Adeed Dawisha is an interesting guy. Born in Baghdad, he went to study political science in England. Now, he works in the political science department at Miami University in Ohio. Dawish takes his background and his way of thinking and writes quite a bit about Arab nationalism, especially about how Egypt’s president in the 1960’s, Gamel Abdel Nasir, influenced Arab and Egyptian nationalism.
Dawisha says Nasir knew Middle Eastern peoples’ thought had to be changed from thinking of themselves as Egyptians or Syrians to thinking of themselves as Arabs. Through a varied number of arenas such as schools, mass media, and secularizing Islam, Nasir slowly changed the way people thought. Nasir knew he needed people to think as a unit rather than as individual states if he wanted Arab nationalism actually to occur.
This argument is valid because Dawisha uses examples from Nasir’s ideology and practices and invalid because Dawisha places too much emphasis on Nasir’s charisma in public speaking to change public thought. Dawisha includes examples what methods Nasir used to change peoples’ ideology. For example, Nasir used rewriting history to try and ensure education was in every sector of the country.
Dawisha explores the different methods Nasir used to change thinking and how effective these methods were on the population. Dawisha places too much emphasis on Nasir the brilliant public persona. This statement seems to negate everything Dawisha said earlier about educational reforms, mass media propaganda, and secularized Islam really changing the way people thought. If the peoples’ thought had been completely changed and they thought of themselves only as Arabs, the loss of charisma by even a very influential ruler could not have changed an entire population’s national outlook.
Dawisha explains what methods nationalists used to spread nationalism throughout the various Middle Eastern communities. Nasir spread nationalism through a climate of fear. Rather than simply expecting Arab nationalism to take hold through reforms in the way people thought and as a popular way of thinking, Nasir used force and violence to make sure competing ideologies would not take people away from thinking in an Arab nationalistic state of mind.
This argument is valid because Dawisha explains a difference in Arab nationalism which may not have occurred in other nationalism and is invalid because Dawisha doesn’t establish Nasir as a leader who did not trust Arab nationalism or his reforms enough to spread throughout populations on their own. Dawisha’s explanation of the violence or persecution to those who thought differently from Arab nationalism is important because it is different from European models. Many theorists say those who adhere to competing ideologies are marginalized by nationalist societies and the people in power leave them alone because they believe their own nationalism is strong enough for the general population to support it. Following Dawisha’s account, Nasir also seems to have faith in peoples’ changed thought and in Arab nationalism as the most popular way of thought in the Middle East. If this was Nasir’s belief, Dawisha needed to explain why he felt the need to punish those with competing ideologies rather than just trust they will be marginalized like in the European model.