultural productions since the fall of the Soviet Union. 

       

      Lotfalian’s second chapter provides an overview of these two forces over the last thirty years and their consequences for cultural productions. Pointing out that these changes have impacted the terrains of both diasporic and Iranian production, the chapter focuses on four main case studies to explore the thornier-by-day question of who speaks for whom when it comes to Iranians in Iran and in diaspora. These four cases are the widely different Jon Stewart film Rosewater (2014), Ana Lily Amripour’s genre-mixing A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014), Sepideh Farsi’s Red Rose (2014), and Hamid Rahmanian’s illustrations for a new translation of the Shahnameh epic as well as a 2016 shadow-play that Rahmanian created for a love story from the epic.  Lotfalian contends that with the exception of Rosewater–which attempted a direct political effort–all of these other works operated within a “meta-political space rather than via polarized political antagonism.” (p. 26) Lotfalian attributes Rosewater’s failures to its inability to move beyond this familiar framing and contrasts it with the generative possibilities of the other works under consideration. These other works, Lotfalian contends, also draw attention to the continuum that makes up the connections between the Iranian diaspora and those living in Iran as well as the intergenerational dialogue at play. While this implicitly addresses some of the questions of who speaks for whom, the chapter would have benefited from a more direct and extensive discussion, especially given the contentiousness and the material consequences of the issue in the contemporary moment. On any given day, for example, Iranian social media platforms from Twitter to Clubhouse are filled with virulent debates about who has the right to represent Iranians. Offline, those claiming to be the authentic voice of Iranians have secured notable amounts of foreign funding for their political projects and/or have successfully argued for policies such as “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran.  One more sentence here to flesh out what you mean by “the contentiousness and the material consequences”

       

      The third chapter takes an ethnographic approach to a number of case studies of curatorial practices including those in museum exhibitions and gallery spaces in Iran and elsewhere. The broader context for these examinations is the political conflict between Iran and the United States, where increasing tensions happen to coincide with a rapid rise in the interest for buying and displaying Iranian art in international markets. Once again, Lotfalian’s case studies are far-reaching, ranging from Shirin Neshat’s 2001 experimental multimedia piece The Logic of the Birds (in which Lotfalian was an actor) to a discussion of global art markets including those in the UAE. This latter discussion is particularly important given that–as Lotfalian himself notes–”[t]he politics of curatorial practice does not only derive from the curators, but also from an emergent market for art from the Middle East” (p. 38). As in the case of his discussion of films in Chapter Two, what Lotfalian finds promising is the emergence of an aesthetics that functions on the level of meta-politics.

       

      Chapter four applies the notion of autoethnography to understand the works of Shirin Neshat, Marjane Satrapi, and Reza Bahraminejad. While not internationally celebrated like Neshat and Satrapi, Bahraminejad’s work has received critical acclaim, including winning the best documentary prize for Flying Misters (2003) at the 22nd Fajr Film Festival in Iran. Lotfalian argues that as a genre of self-exploration, autoethnography both allows one to tell a personal story but also “explores the ambiguity of storytelling and the difficulty of giving voice both to one’s own self and to those of others.” (p. 68). Here again, Lotfalian does not impose readings framed in terms of resistance but looks at how autobiographical forms can offer “meta-political rearrangements [that] are more important than ordinary political contestations” (p. 50) Because it stays focused largely on just three case studies, this chapter offers a more granular sense of the works under consideration as well as Lotfalian’s points about meta-political spaces.

       

      Chapters five and six consider images and themes that are important in Shia Islam, with a focus on the transnational mediation of the Karbala Paradigm and the taziyeh, or passion play, that is affiliated with it. While much has been written about the importance of the symbolism of Karbala in Iranian art and politics, Lotfalian’s exploration of transnational mediations, avant-garde experimentations, and creative digital engagements with this religious story provide a convincing case for how these newer forms “expand the conditions of possibility for Shi’ite-Islamic visibility” (p. 86) and can play a transformative role in the public sphere. He best illustrates this latter point in Chapter 6, where he considers how religious imagery was remobilized during Iran’s 2009 presidential election and its aftermath.

       

      Lotfalian’s last chapter is on the Iranian underground. Given its Cold War connotations of stealth and counter-culture, a reader looking at the book’s table of contents could reasonably have thought that this chapter would contain stories of defiance and resistance. But having read the previous chapters, one knows better than to expect easy classifications. Lotfalian remains convincingly consistent in his rejection of the opposition/authority binary, citing a number of different examples from music and visual culture to argue that the post-revolutionary Iranian Underground has been a “grey area…in which creativity contests both state and neo-liberal appropriations” (p. 108). The array of cases Lotfalian draws from are numerous and traverse across genres and formats, including Azadeh Akhlaghi’s fascinating staged photographs, Mohsen Namjoo’s music and lyrics, Shahriar Mandanipour’s 2010 novel, Censorship: an Iranian Love Story, as well as the work of several filmmakers such as Panahi, Ghobadi, and Rasoulof.

       

      That Lotfalian covers so much ground in the number and type of artistic work he discusses is a strength of this book, but at times it leaves the reader hoping for a more in-depth analysis of the material under consideration. Lotfalian is attuned to the many factors–sometimes contradictory–that shape Iranian cultural productions. For example, in the chapter on curatorial practices he cites the rising interest in Iranian works but also notes the concomitant pressures to produce art geared toward that market. Similar pressures press on knowledge and cultural producers to create content that easily fits the authority-resistance binary. Given that Lotfalian makes an important argument against this tired framework, a more explicit discussion of the institutions, funding networks, and discourses that constrain Iranian cultural productions would have made the work even stronger.

       

      Old habits of reading are hard to break, and at various points in this manuscript, this reviewer found herself wishing that Lotfalian had offered a stinging rebuke here or laudatory praise there for some of the works under consideration. That he did not do so is a testament to the consistency of his approach, one that dwells in rich contexts, ambiguities, and possibilities. This theoretically robust book will be of great interest to scholars and general readers who follow Iranian art, culture, and politics, and is particularly recommended to those who may have tired of the repetitious and inadequate frames for understanding contemporary Iranian society.

       

       

       

       

Summer Readings from NEWTON

The New Texts Out Now (NEWTON) page has greatly expanded over the past year, in large part thanks to the recommendations and contributions from many of Jadaliyya’s readers. We would like to provide you with ample summer reading material by reminding you of several new texts that we have featured in recent months. This compilation of works spans a wide range of topics and disciplines by prominent authors in the field of Middle East studies.

We hope this list will be pedagogically useful for readers preparing syllabi for the fall semester, as well as those hoping to learn about new and unique perspectives on the region. To stay up to date with ongoing discussions by scholars and instructors in the field, check out Jadaliyya’s sister organization, Tadween Publishing.

Highlights

NEWTON in Focus: Thinking Through Gender and Sex

NEWTON in Focus: Egypt

NEWTON Author Nergis Ertürk Receives MLA First Book Prize

NEWTON 2012 in Review

This Year’s NEWTONs

New Texts Out Now: Mark Fathi Massoud, Law`s Fragile State: Colonial, Authoritarian, and Humanitarian Legacies in Sudan

New Texts Out Now: Ayça Çubukçu, The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and the Problem of Transnational Solidarity

New Texts Out Now: Louise Cainkar, Global Arab World Migrations and Diasporas

New Texts Out Now: Maya Mikdashi, What is Settler Colonialism? and Sherene Seikaly, Return to the Present

New Texts Out Now: Joel Beinin, Mixing, Separation, and Violence in Urban Spaces and the Rural Frontier in Palestine

New Texts Out Now: Wendy Pearlman, Emigration and the Resilience of Politics in Lebanon

New Texts Out Now: Simon Jackson, Diaspora Politics and Developmental Empire: The Syro-Lebanese at the League of Nations

New Texts Out Now: Charles Tripp, The Power and the People: Paths of Resistance in the Middle East

New Texts Out Now: Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam

New Texts Out Now: Adel Iskandar and Bassam Haddad, Mediating the Arab Uprisings

New Texts Out Now: David McMurray and Amanda Ufheil-Somers, The Arab Revolts

New Texts Out Now: Esam Al-Amin, The Arab Awakening Unveiled

New Texts Out Now: Rashid Khalidi, Brokers of Deceit: How the US Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East

New Texts Out Now: Vijay Prashad, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South

New Texts Out Now: Paul Aarts and Francesco Cavatorta, Civil Society in Syria and Iran

New Texts Out Now: Amr Adly, State Reform and Development in the Middle East: Turkey and Egypt in the Post-Liberalization Era

New Texts Out Now: Rachel Beckles Willson, Orientalism and Musical Mission: Palestine and the West

New Texts Out Now: Ilana Feldman, The Challenge of Categories: UNRWA and the Definition of a "Palestine Refugee"

New Texts Out Now: Jeannie Sowers, Environmental Politics in Egypt: Activists, Experts, and the State

New Texts Out Now: Dina Rizk Khoury, Iraq in Wartime: Soldiering, Martyrdom, and Remembrance

New Texts Out Now: Na`eem Jeenah, Pretending Democracy: Israel, An Ethnocratic State

New Texts Out Now: Sally K. Gallagher, Making Do in Damascus

New Texts Out Now: Natalya Vince, Saintly Grandmothers: Youth Reception and Reinterpretation of the National Past in Contemporary Algeria

New Texts Out Now: January 2013 Back to School Edition

New Texts Out Now: John M. Willis, Unmaking North and South: Cartographies of the Yemeni Past, 1857-1934

New Texts Out Now: Paolo Gerbaudo, Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism

New Texts Out Now: Madawi Al-Rasheed, A Most Masculine State: Gender, Politics, and Religion in Saudi Arabia

New Texts Out Now: Noga Efrati, Women in Iraq: Past Meets Present

New Texts Out Now: Nicola Pratt, The Gender Logics of Resistance to the "War on Terror"

New Texts Out Now: Lisa Hajjar, Torture: A Sociology of Violence and Human Rights

New Texts Out Now: Orit Bashkin, New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq

New Texts Out Now: Marwan M. Kraidy, The Revolutionary Body Politic