Podcast appearances and mentions of Edward Said

Amid controversy surrounding Zohran Mamdani's rise to power in New York City, Hussein Mansour tells Thomas all about the history of Third Worldism — where it comes from, what it originally meant, and why the term has resurfaced. Thomas and Hussein discuss: Zohran Mamdani as a symbol, not a cause, of a broader elite transformation The Third Estate, the French Revolution, and the revolutionary inheritance of modern radical politics Interwar Paris and the emergence of Third Worldist intellectuals Négritude, anti-colonial humanism, and the promise of historical redemption Decolonisation, revolutionary violence, and the crisis of postcolonial states How ideological failure was reinterpreted as structural oppression The migration of Third Worldist ideas into Western universities and institutions Edward Said, postcolonial theory, and the institutionalisation of grievance Third Worldism today less as a political programme than an elite posture Subscribe to Hussein's Substack The Abrahamic Metacritique here: https://critiqueanddigest.substack.com Follow Hussein on X here: https://x.com/HusseinAboubak Join the Conflicted Community here: https://conflicted.supportingcast.fm  Find us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MHconflicted And Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MHconflicted And Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/conflictedpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Conflicted is a Message Heard production. Executive Producers: Jake Warren & Max Warren. This episode was produced and edited by Thomas Small. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

L'essai Le Monde après Gaza de l'écrivain indo-britannique Pankaj Mishra s'ouvre sur les derniers jours de l'insurrection dans le ghetto de Varsovie en 1943, réprimée dans le sang par les nazis. Comparant l'extermination des juifs pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale à l'anéantissement de Gaza par Israël sous le regard complice des puissances démocratiques occidentales, Mishra pointe du doigt la radicalisation de la société israélienne et s'inquiète de l'effondrement moral généralisé. Puisant sa réflexion aussi bien chez Primo Levi, Hannah Arendt, Edward Said que James Baldwin, ce livre relit l'histoire contemporaine à travers une grille morale et invite ses lecteurs à construire le monde d'après en s'appuyant sur une nouvelle conscience politique et éthique.    RFI : C'est le sentiment de découragement face à l'effondrement moral généralisé qui vous a conduit à vous lancer dans l'écriture du Monde après Gaza. J'aimerais que vous nous expliquiez les raisons de votre découragement ? Pankaj Mishra : Je me suis retrouvé dans la situation de nombreuses personnes complètement déconcertées par la réaction d'Israël au 7-Octobre. Nous avons vécu des mois d'extermination de masse diffusés en direct, quelque chose de sans précédent dans l'histoire de l'humanité. En même temps, ce qui a été également inédit ces derniers mois, c'est de voir les démocraties occidentales qui prétendent défendre un ordre international fondé sur des règles, qui prétendent se battre pour la démocratie et les droits humains, appuyer Israël en lui apportant leur soutien tant diplomatique, militaire que moral. En conséquence, tout un système de normes, tout un système de lois, toute une manière de comprendre le monde, notre place en son sein, notre perception de nous-mêmes, de nos possibilités, et de ce que nos sociétés pourraient être à l'avenir, désormais tout cela est remis en cause. C'est de cela que je parle quand je vous dis que nous assistons à un effondrement moral généralisé. Je suis étonné de votre réaction. Vous semblez avoir oublié les violences des guerres coloniales, les atrocités commises en Corée et au Vietnam, la mauvaise foi qui a conduit à la guerre en Irak… Je pense que les gens de ma génération n'ont pas oublié les longues guerres et les atrocités de l'impérialisme. Je n'avais pas vraiment beaucoup d'illusions sur la nature de la démocratie occidentale ni sur cette rhétorique des droits de l'homme. Mais je dois admettre que, même pour des personnes comme moi, formées à l'histoire mondiale, les événements de Gaza - au cours desquels on a vu les gens abandonner leurs principes pour se ranger du côté des auteurs d'un génocide - ont été un choc immense. À quand situez-vous la corrosion morale dans la société israélienne que vous pointez et que vous n'êtes d'ailleurs pas le seul à évoquer ? Pour la plupart des observateurs, cette corrosion morale commence avec l'endoctrinement de la population israélienne et la construction d'une identité nationale fondée sur la Shoah et l'expérience juive en Europe. Pendant les premières années de l'existence d'Israël, la Shoah ne faisait pas partie de l'image que ce pays se faisait de lui-même. Les premiers dirigeants israéliens méprisaient les survivants de l'Holocauste : ils les voyaient comme des êtres faibles qui déshonoraient le pays parce qu'ils étaient allés à la mort sans résistance. Ce n'est que plus tard, à partir des années 1960, que le récit de la Shoah a été redécouvert et élaboré afin d'imposer une identité nationale cohérente. Ainsi, plusieurs générations d'Israéliens ont été endoctrinées avec ce message très dangereux selon lequel le monde qui les entoure serait rempli de gens cherchant à les tuer et à les éradiquer. Dans votre ouvrage, vous revenez longuement sur les mises en garde lancées en leur temps par d'éminents philosophes tels que Hannah Arendt et Primo Lévi contre cet endoctrinement. Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas été écoutés? C'est parce que le récit de l'Holocauste a d'abord été confisqué par l'État d'Israël, puis perverti pour servir les intérêts d'un État violent et expansionniste. Des penseurs comme Hannah Arendt, qui avaient vu en Europe les pires excès du nationalisme, étaient très conscients du risque de voir ressurgir ces dangers dans un nouvel État-nation tenté par le fascisme, le suprémacisme ethnique et racial. C'est pourquoi elle s'est farouchement opposée à l'idée du sionisme comme doctrine constitutive de l'Etat d'Israël. Primo Levi, lui, qui croyait en l'idée d'un Israël socialiste, fut totalement horrifié en découvrant les preuves des atrocités israéliennes commises contre les Libanais et les Palestiniens. Ces penseurs ne pouvaient concevoir que la Shoah serve de fondement à la légitimité d'Israël. Pour eux, cette légitimité ne pouvait reposer que sur le comportement éthique d'Israël dans l'ici et maintenant. C'est pourquoi je crois qu'il est de notre devoir, d'une certaine manière, de sauver la mémoire de la Shoah des mains de ceux qui l'ont tant instrumentalisée en Israël. Ne me méprenez pas : il n'est nullement question d'oublier la Shoah, mais il est seulement question de la délivrer de l'emprise de l'État d'Israël. Comment voyez-vous le monde après Gaza, qui est le titre de votre essai ? Vous savez, lorsque je songe à l'avenir, ce qui m'inspire véritablement de l'espoir, c'est la façon dont la jeunesse a su incarner à travers le monde une forme rare d'empathie et de compassion envers les victimes de la violence à Gaza. Ils l'ont fait en se levant, en se mobilisant, en donnant voix à leur indignation, et, ce faisant, ils nous ont renvoyé à nos propres manquements — nous, les aînés, ceux qui détenons le pouvoir, dans la politique, les affaires ou les médias. Ils nous ont rappelé, parfois avec sévérité, combien nous nous étions compromis, soit en tolérant ce génocide, soit en gardant le silence face à lui. Ces jeunes manifestants, ces étudiants sont descendus dans la rue, ils ont dénoncé les atrocités, nous poussant à écouter davantage la voix de notre conscience. J'espère qu'à mesure qu'ils vieilliront, accédant à leur tour à des positions d'influence et de responsabilité, ils se souviendront des positions profondément morales qu'ils ont su adopter dans ces temps sombres que nous venons de vivre. Et j'espère qu'ils trouveront le moyen de perpétuer ces valeurs de compassion et de solidarité qu'ils ont su si magnifiquement incarner au cours de ces 15 derniers mois marqués par la brutalité et la souffrance. Oui, on peut dire qu'il y a de l'espoir. Le Monde après Gaza, par Pankaj Mishra. Essai traduit de l'anglais par David Fauquemberg. Editions Zulma, 304 pages, 22,50€

L'essai Le Monde après Gaza de l'écrivain indo-britannique Pankaj Mishra s'ouvre sur les derniers jours de l'insurrection dans le ghetto de Varsovie en 1943, réprimée dans le sang par les nazis. Comparant l'extermination des juifs pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale à l'anéantissement de Gaza par Israël sous le regard complice des puissances démocratiques occidentales, Mishra pointe du doigt la radicalisation de la société israélienne et s'inquiète de l'effondrement moral généralisé. Puisant sa réflexion aussi bien chez Primo Levi, Hannah Arendt, Edward Said que James Baldwin, ce livre relit l'histoire contemporaine à travers une grille morale et invite ses lecteurs à construire le monde d'après en s'appuyant sur une nouvelle conscience politique et éthique.    RFI : C'est le sentiment de découragement face à l'effondrement moral généralisé qui vous a conduit à vous lancer dans l'écriture du Monde après Gaza. J'aimerais que vous nous expliquiez les raisons de votre découragement ? Pankaj Mishra : Je me suis retrouvé dans la situation de nombreuses personnes complètement déconcertées par la réaction d'Israël au 7-Octobre. Nous avons vécu des mois d'extermination de masse diffusés en direct, quelque chose de sans précédent dans l'histoire de l'humanité. En même temps, ce qui a été également inédit ces derniers mois, c'est de voir les démocraties occidentales qui prétendent défendre un ordre international fondé sur des règles, qui prétendent se battre pour la démocratie et les droits humains, appuyer Israël en lui apportant leur soutien tant diplomatique, militaire que moral. En conséquence, tout un système de normes, tout un système de lois, toute une manière de comprendre le monde, notre place en son sein, notre perception de nous-mêmes, de nos possibilités, et de ce que nos sociétés pourraient être à l'avenir, désormais tout cela est remis en cause. C'est de cela que je parle quand je vous dis que nous assistons à un effondrement moral généralisé. Je suis étonné de votre réaction. Vous semblez avoir oublié les violences des guerres coloniales, les atrocités commises en Corée et au Vietnam, la mauvaise foi qui a conduit à la guerre en Irak… Je pense que les gens de ma génération n'ont pas oublié les longues guerres et les atrocités de l'impérialisme. Je n'avais pas vraiment beaucoup d'illusions sur la nature de la démocratie occidentale ni sur cette rhétorique des droits de l'homme. Mais je dois admettre que, même pour des personnes comme moi, formées à l'histoire mondiale, les événements de Gaza - au cours desquels on a vu les gens abandonner leurs principes pour se ranger du côté des auteurs d'un génocide - ont été un choc immense. À quand situez-vous la corrosion morale dans la société israélienne que vous pointez et que vous n'êtes d'ailleurs pas le seul à évoquer ? Pour la plupart des observateurs, cette corrosion morale commence avec l'endoctrinement de la population israélienne et la construction d'une identité nationale fondée sur la Shoah et l'expérience juive en Europe. Pendant les premières années de l'existence d'Israël, la Shoah ne faisait pas partie de l'image que ce pays se faisait de lui-même. Les premiers dirigeants israéliens méprisaient les survivants de l'Holocauste : ils les voyaient comme des êtres faibles qui déshonoraient le pays parce qu'ils étaient allés à la mort sans résistance. Ce n'est que plus tard, à partir des années 1960, que le récit de la Shoah a été redécouvert et élaboré afin d'imposer une identité nationale cohérente. Ainsi, plusieurs générations d'Israéliens ont été endoctrinées avec ce message très dangereux selon lequel le monde qui les entoure serait rempli de gens cherchant à les tuer et à les éradiquer. Dans votre ouvrage, vous revenez longuement sur les mises en garde lancées en leur temps par d'éminents philosophes tels que Hannah Arendt et Primo Lévi contre cet endoctrinement. Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas été écoutés? C'est parce que le récit de l'Holocauste a d'abord été confisqué par l'État d'Israël, puis perverti pour servir les intérêts d'un État violent et expansionniste. Des penseurs comme Hannah Arendt, qui avaient vu en Europe les pires excès du nationalisme, étaient très conscients du risque de voir ressurgir ces dangers dans un nouvel État-nation tenté par le fascisme, le suprémacisme ethnique et racial. C'est pourquoi elle s'est farouchement opposée à l'idée du sionisme comme doctrine constitutive de l'Etat d'Israël. Primo Levi, lui, qui croyait en l'idée d'un Israël socialiste, fut totalement horrifié en découvrant les preuves des atrocités israéliennes commises contre les Libanais et les Palestiniens. Ces penseurs ne pouvaient concevoir que la Shoah serve de fondement à la légitimité d'Israël. Pour eux, cette légitimité ne pouvait reposer que sur le comportement éthique d'Israël dans l'ici et maintenant. C'est pourquoi je crois qu'il est de notre devoir, d'une certaine manière, de sauver la mémoire de la Shoah des mains de ceux qui l'ont tant instrumentalisée en Israël. Ne me méprenez pas : il n'est nullement question d'oublier la Shoah, mais il est seulement question de la délivrer de l'emprise de l'État d'Israël. Comment voyez-vous le monde après Gaza, qui est le titre de votre essai ? Vous savez, lorsque je songe à l'avenir, ce qui m'inspire véritablement de l'espoir, c'est la façon dont la jeunesse a su incarner à travers le monde une forme rare d'empathie et de compassion envers les victimes de la violence à Gaza. Ils l'ont fait en se levant, en se mobilisant, en donnant voix à leur indignation, et, ce faisant, ils nous ont renvoyé à nos propres manquements — nous, les aînés, ceux qui détenons le pouvoir, dans la politique, les affaires ou les médias. Ils nous ont rappelé, parfois avec sévérité, combien nous nous étions compromis, soit en tolérant ce génocide, soit en gardant le silence face à lui. Ces jeunes manifestants, ces étudiants sont descendus dans la rue, ils ont dénoncé les atrocités, nous poussant à écouter davantage la voix de notre conscience. J'espère qu'à mesure qu'ils vieilliront, accédant à leur tour à des positions d'influence et de responsabilité, ils se souviendront des positions profondément morales qu'ils ont su adopter dans ces temps sombres que nous venons de vivre. Et j'espère qu'ils trouveront le moyen de perpétuer ces valeurs de compassion et de solidarité qu'ils ont su si magnifiquement incarner au cours de ces 15 derniers mois marqués par la brutalité et la souffrance. Oui, on peut dire qu'il y a de l'espoir. Le Monde après Gaza, par Pankaj Mishra. Essai traduit de l'anglais par David Fauquemberg. Editions Zulma, 304 pages, 22,50€

Andrés Salado nos acerca en La Alboreá a Itzhak Perlman, uno de los grandes violinistas de los siglos XX y XXI. Después, escuchamos a dos titanes de la clásica que tantas veces han tocado juntos: Mischa Maisky y Martha Argerich. Cerramos con Daniel Barenboim, pianista y director de prestigio internacional, fundador junto a Edward Said de la West-Eastern Divan Orchestra y figura clave en el impulso del diálogo a través de la música.Escuchar audio

What does it mean to be an artist for the people? In this episode of Rising for Our Motherlands, we talk with muralists and cultural workers Cece Carpio and Chris “C” Gazaleh about making art in movement spaces — from the Philippines and Palestine to the murals that filled downtown Oakland after the George Floyd uprisings.Cece Carpio uses acrylic, ink, aerosol, and installations to tell stories of immigration, ancestry, resistance, and resilience. Her bold portraits blend folkloric forms with urban art techniques, honoring everyday people and their thriving presence. Cece has created and exhibited work across the world and currently serves as Galleries Manager for the San Francisco Arts Commission and Public Art Advisor for the City of Oakland.More: CeceCarpio.com | @CeceCarpioChris “C” Gazaleh is a San Francisco–born visual artist, musician, writer, organizer, and educator whose work uplifts Palestinian history, culture, and the struggle for freedom. Rooted in hip hop and graffiti, he developed his style early on and deepened his connection to his heritage while learning Arabic in Detroit. After returning home, he joined General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) at San Francisco State University, helped create the Edward Said mural, and began painting murals throughout the community, working with youth to spread knowledge, love, and cultural pride.More: CGazaleh.com | @CGazalehTogether, we explore how art becomes a language for our families, nurtures collaboration, and uplifts community voices — and what it means to create under capitalist and imperialist systems.Special thanks to Women's Audio Mission and DJ Ari for hosting the recording of this episode.Featuring Music by Excentrik & Chris Gazaleh, Ruby Ibarra, Abe Batshon, Kimmortal, Public Enemy, Anderson Paak, & GingeeA huge thank you to Salma Taleb, Hesham Jarmakani, Francesca Juico, Chris Wanis, and Carmelo Ibanez for our beautiful theme music and to our co-conspirator & We Rise producer Cat Petru for weaving our voices and songs together.Podcast art created by nicole gervacio.

Tuesday is the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen's birth, so today I spoke to John Mullan, professor of English Literature at UCL, author of What Matters in Jane Austen. John and I talked about how Austen's fiction would have developed if she had not died young, the innovations of Persuasion, wealth inequality in Austen, slavery and theatricals in Mansfield Park, as well as Iris Murdoch, A.S. Byatt, Patricia Beer, the Dunciad, and the Booker Prize. This was an excellent episode. My thanks to John!TranscriptHenry Oliver (00:00)Today, I am talking to John Mullen. John is a professor of English literature at University College London, and he is the author of many splendid books, including How Novels Work and the Artful Dickens. I recommend the Artful Dickens to you all. But today we are talking about Jane Austen because it's going to be her birthday in a couple of days. And John wrote What Matters in Jane Austen, which is another book I recommend to you all. John, welcome.John Mullan (00:51)It's great to be here.Henry Oliver (00:53)What do you think would have happened to Austin's fiction if she had not died young?John Mullan (00:58)Ha ha! I've been waiting all this year to be asked that question from somebody truly perspicacious. ⁓ Because it's a question I often answer even though I'm not asked it, because it's a very interesting one, I think. And also, I think it's a bit, it's answerable a little bit because there was a certain trajectory to her career. I think it's very difficult to imagine what she would have written.John Mullan (01:28)But I think there are two things which are almost certain. The first is that she would have gone on writing and that she would have written a deal more novels. And then even the possibility that there has been in the past of her being overlooked or neglected would have been closed. ⁓ And secondly, and perhaps more significantly for her, I think she would have become well known.in her own lifetime. you know, partly that's because she was already being outed, as it were, you know, of course, as ⁓ you'll know, Henry, you know, she published all the novels that were published in her lifetime were published anonymously. So even people who were who were following her career and who bought a novel like Mansfield Park, which said on the title page by the author of Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, they knew they knew.John Mullan (02:26)were getting something by the same author, they wouldn't necessarily have known the author's name and I think that would have become, as it did with other authors who began anonymously, that would have disappeared and she would have become something of a literary celebrity I would suggest and then she would have met other authors and she'd have been invited to some London literary parties in effect and I think that would have been very interesting how that might have changed her writing.John Mullan (02:54)if it would have changed her writing as well as her life. She, like everybody else, would have met Coleridge. ⁓ I think that would have happened. She would have become a name in her own lifetime and that would have meant that her partial disappearance, I think, from sort of public consciousness in the 19th century wouldn't have happened.Henry Oliver (03:17)It's interesting to think, you know, if she had been, depending on how old she would have been, could she have read the Pickwick papers? How would she have reacted to that? Yes. Yeah. Nope.John Mullan (03:24)Ha ha ha ha ha!Yes, she would have been in her 60s, but that's not so old, speaking of somebody in their 60s. ⁓ Yes, it's a very interesting notion, isn't it? I mean, there would have been other things which happened after her premature demise, which she might have responded to. I think particularly there was a terrific fashion for before Dickens came along in the 1830s, there was a terrific fashion in the 1820s for what were called silver fork novels, which were novels of sort of high life of kind of the kind of people who knew Byron, but I mean as fictional characters. And we don't read them anymore, but they were they were quite sort of high quality, glossy products and people loved them. And I'm I like to think she might have reacted to that with her sort of with her disdain, think, her witty disdain for all aristocrats. know, nobody with a title is really any good in her novels, are they? And, you know, the nearest you get is Mr. Darcy, who is an Earl's nephew. And that's more of a problem for him than almost anything else. ⁓ She would surely have responded satirically to that fashion.Henry Oliver (04:28)Hahaha.Yes, and then we might have had a Hazlitt essay about her as well, which would have been all these lost gems. Yes. Are there ways in which persuasion was innovative that Emma was not?John Mullan (04:58)Yes, yes, yes, yes. I know, I know.⁓ gosh, all right, you're homing in on the real tricky ones. Okay, okay. ⁓ That Emma was not. Yes, I think so. I think it took, in its method, it took further what she had done in Emma.Henry Oliver (05:14)Ha ha.This is your exam today,John Mullan (05:36)which is that method of kind of we inhabit the consciousness of a character. And I I think of Jane Austen as a writer who is always reacting to her own last novel, as it were. And I think, you know, probably the Beatles were like that or Mozart was like that. think, you know, great artists often are like that, that at a certain stage, if what they're doing is so different from what everybody else has done before,they stop being influenced by anybody else. They just influence themselves. And so I think after Emma, Jane Austen had this extraordinary ⁓ method she perfected in that novel, this free indirect style of a third-person narration, which is filtered through the consciousness of a character who in Emma's case is self-deludedly wrong about almost everything. And it's...brilliantly tricksy and mischievous and elaborate use of that device which tricks even the reader quite often, certainly the first time reader. And then she got to persuasion and I think she is at least doing something new and different with that method which is there's Anne Elliot. Anne Elliot's a good person. Anne Elliot's judgment is very good. She's the most cultured and cultivated of Jane Austen's heroines. She is, as Jane Austen herself said about Anne Elliot, almost too good for me. And so what she does is she gives her a whole new vein of self-deception, which is the self-deception in the way of a good person who always wants to think things are worse than they are and who always, who, because suspicious of their own desires and motives sort of tamps them down and suppresses them. And we live in this extraordinary mind of this character who's often ignored, she's always overhearing conversations. Almost every dialogue in the novel seems to be something Anne overhears rather than takes part in. And the consciousness of a character whodoesn't want to acknowledge things in themselves which you and I might think were quite natural and reasonable and indeed in our psychotherapeutic age to be expressed from the rooftops. You still fancy this guy? Fine! Admit it to yourself. ⁓ No. So it's not repression actually, exactly. It's a sort of virtuous self-control somehow which I think lots of readers find rather masochistic about her. Henry Oliver (08:38)I find that book interesting because in Sense and Sensibility she's sort of opposed self-command with self-expression, but she doesn't do that in Persuasion. She says, no, no, I'm just going to be the courage of, no, self-command. know, Eleanor becomes the heroine.John Mullan (08:48)Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But with the odd with the odd burst of Mariannes, I was watching the I thought execrable Netflix ⁓ persuasion done about two or three years ago ⁓ with the luminous Dakota Johnson as as you know, as Anne Elliot. You could not believe her bloom had faded one little bit, I think.John Mullan (09:23)And ⁓ I don't know if you saw it, but the modus operandi rather following the lead set by that film, The Favourite, which was set in Queen Anne's reign, but adopted the Demotic English of the 21st century. similarly, this adaptation, much influenced by Fleabag, decided to deal with the challenge of Jane Austen's dialogue by simply not using it, you know, and having her speak in a completely contemporary idiom. But there were just one or two lines, very, very few from the novel, that appeared. And when they appeared, they sort of cried through the screen at you. And one of them, slightly to qualify what you've just said, was a line I'd hardly noticed before. as it was one of the few Austin lines in the programme, in the film, I really noticed it. And it was much more Marianne than Eleanor. And that's when, I don't know if you remember, and Captain Wentworth, they're in Bath. So now they are sort of used to talking to each other. And Louisa Musgrove's done her recovering from injury and gone off and got engaged to Captain Benwick, Captain Benwick. So Wentworth's a free man. And Anne is aware, becoming aware that he may be still interested in her. And there's a card party, an evening party arranged by Sir Walter Elliot. And Captain Wentworth is given an invitation, even though they used to disapprove of him because he's now a naval hero and a rich man. And Captain Wentworth and Anna making slightly awkward conversation. And Captain Wentworth says, you did not used to like cards.I mean, he realizes what he said, because what he said is, remember you eight years ago. I remember we didn't have to do cards. We did snogging and music. That's what we did. But anyway, he did not used to like cards. And he suddenly realizes what a giveaway that is. And he says something like, but then time brings many changes. And she says, she cries out, I am not so much changed.Henry Oliver (11:23)Mm. Mm, yes, yes. Yep.Yes.Cries out, yeah.John Mullan (11:50)It's absolutely electric line and that's not Eleanor is it? That's not an Eleanor-ish line. ⁓ Eleanor would say indeed time evinces such dispositions in most extraordinary ways. She would say some Johnsonian thing wouldn't she? so I don't think it's quite a return to the same territory or the same kind of psychology.Henry Oliver (12:05)That's right. Yes, yes, yeah.No, that's interesting, yeah. One of the things that happens in Persuasion is that you get this impressionistic writing. So a bit like Mrs. Elliot talking while she picks strawberries. When Lady Russell comes into Bath, you get that wonderful scene of the noises and the sounds. Is this a sort of step forward in a way? And you can think of Austen as not an evolutionary missing link as such, but she's sort of halfway between Humphrey Clinker and Mr. Jangle.Is that something that she would have sort of developed?John Mullan (12:49)I think that's quite possible. haven't really thought about it before, but you're right. think there are these, ⁓ there are especially, they're impressionistic ⁓ passages which are tied up with Anne's emotions. And there's an absolutely, I think, short, simple, but extraordinarily original one when she meets him again after eight years. And it says something like, the room was full, full of people. Mary said something and you're in the blur of it. He said all that was right, you know, and she can't hear the words, she can't hear the words and you can't hear the words and you're inside and she's even, you're even sort of looking at the floor because she's looking at the floor and in Anne's sort of consciousness, often slightly fevered despite itself, you do exactly get this sort of, ⁓ for want of a better word, blur of impressions, which is entirely unlike, isn't it, Emma's sort of ⁓ drama of inner thought, which is always assertive, argumentative, perhaps self-correcting sometimes, but nothing if not confidently articulate.John Mullan (14:17)And with Anne, it's a blur of stuff. there is a sort of perhaps a kind of inklings of a stream of consciousness method there.Henry Oliver (14:27)I think so, yeah. Why is it that Flaubert and other writers get all the credit for what Jane Austen invented?John Mullan (14:35)Join my campaign, Henry. It is so vexing. It is vexing. sometimes thought, I sometimes have thought, but perhaps this is a little xenophobic of me, that the reason that Jane Austen is too little appreciated and read in France is because then they would have to admit that Flaubertdidn't do it first, you know. ⁓Henry Oliver (14:40)It's vexing, isn't it?John Mullan (15:04)I mean, I suppose there's an answer from literary history, which is simply for various reasons, ⁓ some of them to do with what became fashionable in literary fiction, as we would now call it. Jane Austen was not very widely read or known in the 19th century. So it wasn't as if, as it were, Tolstoy was reading Jane Austen and saying, this is not up to much. He wasn't. He was reading Elizabeth Gaskell.Jane Eyre ⁓ and tons of Dickens, tons, every single word Dickens published, of course. ⁓ So Jane Austen, know, to cite an example I've just referred to, I Charlotte Bronte knew nothing of Jane Austen until George Henry Lewis, George Eliot's partner, who is carrying the torch for Jane Austen, said, you really should read some. And that's why we have her famous letter saying, it's, you know, it's commonplace and foolish things she said. But so I think the first thing to establish is she was really not very widely read. So it wasn't that people were reading it and not getting it. It was which, you know, I think there's a little bit of that with Dickens. He was very widely read and people because of that almost didn't see how innovative he was, how extraordinarily experimental. It was too weird. But they still loved it as comic or melodramatic fiction. But I think Jane Austen simply wasn't very widely read until the late 19th century. So I don't know if Flaubert read her. I would say almost certainly not. Dickens owned a set of Jane Austen, but that was amongst 350 selecting volumes of the select British novelists. Probably he never read Jane Austen. Tolstoy and you know never did, you know I bet Dostoevsky didn't, any number of great writers didn't.Henry Oliver (17:09)I find it hard to believe that Dickens didn't read her.John Mullan (17:12)Well, I don't actually, I'm afraid, because I mean the one occasion that I know of in his surviving correspondence when she's mentioned is after the publication of Little Dorrit when ⁓ his great bosom friend Forster writes to him and says, Flora Finching, that must be Miss Bates. Yes. You must have been thinking of Miss Bates.John Mullan (17:41)And he didn't write it in a sort of, you plagiarist type way, I he was saying you've varied, it's a variation upon that character and Dickens we wrote back and we have his reply absolutely denying this. Unfortunately his denial doesn't make it clear whether he knew who Miss Bates was but hadn't it been influenced or whether he simply didn't know but what he doesn't… It's the one opportunity where he could have said, well, of course I've read Emma, but that's not my sort of thing. ⁓ of course I delight in Miss Bates, but I had no idea of thinking of her when I... He has every opportunity to say something about Jane Austen and he doesn't say anything about her. He just says, no.Henry Oliver (18:29)But doesn't he elsewhere deny having read Jane Eyre? And that's just like, no one believes you, Charles.John Mullan (18:32)Yes.Well, he may deny it, but he also elsewhere admits to it. Yeah.Henry Oliver (18:39)Okay, but you know, just because he doesn't come out with it.John Mullan (18:43)No, no, it's true, but he wouldn't have been singular and not reading Jane Austen. That's what I'm saying. Yes. So it's possible to ignore her innovativeness simply by not having read her. But I do think, I mean, briefly, that there is another thing as well, which is that really until the late 20th century almost, even though she'd become a wide, hugely famous, hugely widely read and staple of sort of A levels and undergraduate courses author, her real, ⁓ her sort of experiments with form were still very rarely acknowledged. And I mean, it was only really, I think in the sort of almost 1980s, really a lot in my working lifetime that people have started saying the kind of thing you were asking about now but hang on free and direct style no forget flow bear forget Henry James I mean they're terrific but actually this woman who never met an accomplished author in her life who had no literary exchanges with fellow writersShe did it at a little table in a house in Hampshire. Just did it.Henry Oliver (20:14)Was she a Tory or an Enlightenment Liberal or something else?John Mullan (20:19)⁓ well I think the likeliest, if I had to pin my colours to a mast, I think she would be a combination of the two things you said. I think she would have been an enlightenment Tory, as it were. So I think there is some evidence that ⁓ perhaps because also I think she was probably quite reasonably devout Anglican. So there is some evidence that… She might have been conservative with a small C, but I think she was also an enlightenment person. I think she and her, especially her father and at least a couple of her brothers, you know, would have sat around reading 18th century texts and having enlightened discussions and clearly they were, you know, and they had, it's perfect, you know, absolutely hard and fast evidence, for instance, that they would have been that they were sympathetic to the abolition of slavery, that they were ⁓ sceptics about the virtues of monarchical power and clear-eyed about its corruption, that they had no, Jane Austen, as I said at the beginning of this exchange, had no great respect or admiration for the aristocratic ruling class at all. ⁓ So there's aspects of her politics which aren't conservative with a big C anyway, but I think enlightened, think, I mean I, you know, I got into all this because I loved her novels, I've almost found out about her family inadvertently because you meet scary J-Night experts at Jane Austen Society of North America conferences and if you don't know about it, they look at scants. But it is all interesting and I think her family were rather terrific actually, her immediate family. I think they were enlightened, bookish, optimistic, optimistic people who didn't sit around moaning about the state of the country or their own, you know, not having been left enough money in exes will. And...I think that they were in the broadest sense enlightened people by the standard of their times and perhaps by any standards.Henry Oliver (22:42)Is Mansfield Park about slavery?John Mullan (22:45)Not at all, no. I don't think so. I don't think so. And I think, you know, the famous little passage, for it is only a passage in which Edmund and Fanny talk about the fact it's not a direct dialogue. They are having a dialogue about the fact that they had, but Fanny had this conversation or attempt at conversation ⁓ a day or two before. And until relatively recently, nobody much commented on that passage. It doesn't mean they didn't read it or understand it, but now I have not had an interview, a conversation, a dialogue involving Mansfield Park in the last, in living memory, which hasn't mentioned it, because it's so apparently responsive to our priorities, our needs and our interests. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I think it's a it's a parenthetic part of the novel. ⁓ And of course, there was this Edward Said article some decades ago, which became very widely known and widely read. And although I think Edward Said, you know, was a was a wonderful writer in many ways. ⁓I think he just completely misunderstands it ⁓ in a way that's rather strange for a literary critic because he says it sort of represents, you know, author's and a whole society's silence about this issue, the source of wealth for these people in provincial England being the enslavement of people the other side of the Atlantic. But of course, Jane Auster didn't have to put that bit in her novel, if she'd wanted really to remain silent, she wouldn't have put it in, would she? And the conversation is one where Edmund says, know, ⁓ you know, my father would have liked you to continue when you were asking about, yeah, and she says, but there was such terrible silence. And she's referring to the other Bertram siblings who indeed are, of course, heedless, selfish ⁓ young people who certainly will not want to know that their affluence is underwritten by, you know, the employment of slaves on a sugar plantation. But the implication, I think, of that passage is very clearly that Fanny would have, the reader of the time would have been expected to infer that Fanny shares the sympathies that Jane Austen, with her admiration, her love, she says, of Thomas Clarkson. The countries leading abolitionists would have had and that Edmund would also share them. And I think Edmund is saying something rather surprising, which I've always sort of wondered about, which is he's saying, my father would have liked to talk about it more. And what does that mean? Does that mean, my father's actually, he's one of these enlightened ones who's kind of, you know, freeing the slaves or does it mean, my father actually knows how to defend his corner? He would have beenYou know, he doesn't he doesn't feel threatened or worried about discussing it. It's not at all clear where Sir Thomas is in this, but I think it's pretty clear where Edmund and Fanny are.Henry Oliver (26:08)How seriously do you take the idea that we are supposed to disapprove of the family theatricals and that young ladies putting on plays at home is immoral?John Mullan (26:31)Well, I would, mean, perhaps I could quote what two students who were discussing exactly this issue said quite some time ago in a class where a seminar was running on Mansfield Park. And one of the students can't remember their names, I'm afraid. I can't remember their identities, so I'm safe to quote them. ⁓ They're now probably running PR companies or commercial solicitors. And one of them I would say a less perceptive student said, why the big deal about the amateur dramatics? I mean, what's Jane Austen's problem? And there was a pause and another student in the room who I would suggest was a bit more of an alpha student said, really, I'm surprised you asked that. I don't think I've ever read a novel in which I've seen characters behaving so badly as this.And I think that's the answer. The answer isn't that the amateur dramatics themselves are sort of wrong, because of course Jane Austen and her family did them. They indulged in them. ⁓ It's that it gives the opportunity, the license for appalling, mean truly appalling behaviour. I mean, Henry Crawford, you know, to cut to the chase on this, Henry Crawford is seducing a woman in front of her fiance and he enjoys it not just because he enjoys seducing women, that's what he does, but because it's in front of him and he gets an extra kick out of it. You know, he has himself after all already said earlier in the novel, oh, I much prefer an engaged woman, he has said to his sister and Mrs. Grant. Yes, of course he does. So he's doing that. Mariah and Julia are fighting over him. Mr. Rushworth, he's not behaving badly, he's just behaving like a silly arse. Mary Crawford, my goodness, what is she up to? She's up to using the amateur dramatics for her own kind of seductions whilst pretending to be sort of doing it almost unwillingly. I mean, it seems to me an elaborate, beautifully choreographed elaboration of the selfishness, sensuality and hypocrisy of almost everybody involved. And it's not because it's amateur dramatics, but amateur dramatics gives them the chance to behave so badly.Henry Oliver (29:26)Someone told me that Thomas Piketty says that Jane Austen depicts a society in which inequality of wealth is natural and morally justified. Is that true?John Mullan (29:29)Ha⁓Well, again, Thomas Piketty, I wish we had him here for a good old mud wrestle. ⁓ I would say that the problem with his analysis is the coupling of the two adjectives, natural and morally right. I think there is a strong argument that inequality is depicted as natural or at least inevitable, inescapable in Jane Austen's novels.but not morally right, as it were. In fact, not at all morally right. There is a certain, I think you could be exaggerated little and call it almost fatalism about that such inequalities. Do you remember Mr. Knightley says to Emma, in Emma, when he's admonishing her for her, you know, again, a different way, terribly bad behavior.Henry Oliver (30:38)At the picnic.John Mullan (30:39)At the picnic when she's humiliatedMiss Bates really and Mr Knightley says something like if she'd been your equal you know then it wouldn't have been so bad because she could have retaliated she could have come back but she's not and she says and he says something like I won't get the words exactly right but I can get quite close he says sinceher youth, she has sunk. And if she lives much longer, will sink further. And he doesn't say, ⁓ well, we must have a collection to do something about it, or we must have a revolution to do something about it, or if only the government would bring in better pensions, you know, he doesn't, he doesn't sort of rail against it as we feel obliged to. ⁓ He just accepts it as an inevitable part of what happens because of the bad luck of her birth, of the career that her father followed, of the fact that he died too early probably, of the fact that she herself never married and so on. That's the way it is. And Mr Knightley is, I think, a remarkably kind character, he's one of the kindest people in Jane Austen and he's always doing surreptitious kindnesses to people and you know he gives the Bates's stuff, things to eat and so on. He arranges for his carriage to carry them places but he accepts that that is the order of things. ⁓ But I, you know Henry, I don't know what you think, I think reading novels or literature perhaps more generally, but especially novels from the past, is when you're responding to your question to Mr. Piketty's quote, is quite a sort of, can be quite an interesting corrective to our own vanities, I think, because we, I mean, I'm not saying, you know, the poor are always with us, as it were, like Jesus, but... ⁓ You know, we are so ⁓ used to speaking and arguing as if any degree of poverty is in principle politically remediable, you know, and should be. And characters in Jane Austen don't think that way. And I don't think Jane Austen thought that way.Henry Oliver (33:16)Yes, yes. Yeah.The other thing I would say is that ⁓ the people who discuss Jane Austen publicly and write about her are usually middle class or on middle class incomes. And there's a kind of collective blindness to the fact that what we call Miss Bates poverty simply means that she's slipping out of the upper middle class and she will no longer have her maid.⁓ It doesn't actually mean, she'll still be living on a lot more than a factory worker, who at that time would have been living on a lot more than an agricultural worker, and who would have been living on a lot more than someone in what we would think of as destitution, or someone who was necessitous or whatever. So there's a certain extent to which I actually think what Austin is very good at showing is the... ⁓ the dynamics of a newly commercial society. So at the same time that Miss Bates is sinking, ⁓ I forget his name, but the farmer, the nice farmer, Robert Martin, he's rising. And they all, all classes meet at the drapier and class distinctions are slightly blurred by the presence of nice fabric.John Mullan (34:24)Mr. Robert Martin. Henry Oliver (34:37)And if your income comes from turnips, that's fine. You can have the same material that Emma has. And Jane Austen knows that she lives in this world of buttons and bonnets and muslins and all these new ⁓ imports and innovations. And, you know, I think Persuasion is a very good novel. ⁓ to say to Piketty, well, there's nothing natural about wealth inequality and persuasion. And it's not Miss Bates who's sinking, it's the baronet. And all these admirals are coming up and he has that very funny line, doesn't he? You're at terrible risk in the Navy that you'd be cut by a man who your father would have cut his father. And so I think actually she's not a Piketty person, but she's very clear-eyed about... quote unquote, what capitalism is doing to wealth inequality. Yeah, yeah.John Mullan (35:26)Yes, she is indeed. Indeed.Clear-eyed, I think, is just the adjective. I mean, I suppose the nearest she gets to a description. Yeah, she writes about the classes that she knows from the inside, as it were. So one could complain, people have complained. She doesn't represent what it's like to be an agricultural worker, even though agricultural labour is going on all around the communities in which her novels are set.And I mean, I think that that's a sort of rather banal objection, but there's no denying it in a way. If you think a novelist has a duty, as it were, to cover the classes and to cover the occupations, then it's not a duty that Jane Austen at all perceived. However, there is quite, there is something like, not a representation of destitution as you get in Dickens.but a representation of something inching towards poverty in Mansfield Park, which is the famous, as if Jane Austen was showing you she could do this sort of thing, which is the whole Portsmouth episode, which describes with a degree of domestic detail she never uses anywhere else in her fiction. When she's with the more affluent people, the living conditions, the food, the sheer disgustingness and tawdryness of life in the lodgings in Portsmouth where the Price family live. And of course, in a way, it's not natural because ⁓ in their particular circumstances, Lieutenant Price is an alcoholic.They've got far too many children. ⁓ He's a useless, sweary-mouthed boozer ⁓ and also had the misfortune to be wounded. ⁓ And she, his wife, Fanny's mother, is a slattern. We get told she's a slattern. And it's not quite clear if that's a word in Fanny's head or if that's Jane Austen's word. And Jane Austen...Fanny even goes so far as to think if Mrs. Norris were in charge here, and Mrs. Norris is as it were, she's the biggest sadist in all Jane Austen's fiction. She's like sort Gestapo guard monquet. If Mrs. Norris were in charge, it wouldn't be so bad here, but it's terrible. And Jane Austen even, know, she describes the color of the milk, doesn't she? The blue moats floating in the milk.She dis- and it's all through Fanny's perception. And Fanny's lived in this rather loveless grand place. And now it's a great sort of, ⁓ it's a coup d'etat. She now makes Fanny yearn for the loveless grand place, you know, because of what you were saying really, Henry, because as I would say, she's such an unsentimental writer, you know, andyou sort of think, you know, there's going to be no temptation for her to say, to show Fanny back in the loving bosom of her family, realising what hollow hearted people those Bertrams are. You know, she even describes the mark, doesn't she, that Mr Price's head, his greasy hair is left on the wall. It's terrific. And it's not destitution, but it's something like a life which must be led by a great sort of rank of British people at the time and Jane Austen can give you that, she can.Henry Oliver (39:26)Yeah, yeah. That's another very Dickensian moment. I'm not going to push this little thesis of mine too far, but the grease on the chair. It's like Mr. Jaggers in his horse hair. Yes. That's right, that's right. ⁓ Virginia Woolf said that Jane Austen is the most difficult novelist to catch in the act of greatness. Is that true?John Mullan (39:34)Yes, yes, yes, it is these details that Dickens would have noticed of course. Yes.Yes.⁓ I think it is so true. think that Virginia Woolf, she was such a true, well, I think she was a wonderful critic, actually, generally. Yeah, I think she was a wonderful critic. you know, when I've had a couple of glasses of Rioja, I've been known to say, to shocked students, ⁓ because you don't drink Rioja with students very often nowadays, but it can happen. ⁓ But she was a greater critic than novelist, you know.Henry Oliver (39:54)Yeah.Best critic of the 20th century. Yes, yes. Yeah. And also greater than Emson and all these people who get the airtime. Yes, yes.John Mullan (40:20)You know.I know, I know, but that's perhaps because she didn't have a theory or an argument, you know, and the Seven Types, I know that's to her credit, but you know, the Seven Types of Ambiguity thing is a very strong sort of argument, even if...Henry Oliver (40:31)Much to her credit.But look, if the last library was on fire and I could only save one of them, I'd let all the other critics in the 20th century burn and I'd take the common reader, wouldn't you?John Mullan (40:47)Okay. Yes, I, well, I think I agree. think she's a wonderful critic and both stringent and open. I mean, it's an extraordinary way, you know, doesn't let anybody get away with anything, but on the other hand is genuinely ready to, to find something new to, to anyway. ⁓ the thing she said about Austin, she said lots of good things about Austin and most of them are good because they're true. And the thing about… Yes, so what I would, I think what she meant was something like this, that amongst the very greatest writers, so I don't know, Shakespeare or Milton or, you know, something like that, you could take almost a line, yes? You can take a line and it's already glowing with sort of radioactive brilliance, know, and ⁓ Jane Austen, the line itself, there are wonderful sentences.)Mr. Bennett was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humor, reserve and caprice that the experience of three and 20 years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. I mean, that's as good as anything in Hamlet, isn't it? So odd a mixture and there he is, the oddest mixture there's ever been. And you think he must exist, he must exist. But anyway, most lines in Jane Austen probably aren't like that and it's as if in order to ⁓ explain how brilliant she is and this is something you can do when you teach Jane Austen, makes her terrific to teach I think, you can look at any bit and if everybody's read the novel and remembers it you can look at any paragraph or almost any line of dialogue and see how wonderful it is because it will connect to so many other things. But out of context, if you see what I mean, it doesn't always have that glow of significance. And sometimes, you know, the sort of almost most innocuous phrases and lines actually have extraordinary dramatic complexity. but you've got to know what's gone on before, probably what goes on after, who's in the room listening, and so on. And so you can't just catch it, you have to explain it. ⁓ You can't just, as it were, it, as you might quote, you know, a sort of a great line of Wordsworth or something.Henry Oliver (43:49)Even the quotable bits, you know, the bit that gets used to explain free and direct style in Pride and Prejudice where she says ⁓ living in sight of their own warehouses. Even a line like that is just so much better when you've been reading the book and you know who is being ventriloquized.John Mullan (43:59)Well, my favourite one is from Pride and Prejudice is after she's read the letter Mr Darcy gives her explaining what Wickham is really like, really, for truth of their relationship and their history. And she interrogates herself. And then at the end, there's ⁓ a passage which is in a passage of narration, but which is certainly in going through Elizabeth's thoughts. And it ends, she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd. And I just think it's, if you've got to know Elizabeth, you just know that that payoff adjective, absurd, that's the coup de grace. Because of course, finding other people absurd is her occupation. It's what makes her so delightful. And it's what makes us complicit with her.Henry Oliver (44:48)Yeah.That's right.John Mullan (45:05)She sees how ridiculous Sir William Lucas and her sister Mary, all these people, and now she has absurded herself, as it were. So blind partial prejudice, these are all repetitions of the same thought. But only Elizabeth would end the list absurd. I think it's just terrific. But you have to have read the book just to get that. That's a whole sentence.You have to have read the book to get the sentence, don't you?Henry Oliver (45:34)Yep, indeed. ⁓ Do we love Jane Austen too much so that her contemporaries are overshadowed and they're actually these other great writers knocking around at the same time and we don't give them their due? Or is she in fact, you know, the Shakespeare to their Christopher Marlowe or however you want to.John Mullan (45:55)I think she's the Shakespeare to their Thomas Kidd or no even that's the... Yes, okay, I'm afraid that you know there are two contradictory answers to that. Yes, it does lead us to be unfair to her contemporaries certainly because they're so much less good than her. So because they're so much less good than her in a way we're not being unfair. know, I mean... because I have the profession I have, I have read a lot of novels by her immediate predecessors. I mean, people like Fanny Burnie, for instance, and her contemporaries, people like Mariah Edgeworth. And ⁓ if Jane Austen hadn't existed, they would get more airtime, I think, yes? And some of them are both Burnie and Edgeworth, for instance. ⁓ highly intelligent women who had a much more sophisticated sort of intellectual and social life than Jane Austen ⁓ and conversed with men and women of ideas and put some of those ideas in their fiction and they both wrote quite sophisticated novels and they were both more popular than Jane Austen and they both, having them for the sort of carpers and complainers, they've got all sorts of things like Mariah Regworth has some working-class people and they have political stuff in their novels and they have feminist or anti-feminist stuff in their novels and they're much more satisfying to the person who's got an essay to write in a way because they've got the social issues of the day in there a bit, certainly Mariah Regworth a lot. ⁓ So if Jane Austen hadn't come along we would show them I think more, give them more time. However, you know, I don't want to say this in a destructive way, but in a certain way, all that they wrote isn't worth one paragraph of Jane Austen, you know, in a way. So we're not wrong. I suppose the interesting case is the case of a man actually, which is Walter Scott, who sort of does overlap with Jane Austen a bit, you know, and who has published what I can't remember, two, three, even four novels by the time she dies, and I think three, and she's aware of him as a poet and I think beginning to be aware of him as a novelist. And he's the prime example of somebody who was in his own day, but for a long time afterwards, regarded as a great novelist of his day. And he's just gone. He's really, you know, you can get his books in know, Penguin and Oxford classics in the shops. I mean, it's at least in good big book shops. And it's not that he's not available, but it's a very rare person who's read more than one or even read one. I don't know if you read lots of Scott, Henry.Henry Oliver (49:07)Well, I've read some Scott and I quite like it, but I was a reactionary in my youth and I have a little flame for the Jacobite cause deep in my heart. This cannot be said of almost anyone who is alive today. 1745 means nothing to most people. The problem is that he was writing about something that has just been sort of forgotten. And so the novels, know, when Waverly takes the knee in front of the old young old pretender, whichever it is, who cares anymore? you know?John Mullan (49:40)Well, yes, but it can't just be that because he also wrote novels about Elizabeth I and Robin Hood and, you know... ⁓Henry Oliver (49:46)I do think Ivanhoe could be more popular, yeah.John Mullan (49:49)Yeah, so it's not just that this and when he wrote, for instance, when he published Old Mortality, which I think is one of his finest novels, I mean, I've read probably 10 Scott novels at nine or 10, you know, so that's only half or something of his of his output. And I haven't read one for a long time, actually. Sorry, probably seven or eight years. He wrote about some things, which even when he wrote about and published about, readers of the time couldn't have much known or cared about. mean, old mortalities about the Covenant as wars in the borderlands of Scotland in the 17th century. I mean, all those people in London who were buying it, they couldn't give a damn about that. Really, really, they couldn't. I mean, they might have recognized the postures of religious fanaticism that he describes rather well.But even then only rather distantly, I think. So I think it's not quite that. I think it's not so much ignorance now of the particular bits of history he was drawn to. I think it's that in the 19th century, historical fiction had a huge status. And it was widely believed that history was the most dignified topic for fiction and so dignified, it's what made fiction serious. So all 19th century authors had a go at it. Dickens had a go at it a couple of times, didn't he? I think it's no, yes, yes, think even Barnaby Rudge is actually, it's not just a tale of two cities. Yes, a terrific book. But generally speaking, ⁓ most Victorian novelists who did it, ⁓ they are amongst, you know, nobodyHenry Oliver (51:22)Very successfully. ⁓ a great book, great book.John Mullan (51:43)I think reads Trollope's La Vendée, you know, people who love Hardy as I do, do not rush to the trumpet major. it was a genre everybody thought was the big thing, know, war and peace after all. And then it's prestige faded. I mean, it's...returned a little bit in some ways in a sort of Hillary man, Tellish sort of way, but it had a hugely inflated status, I think, in the 19th century and that helped Scott. And Scott did, know, Scott is good at history, he's good at battles, he's terrific at landscapes, you know, the big bow wow strain as he himself described it.Henry Oliver (52:32)Are you up for a sort of quick fire round about other things than Jane Austen?John Mullan (52:43)Yes, sure, try me.Henry Oliver (52:44)Have you used any LLMs and are they good at talking about literature?John Mullan (52:49)I don't even know what an LLM is. What is it? Henry Oliver (52:51)Chat GPT. ⁓ John Mullan (53:17)⁓ God, goodness gracious, it's the work of Satan.Absolutely, I've never used one in my life. And indeed, have colleagues who've used them just to sort of see what it's like so that might help us recognise it if students are using them. And I can't even bring myself to do that, I'm afraid. But we do as a...As a department in my university, we have made some use of them purely in order to give us an idea of what they're like, so to help us sort of...Henry Oliver (53:28)You personally don't feel professionally obliged to see what it can tell you. Okay, no, that's fine. John Mullan (53:32)No, sorry.Henry Oliver (53:33)What was it like being a Booker Prize judge?heady. It was actually rather heady. Everybody talks about how it's such a slog, all those books, which is true. But when you're the Booker Prize judge, at least when I did it, you were treated as if you were somebody who was rather important. And then as you know, and that lasts for about six months. And you're sort of sent around in taxes and give nice meals and that sort of thing. And sort of have to give press conferences when you choose the shortlist. and I'm afraid my vanity was tickled by all that. And then at the moment after you've made the decision, you disappear. And the person who wins becomes important. It's a natural thing, it's good. And you realize you're not important at all.Henry Oliver (54:24)You've been teaching in universities, I think, since the 1990s.John Mullan (54:29)Yes, no earlier I fear, even earlier.Henry Oliver (54:32)What are the big changes? Is the sort of media narrative correct or is it more complicated than that?John Mullan (54:38)Well, it is more complicated, but sometimes things are true even though the Daily Telegraph says they're true, to quote George Orwell. ⁓ you know, I mean, I think in Britain, are you asking about Britain or are you asking more generally? Because I have a much more depressing view of what's happened in America in humanities departments.Henry Oliver (54:45)Well, tell us about Britain, because I think one problem is that the American story becomes the British story in a way. So what's the British story?John Mullan (55:07)Yes, yes, think that's true.Well, I think the British story is that we were in danger of falling in with the American story. The main thing that has happened, that has had a clear effect, was the introduction in a serious way, however long ago it was, 13 years or something, of tuition fees. And that's really, in my department, in my subject, that's had a major change.and it wasn't clear at first, but it's become very clear now. So ⁓ it means that the, as it were, the stance of the teachers to the taught and the taught to the teachers, both of those have changed considerably. Not just in bad ways, that's the thing. It is complicated. So for instance, I mean, you could concentrate on the good side of things, which is, think, I don't know, were you a student of English literature once?Henry Oliver (55:49)Mm-hmm.I was, I was. 2005, long time ago.John Mullan (56:07)Yes. OK.Well, I think that's not that long ago. mean, probably the change is less extreme since your day than it is since my day. But compared to when I was a student, which was the end of the 70s, beginning of the 80s, I was an undergraduate. The degree of sort of professionalism and sobriety, responsibility and diligence amongst English literature academics has improved so much.You know, you generally speaking, literature academics, they are not a load of ⁓ drunken wastrels or sort of predatory seducers or lazy, work shy, ⁓ even if they love their own research, negligent teachers or a lot of the sort of the things which even at the time I recognise as the sort of bad behaviour aspects of some academics. Most of that's just gone. It's just gone. You cannot be like that because you've got everybody's your institution is totally geared up to sort of consumer feedback and and the students, especially if you're not in Oxford or Cambridge, the students are essentially paying your salaries in a very direct way. So there have been improvements actually. ⁓ those improvements were sort of by the advocates of tuition fees, I think, and they weren't completely wrong. However, there have also been some real downsides as well. ⁓ One is simply that the students complain all the time, you know, and in our day we had lots to complain about and we never complained. Now they have much less to complain about and they complain all the time. ⁓ So, and that seems to me to have sort of weakened the relationship of trust that there should be between academics and students. But also I would say more if not optimistically, at least stoically. I've been in this game for a long time and the waves of student fashion and indignation break on the shore and then another one comes along a few years later. And as a sort of manager in my department, because I'm head of my department, I've learned to sort of play the long game.And what everybody's hysterical about one moment, one year, they will have forgotten about two or three years later. So there has been a certain, you know, there was a, you know, what, what, you know, some conservative journalists would call kind of wokery. There has been some of that. But in a way, there's always been waves of that. And the job of academics is sort of to stand up to it. and in a of calm way. Tuition fees have made it more difficult to do that I think.Henry Oliver (59:40)Yeah. Did you know A.S. Byatt? What was she like?John Mullan (59:43)I did.⁓ Well...When you got to know her, you recognized that the rather sort of haughty almost and sometimes condescending apparently, ⁓ intellectual auteur was of course a bit of a front. Well, it wasn't a front, but actually she was quite a vulnerable person, quite a sensitive and easily upset person.I mean that as a sort of compliment, not easily upset in the sense that sort of her vanity, but actually she was quite a humanly sensitive person and quite woundable. And when I sort of got to know that aspect of her, know, unsurprisingly, I found myself liking her very much more and actually not worrying so much about the apparent sort of put downs of some other writers and things and also, you know, one could never have said this while she was alive even though she often talked about it. I think she was absolutely permanently scarred by the death of her son and I think that was a, you know, who was run over when he was what 11 years old or something. He may have been 10, he may have been 12, I've forgotten, but that sort of age. I just think she was I just think she was permanently lacerated by that. And whenever I met her, she always mentioned it somehow, if we were together for any length of time.Henry Oliver (1:01:27)What's your favourite Iris Murdoch novel?John Mullan (1:01:33)I was hoping you were going to say which is the most absurd Aris Murdoch novel. ⁓ No, you're an Aris Murdoch fan, are you? Henry Oliver (1:01:38)Very much so. You don't like her work?John Mullan (1:01:59)Okay. ⁓ no, it's, as you would say, Henry, more complicated than that. I sort of like it and find it absurd. It's true. I've only read, re-read in both cases, two in the last 10 years. And that'sThat's not to my credit. And both times I thought, this is so silly. I reread the C to C and I reread a severed head. And I just found them both so silly. ⁓ I was almost, you know, I almost lost my patience with them. But I should try another. What did I used to like? Did I rather like an accidental man? I fear I did.Did I rather like the bell, which is surely ridiculous. I fear I did. Which one should I like the most?Henry Oliver (1:02:38)I like The Sea, the Sea very much. ⁓ I think The Good Apprentice is a great book. There are these, so after The Sea, the Sea, she moves into her quote unquote late phase and people don't like it, but I do like it. So The Good Apprentice and The Philosopher's Pupil I think are good books, very good books.John Mullan (1:02:40)I've not read that one, I'm afraid. Yes, I stopped at the sea to sea. I, you know, once upon a time, I'm a bit wary of it and my experience of rereading A Severed Head rather confirmed me in my wariness because rereading, if I were to reread Myris Murdoch, I'm essentially returning to my 18 year old self because I read lots of Myris Murdoch when I was 17, 18, 19 and I thought she was deep as anything. and to me she was the deep living British novelist. And I think I wasn't alone ⁓ and I feel a little bit chastened by your advocacy of her because I've also gone along with the ⁓ general readership who've slightly decided to ditch Irish Murdoch. her stock market price has sunk hugely ⁓ since her death. But perhaps that's unfair to her, I don't know. I've gone a bit, I'll try again, because I recently have reread two or three early Margaret Drabble novels and found them excellent, really excellent. And thought, ⁓ actually, I wasn't wrong to like these when I was a teenager. ⁓Henry Oliver (1:04:11)The Millstone is a great book.John Mullan (1:04:22)⁓ yes and actually yes I reread that, I reread the Garrick year, the Millstone's terrific I agree, the the Garrick year is also excellent and Jerusalem the Golden, I reread all three of them and and and thought they were very good. So so you're recommending the Philosopher's Apprentice. I'm yeah I'm conflating yes okay.Henry Oliver (1:04:31)first rate. The Good Apprentice and the Philosopher's Pupil. Yeah, yeah. I do agree with you about A Severed Head. I think that book's crazy. What do you like about Patricia Beer's poetry?John Mullan (1:04:56)⁓ I'm not sure I am a great fan of Patricia Beer's poetry really. I got the job of right, what? Yes, yes, because I was asked to and I said, I've read some of her poetry, but you know, why me? And the editor said, because we can't find anybody else to do it. So that's why I did it. And it's true that I came.Henry Oliver (1:05:02)Well, you wrote her... You wrote her dictionary of national... Yes.John Mullan (1:05:23)I came to quite like it and admire some of it because in order to write the article I read everything she'd ever published. But that was a while ago now, Henry, and I'm not sure it puts me in a position to recommend her.Henry Oliver (1:05:35)Fair enough.Why is the Dunciad the greatest unread poem in English?John Mullan (1:05:41)Is it the greatest unread one? Yes, probably, yes, yes, I think it is. Okay, it's great because, first of all, great, then unread. It's great because, well, Alexander Poet is one of the handful of poetic geniuses ever, in my opinion, in the writing in English. Absolutely genius, top shelf. ⁓Henry Oliver (1:05:46)Well, you said that once, yes.Mm-hmm. Yes, yes, yes. Top shelf, yeah.John Mullan (1:06:09)And even his most accessible poetry, however, is relatively inaccessible to today's readers, sort of needs to be taught, or at least you have to introduce people to. Even the Rape of the Lock, which is a pure delight and the nearest thing to an ABBA song he ever wrote, is pretty scary with its just densely packed elusiveness and...Henry Oliver (1:06:27)YouJohn Mullan (1:06:38)You know, and as an A level examiner once said to me, we don't set Pope for A level because it's full of irony and irony is unfair to candidates. ⁓ Which is true enough. ⁓ So Pope's already difficult. ⁓ Poetry of another age, poetry which all depends on ideas of word choice and as I said, literary allusion and The Dunciad is his most compacted, elusive, dense, complicated and bookish poems of a writer who's already dense and compact and bookish and elusive. And the Dunceyad delights in parodying, as I'm sure you know, all the sort of habits of scholarly emendation and encrustation, which turn what should be easy to approach works of literature into sort of, you know, heaps of pedantic commentary. And he parodies all that with delight. But I mean, that's quite a hard ask, isn't it? And ⁓ yeah, and I just and I think everything about the poem means that it's something you can only ever imagine coming to it through an English literature course, actually. I think it is possible to do that. I came to it through being taught it very well and, you know, through because I was committed for three years to study English literature, but it's almost inconceivable that somebody could just sort of pick it up in a bookshop and think, ⁓ this is rather good fun. I'll buy this.Henry Oliver (1:08:26)Can we end with one quick question about Jane Austen since it's her birthday? A lot of people come to her books later. A lot of people love it when they're young, but a lot of people start to love it in their 20s or 30s. And yet these novels are about being young. What's going on there?John Mullan (1:08:29)Sure, sure.Yes.I fear, no not I fear, I think that what you describe is true of many things, not just Jane Austen. You know, that there's a wonderful passage in J.M. Coetzee's novel Disgrace where the reprehensible protagonist is teaching Wordsworth's Prelude.to a group of 19 and 20 year olds. And he adores it. He's in his mid fifties. And he, whilst he's talking, is thinking different things. And what he's thinking is something that I often think actually about certain works I teach, particularly Jane Austen, which is this book is all about being young, but the young find it tedious. Only the aging.You know, youth is wasted on the young, as it were. Only the aging really get its brilliance about the experience of being young. And I think that's a sort of pattern in quite a lot of literature. So, you know, take Northanger Abbey. That seems to me to be a sort of disly teenage book in a way.It's everything and everybody's in a hurry. Everybody's in a whirl. Catherine's in a whirl all the time. She's 17 years old. And it seems to me a delightfully teenage-like book. And if you've read lots of earlier novels, mostly by women, about girls in their, you know, nice girls in their teens trying to find a husband, you know, you realize that sort ofextraordinary magical gift of sort Jane Austen's speed and sprightliness. You know, somebody said to me recently, ⁓ when Elizabeth Bennet sort of walks, but she doesn't walk, she sort of half runs across the fields. You know, not only is it socially speaking, no heroine before her would have done it, but the sort of the sprightliness with which it's described putsthe sort of ploddingness of all fiction before her to shame. And there's something like that in Northanger Abbey. It's about youthfulness and it takes on some of the qualities of the youthfulness of its heroine. know, her wonderful oscillations between folly and real insight. You know, how much she says this thing. I think to marry for money is wicked. Whoa. And you think,Well, Jane Austen doesn't exactly think that. She doesn't think Charlotte Lucas is wicked, surely. But when Catherine says that, there's something wonderful about it. There is something wonderful. You know, only a 17 year old could say it, but she does. And but I appreciate that now in my 60s. I don't think I appreciated it when I was in my teens.Henry Oliver (1:11:55)That's a lovely place to end. John Mullen, thank you very much.John Mullan (1:11:58)Thanks, it's been a delight, a delight. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

The father and mother of our country is Harriet Tubman. The teacher of our country is Edward Said and his neighbor Frida Kahlo and her neighbor James Baldwin. The father and mother of our country is the Earth and they were deported by agents of the monoculture, helplessly misguided men in masks who tear us apart. The father and mother of our country immediately begin healing the children ziptied in the hallways…. the ancestors rush in to guard us against plastic pixel nightmares. We remember that the Earth is our government, our culture, our economy…. Suddenly, we know power. Image is of Savitri D, of News from the Natural World, after howling at fossil bankers

Hoy abordamos un tema que atraviesa la historia, la religión y la política contemporánea: la islamización de Europa.Aunque muchos asocian la presencia del islam en Europa con los flujos migratorios del último siglo, en realidad sus raíces son mucho más antiguas. Desde la expansión árabe en la Península Ibérica en el siglo VIII hasta la presencia otomana en los Balcanes, el islam ha sido parte de la experiencia europea, en convivencia, conflicto y también en fecundos intercambios culturales.Pero el debate actual va más allá de la historia: toca la identidad europea, las tensiones entre religión y laicidad, entre integración y miedo. Como explica Edward Said, la mirada occidental sobre el islam estuvo marcada por el orientalismo: una visión que convirtió al musulmán en “el otro”, en el extranjero permanente.Sin embargo, como recuerdan autores contemporáneos como Mira Milosevich, Tariq Ramadan o Bassam Tibi, hoy el islam ya no es externo a Europa: forma parte de ella, con millones de ciudadanos europeos musulmanes que reclaman su lugar en sociedades democráticas y pluralistas.A lo largo de este programa nos preguntaremos: ¿Qué significa realmente “islamización”? ¿Es un proceso religioso, político o cultural? ¿Es posible que convivan en la Europa actual la diversidad y la identidad histórica?Los invitamos a recorrer este debate con una mirada crítica y abierta, reconociendo tanto las tensiones como las oportunidades de diálogo que plantea el islam europeo contemporáneo.Recibimos a Francisco O ́ Reilly para abordar este asunto. O ́ Reilly es licenciado y profesor en Filosofía por la UNSTA - Universidad del Norte Santo Tomás de Aquino (Argentina), y doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad de Navarra. Es Decano de la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación - Universidad de Montevideo, Profesor Investigador y está ejerciendo una gestión académica de docentes y alumnos de la Licenciatura en Humanidades opción Filosofía y Profesorado en Filosofía. También es Asesor de la Société Internationale pour l'étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (Leuven , Belgique).

Subscribe now to skip the commercials and get all of our content. Derek is joined by Omar Zahzah, Assistant Professor of Arab Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies at San Francisco State University, to talk about his book Terms of Servitude: Zionism, Silicon Valley, and Digital Settler Colonialism. They discuss the Sheikh Jarrah uprising and the digital front of the Palestinian struggle, the difference between “digital apartheid” and “digital settler colonialism,” Meta's censorship, the IDF Unit 8200–Silicon Valley pipeline, how AI and tech infrastructure are being weaponized, the legacy of Edward Said's “Permission to Narrate,” and how Palestinians have used social media to change the narrative.

Derek is joined by Omar Zahzah, Assistant Professor of Arab Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies at San Francisco State University, to talk about his book Terms of Servitude: Zionism, Silicon Valley, and Digital Settler Colonialism. They discuss the Sheikh Jarrah uprising and the digital front of the Palestinian struggle, the difference between “digital apartheid” and “digital settler colonialism,” Meta's censorship, the IDF Unit 8200—Silicon Valley pipeline, how AI and tech infrastructure are being weaponized, the legacy of Edward Said's “Permission to Narrate,” and how Palestinians have used social media to change the narrative.Our Sponsors:* Check out Avocado Green Mattress: https://avocadogreenmattress.com* Check out BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/THENATIONAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

How do you pull off the biggest, most violent smash-and-grab in human history? You can't just say that's what you're doing. You need a story. You need a justification. This episode is a three-part journey into the long, dark, and ridiculously complicated shadow of empires, framed as "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". Part 1: The "Good" We dissect the official PR campaign for global domination. This is the "civilizing mission", the "divine mandate", and the "enlightened" philosophy of men like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. We explore how scientific racism and cultural projects like Orientalism created "The Other" , culminating in the infamous "White Man's Burden". Part 2: The "Bad" This is the reckoning. We watch as the colonized turn the master's own tools—"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"—against him, exposing the empire's glaring hypocrisy. We cover the earth-shattering Haitian Revolution, Gandhi's brilliant moral theater with the Salt March, and the groundbreaking philosophy of liberation. We dive deep into Frantz Fanon's devastating diagnosis of colonialism as a mental illness and Edward Said's unmasking of Orientalism. Part 3: The "Ugly" The story doesn't end when the flags come down. We confront the world we live in now: Neo-Colonialism. We trace how the system mutated, swapping soldiers for bankers. This is the story of the IMF and World Bank, "Structural Adjustment Programs" that crippled new nations, and the creation of a new "comprador" elite. Finally, we explore the new liberation movements, from "decolonizing the mind" to the urgent fights for debt forgiveness and climate justice. This isn't just a history lesson; it's a look at the code that still runs our world. Support me to keep the show going on Patreon https://patreon.com/dannyballan

Edward Said famously wrote most of "Orientalism" during his 1975-76 CASBS fellowship. The book criticized Western worldviews and representations of the East (or 'Orient') and their perpetuation of romanticized or colonial mindsets. A half-century later, "Orientalism" continues to shape scholarship, frame debates, and resonate in disparate regions and contexts. Four 2024-25 CASBS fellows representing different disciplines – A. Shane Dillingham, Thomas Blom Hansen, Camilla Hawthorne, and Shirin Sinnar – discuss the enduring influence and impact of Said and his landmark book.EDWARD SAID WORKS REFERENCED IN THIS EPISODEOrientalism (Pantheon, 1978)"The One State Solution," New York Times, 10 January 1999Representations of the Intellectual (Penguin Random House, 1996)Other works emerging from Edward Said's CASBS fellowshipEPISODE GUESTSA. Shane Dillingham: ASU faculty page | Personal website | CASBS pageCamilla Hawthorne: UCSC faculty page | Personal website | CASBS pageThomas Blom Hansen: Stanford faculty page | CASBS pageShirin Sinnar: Stanford faculty page | CASBS pageEdward Said on CASBSIn evaluating his CASBS fellowship in 1976, Edward Said noted that "...the Center does not pay enough attention (in its selection of Fellows) to revisionist and/or radical scholars in the humanities and social sciences. There are a great many intellectual developments taking place, many of them because of thinkers whose work departs from (if does not explicitly reject) the conventions of Establishment scholarship."In addition to this constructive criticism, Said remarked in general that "...the quiet and the absence of immediate pressures were, for me, a very welcome change from past years, when deadlines, a thousand daily commitments, and the mad pressures of teaching in a large university (in a large city) made continuity of work and reflection almost impossible." Said further reported that Orientialism was "exactly four-fifths complete." In accounting for his "extremely valuable and productive year," he wrote: "I do not think I could have done this sort of work anywhere else...the working conditions are...comfortable in the best way for a scholar..."Of his work on Orientalism, Said further noted: "The other more or less special advantage to this year was to have time to change directions in my work, to move from a highly theoretical kind of speculation to a very concrete historical investigation. Many of my ideas about such matters as the history of traditions, the growth of scientific and disciplinary knowledge, the ideology of scholarship, the relationship between “knowledge” and the imagination took new, concrete forms. Without such a year – and it is impossible to say where else I could have had such a year – I would still be making statements without being sure as their historical and concrete validity. Moreover, I found that I had the time to pursue leads only to prove that they were the wrong ones; the important thing was to have the time to let my work take me where it would, and not be afraid.”Excerpted from Edward Said, "Evaluation of fellowship year 1975-76," letter to CASBS director Gardner Lindzey, August 19, 1976 (CASBS files) Other works referenced in this episodeTimothy Brennan, Places of Mind: A Life of Edward Said (Bloomsbury, 2022)Stuart Hall, "The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power," in Essential Essays, Vol. 2 (Duke Univ. Press, 2018 [1992])Camilla Hawthorne, "Mapping Black Geographies," Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (2024)Sophia Azeb, "The 'No-State Solution'," The Funambulist (2017)Sophia Azeb, "Who Will We Be When We are Free?" The Funambulist (2019) Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford UniversityExplore CASBS: website|Bluesky|X|YouTube|LinkedIn|podcast|latest newsletter|signup|outreach​Human CenteredProducer: Mike Gaetani | Audio engineer & co-producer: Joe Monzel |

La biografia e la bibliografia (in italiano) di Edward Said, uno dei massimi intellettuali arabi e palestinesi di sempre, nonché autore di “Orientalismo”Iscriviti qui alla nuova newsletter, ogni 7 del mese un nuovo appuntamentoRispondi a questo sondaggio di 7 domande per migliorare i contenuti ed i progetti futuri di Medio Oriente e Dintorni Qui trovate tutti i link di Medio Oriente e Dintorni: Linktree, ma, andando un po' nel dettaglio: -Tutti gli aggiornamenti sulla pagina instagram @medioorienteedintorni -Per articoli visitate il sito https://mediorientedintorni.com/ trovate anche la "versione articolo" di questo podcast. - Qui il link al canale Youtube- Podcast su tutte le principali piattaforme in Italia e del mondo-Vuoi tutte le uscite in tempo reale? Iscriviti al gruppo Telegram: https://t.me/mediorientedintorniOgni like, condivisione o supporto è ben accetto e mi aiuta a dedicarmi sempre di più alla mia passione: raccontare il Medio Oriente ed il "mondo islamico"

For many decades, practitioners and scholars of foreign policy used to refer to “the West,” but today, for the most part, they don't. What happened to the idea of “the West”? Michael Kimmage, a professor of history at Catholic University, wrote The Abandonment of the West: The History of an Idea in American Foreign Policy to trace the rise and decline of this concept from the late nineteenth century through the present day. In this podcast discussion, Kimmage discusses the idea of the West — as a geopolitical and cultural concept rather than a geographic place. He analyzes how it developed intellectually, with the widespread adoption of neoclassical architecture and Western Civilization curricula in American universities, and geopolitically as the U.S. rose to global leadership after World War II and during the Cold War. Kimmage also addresses critiques of the West (and its legacy of racism and imperialism) as advanced by critics like W. E. B. Du Bois and Edward Said. He argues that concept of “the West,” despite its flaws, still matters, and explains why he's concerned about the tendency to erase or discard the Western tradition entirely rather than engaging with it critically.   Michael Kimmage further relates his experience of serving as director of the Kennan Institute, a program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which was liquidated in January 2025 by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (or DOGE), and the consequences of the government cutting itself off from international exchange and expertise in the development of U.S. foreign policy. He also expresses his belief that institutionalists — the people who believe in the value of institutions and operate in them — have to do a better job of explaining and justifying what they do: “If the population feels that these institutions are elitist and out of touch and misguided and unnecessary, then it doesn't matter how much somebody like me values them, it's not going to work.”

 Step into the inspiring story of music, resilience, and hope with Zeina Khoury! In this moving episode of The Power of Music podcast, we welcome Zeina, orchestra manager at the Edward Said National Conservatory of Music in Palestine where she oversees the Palestine National Orchestra, the Palestine Youth Orchestra, the ESNCM Orchestra, and the Jerusalem Children's Orchestra. For over a decade, she has worked tirelessly to nurture Palestinian orchestral life under the Conservatory's powerful motto: “Today an orchestra, tomorrow a state.”Zeina shares how music offers moments of serenity, healing, and unity for communities facing ongoing challenges in Gaza and beyond. From rehearsals that bring young musicians together, to concerts that transcend borders, her work highlights the transformative role of music in building resilience and identity.Tune in to hear about the unique difficulties of touring internationally with the Palestine Youth Orchestra—from logistical barriers to the deep emotional weight of representing Palestine on the world stage. If you enjoy the episode, don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave us a review!ℹ️ JMI is a global network of NGOs that empowers young people through music across all boundaries. For more info, visit https://jmi.net or check out all the amazing opportunities for musicians on Mubazar (https://mubazar.com/en).

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here

Why is it so difficult to account for the role of identity in literary studies? Why do both writers and scholars of Indian English literature express resistance to India and Indianness? What does this reveal about how non-Western literatures are read, taught, and understood? Drawing on years of experiences in classrooms and on U.S. university campuses, Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan explores how writers, critics, teachers, and students of Indian English literatures negotiate and resist the categories through which the field is defined: ethnic, postcolonial, and Anglophone.Overdetermined: How Indian English Literature Becomes Ethnic, Postcolonial, and Anglophone (Columbia UP, 2025) considers major contemporary authors who disavow identity even as their works and public personas respond in varied ways to the imperatives of being “Indian.” Chapters examine Bharati Mukherjee's rejection of “ethnic” Americanness; Chetan Bhagat's “bad English”; Amit Chaudhuri's autofictional literary project; and Jhumpa Lahiri's decision to write in Italian, interspersed with meditations on the iconicity of the theorists Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, and Edward Said. Through an innovative method of accented reading and sharing stories and syllabi from her teaching, Srinivasan relates the burdens of representation faced by ethnic and postcolonial writers to the institutional and disciplinary pressures that affect the scholars who study their works. Engaging and self-reflexive, Overdetermined offers new insight into the dynamics that shape contemporary Indian English literature, the politics of identity in literary studies, and the complexities of teaching minoritized literatures in the West. Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan is assistant professor of English at Rice University. Her books include the essays What is We? (2025) and the coedited Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice (2023), and her public writing has appeared in numerous venues. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Quan fa dos anys de l'esclat de la guerra a Gaza, a "L'ofici d'educar" fem balan

"Geen enkele oorzaak, geen God, geen abstract idee kan de massale slachting van onschuldigen rechtvaardigen." - Stine vraagt podcastmaker en presentator Nathan de Vries een levenswijsheid te delen. 

The brothers welcome the prominent violinist, classical musician and Professor at the Barenboim-Said Akademie Michael Barenboim to have a heart-felt discussion about the relationship between classic music and dissent, his regret at not speaking out earlier in his life about Palestine, his horror at the ongoing Gaza genocide, and the implications of anti-Palestinian racism and repressive climate in Germany despite Berlin having the largest Palestinian community in Europe, the question of boycott, and the legacy and current meaning of his father and (our uncle) Edward Said's famous collaboration in creating the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra and the Barenboim-Said Akademie in Berlin. Date of recording: September 1, 2025. Watch the video edition on our YouTube channel Follow us on our socials: X: @MakdisiStreet YouTube: @MakdisiStreet Insta: @Makdisist TikTok: @Makdisistreet Music by Hadiiiiii Sign up at Patreon.com/MakdisiStreet to access all the bonus content, including the latest Q&A

Author of "Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual," professor Nubar Hovsepian joins us to delve into the nuanced legacy of Edward Said, exploring common misunderstandings of his work, the reception of "Orientalism" within academia, and Said's vision of the "oppositional intellectual." The discussion also covers the evolving discourse around Zionism and Palestine, the challenges faced by the Palestinian liberation movement, and the critical need for new forms of struggle and organization. This conversation offers a candid look at the intellectual journey of Edward Said and its enduring relevance in contemporary Arab and global contexts. 0:00 Edward Said: The Oppositional Intellectual0:20 Orientalism as a System of Domination1:07 Misunderstandings of Edward Said's Work3:18 The Reception of "Orientalism" in Academia11:00 Columbia University and Ideas About Israel and Zionism14:00 The Evolving Discourse on Zionism18:24 Defining the Oppositional Intellectual20:59 Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will22:50 The Palestinian Liberation Movement: Peaks and Valleys30:47 The Democratic Secular State and Its Opponents34:09 Shifting Perceptions of Palestine Among Youth37:00 Advice for Young Activists and Intellectuals38:57 Mistakes of the Palestinian Movement44:30 The Concept of Citizenship Versus Subjecthood47:00 Edward Said's Relationship with America and the Arab World50:27 Recommended Readings by Edward Said Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, CA. He is the author of "Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual," "Palestinian State Formation: The Construction of National Identity," and editor of "The War on Lebanon." Hovsepian served from 1982 to 1984 as political affairs officer for the United Nations conference on the Question of Palestine.Connect with Nubar Hovsepian

Edward Said brought the question of Palestine into the American mainstream. He taught at Columbia University for nearly 40 years, and today, more than two decades after his death, pro-Palestine student protesters on that campus and others have invoked his name. Meanwhile, his interviews circulate on social media and his books are taught at universities around the world. On this episode: the story of the man who pushed for recognition of the Palestinian perspective, the pushback he faced, and the dangers he foresaw.To access bonus episodes and listen to Throughline sponsor-free, subscribe to Throughline+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/throughline.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In You Can't Please All (Verso), a sort of sequel to his seminal 1987 memoir Street-fighting Years, Tariq Ali continues the story of a life lived flamboyantly and magnificently on the Left. Pen portraits of friends and comrades such as Edward Said, Derek Jarman, Richard Ingrams, Benazir Bhutto, Mary-Kay Wilmers, E.P. Thompson, Perry Anderson and Robin Blackburn are combined with reflections on his work as a novelist, playwright and film-maker, and as an activist in the War on the War on Terror. Ali was in conversation about his life and work with Oliver Eagleton, associate editor of New Left Review and author of The Starmer Project.

From on high, establishment intellectuals replicate dominant societal narratives, power structures, and established norms. And as long as they perform that task, they are honored, and celebrated and are invited to all the talk shows, and attend dinner parties of the rich and powerful, and get to play golf with them and they are, of course, well rewarded financially. In sharp contrast are intellectuals who go against the grain, who rock the boat, who challenge the existing order, who contest the hegemonic discourse, who speak the truth and expose the lies and deceptions of officialdom. An oppositional intellectual not only questions mainstream ideologies and received wisdom but also offers alternatives. Edward Said was one of the 20th century's most influential intellectuals. He exemplified the oppositional intellectual who made the comfortable uncomfortable. Interviewed by David Barsamian.

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of 'Horror Joy,' hosts Brian and Jeff delve into the 2023 anthology Never Whistle at Night, edited by Shane Hawk and Theodore C. Van Alst Jr. This collection, featuring indigenous dark fiction, navigates the intersections of horror, colonization, and representation.We discuss:·      The impact of these stories both in the classroom and as a means of broadening perspectives·      Key stories such as 'White Hills,' 'The Ones Who Killed Us,' and 'Navajos Don't Wear Elk Teeth,'·      The importance of blood and the construction of identity·      The joy and complexity found in these narrativesThese stories navigate the tension of imagined and real worlds, mortals and monsters, blood and identity, and community and isolation. They call us to reconsider our preconceptions of the world, and they remind us that all of us (in the United States) occupy stolen lands. So, keep your lips from whistling and settle into the comfortably uncomfortable worlds of these stories. But don't lose track of the trail. While this may be an invitation, that doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. Indigenous Futurisms and Decolonial Horror: An Interview with Rebecca Roanhorse by Madelyn Marie SchoonoverOne drop rulePlessy V. FergusonIndigenous Horror by Heather HallOrientalism by Edward Said

Atlantic columnist Yair Rosenberg joins Jonah Goldberg to discuss the shocking rise of Jew hatred in America, the connection between populist movements and antisemitic sentiments, and Edward Said's influence—all while poking fun at the podcast bros and reminding the elite institutions about the importance of standing with Israel. Show Notes:—Yair's column for The Atlantic: “Deep Shtetl” The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regular livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cynthia Morahan reviews The Question of Palestine by Edward Said published by Text Publishing

Veteran journalist Eli Lake joins The Winston Marshall Show for a sweeping, provocative conversation on Israel, foreign lobbying, and the ideological corruption of American academia.Lake dismantles the conspiracy theories swirling around AIPAC and explains why blaming the Israel lobby for U.S. foreign policy is both analytically lazy and politically dangerous. He warns that the real threat comes from foreign influence through backdoor channels—Qatari billions funding American universities, PR firms, and think tanks that shape the national conversation.They dive into the Foreign Agents Registration Act, China's influence via TikTok, and the rise of academic anti-Zionism, tracing it back to Edward Said and the postcolonial dogma now dominant in elite institutions like Columbia.All this—foreign influence, the weaponization of academia, Middle East power games, and the narrative wars shaping the West…-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To see more exclusive content and interviews consider subscribing to my substack here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 1:17 Introduction and AIPAC5:03 Foreign Aid and Military Industrial Complex 8:21 AIPAC's Influence and Criticism 19:22 Historical Context of AIPAC and Foreign Lobbying 34:29 Qatar's Influence and Hamas Funding 45:41 Free Speech and Deportation of Mahmoud Khalil 58:22 Columbia University and Anti-Semitism 1:05:11 Qatar's Role in Middle East Negotiations1:10:28 Arab League Plan and Ceasefire 1:13:19 Challenges and Future Leadership 1:16:07 Historical Context and Podcast Promotion 1:17:49 Conclusion Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We've been asked to say a few words about who we are, here's where you'll learn about one of us. That, plus Gadi's speech on Netanyahu's role in the global war over woke ideas.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this powerful episode of the Sumud Podcast, we are joined by author, actress, and playwright Najla Said—daughter of the legendary Palestinian intellectual Edward Said. This video is for educational purposes only. It provides historical and political analysis to inform and educate viewers. Through humor, vulnerability, and sharp storytelling, Najla reflects on growing up as an Arab American in New York, her struggles with identity and anorexia, and the pressure of assimilation in the elite white spaces surrounding her. Najla opens up about navigating a world that both shrunk and exoticized her Palestinian identity, her healing journey through Arab culture, hospitality, and expressing love through food, and the personal toll of being one of the only visible Palestinians in spaces like Hollywood and Broadway. From stories of her solo play Palestine to memories of Mahmoud Darwish, she shares the intimate and political threads that shaped her life and work.

Semana Santa is is one of the most important holidays of the year in Spain, with the main focus being on the popular processions organized by religious brotherhoods, or cofradías. Today on Sobremesa Podcast Alan and Eoghan are joined by the anthropologist Carlos Cañete to talk about both the oppressive and emancipatory sides of Semana Santa as a religious and cultural institution.Carlos is a tenured researcher at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas and was the Edward Said fellow at Columbia University from 2020-2022. Donate here ⬇️https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thesobremey

La pianista, compositora y vocalista Clélya Abraham, que tiene sus raíces en la isla antillana de Guadalupe, firma 'Atacama', su segundo disco, con piezas como 'Orion', 'Célébration', 'São Paulo' o 'Nébuleuse'. Élise Vasalluci canta 'Capharnaüm' -que da título a su primer disco- y 'The peacocks', de Jimmy Rowles, con letra en inglés y francés. Del disco del laudista tunecino Anouar Brahem 'After the last sky', con Dave Holland, Django Bates y Anja Lechner, 'Edward Said´s rêverie', 'After the last sky' y 'Dancing under the meteorites'. Y del disco del brasileño Thiago Amud 'Enseada perdida' las canciones 'Oração à cobra grande', 'Cidade possessa' -con Chico Buarque- y 'Cantiga de ninar o mar' -con Caetano Veloso-. Despide el cuarteto del baterista Sergio Reze con 'Conversa de botequim' de Noel Rosa.Escuchar audio

Najla Said joins Dispatches to talk about Palestine, identity, and the challenges of growing up Arab and American in a country that doesn't always make space for that kind of hyphenated identity.Najla is an actor and writer who's used storytelling to explore themes of belonging, displacement, and resistance. She's also the daughter of Edward Said, one of the most influential intellectuals of our time, whose work and teachings at Columbia University continue to shape how we understand colonialism, culture, and Palestine. But Najla isn't just carrying on a legacy; she's carved her own path, speaking with honesty, humor, and heart.In this episode, Najla and Rania Khalek discuss:What it was like growing up as Edward Said's daughter while trying to fit into a culture that loves Israel and prioritizes its supporters over the trauma of Palestinians.Watching the crackdown on pro-Palestine students at Columbia, a place that felt like home to her family for so many years.Navigating the entertainment industry, which is often hostile to Arab and Palestinian voices.How the genocide in Gaza has reshaped her view of the world, this country, and what's possible for the future.To watch the full episode, become a Breakthrough News member at Patreon.com/BreakthroughNews.If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to like, subscribe, and share to help get the word out!

Tahrir Hamdi is a Professor of Resistance Literature at the Arab Open University in Jordan. She is the author of the award-winning Imagining Palestine and serves as an assistant editor of Arab Studies Quarterly. National identities are inherently fluid, shaped as much by collective beliefs and cultural practices as by official borders and territory. For Palestinians, whose national status remains contested, the articulation and imagination of national identity take on particular urgency. Imagining Palestine: Cultures of Exile and National Identity (Bloomsbury, 2022) examines how Palestinian intellectuals, artists, activists, and ordinary citizens envision their homeland, engaging with the works of key figures such as Edward Said, Ghassan Kanafani, Naji al-Ali, Mahmoud Darwish, Mourid Barghouti, Radwa Ashour, Suheir Hammad, and Susan Abulhawa. Drawing on decolonial and resistance concepts—particularly Palestinian sumud—Hamdi argues that the imaginative construction of Palestine is central to the Palestinian struggle. This interdisciplinary study, rooted in critical theory, postcolonial and decolonial studies, and literary analysis, offers valuable insights for students and scholars of Palestine, Middle East studies, and Arabic literature. Imagining Palestine received the Counter Current Award at the 2023 Palestine Book Awards. Bryant Scott is a professor of English and film studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and Texas A&M University at Qatar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Tahrir Hamdi is a Professor of Resistance Literature at the Arab Open University in Jordan. She is the author of the award-winning Imagining Palestine and serves as an assistant editor of Arab Studies Quarterly. National identities are inherently fluid, shaped as much by collective beliefs and cultural practices as by official borders and territory. For Palestinians, whose national status remains contested, the articulation and imagination of national identity take on particular urgency. Imagining Palestine: Cultures of Exile and National Identity (Bloomsbury, 2022) examines how Palestinian intellectuals, artists, activists, and ordinary citizens envision their homeland, engaging with the works of key figures such as Edward Said, Ghassan Kanafani, Naji al-Ali, Mahmoud Darwish, Mourid Barghouti, Radwa Ashour, Suheir Hammad, and Susan Abulhawa. Drawing on decolonial and resistance concepts—particularly Palestinian sumud—Hamdi argues that the imaginative construction of Palestine is central to the Palestinian struggle. This interdisciplinary study, rooted in critical theory, postcolonial and decolonial studies, and literary analysis, offers valuable insights for students and scholars of Palestine, Middle East studies, and Arabic literature. Imagining Palestine received the Counter Current Award at the 2023 Palestine Book Awards. Bryant Scott is a professor of English and film studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and Texas A&M University at Qatar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Tahrir Hamdi is a Professor of Resistance Literature at the Arab Open University in Jordan. She is the author of the award-winning Imagining Palestine and serves as an assistant editor of Arab Studies Quarterly. National identities are inherently fluid, shaped as much by collective beliefs and cultural practices as by official borders and territory. For Palestinians, whose national status remains contested, the articulation and imagination of national identity take on particular urgency. Imagining Palestine: Cultures of Exile and National Identity (Bloomsbury, 2022) examines how Palestinian intellectuals, artists, activists, and ordinary citizens envision their homeland, engaging with the works of key figures such as Edward Said, Ghassan Kanafani, Naji al-Ali, Mahmoud Darwish, Mourid Barghouti, Radwa Ashour, Suheir Hammad, and Susan Abulhawa. Drawing on decolonial and resistance concepts—particularly Palestinian sumud—Hamdi argues that the imaginative construction of Palestine is central to the Palestinian struggle. This interdisciplinary study, rooted in critical theory, postcolonial and decolonial studies, and literary analysis, offers valuable insights for students and scholars of Palestine, Middle East studies, and Arabic literature. Imagining Palestine received the Counter Current Award at the 2023 Palestine Book Awards. Bryant Scott is a professor of English and film studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and Texas A&M University at Qatar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Tahrir Hamdi is a Professor of Resistance Literature at the Arab Open University in Jordan. She is the author of the award-winning Imagining Palestine and serves as an assistant editor of Arab Studies Quarterly. National identities are inherently fluid, shaped as much by collective beliefs and cultural practices as by official borders and territory. For Palestinians, whose national status remains contested, the articulation and imagination of national identity take on particular urgency. Imagining Palestine: Cultures of Exile and National Identity (Bloomsbury, 2022) examines how Palestinian intellectuals, artists, activists, and ordinary citizens envision their homeland, engaging with the works of key figures such as Edward Said, Ghassan Kanafani, Naji al-Ali, Mahmoud Darwish, Mourid Barghouti, Radwa Ashour, Suheir Hammad, and Susan Abulhawa. Drawing on decolonial and resistance concepts—particularly Palestinian sumud—Hamdi argues that the imaginative construction of Palestine is central to the Palestinian struggle. This interdisciplinary study, rooted in critical theory, postcolonial and decolonial studies, and literary analysis, offers valuable insights for students and scholars of Palestine, Middle East studies, and Arabic literature. Imagining Palestine received the Counter Current Award at the 2023 Palestine Book Awards. Bryant Scott is a professor of English and film studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and Texas A&M University at Qatar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

A discussion of the concluding part of Said's introduction to the book.

A year ago, the world was shaken when Hamas militants entered Israel, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the kidnapping of hundreds more. It was one of the most devastating days for Israelis and Jewish communities around the world in decades. In the immediate hours after that attack, Israel launched an invasion of Gaza, resulting in the deaths of at least 42,000 Palestinians and counting.Early on in the escalation of the war, two women came together to start having difficult dialogues in a moment of high emotions. Najla Said is an actor, author, activist and the daughter of renowned Palestinian intellectual Edward Said. Judith Sloan is an actor, radio producer and adjunct professor at New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study. They collaborated on a project they call “Imperfect Allies: Children of Opposite Sides.” In this episode, they join Notes from America guest host Suzanne Gaber to talk about their year-long work in progress that started as a discussion between two longtime-friends and evolved into a series of listening sessions around the country about the ongoing war in the Middle East. Plus, they give listeners advice on how to navigate difficult conversations about the conflict while managing immense trauma.Notes from America is a 2024 Signal Awards finalist! Community voting is now open for the show to earn a Listener's Choice honor for Best Live Podcast Recording, and we would be honored for you to take a minute to cast a vote our way. Click here to vote through October 17, and thank you for listening and supporting Notes from America! Tell us what you think. We're @noteswithkai on Instagram and X (Twitter). Email us at notes@wnyc.org. Send us a voice message by recording yourself on your phone and emailing us, or record one here.Notes from America airs live on Sundays at 6 p.m. ET. The podcast episodes are lightly edited from our live broadcasts.