Search results

Like a mega-earthquake, the end of the Cold War sent lasting shockwaves

throughout the international system. Outside the former communist bloc, the epicenter of this

earthquake, nowhere else were those tremors more dramatic in their impact than in the Middle

East—a region of long-standing geo-strategic standing and a legacy of incessant foreign

conquest and intervention. The end of the Cold War exposed clearly the structural weaknesses of

the region and drastically reduced its system immunities. As at previous turning points, the Middle

East faced formidable constraints as well as luring opportunities. Middle East at the

Crossroads is a collection of articles addressing the contours of this new environment and

its challenges for both Middle Eastern states and the major powers. It is a welcome addition and

an important contribution to Middle Eastern studies.

The relationship between anthropology and development is very much contested. While the debate about such relationship is not new (it began during the early 1970s and continued up to the present), it started to be heated during the closing decade of the last century with the ascendance of the post-modern critique in anthropology. Arguments of the debate are, generally, either for or against involvement of anthropology, whose dubious history is often cited by those who are sceptic about its role. It is unfortunate that most current heated debates on the relationship between anthropology and development are a reflection of anthropological elitism preoccupied with general dilemmas of anthropology while the real dilemma, that of those who are brutally subjected to misguided development and mass displacement, is compromised. This paper is against such muted anthropological elitism and while it endeavours to make the case for a positive role of anthropology in development, it does not distance anthropologists from the failures of development industry or portray them as an innocent part in that industry. It argues that while revealing the realities of the powerless is still needed, anthropologists need also to focus on the powerful, and probably be part of the power apparatus. The case of the displaced persons in Sudan and the author's own experience with NGOs are used to substantiate the paper's arguments and avert the muted elitism characterising much of the current debates on anthropology and development.