I read Today that Turkey responded to Mortar strikes that killed 5 civilians today. The attacks came from Syria. If Turkey were to respond with Eu on Syria this could change what is going on in Syria. Recently rebels moved their home base back into Syria. There are a large scale of defectors and Presidents appearances becoming less and less frequent. Could this be a sign of things to come? I like to think so. This could be an isolated incident and completely change. As is with many things happening in the Arab spring nothing is certain. Just as I thought Lybia was a lost cause they have shown hope in the past 2 weeks. I think Syria and Iran are the next hotspots for conflict. Iran's war of words with Israel is also something that could spark fighting in the region? Then the US elections just became a lot more interesting. Romney's plan to help and respond with Israel? Obama deciding not to bomb Iran's Nuclear installation, thus alienating US from our only true ally in the nation? I think that this election just became alot more important in terms of Foreign policy were the focus had been on the economy.  

Response 1
I love the point that you(Professor Harding) bring up in one of your posts, "The notion that civil society can somehow stay "clean" from the taint of the political sphere is therefore false." I think this is so true, especially in regards to what we talked about last week in class. You asked a series of questions regarding civil society, and we answered your questions and essentially falling into your "trap" Civil Society is a term that at least in my mind is constantly changing and your point about the actors of a politcal persuasion can stay away from it is spot on. This throws "a wrench" into the model of civil society because you now have this whole debate on politics on civi a CIVIL society.
I think Kawtharani's dicussion civil society in the Arab World versus the European is quite unique and interesting. Where as civil society and its roots in language refer to brethren,kin, or brotherhood is quite different sentiment than say of the french, civic,civil, city and citizen. Those French phrases which translate to English but arabic makes everything more clear about society in the Arabic versus European world
Sean O

Reflection 3

Paul Ropp           

                                                Reflection 3.

                Over the week, in tandem with the reading I found some very interesting point that were made in the reading about Sa’ids three “epistemological questions” regarding Arab civil society, and the sense of uniformity they possess.

                In the course we talked about the gradual process to democratization as a better solution to the instant gratification of half-baked revolutions, the rich traditionalist history, and stark cultural divides that all play into the creation of a uniformed civil society. Sa’id argues that although Arab civil society is not remotely like the civil society in the west, however, it still exists and plays a prevalent role in the MENA region. The West has a grand notion of civil society, an affinity for the mass polarization and proclamations. However, in the MENA region civil society is a much more tamed beast, an undertone of social influences, not the vociferous animal in the West. MENA region civil society deals much more with the sectarian unit, the community next to you, not the community at large. It is this difference that hampers the democratization of the MENA region, the “building of Sultanic” states. There was another interesting point brought up in the reading that caught my eye that the premise of all MENA region civil society being the same, the strong sectarian loyalty, the absence of mass polarization against tyranny, and the absence of any mass advocacy all seem to fit as correlation and I think there is a good point to the idea. Yes, not all of the MENA region civil societies will be exactly the same but they all seem to have similar foundations and similar building blocks. Is it any coincidence that three MENA region countries had revolutions against the tyrannical regimes at the same time due to , or are they all operating on a similar premise? These are things that I found really interesting about this week’s reading. Although, I did want to add something interesting I was just reading in the news.

Turkey launched an artillery assault on Syria after Syrian shells killed 5 Turkish citizens, and NATO convenes under article 4. I was curious what this meant for the rebel forces, if NATO were to intervene and quell conflict would democracy become an easier task, with far less bloodshed. What would a ending of the Syrian regime mean for civil society would it be able to spread and bloom among the war town society or would the people there only look to a higher authority to make things better for them. Whatever the case this situation really interests me and will be one I plan on following !

Reflection 3

Yesterday, along with Jared and Bryce we went to a talk on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and what they were actually like. The previous week, in class, we watched a documentary on Orientalism and a clip from the Colbert Report. These 3 individual things tie into the same core theme: how are middle easterners perceived? Not only in the United States but also in the West in general.

It was amazing for me to hear just how different society is and how the Muslim Brotherhood is compared to what it is portrayed by the Western media. I always knew that many stereotypes were formed about Middle Easterner even before the rise of extremism and terrorism simply because of the vast history of conflict and hatred between the Middle East and West since the early Middle Ages even prior to the Crusades. Naturally you would want to dehumanize your "enemy" and desensitize your population to what you may inflict upon that enemy so naturally Middle Easterner would be portrayed in a negative light as devils or at least uncivilized people that need to be stopped. For example, few know that Afghanistan used to have one of the greatest civilizations of the known world prior to Western involvement and later the rise of the Taliban. Most people like to focus on what they are given as information rather than try to learn for themselves the truth. From visiting a Middle Eastern country to actually speaking from people from those countries, it does not take much to dispel the inaccurate information given off by Orientalism.

It was especially disappointing to me that this happens in the United States, a country that has always prided itself on being a melting pot of world cultures. It is amazing that so many people can be blinded by hatred or by the actions of a few to discriminate or disregard a select group. It is unfortunate that the contributions of American Arabs and more generally American Muslims goes unrecognized but I believe that things are starting to change more and eventually the more people will interact with American Arabs and Muslims and the more the collective memories of the Terrorist attacks start to fade, tolerance and acceptance will come back into the mainstream instead of being pushed back to the Middle Eastern Wars and the War on Terror.

Paul Ropp

                                                                Structured Response #3

                                When we talk about Civil Society claiming legitimacy it is just an expansion on a notion that both, states and people crave legitimacy; that in the grand scope of things a member of Civil Society needs to be recognized as much as the forlorn NGO, or government agent not just for self-interest but for the interest of civil society as a whole. However, when civil society actors begin to claim legitimacy as organic parts of a broader society it tends to hamper the creation of an effective civil society.

            As Bowers mentioned in the reading most Arab’s in cultural no matter how liberal they are, Arabs are very traditionalist; they will stick to the way things have been. Even when liberalist Arabs argue for democratization they cite the Qur’an and other traditionalist documents. But when one group of Arabs, say radical Islamists, claim organic legitimacy not only on behalf of their organization but others as well, it can lead to another tyrannical regime  or cause other countries to disparage the growth of democracy; as they are afraid of Islamist extremist rhetoric being in control of a state. In Egypt the US was reluctant in supporting the revolt in fear that the “Muslim Brotherhood” would assume power. It is the single sided rhetoric of organizations claiming legitimacy that preclude any mass advocacy of the population at large  only allowing the top tier of non-state actors to assume control of the advocacy. Moreover, one group claiming some sort of organic legitimacy of both the main body of civil society and the periphery leads to a lack of multilateral cooperation, as one group retains the power to speak for multiple sections of the population that will remain largely uninformed, especially in the MENA region. Bowers also mentioned that Arab civil society has a different meaning culturally.

            Claiming organic legitimacy of civil society In the MENA region is fairly easy compared to the West as the MENA is much more segregated; different ideals in every region and to every person. Civil society has a much more interpersonal family base; a duty to the small sect of the family, the tribe is the precipice of duty, whereas in the West civil society is a burgeoning concept of civic duty and allegiance to the ideals of democracy and personal freedom. Now when one group claims to speak for society, when the whole society is devoid of popular meaning or ideals, besides religion, things get a bit fishy. The MENA region historically is a very family oriented society and as long as the family unit enjoys relative freedom and the right to practice traditions it will remain intact and the main base of MENA region civil society. This difference in civil society has allowed the sultanic state, tyrannical regimes, and paltry popular advocacy in the MENA region to remain a modern history.

            In short when one group claims to have organic legitimacy it will forgo the standard rise of a proper, diverse, and unified social society into a unilateral regime and in the long run cause even more political and sectarian strife then would have been caused by a gradual onset of civil society. 

Reflection #3

Magda Borgarelli

Last week, we watched a documentary about Orientalism, followed by a clip of The Colbert Report.  The main topic, of course, was how most people in the West fail to actually understand what it means to be from the Middle East, basing their ideas on movies or books that portray Easterners rather stereotypically.  America prides itself for being a “melting pot” but yet, its population is often not aware of what it means to not live in America, or even of other cultures’ customs.  As in the Oklahoma bombing, everyone is quick to draw conclusions on evidence that may or may not exist, simply because it fits the beliefs that most people hold.  We fight wars to spread ideals, to spread democracy, and to let others know that there exists a different reality from what they live in.   However, a majority of our population lives in ignorance of what is different, and no war is waged to change that.  Cultural understanding, in my opinion, is the first step toward world peace, because it shows others that we are indeed capable of living amongst diverse people and are able to cooperate with them.  There shouldn’t be any “us” or “them”.  We are all human beings, with fears and dreams, no matter if we live in West or in the Middle East.  Not all Arabs are terrorists nor fly on magic carpets.  They go on about their day just like we do, and we need to begin educating people in this matter.    

Structured Response #3

Magda Borgarelli

When claiming that a civil society is legitimate because it is an “organic” part of broader society, it is implying that it carries the values of that same society.  As Kawtharani asserts during the CAUS’ conference, Arab’s history has a base of kinship and community that remains strong to this day.  Therefore, a civil society that reflects those traditions and beliefs, both religious and almost tribal, will be more easily integrated in the MENA region.  It will more likely be considered legitimate than one that carries with it the “Western ideals” because the population of the region will identify more closely with what it believes is already part of the society.  In places where one couldn’t encounter a tradition of a strong civil society, its success today depends on the willingness of the people in that specific place to actively participate.  As is the case for every population in the world, one is more prone to collaborate and take part in something that is somewhat familiar as opposed to foreign, therefore giving legitimacy to something that is more an “organic” part of one’s daily life.

This issue could throw a wrench in the mainstream model of civil society’s role in democratization because it would rule it out as an agent of change.  If something can be defined as already embedded in a society, it means it won’t inspire anything other than the status quo, which in this case would equate an authoritative government.  However, democracy did spread in the MENA region and it would be naïve to say that civil society did not play a role in this movement.  It would also be wrong though to consider it a necessary prerequisite for democratization.  In fact, can encounter civil societies that are linked with the government while others aren’t; some will have religious affiliations while others won’t; and some will represent the community while others foreign interest.  The point is that civil society is something dynamic.  It interacts with its environment and the environment interacts with it.  Being an “organic” part of broader society doesn’t mean that some of it will be foreign to it.  It simply means that it represents the old and the new, and it is the interaction between the two of them that brings about democratization.