Sufism in the United States

Sufism in the United States is notable for its diverse origins, multiple routes of transmission, and variegated forms. West African Muslims were the first to practice Sufism in the Americas, attempting to maintain Sufi-Islamic traditions under the oppressive conditions of 17th-century plantation slavery. In the 19th century, Sufism emerged as a phenomenon with broader cultural impact in the region through American literary interest in Persian Sufi poetry. As the 19th century drew to a close, American fascination with all things occult, metaphysical, and mystical coincided with a draw toward “the wisdom of the East.” In this milieu, Sufism was embraced by small circles of seekers, frequently coming from Theosophical groups. During the 1930s and 1940s, several Black American converts to Islam joined Sufi orders and transmitted Sufi teachings to mosque communities they established in New York and Ohio. The reform of immigration laws in 1965 resulted in the establishment of immigrant Muslim communities throughout the United States. Sufi teachers from Iran, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and Turkey, among other countries, settled in America and established Sufi groups in the following decades. The second half of the 20th century witnessed the center of gravity of academic study of Sufism shift from Europe to North America, with the proliferation of Sufi works in English translation in the following decades. By the late 20th century, Sufism had matured as a multifaceted example of American religiosity, encompassing immigrant and local Muslim practice as well as esoteric or mystical teachings functioning apart from Muslim identity. Currently, Sufism in the United States can be found as a conspicuous expression of Islamic spirituality, as a spiritual path not necessarily connected to Islam, as a niche within the broader spiritual marketplace, and as a practice with a varied online presence.

Classics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis

Since the Western Roman Empire collapsed, classical, or Greco-Roman, architecture has served as a model to articulate the cultural, artistic, political, and ideological goals of later civilizations, empires, nations, and individuals. The Renaissance marked the first major, widespread re-engagement with classical antiquity in art, literature, and architecture. Debates over classical antiquity and its relation to the modern world continued ever since. One such important debate was that of the quarrel between the Ancients and Moderns, which resulted when Charles Perrault published his Parallèles des anciens et des modernes in 1688. This dispute focused on whether the modern age could surpass antiquity, especially in literature. The Greco-Roman controversy (1750s and 1760s) was another example of Europeans engaging with the classical past; this debate focused on whether Greek or Roman art was of greater historical value; an argument has continued unabated to this day. Figures like Johann Joachim Winckelmann argued (in publications such as Winckelmann 1764, cited under Early Archaeological Publications on Greece and Classical Ruins in the Roman East, on Greek art) for the supremacy of Greek forms, while others like Giovanni Battista Piranesi (whose 1748–1778 views of Rome are reproduced in Ficacci 2011, cited under Early Archaeological Publications on Italy) advocated for Rome’s preeminence. Such debates demonstrate how classical antiquity was an essential part of the intellectual and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe. This bibliography focuses on the appropriation of classical architecture in the creation of built forms from 1700 to the present in Europe and North America, which is typically called neoclassical or neo-classical, both of which are acceptable. Scholars often define the neoclassical period as lasting from c. 1750 to 1830, when European art and architecture predominantly appropriated classical forms and ideas. The influence of classical architecture continued in popularity throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in the United States. The early 19th century saw the flourishing of the Greek Revival, where Greek forms dominated artistic and architectural production, both in Europe and the United States. The ascendance of Queen Victoria in 1837 marked a shift toward a preference for the Gothic and Medieval forms. Neoclassical forms saw a resurgence in the second half of the 19th century, as Roman architectural forms became increasingly popular as an expression of empire. The term “Neo-classical” was coined as early as January 1872 by Robert Kerr, who used the term positively. It later took on certain negative overtones, when it was used as a derogatory epithet by an unknown writer in the Times of London in 1892. Neoclassical architecture has fared no better with the rise of modernism in the early 20th century onward and since then it has been seen as old-fashioned and derivative. Neoclassical architecture was not a mindless imitation of classical architectural forms and interiors. The interest in classical architecture and the creation of neoclassical architecture was spurred on by important archaeological discoveries in the mid-18th century, which widened the perception of Greek and Roman buildings. The remarkable flexibility of ancient architecture to embody the grandeur of an empire, as well as the principles of a nascent democracy, meant that it had great potential to be interpreted and reinterpreted by countless architects, patrons, empires, and nation states—in different ways and at different times from the 18th to the 20th century. This bibliography is organized thematically (e.g., General Overviews; Companions, Handbooks, and Theoretical Works; Reference Works; Early General Archaeological Publications; The Reception of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the Bay of Naples; and World’s Fairs and Expositions) and then geographically, creating country- or region-specific bibliographies. While this model of organization has some flaws, it aims to avoid repetition and highlights the interconnected nature and process of the reception of classical architecture in later periods.


Skyscraper, is a very tall, multistoried building. The name first came into use during the 1880s, shortly after the first skyscrapers were built, in the United States. The development of skyscrapers came as a result of the coincidence of several technological and social developments. The term skyscraper originally applied to buildings of 10 to 20 stories, but by the late 20th century the term was used to describe high-rise buildings of unusual height, generally greater than 40 or 50 stories .The increase in urban commerce in the United States in the second half of the 19th century augmented the need for city business space, and the installation of the first safe passenger elevator (in the Haughwout Department Store, New York City) in 1857 made practical the erection of buildings more than four or five stories tall. Although the earliest skyscrapers rested on extremely thick masonry walls at the ground level, architects soon turned to the use of a cast-iron and wrought-iron framework to support the weight of the upper floors, allowing for more floor space on the lower stories.


Prospects ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 491-520
Author(s):  
Dmitry Shlapentokh

In the 19th century, some Russian intellectuals concluded that democracy was the country's probable future. By the middle of the century, this eventually led to the West and its democratic traditions being directly linked to images of Utopia. From that date forward, this approach to the West has had a central role in modern Russian political thought.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
William Balée

This paper assesses the historical and institutional origins of anthropology in the United States in order to understand the development of the four-field model, the persistence of which is considered distinctive of anthropology in the United States. An Atlantic Enlightenment saw the origins of anthropology in the United States. The four fields of anthropology can be traced to the Enlightenment. The four fields were brought together in the context of museums and learned societies in the 19th century United States. The focus of anthropology changed in the early 20th century with the placement of anthropology in the context of the university and the German concept of the defended dissertation as the principal gateway to professionalization (introduced by Boas). Four-field anthropology programs also existed in diverse countries, but did not persist except in the US beyond the early years of the 20th century. Anthropology in the US as a four-field discipline grew throughout the 1930s. After World War II, the discipline expanded greatly in the United States, partly due to the G.I. Bill as well as to increased demand for anthropology courses. Anthropology continued to grow in terms of numbers of institutions offering the PhD and numbers of new doctorates in the field into the 1970s, stabilizing around 400 per year. The usual rank order in number of doctorates per field per year continues to be the same in the early 2000s as it was thirty years ago: cultural anthropology, archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistic anthropology. The four field unity of the discipline came under critical scrutiny in the late 20th century, with the principal criticism being that the holism of the four fields appears to be a function of 19th century museum mentality, but the four fields regardless of cleavages have nevertheless remained together in the same departments in most universities. That trend appears to be continuing in general at the present time in the United States. Keywords: four fields of anthropology, history of anthropology, US university system.


Gesnerus ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 51 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 84-100
Author(s):  
Josef M. Schmidt

After an enormous spread in the United States of America during the 19th century homeopathy had almost completely vanished from the scene by the beginning of the 20th century. For the past two decades, however, it seems once again to experience a kind of renaissance. Major aspects of this development—in terms of medical and cultural history, sociology, politics, and economics—are illustrated on the basis of a general history of homeopathy in the United States. Using original sources, a first attempt is made to reconstruct the history of homeopathy in San Francisco which has some institutional peculiarities that make it unique within the whole country.


1988 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-373
Author(s):  
Kathleen Curran

This article investigates the German Rundbogenstil and its influence on the American "round-arched style." A stylistic and theoretical phenomenon of the 19th century, the German Rundbogenstil held both a specific and a generic meaning: as a contemporary building style and as a term for historical round-arched architecture. In modern scholarship, the Rundbogenstil has come to denote any round-arched building with Romanesque or Italianate features designed by certain early to mid-19th-century German architects. A general contextual analysis of the complex nature of the 19th-century round-arched styles or "tendencies" in Germany helps to define more precisely the Rundbogenstil. Following a theoretical and stylistic examination of major monuments in Karlsruhe, Munich, and Berlin, the present paper outlines the salient characteristics of the Rundbogenstil and its influence in America in the hands of certain central European emigrant architects in New York and two major mid-19th-century American architects. The fundamental theoretical change which the style underwent in the United States in both of these groups warrants a distinct label-the American "round-arched style."


1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 617-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson

On March 30, 1960, the United States and Eumania settled by agreement certain claims of American nationals against Rumania. The agreement provides for the payment by Rumania of a lump sum in discharge of those claims.In recent years the device of the en bloc or lump-sum settlement of international claims has to some extent replaced the use of the mixed claims commission. Lump-sum settlements between nations are not unique to the 20th century, however, and as early as 1802, the United States paid Great Britain a lump sum of £600,000 ($2,664,000) to settle certain debt claims. In the 19th century also, the United States obtained lump-sum settlements from Prance, Spain, Great Britain, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Mexico, Brazil and China. Early in the present century mixed claims commissions were used in deciding claims between the United States and Great Britain, war damage claims against Germany, Austria and Hungary, claims between the United States and Mexico, and claims between Panama and the United States. When the work of the United States-Mexican General Claims Commission remained uncompleted after two successive conventions which extended the existence of the Commission, and when practical difficulties beset the United States-Mexican Special Claims Commission, an en-bloc settlement of all claims was the only solution. That settlement signaled disillusionment with mixed claims commissions. Thereafter, the major international claims settlements involving the United States were on a lump-sum basis. The very next settlement was one concluded on October 25, 1934, with Turkey. It provided for the payment of a lump sum of $1,300,000 to settle certain outstanding claims of American citizens against Turkey.


Author(s):  
Anne Humpherys

George William Macarthur Reynolds (b. 1814–d. 1879) was at his death labeled “the most popular writer of our time” by the Bookseller in its short obituary. This popularity rested on two achievements: first, the mammoth twelve-volume series of “mysteries” novels, The Mysteries of London (1846–1848) and The Mysteries of the Court of London (1848–1855), and, second, his involvement with Chartist politics, which led in 1850 to his founding and editing the radical Sunday newspaper Reynolds’s Newspaper, which lasted in some form until 1962. The Mysteries novels were also constantly in print in a variety of cheap formats for most of the 19th century. Reynolds was a controversial figure both among working-class radicals, who doubted his commitment, and among the middle-class literary establishment, which abhorred his popular sensationalist novels. Dickens was probably referring to him as the “draggled fringe on the Red Cap, Pander to the basest passions of the lowest natures—whose existence is a national reproach” in the opening number of Household Words in 1850. Sometime shortly after 1860, Reynolds essentially stopped writing and editing. But the influence of his mysteries series continued, especially in the United States, India, and other countries. His novels fell out of print in the early 20th century; he himself became relatively unknown among historians and literary critics. This neglect lasted until the second half of the 20th century, at which point a number of scholars began to analyze Reynolds’s importance in 19th-century popular literature, politics, and the periodical press, a development that gathered force in the first decade of the 21st century. There is now a G.W.M. Reynolds Society, available online.


Prospects ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 77-101
Author(s):  
Paola Gemme

Reporting on the Roman revolution of 1848 as the foreign correspondent of theNew-York Daily Tribune, Margaret Fuller observed that Americans used the same arguments against the political emancipation of Italy that they employed against the social emancipation of blacks in the United States. “Americans in Italy,” she wrote, “talk about the corrupt and degenerate state of Italy as they do about that of our slaves at home.” “They come ready trained,” she explained, “to that mode of reasoning which affirms that, because men are degraded by bad institutions, they are not fit for better.” This essay builds upon Fuller's comment. It examines American accounts of the Italians' mid-19th-century struggle to free their country from its colonial bond to the Austrian empire and substitute local absolutist monarchies with more enlightened forms of government, and demonstrates that the discourse on revolutionary Italy became the site of a reenactment on foreign grounds of the domestic controversy over slavery. The discussion on whether Italians could become republican subjects was liable to become a mediated debate over emancipation and the future of the African bondsmen in the American republic because of the alleged similarities, both historical and “racial,” between the populations of Italy and blacks in antebellum America. Like the slaves in the United States, Italians had been subjected to brutal despotism for centuries, which, within the 19th-century environmental conception of political virtue, was believed to have negatively affected their aptitude for freedom. Like the black slaves, moreover, Italians were placed by racist ideology outside the pale of the dominant Anglo-Saxon racial category, a political as well as a “biological” class marked by the exclusive capacity for self-government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document