Urban Transformations in the Middle East and North Africa from a Geographical Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Atia

Though a multidisciplinary field, Middle East studies has historically had little engagement with the theoretical and methodological contributions of the discipline of geography. In the wake of the Arab Spring, there was a turning point, as scholars of the region noted the importance of public space to the uprisings, thus sparking engaging debates about urban spatial politics. In fact, Middle East studies is not alone in its newfound affinity to geography; a shift to what many have called “the spatial turn” across the social sciences and humanities has put geography in the limelight. Geography is in fact the original “area” studies—geographers of the early 20th century saw the main rationale of their discipline as identifying and describing regions, and the region was the core geographical concept. The post–World War II area studies boom occurred much at the expense of the discipline; after Harvard University closed its geography program in 1948, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, Columbia University, and other Ivy League schools soon followed and Title VI essentially led to the closing of numerous other geography programs around the country—including Stanford University, the University of Michigan, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago. A growing sentiment within the ivory tower found the discipline too ambiguous and asserted that a university did not need geography to be a great institution.

Author(s):  
Amy Mills ◽  
Timur Hammond

This chapter begins with a brief survey of the literature that constitutes the present spatial turn in Middle East studies (MES). This review has two aims: to examine the (often undertheorized or loosely defined) understandings of space at work in MES research and to explore the central or emerging research interests in MES developed by this spatial turn. The chapter then considers the theories of space discernible in research on the Middle East for many decades before the present spatial turn. It argues that not only does an interest in space have a far longer history in MES than recent critical research lets on, but that attention to this issue is important because it illuminates the ways in which evolving understandings of space accompany changing research agendas and, possibly, new theoretical, methodological, or conceptual assumptions in the interdisciplinary arena of MES more generally. Next, the chapter discusses questions of disciplinarity, particularly in relation to geography, and the ways in which disciplinary and institutional histories have shaped the contours of the spatial turn in Middle East area studies. It concludes by identifying new directions for research.


2014 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Sara Pursley ◽  
Beth Baron

Interest in the study of space was already increasing in Middle East studies, as in other areas of scholarship, before the 2011 Arab uprisings and the 2013 Gezi Park protests in Turkey—combined with the Occupy movement in the United States and similar phenomena elsewhere—turned worldwide attention to the politics of public spaces in the era of globalization and neoliberalism. This issue of IJMES reflects both the ongoing “spatial turn” in the scholarship and the more immediate and contingent attempts, sparked by recent events, to (re-)theorize public space in particular.


2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timur Hammond

One of the first ways that many scholars of the Middle East encounter the region is precisely through the lens of “region” itself. Our ability to know the Middle East as a region today, we learn, is a complicated inheritance of imperialism, Orientalism, and Cold War area studies scholarship. To study the Middle East as the “Middle East,” in other words, is to be necessarily positioned within a contested and unequal field of knowledge, one whose contours are both historically and geographically specific. Much of the best research and teaching within Middle East studies continues to demonstrate that knowingaboutthe region—and the world more broadly—is closely entwined with the politicsofthe region. The interdisciplinary spatial turn within Middle East studies has been and continues to be so fertile precisely because of that reflexivity.


2021 ◽  
pp. 096777202110121
Author(s):  
Peter D Mohr ◽  
Stephanie Seville

George Archibald Grant Mitchell, OBE, TD, MB, ChB, ChM, MSc, DSc, FRCS (1906–1993) was a professor of anatomy at the University of Manchester from 1946 to 1973. He is mainly remembered for his research in neuroanatomy, especially of the autonomic nervous system. He studied medicine at the Aberdeen University, and after qualifying in 1929 he held posts in surgery and anatomy and worked as a surgeon in the Highlands. In 1939, he joined the Royal Army Medical Corps. He was based in Egypt and the Middle East, where he carried out trials of sulphonamides and penicillin on wounded soldiers; in 1943, he returned to England as Adviser in Penicillin Therapy for 21 Army Group, preparing for the invasion of Europe.


1973 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-48

The Board of Directors met for its fourteenth meeting at New York on 16 February 1973. The Board approved the Association’s co-sponsorship of Hamline University’s summer project on the Middle East as an encouragement to small institutions and new programs to undertake the kind of activity proposed by the Image Committee and Center Directors. The Board decided to hold the 1974 annual meeting in Boston under the sponsorship of universities in the area, coordinated by Harvard, and also to look into the possibilities of Madrid and New York City for later meetings. The Board approved a proposal to Be submitted by the University of Michigan to the National Science Foundation for an automated data project on the Middle East, as originally envisaged by the Library Committee. The Board also approved the proposal for a translation project submitted jointly by MESA, the University of Texas and AUC to the Office of Education. In accordance with the current Ford grant, the Board designated visiting scholars and alternates to be invited to attend the 1973 annual meeting and to remain in the country for 3 to 6 weeks travelling and lecturing at American and Canadian institutions. The Board reviewed the matters of federal funding of non-academic markets for graduates in Middle East studies and of the State of the Art Conference. It appointed the following Nominating Committee: Professor John Masson Smith, University of California, Berkeley, Chairman, and Professors Frank Tachau, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Carolyn Killean, University of Chicago, Michael Lorraine, University of Washington and President Issawi.


2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 779-781
Author(s):  
Jane Hathaway ◽  
Randi Deguilhem

André Raymond, who passed away at his home in Aix-en-Provence on 18 February 2011, leaves an international legacy in Middle East studies. Born in 1925 in Montargis, a small town situated about seventy-five miles south of Paris, Monsieur Raymond, as he was known to his numerous students and to younger scholars in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, and North America, taught for many years at the University of Provence and, after his retirement, in the United States.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sultan Tepe ◽  
Betul Demirkaya

AbstractIn this analysis, we expand the debate on the place of religion in political science by using the predictions of Wald and Wilcox as our starting point. Following in their footsteps, we ask how political scientists have studied Islam since 2002 and identify the studies on Islam and Muslims at the flagship conference of the discipline, the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. We evaluate not only the quantity but also the approaches employed by these studies. In order to gauge the balancing of roles (or lack thereof) between the discipline and area studies, we also take a closer look at the Middle East Studies Association, the largest association focused on the Middle East, North Africa and the Islamic world and its annual meetings during the same period. Our findings suggest that, unless carefully addressed, the prevailing patterns are likely to result in a crippling knowledge gap among political scientists.


Few world regions today are of more pressing social and political interest than the Middle East: hardly a day has passed in the last decade without events there making global news. Understanding the region has never been more important, yet the field of Middle East studies in the United States is in flux, enmeshed in ongoing controversies about the relationship between knowledge and power, the role of the federal government at universities, and ways of knowing other cultures and places. This book explores the big-picture issues affecting the field, from the geopolitics of knowledge production to structural changes in the university to broader political and public contexts. Tracing the development of the field from the early days of the American university to the Islamophobia of the present day, this book explores Middle East studies as a discipline and, more generally, its impact on the social sciences and academia. Topics include how different disciplines engage with Middle East scholars, how American universities teach Middle East studies and related fields, and the relationship between scholarship and U.S.–Arab relations, among others. This book presents a comprehensive, authoritative overview of how this crucial field of academic inquiry came to be and where it is going next.


2005 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. Parks

As part of the Middle East Institute's commitment to promoting and advancing Middle East studies for the next generation, the Institute in late 2003 announced the Mrs. Harley Stevens Award for the best essay on a selected theme by a graduate student at a US University. The Award was named for Mrs. Harley C. Stevens, a longtime benefactor of the Institute and the Journal, who died last year. The theme chosen for the first competition was democratization in the Middle East, with the essayists encouraged to write on a single case study. Under the terms of the competition, the Editor of the Journal chose three judges to judge the entrants. The judges were Amy Hawthorne of the Carnegie Endowment, Nathan Brown of George Washington University, and Stephen Buck, former US Foreign Service Officer, also formerly with National Defense University. The judges chose as the winner of the competition Robert Parks of the University of Texas, who received his award at the Middle East Institute's Annual Conference in the fall. The winning essay appears here.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document