...Political Isalm in Egypt following the 1967 Six Day War.

Midterm paper for History and Politics of the Middle East. The assignment: Account for the rise in political Islam in Egypt after 1967. Circa 1000 words, use at least five separate sources, quotes not necessary.

Taylor Williams
November 18, 2004
History and Politics of the Middle East

The Effects of Social, Economic, and Political Issues in the Rise of Political Islam in Egypt Following the 1967 Six Day War

The rise in political Islam in Egypt following the year 1967 was contingent upon a number of factors. Those factors span the entire spectrum of life in Egypt, from the arena of national politics to the local gathering spots. Before progressing into an analysis of how those factors effected the rise to prominence of political Islam, one must first gain some grasp on what exactly political Islam is, and more importantly, was. For the purposes of this analysis, political Islam will be understood as the movement to establish Islam as a major player in all facets of life, with particular emphasis on politics and state regulated entities, rather than as a private religious practice. Though it was a far reaching movement, by no means located in only one country, Egypt’s particular circumstances provide a fertile ground within which to examine it. Moreover, constraining the time span to after the six-day war in 1967 removes the actual conception of the movement and only looks at its struggle for prominence. That prominence can be seen in three distinct, yet still overlapping sectors of Egypt’s state issues: social, economic, and political.

Perhaps the most prominent social issue, which would have been in the forefront of everyone’s mind in the years directly following 1967, would have been the six-day war. Apart from constraining the extent of this analysis, the war itself holds more than a little of the responsibility for the elevation of political Islam. Prior to the war, the prevailing understanding was that Egypt was quite strong, that the alliances Nasser was building among other Arab states with a view to creating an Arab Supra-State were also strong and prepared to take on their common enemy, Israel. After the Egypt-Syria-Jordan alliance had been thoroughly, and unequivocally, beaten in the course of six short days, people were left wondering where to turn to. Islam was the answer for many, if not the overwhelming majority. Other social issues also played a part in this renewed focus. The Egyptian people, I say Egyptian as a growing sense of nationalism was also taking root, had also just immerged from a number of years in experimentation with outside ideals of how a country should be run, socialism versus capitalism, namely. These ideals had not shown any promise for them, and they began to look inward, rather than outward, or westward, for their sense of a future. With an economy that can be called anything but fruitful, many people found themselves enduring a quality of living that led them to seek assurance. Asef Bayat, professor of sociology at American University in Cairo, in an article published in the Middle East Report, calls this proactive search of assurance “quiet encroachment,” and exemplifies how people were not only looking for spiritual assurance, but quite definite, physical assurance as well. The underlying, driving element of this quest, once again, is a renewed focus on Islam as a unifying factor.

Egypt’s economic issues in the last 30 years of the millennium had more effects than the social response previously discussed. Coming on the heels of Nasser’s socialist experiment, which saw the state taking over whatever private industries existed, Sadat was left trying to back peddle and find some way to revive the country. He attempted this through a policy of Infitah, or opening up of the Egyptian economic engine, not only to nationalistic privatization, but also to international interests. He did so to the effect of driving the poverty stricken lower classes even further down into deeper and deeper defined peasantry. The lower classes were left seeking any form of connection they could establish with their malevolent providers. The progression of political Islam, especially as it manifests itself in the Muslim Brotherhood was, and remains to be, a multi layered approach that gave each individual that link, to some degree, with the ruling class, and with the gap between the upper and lower classes widening at an incredible rate, it is no wander that people began to seek out new ways to have their needs recognized.

Though social and economic issues were instrumental in facilitating the elevation of political Islam, they are, themselves, almost completely hinged upon the political climate that spawned them. Prior to the war, Nasser had established for himself an unequivocal, unilateral control of his country that even stretched into neighboring countries through the experiment of the United Arab Republic. That control included the repression of any, every entity, be it social, political, religious, or otherwise, which posed a threat to his leadership. Prime among those was the Muslim Brotherhood, the premier group advocating, and furthering political Islam. After the devastating defeat he suffered at the hands of a seemingly much weaker enemy in the 1967 war, Nasser’s power was all but bankrupt. Though he still retained his leadership position for a few more years, and for the most part still had the faith of his people, he was no longer able to act on his vision for the Middle East. Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, was then left in the extremely precarious position of trying to earn the respect of his predecessor. However, Sadat did not have the commanding personality that Nasser had. On top of that, Sadat liked to live a life of luxury and very much enjoyed the trappings of power and office. This contrasted sharply with the precedent that Nasser had set. In an attempt to distance himself from Nasser, Sadat allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to begin to function again, and it quickly rose in prominence for the reasons previously discussed, till it became a formidable entity, and even took on separate political and military wings. Sadat seemed to solidify his fate when he agreed to peace talks with Israel at Camp David under US President Jimmy Carter. Abandoning the other Arab states involved in the conflict, he flew to the United States in September of 1978 and reached an agreement with Israel, which failed to secure a Palestinian homeland, or anything resembling a favorable outcome. In October, 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Al-Jihad in an action they hoped would lead to a more Islamic ruler. This assassination signals the main thrust of political Islam into public affairs, which will not be restrained by any means.

Factors facilitating the rise of Political Islam were many, and it is clear that they were decisive. Whatever the reasons were, there can be no question that Islam began to emerge as a key political force in Egypt, especially after 1967.

Works Cited
1) Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East, Third Edition. Westview Press, Oxford: 2004

2) Owen, Roger. State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, Third Edition. Routledge, London: 2004

3) Hirshkind, Charles. “What is Political Islam?” Middle East Report, October-December, 1997

4) Bayat, Asef. “Cairo’s Poor, Dilemmas of Survival and Solidarity.” Middle East Report. Winter, 1997

5) "Special Report: Middle Eastern Affairs." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Nov. 2004 .

Happy Few

The third in a sequence of five essays over different facets of the life and writings of Mr. William Shakespeare. This one specifically is a character analysis of the progression of Prince Hal to King Henry V.

Taylor Williams
Dr. Ditmore
Shakespeare
27 October 2004

Happy Few

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile.” (Shakespeare IV.iii.60-63) How incredible is such a display of leadership, for a king to call the lowest born man in an army that is home to church robbers along with nobles, his brother, a word that carries so much more meaning than mere relation? In Henry V, William Shakespeare presents a king of unquestioning resolve, honor, and conviction. This image of the monarch, however, is no constant throughout his portrayal in Shakespeare’s plays. Rather, the transition from Prince Hal to King Henry V of England is one of the most dynamic character arches to be witnessed in all of Shakespeare’s history plays, one might even argue in any play whatsoever.

The genesis of King Henry’s story actually comes much earlier in Shakespeare’s string of historical playes. Katharine Eisaman Maus, in her forward to the play itself, explains that Henry V “refers constantly to events before and after its own temporal limits,” she goes on to explain however that these events would have been “familiar to Shakespeare’s audience.” (Maus, 1445) The background that thrust Henry to the thrown also left him standing on extremely shaky ground at the top, and the audience would have had to have some understanding of this history. In his earlier days, Henry was known to have spent much time in the slums, carousing with thieves and villains. With the end of Henry IV we see that lifestyle coming to an end. It is important to understand where Henry came from in this regard. In Henry V, there is an extremely different man sitting on the throne than the one shown in earlier plays.

By the beginning of the play dedicated to his reign as king, and principally the Battle of Agincourt, Henry is no longer a man the nobles of his own country look down upon. Far from that, he has become a bastion of resolve, which sits upon the throne with such a commanding presence to be feared and loved alike. His grace, and sense of justice are depicted in the beginning of act two when he handles the treasons of Richard, Earl of Cambridge, Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham, and Thomas Grey, knight of Northumberland. Through a beautifully set up script, he acquires of these men their opinions on a man convicted of a crime small in comparison to their treason. Without exception, the three of them call for death, or at least serious torture of the man before he is released. Irony shines strong when in the course of a few lines, the three men who were so quick to disregard a man’s life are now begging for mercy from the same king they counseled to forego it. In the earlier act, the king shows his newfound delicacy through his response to the gift of tennis balls from the French heir apparent. In a not so subtle reference to his pending invasion, laced with a touch of innuendo, Harry responds, “When we have matched our rackets to these balls, we will in France, by God’s grace, play a set.” (I.ii.261,262) The Dauphin alludes to Harry’s earlier days, but fails to recognize that he is not dealing with the same man that once spent his time matching wits with good old Falstaff. The boy known as Prince Hal has precious small resemblance to the man who immerges as King Henry V, but where the two personalities converge therein is birthed a greatness larger than many a man can boast.

It is perhaps at that intersection of his past and his present, not to mention his hope for a future, that brings Harry to be the man we see in Henry V. His ability to mingle with, and understand the needs of, his common men gives him an ability to motivate an army in the face of overwhelming odds. This is shown in act four as he dons a cloak and strolls amongst his men to take account of their morale on the eve of their battle with the French. Even upon finding some men at odds with their present state, he is able to converse with them and defend his position from the rouse of an infantryman. These midnight conversations provide him the fuel to give a stunning, “Braveheart-esque” motivating speech in response to Warwick’s wish “that we had here but one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work today.” (IV.iii17-19) The eloquence and power that flow out of the warriors rousing speech in turn give the men the conviction they need to effect one of the biggest military upsets in the history of history. Within the merging of his abilities to bond with his commoners, perfected in his youthful negligence, and his noble blood Harry finds the makings of an incredible leader and completes his transition to prominence through victory against overwhelming odds.

As a history play, Shakespeare is mildly obligated to give more honor to his leading man than he might otherwise have. This is evidenced by the glorification of historical events and persons. It might be argued that this fact is the reason that the personage of Prince Hal, Harry, and King Henry the Fifth show such an overwhelming transition from youth to kingship. The fact cannot be denied, however, that the transition is there, is large, and is to be admired.

Works Cited
1) Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E.; Maus Katharine Eisaman, eds. The Norton Shakespeare. London: Castle House, 1997

Twelfth Night or What?

The second in a sequence of five essays over different facets of the life and writings of Mr. William Shakespeare. This one specifically is a performance evaluation of The Twelfth Night.

Taylor Williams
Dr. Ditmore
Shakespeare
28 October 2004

Twelfth Night or What?

How do you take a theatrical production that is at least four hundred years old and lauded world wide as a classic not only theatrically, but literally as well, and present it in a modern context with a freshness to appeal to the cosmopolitan masses of twenty-first century London? Why, tilt the stage clockwise about twenty degrees and set it in modern day India of course. That is preciously what Stephen Beresford’s production of William Shakespeare’s The Twelfth Night, Or What You Will tried so desperately to accomplish.

The first impression a play makes on an audience is almost always tied directly to its set music. As the curtain rises over the stage, the audience is presented with a dark scene of a group sitting down avoiding the rain falling down outside. The angled stage is at once seen, and sets the scene for the remainder of the play. “I thought it seemed to frame the play and draw attention to it as in a picture,” explained Susan Wooten, “It was really good for the play, it inspired the imagination.” The slant did provide a strangely appropriate setting for the play that followed, which always managed to be a little off. Close to a quality production, and yet, always lacking in the key elements.

Acting between the lines is a phrase a beginning actor will always hear as their director pushes, and drives them to provide some semblance of quality acting. The theory behind the phrase is that the truest test of an actor is not his or her ability to provide the correct emphasis or movement while they are talking, but rather, to maintain that guise effectively, and proactively, in between the lines. The first few acts of Twelfth Night unfortunately saw a number of professional actors standing unmoving, with almost blank expressions while their colleagues gave their lines. As the play progressed, however, this juvenile faux pas melted away to increased intensity in the blocking in order to parallel the growing complexity of the plot. By the end of the play, the actors were finally responding to each other’s lines with consistency and plausibility. One exception did arise in the cast however. Kulvinder Ghir’s portrayal of Feste provided the highest elements of comedy for the production, and was the one point of the play where the acting was at such a level to allow the innovations of the play to flourish.

Acting aside, the production’s major attribution is the idea of setting the production not in Illyria, as Shakespeare had called for, but in modern day India. The textual note attached to this fact in the Norton Shakespeare reveals that the Bard was,
“probably not suggesting a real country.” (Shakespeare I.i) The openness that Shakespeare left for the setting acted extremely favorably for the group’s decision to transform it. In fact, the largest problems to arise from the Indian setting have to do more with the audience’s ability, or inability, to understand the Shakespearian language being spouted in an Indian accent, an accent that oftentimes appeared to be forced. Modern India provides an interesting setting for Shakespeare’s comedy. The remaining prevalence of the caste system gives emphasis on the boundaries created by class, boundaries that the play plays heavily upon. Director Stephen Beresford justifies his decision about the setting through the subtitle Or What You Will, “It sounds like an open invitation to me.” (Beresford, 8) Overall, the choice to set the play in India had little effect on the quality of the production. Lyn Gardner, of the Guardian, comments on the theatrical experience, “it often concentrates too much on concept and too little on the execution and performances.” (Gardner) She was not the only one who felt that way however. Ryan Dapremont also responds to his impressions of the invention of an Indian setting, “it had the potential to add to the play, but so many things took away from it, it lost its opportunity to.” Indeed, whatever additions that might have arose from Indian backdrop are immediately lost to unimplemented basics.

In his production of Twelfth Night, Or What you Will, Director Stephen Beresford attempts give a novel, modern approach to William Shakespeare’s classic by setting it in India. That proposition, however, falls flat on its face and no amount of novelty could save the floundering production from its many other pitfalls. The first element a director must start with in any production is the quality of acting. Beresford forgoes this to pursue innovation inspired by an increasing focus on the Islamic world. The result leaves much to be desired and the audience is left begging the question, what?


Works Cited:
1) Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E.; Maus Katharine Eisaman, eds. The Norton Shakespeare. London: Castle House, 1997
2) Gardner, Lyn. “Twelfth Night.” The Guardian Online. 28 August 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/reviews/story/0,,1292567,00.html
3) Beresford, Stephen. “India Meets Illyria,” Playbill for Twelfth Night, August, 2004
Interviews
1) Ryan Dapremont, October 28, 2004
2) Susan Wooten, October 28, 2004

Fictitious Non-Fiction

The first in a sequence of five essays over different facets of the life and writings of Mr. William Shakespeare. This one specifically deals with Shakespeare’s incorporation of history in his plays.

Taylor Williams
Dr. Ditmore
Shakespeare
31 October 2004

Fictitious Non-Fiction

History, it has always been said, and acknowledged, is written by the winners. Most of our understanding of the era of Christ comes from the conquering Romans. It is the allies, not the axis, which we look to for our accounts of the order of battle from World War II. What then, shall we say about history as entertainment? Modern cinema looks to history as a common subject, often with great success, however, it is dangerous to look at a historical film and consider it an accurate account of history. William Shakespeare wrote many plays that are now categorized as history plays, however it is equally as dangerous to consider his theatrical productions as historical truth, a fact that is often lost as it is easy to view Shakespeare as a contemporary of the historical figures he immortalizes in his plays. A misconception that is faulty, and would greatly skew a person’s view of events accounted in his plays.

Kastan emphasizes that, “The fact that Shakespeare has served many as a source of historical knowledge does not make him a historian.” (Kastan, 174) It is extremely important for Shakespeare’s audience, be it contemporary or modern, to understand that he is not a writer of history but rather a writer of theatrical entertainment. His intent in creating his plays was not to provide a perfect account of the events of the past. Indeed, it would not be possible to do so, seeing as how even one, solitary man speed reading a single account could not accomplish this task in the time span a play consumes. No, Shakespeare was writing entertainment, he was attempting to awe audiences with the greatness or villainy of their past. Kaston elaborates on this point by stressing that, “no single model of history emerges from the plays.” (Kastan 175) What he means by this is that historians have a tendency to subscribe to a single model of history, God as victor for example. Shakespeare’s work actually has a tendency to pull multiple models in together and little residue of the models used in one play will resound in the next. This point merely adds credence to the purely empirical understanding of Shakespeare as an entertainer. Shakespeare could not have completely abandoned the major historical facts in his portrayal of events however. “The pressure of historical fact is heavy upon him in these plays, if only because the broad outlines of the history would be generally known,” (Kastan 175) explains Kastan. Due to the fact that his audiences would have known at least the most general facts about the events his plays dwell on, Shakespeare would have had to adhere to some sense of history in his plays, or at least ensure that the audience is flattered by his omissions. Kastan looks into this idea closer with an analysis of two of Shakespeare’s better know history plays; Richard III and Henry V.

The main point of divergence between confirmed historical truth and Shakespeare’s portrayal in Richard III is the deformities of Richard himself. Kastan enlightens those who might read his article by explaining of Richard, “He is as much a creature of fiction as of fact. He is not so much cheated of feature by dissembling nature as he is the recipient of feature from an assembling history, which, out of the facts it finds in the past, makes the history it needs in the present.” (Kastan 180) According to history, Richard may or may not have been such an incredibly disfigured man, but Shakespeare uses the idea that he might have been to build the character in his play. Also, “Queen Margaret’s bitter choric presence in Richard III is Shakespeare’s creation, as she had returned to France in 1476 and indeed had died by the time of his ascension.” (Kastan 175) The inclusion of the Queen in the play is an obvious attempt by Shakespeare to influence his audience’s emotions, and an exceptionally clear break from confirmed history.

In Henry V the largest way Shakespeare bends history to his will is with the simple omission of events at the quantity of multiple years at a time. “Henry died in 1422 of an illness contracted during the long siege of Meaux in the winter of 1421-2, having failed to subdue the Dauphin’s forces, and indeed having failed even to outlive the French King Charles and so never in truth becoming King of France.” (Kastan 177) In creating the stage play to represent the life of King Henry V, Shakespeare decided to glorify his actions. In order to do that, he takes the story up to a certain point, skipping many years to get there, and then leaves off without addressing the tragedy that accompanies the end of his life. Shakespeare also uses omissions within the order for the Battle of Agincourt to bring enhanced glory to his protagonist. Though it is true that the English arose victorious in the battle against overwhelming odds, “The historical sources, however, report that the improbable victory was gained in large part by superior military strategy.” (Kastan 176) The English used pikes and their much better archery mechanics to defend their troops against French cavalry and bring the battle into a closer hand-to-hand fashion. At the end of the battle the English loss of men is described as four nobles “and of all other men but five-and-twenty.” (Shakespeare IV.viii.99-100) Kastan notes that other, more reliable sources put the English death toll closer to six hundred. This is important because it illuminates that even as Shakespeare gives us very precise numbers, those are only useful to give credence to his story. One final deviant from truth, and something that Shakespeare is well known for, is the addition of characters that have little base in reality. For Henry V the added character was Falstaff. Though Falstaff was probably based on a real person, the name has been changed, and the personality Shakespeare attributes him has also been heavily altered.

A person accepting Shakespeare as historical fact would, or at least should, be greeted with the same dismissal as someone who claims that Apocalypse Now is a perfect portrayal of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Shakespeare however, has an aura about him in modern literature that he can do no wrong, and from that mystical characteristic attributed to the man, many people do sidestep the facts, and accept his histories as truth. I only hope that four hundred years from now The Matrix: Revolutions is not what the general populace accepts as an accurate portrayal of modern life in the 21st century.

Works Cited:
1) Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E.; Maus Katharine Eisaman, eds. The Norton Shakespeare. London: Castle House, 1997
2) Kaston, David Scott. “Shakespeare and English History.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Grazia, Margreta de, and Wells, Stanley. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Press, 2001.