Hanadi Al-Samman, Anxiety of Erasure: Trauma, Authorship, and the Diaspora in Arab Women’s Writings (New Texts Out Now)

Hanadi Al-Samman, Anxiety of Erasure: Trauma, Authorship, and the Diaspora in Arab Women’s Writings (New Texts Out Now)

Hanadi Al-Samman, Anxiety of Erasure: Trauma, Authorship, and the Diaspora in Arab Women’s Writings (New Texts Out Now)

By : Hanadi Al-Samman

Hanadi Al-Samman, Anxiety of Erasure: Trauma, Authorship, and the Diaspora in Arab Women’s Writings (Syracuse University Press, 2015, Paperback Edition 2019).

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

Hanadi Al-Samman (HS): I set out to explore the literature of Arab women writers in the diaspora—a topic that has not been addressed by other researchers. Of course, these women were recognized individually but not as part of a collective that acknowledged their unique experience of living on the margins in exile, or their critical contribution to Arab diasporic literature. Moreover, there is this perception that diaspora literature, otherwise known as adab al-mahjar, ended with the death of the members of al-Rabitah al-Qalamiyyah (the Pen Circle 1920-31) in North America and al-‘Usbah al-Andalusiyyah (the Andalus Circle 1932-54) in South America. My book sets the record straight by recognizing them as a continuation of the mahjar literary movement and by acknowledging their innovation in style, themes, and outlook, thereby helping in remapping the homeland’s cartography, pinpointing its political ills, and aiding in its resurrection from authoritarian state dominance.

... travel genre moves away from a complementary gesture where the traveler seeks self-aggrandizement through his/her interaction with the foreign Other ...

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

HS: The book examines the literary output of six Levantine authors: Ghada al-Samman, Hoda Barakat, Hanan al-Shaykh, Hamida Na’na’, Salwa al-Neimi, and Samar Yazbek—all of whom chose to reside in Europe, but still not sever their ties to the homeland. By focusing on the various literary genres in which they experimented, such as autobiography, fantasy, travel, and war, I identify the innovative ways in which they redefine each and every genre. For example, Ghada al-Samman departed from the dominance of the individual authorial “I” of the traditional autobiographer to a more inclusive mosaic autobiography model that heeds the voices of multiple selves and seeks the cohesion of the collective nation and its inhabitants. In her use of the fantasy genre, al-Samman veers away from the traditional ‘Aja’ib (wonders) literature where pursuits of exotic and undiscovered frontiers are undertaken. Rather, from her diasporic locale, fantasy genre becomes an avenue to travel back to the homeland to revisit traumatic nightmares and to reflect on the causes of social and political strife. It is a vehicle to use the present to reflect on the past, in the hope of a better future. Similarly, travel genre moves away from a complementary gesture where the traveler seeks self-aggrandizement through his/her interaction with the foreign Other, to a more inclusive relationship involving two-directional dialogue and acceptance of the Other. War genre occupies a great deal of the book, with the coverage ranging from women’s contested participation in wars and national reconstruction (as discussed in Hamida Na’na’s works), to paradigms of dis-ease and domination afflicting Arab societal structures and engendering aggressive wars (as chronicled in Hoda Barakat’s oeuvre), to critique of authoritarian governments that massacre their own people (as in Samar Yazbek’s account of the Syrian Revolution). The unearthing of the archives of Arabic literature and the inscribing of unspeakable secrets of women’s annihilation (as in Salwa al-Neimi’s work), as well as the redefining of the field of Arab diaspora studies from a nostalgic to a critical stance intent on healing the homeland’s wounds, are the distinctive marks of Arab women diaspora writers addressed in this book. 

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

HS: The book connects with my previous work on Arab women writers and feminist scholarship. It departs, however, from previous literary theories that defined the experience of authorship for Western male writers as dialectic, Oedipal interactions with their predecessors causing their “anxiety of influence” in Harlold Bloom’s postulations, or from Sandra Gilbert’s and Susan Gubar’s “anxiety of authorship,” which is engendered by the lack of female predecessors for western women writers. Rather, I argue that Arab women writers experience their authorship as an anxiety of a double erasure, both literary and physical. For example, it is not only the erasure of their maternal predecessor, as in the master narrator Shahrazad’s authorship in the frame story of A Thousand and One Nights, but also that of the female’s physical eradication exemplified in wa’d al-banat’s (female infant burial) jahiliyya practice. This is a significant contribution of my book, from where it takes its title, and through which the book foregrounds a literary theory for reading Arab women’s poetics.

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

HS: The book will be of interest to researchers and students of Arabic and comparative literature as well as gender and diaspora studies. To my knowledge, it is the first book that studies Arab women’s literature from the lens of trauma theory. It accomplishes this through its unique linkage of the jahiliyya’s buried infant trope of the wa’d to the erasure of women’s literary voices. It further widens its examination to cover the political and historical erasure of the voices of the Arab masses, in particular the personal erasure of female selfhood and of Shahrazad’s occulted literary voice in the written version of A Thousand and One Nights. In this regard, the personal and the political are truly interconnected. 

The book was well received and reviewed favorably in International Journal of Middle East StudiesJournal of Arabic LiteratureJournal of Middle East Women’s Studies, and Review of Middle East Studies, as well as other journals. It has been cited in several Arabic literature monograms and articles, and a paperback edition was released in late 2019 to make it accessible for course adoption.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

HS: I am currently writing a book called Queering the Arab Closet, in which I examine representations of Arab queer subjectivity in literature, film, songs, and social media. I highlight the intersection of LGBTQ issues with the political and the cultural in the Arab world. I also set out to redefine the concept of the closet for Arab queers, which they insist that at times affords them a sanctuary rather than a prison. In this sense, the closet allows them to be free to exercise their own ritual of coming in to a certain chosen familial circle of supportive family and friends rather than embracing the coercive coming out process associated with the Western LGBTQ-pride performance ideology.

J: Why did you focus on connecting the tropes of Shahrazad and al-Maw’udah (buried female infant) in this book?

HS: All past scholarship on Arab women’s writings has employed Shahrazad’s trope, once the work moved from the oral to the written version,  as either a model to emulate or to veer away from. In my examination of Arab women’s diasporic writers’ literature, I also noticed the existence of al-maw’udah as another significant cultural trope in their oeuvre. Surprisingly, this trope has not only manifested itself in the works of writers who hail from Muslim backgrounds, but also Christian ones. For this reason, I believe that it is necessary to address the writers’ attempts to combat both the literary erasure of women’s writings signified in Shahrazad’s trope, and also the physical erasure of women’s bodies and traces that can be seen in the resurrection of wa’d cultural motif. 

Coupling these two motifs in what I call “the anxiety of erasure” in Arab women’s poetics has the advantage of tracing the wounds enacted by both of these literary and physical traumas in the past, so as to transform the present and to illuminate the future. Just as the diasporic women authors transform Shahrazad’s corpus from orality to the written word, so in their work the surviving female body enables the physical, sexual, and symbolic resurrection of al-mau’udah as she enacts psychological and physical journeys, redefining cultural and political cartographies, and thereby proving that acknowledging the presence of the female body, voice, and narrative can and must lead to the transformation of the political and national as well.

 

Excerpt from the book                          

Anxiety of Erasure uniquely examines the manifestations of Shahrazad’s and the maw’udah’s tropes in the literature of both Muslim and Christian mashriq diaspora women writers. Most of the writers in question engage in their own cultural remembrance of these two tropes in their writings. They materialize Shahrazad’s literary erasure and the historical nightmare of wa’d in their narratives, thereby bringing these traumas to the surface, and using them as a distant memory which propels the writing of their literature and inspires, above all, their survival. 

The literature covered is of necessity transnational, since the diasporic site operates as a catalyst for this artistic canon. My research covers literature produced by women writers in Europe and in North and South America from 1920 to 2011. My book relies on the principle of cultural conflict and resolution to produce an understanding of the lost traumatic knowledge of Arab women’s erasure, and diasporic Arab women’s perception of themselves in both Western and Eastern mirrors. The book’s scope is also multi-generational, often dealing with the literary productions of both first- and second-generation emigrants, engendering in the process an intergenerational dialogic and traumatic haunting. For example, the issues raised by the South American diaspora female writers in the 1920s (discussed in chapter 2) find their echo in the scathing critiques that their literary successors--contemporary European diaspora writers--have leveled against the Lebanese civil war, the Gulf war, and the war in Iraq in the latter half of the twentieth century. The connection between these literary foremothers and cotemporary diaspora writers intensifies the urgency of locating Shahrazad’s literary trace in the traumatic past of the maw’udah tradition so as to resurrect women’s body and word to ensure feminine agency in reconstructing cultural and national narratives. What this book offers is a deeply imbedded, culturally-specific basis for reading Arab women’s narratives. Their works act as incentives to memory, as a way to speak to and for the lost, forgotten, or erased selves, encouraging readers to listen to the archives, to keep Shahrazad’s literary legacy and the buried voice of the maw’udah ever present.

Anxiety of Erasure proposes a transnational, intergenerational, mosaic framework for studying authorship and identity construction in Arab women’s literature. It seeks to rectify the state of female literary erasure, by broadening the scope of gender and geographic definitions of adab al-mahjar proper, and by shifting its focus from predominantly male writers residing in North and South American sites to women writers located in the European continent instead. Unlike previous scholarship, which addressed Arab women’s authorship from the standpoint of harem walls, veiling, and imposed silence, my study examines the liberating, re-centering role of diaspora in creating a reciprocated conversation with the foreign Other combined with an impact both on the streets of every Arab city (the women continue to publish in Arabic) and in the West that hosts them. My intention in amplifying their voices is to bring forward the writers’ urgent message of transforming orality into print, and of reclaiming the corpus of their foremother Shahrazad through revisiting the traumatic sites of the pre-Islamic wa’d tradition. The writers’ diasporic locales offer them a safe haven to challenge authoritarian states and censorship rules, and the fixity of essentialist concepts of nationhood. Their journey of national reconstruction is a transnational, interdisciplinary, and transformative project encompassing a broad spectrum of fictional genres: fantasy, autobiography, and war narratives expressed in novels, memoirs, journals, revolutionary diaries, and political commentary.  

In Anxiety of Erasure, I propose a theory for understanding the narrative strategies of Arab women writers in diaspora, and a framework within which to decipher the perplexing persistence of female infant burial and Shahrazad motifs in literature penned by these writers over the last century. This project further questions literary trauma theory’s claims that traumatic knowledge can only be gained in ephemeral, oblique references, owing to what Freud and later Cathy Caruth called the “incomprehensibility,” and the “irretrievability” of traumatic events (Caruth 1996, 18). My book disrupts this prevailing view of traumatic knowledge by arguing that, through the process of intergenerational insidious trauma, the reenactments of the wa’d trauma in diasporic women’s literature do, indeed, make the traumatic event more “accessible,” thus engendering a corporeality that allows healing and an understanding of the traumatic past. In employing the two tropes of Shahrazad and the maw’udah, Arab women writers materialize the site of the traumatic past, making it retrievable to the diasporic granddaughters of these female figures whose awakening engenders a survival project for two entities: diaspora women, and their embattled countries. 

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

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

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

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

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.