untitled

(C. Jardin) #1
NOTES TO PAGES 448–49

(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), along with the furious letters in response to an extract from
this book collected by the journalForeign Policy142 (May/June 2004): 4–13, 84–91. Notably, Hun-
tington’s previous book,The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, provided
the blueprint for this one in arguing the incompatibility of Western and Islamic civilizations.
An article that offers a comparative overview of these issues from a sociological perspective is
Aristide R. Zolberg and Long Litt Woon, ‘‘Why Islam Is Like Spanish: Cultural Incorporation in
Europe and the United States,’’Politics & Society27, no. 1 (March 1999): 5–38. (I thank Jan Rath
for bringing this article to my attention.) The critical question of the relation between language
and religion relative to the construction of the nation-state, both conceptually and practically, is
unfortunately not one of the concerns of this paper.
A crucial difference between the U.S. and Europe on this point, however, is that widespread
resistance to Hispanic language and culture within the U.S. is mixed with widespread response
and appeal to it—whether by commercial interests seeking to benefit from new media markets or
presidential candidates, such as Bush, striving to benefit electorally. Spanish is, furthermore, the
most popular foreign language among high-school children. We have yet to see the equivalent
development in Europe: a non-Muslim political candidate at moments donning a headscarf (or, in
the case of a heterosexual man, enticing his wife to do so) in order to appeal to Muslim voters,
while Turkish, Arabic, and Berber become not only widely accessible languages at school but top
European languages in the number of students they draw.



  1. Charles S. Maier, ‘‘Consigning the Twentieth Century to History: Alternative Narratives for
    the Modern Era,’’The American Historical Review105, no. 3 (2000), http://www.historycooperative.org/
    journals/ahr/105.3/ah000807.html 3 (December 12, 2003).

  2. Ibid., par. 18.

  3. Ibid., par. 22.

  4. Ibid., par. 25, 21. The citation is from George Lord Curzon of Kedleston,Frontiers: The
    Romanes Lectures of 1907(1908; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976), originally cited by Ewan
    W. Anderson in ‘‘Geopolitics: International Boundaries as Fighting Places,’’Journal of Strategic
    Studies22 (June-September 1999): 128.

  5. Maier, ‘‘Consigning the Twentieth Century to History,’’ par. 26.

  6. See on this point Henri Lefebvre,The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith
    (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991).

  7. Ibid., 332; cited by Maier, ‘‘Consigning the Twentieth Century to History,’’ par. 29.

  8. Simon Critchley, ‘‘The Problem of Hegemony,’’ Albert Schweizer Series on Ethics and
    Politics, New York University (April 22, 2004), inPolitical Theory: Essays; http://www.politicalthe
    ory.info/essays/critchley.htm (May 14, 2004).

  9. On this process and the imbrication of the territorial with the capitalist in the field of
    literary studies, see Edward W. Said’s ‘‘Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community’’
    (1987),Reflections on Exile and Other Literary and Cultural Essays(London: Granta Books, 2000),
    118–47. Said traces the ways in which originally radical forms of literary criticism, ones with com-
    prehensively liberating, democratic intentions, such as the American and French New Criticisms,
    Leavisite criticism in Britain, or Marxist literary theory, have become depoliticized, privatized, and
    self-confirming through a process of disciplinary specialization. At the same time, the university’s
    fragmentation of knowledge not only produces particular economic constituencies—the audience/
    client-base of 3,000 scholars in a given literary field likely to buy a scholarly book in that field—but
    also specifically strives to develop the techniques necessary for ‘‘protect[ing] the coherence, the
    territorial integrity, the social identity of the field, its adherents and its institutional presence’’ (126).

  10. Maier, ‘‘Consigning the Twentieth Century to History,’’ par. 22.


PAGE 754

754

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:27 PS
Free download pdf