Antun Sa'adeh E-Book

Adel Beshara

• Herausgeber: Ithaca Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1187

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 1999

Beschreibung

Antun Sa'adeh, a nationalist thinker who lived from 1904 to 1949, was one of the major intellectual figures of modern Syria. The impact of his ideas has been felt in politics, literature and philosophy, as well as in the social sciences. Indeed, the publications for which he was best known ("The Rise of Nations", "The Ten Lectures", "Intellectual Struggle in Syrian Literature", and "The Folly of Immortality"), have had a broad influence on the politico-intellectual movement in Syria and throughout the Arab World. Sa'adeh's life was a unique blend of dedicated, perpetual struggle, righteous idealism, and theoretical pragmatism. He was not simply an outspoken figure on the political stage, but attempted the revolutionary treatment of paramount social and economic ills. This book is a collection of scholarly articles by leading authorities on Antun Sa'adeh's thought. The collection covers various aspects of his thought and not just his political views. The contributors to this volume discuss several aspects of Sa'adeh's thought, thus providing a guide to further study and reflection. The essays deal with specific issues, the arguments and counter-arguments that have been voiced, and they try, whenever possible, to take the various interpretations of various aspects of Sa'adeh's thought a few steps further. It provides a synopsis of the work done hitherto in the field, discusses the important studies published over the past fifty years, including the most up-to-date work, and at the same time identifies the main problems that have arisen in Arabic as well as English secondary sources. Thus it provides on the one hand a reference work summarizing previous research in the field and at the same time it is an original work of synthesis and new interpretations. It is one of the first works on Sa'adeh to look on many aspects of his thought by leading authorities in the field.

Leseprobe

Antun Sa’adeh

THE MAN, HIS THOUGHT

AN ANTHOLOGY

EDITED BY

ADEL BESHARA

ANTUN SAʾADEH

The Man, His Thought: An Anthology

Published by

Ithaca Press

8 Southern Court

South Street

Reading

RG1 4QS

UK

www.ithacapress.co.uk

www.twitter.com/Garnetpub

www.facebook.com/Garnetpub

thelevant.wordpress.com

Ithaca Press is an imprint of Garnet Publishing Limited

Copyright © Adel Beshara, 2007

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

First Edition

ISBN: 978-0-86372-471-8

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Samantha Barden

Jacket design by Garnet Publishing

Cover photo used with permission of Folios Limited

Printed in Lebanon by International Press:

[email protected]

To the Children of Life

Contents

————

Acknowledgements

Notes on Contributors

Introduction

PART I NATIONALISM

——

1    Saʾadeh and the Concept of Regional Nationalism

Nassif Nassar

2    Union in Life: Saʾadeh’s Notion of the Socio-Economic Cycle

Inʾam Raad

PART II SYRIAN NATIONALISM

——

3    Saʾadeh and Syrian Nationalism

Robert D. Sethian

4    Saʾadeh and the Greater Syria Scheme

Adel Beshara

PART III POLITICAL HISTORY

——

5    Saʾadeh and the Recovery of Antiquity: The Evolution of Nations in Macro-History

Dennis Walker

6    Saʾadeh and Lebanon: A Historical Perspective

Edmond Melhem

PART IV SECULARISM

——

7    Some Distinguishing Aspects of Saʾadeh’s Thought

Adel Daher

8    Secularism in Saʾadeh’s Thought

Rabeeʾh Debs

PART V PHILOSOPHY

——

9    Saʾadeh’s Philosophical Doctrine

Adnan Amshi

10  Saʾadeh’s Conception of Religion

Nasri al-Sayegh

PART VI LITERATURE

——

11  Saʾadeh: The Expatriate Critic and Man of Letters

Rabia Abifadel

12  Saʾadeh’s Views on Literature and Literary Renovation

Mohamad Maatouk

PART VII COSMOPOLITANISM

——

13  Saʾadeh and National Democracy

Sofia A. Saʾadeh

14  Saʾadeh and Marxism

Moueen Haddad

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

————

This study could not have been completed without the help and support of many people throughout its various stages. I am grateful to the contributors to this anthology, and primarily to Dennis Walker, who was kind enough to lend an attentive ear to my project and to offer wise advice. I also wish to thank those who helped me in the translation of some of the articles: Dennis Walker; Mohammad al-Dami of Baghdad University, who lent his assistance while Baghdad was under attack; and Michel Hayek of Notre Dame University in Lebanon. Special thanks are due to my colleagues at the University of Melbourne who kindly shared with me their rich experience in the editing of this work, and to John Daye and Riad Khneisser at the Jafet Library in the American University of Beirut. Finally, I extend special thanks to Kalpalathika Rajan of Integra Software Services in India for his cooperation and assistance in bringing the anthology to its present form.

Notes on Contributors

————

Rabiʾa Abifadel is a PhD graduate in Arabic literature from St. Joseph University in Lebanon. He is presently a senior lecture in the Department of Literature at the Lebanese University. Dr. Abifadel has authored numerous books, including Al-Fikr al-dini fi al-Adab al-Mahjari and Jawla fi Balaghat al-Arab wa Adabahum. He is also a recognized poet.

Adnan Amshi is a Palestinian scholar currently living in Damascus. His publications include: Saʾadeh wa al-Falsafah al-Qawmiyyah al-Ijtimaeiyah, Al-Tarbiyyah al-Yahudiyya wa al-Sahuniyyah and Al-Sultah fi al-Hizb al-Suri al-Qawmi al-Ijtimaeʾ.

Adel Beshara is both a Fellow and a teacher in the Department of History at the University of Melbourne. He is also the editor-in-charge of the English-language quarterly al-Mashriq. A PhD graduate from the University of Melbourne, Beshara has two books to his credit: Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Saʾadeh and Lebanon: The Politics of Frustration – the Failed Coup of 1961.

Adel Daher was educated at the American University in Beirut and Frankfurt University. He obtained his PhD from New York University in 1967. Professor Daher worked as a lecturer in a number of universities in New York for ten years, and is currently professor at Pace University in New York. Professor Daher is a member of the Philosophical Society, the American Philosophical Society, and the Society of International Affairs.

Rabeeʾh Debs received his PhD in 1988 from the Department of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Melbourne. He has since been a senior lecturer at the American University of Beirut and at Lebanese University. Dr. Debs has published extensively in both Arabic and English, and has taken part in numerous conferences in Lebanon on secular matters.

Moueen Haddad is a senior lecturer in geopolitical studies at the Lebanese University. He is a leading authority in geology, and has authored several books in Arabic and French.

Mohamad Maatouk graduated in 1993 with a PhD from the Department of Oriental and African Studies in the University of London in 1993. He has published several articles on Saʾadeh’s ideology, and has participated in numerous conferences in Lebanon and abroad.

Edmond Melhem graduated with a PhD degree from the Department of Political Science at the University of Melbourne in 1997. Since then he has been active in journalism, primarily Arabic, and has published several booklets in English about Saʾadeh. He is currently employed with the Ministry of Education in the state of Victoria, Australia.

Nassif Nassar is Professor of Philosophy at the Lebanese University and Dean of the Institute of Social Sciences at the same University. He is the author of numerous books in the Arabic language such as Tassawarat al-Umma al-Haditha and Tariq al-Istiqial al-Falsafi. A graduate of Sorbon University, Nassar is one of the founders of the Arab Philosophical Association in Lebanon.

Inʾam Raad is regarded as an authority on Saʾadeh’s thought. A graduate of the American University of Beirut, Raad was elected as Chairman of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party on at least three occasions, and produced a vast literature on Saʾadeh like Harb Wujud la Harb Hudud and Antun Saʾadeh wa al-Inezaliyoun. Raad was a member of many regional and international organizations, and a member of the Arab Journalist Association.

Sofia Saʾadeh received her PhD in 1974 from Harvard University. The eldest daughter of Antun Saʾadeh, Professor Sofia Saʾadeh has taught at the American University of Beirut and Lebanese University, and, since 2000, has been adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon, Issam Fares. Her publications include: Ras Shamra – Ugarit, Markaz Qadi al-Qudat fi Baghdad, The Social Structure of Lebanon: Democracy or Servitude?, and Antun Saʾadeh and Democracy in Geographic Syria.

Nasri al-Sayegh is a prominent Lebanese journalist, poet, essayist and author of several books. He has contributed a number of articles on the Middle East to books and various journals.

Robert D. Sethian received his doctoral degree in 1946 from the University of Michigan. His PhD thesis, The Syrian National Party, is the first known major study about Saʾadeh and was completed during Saʾadeh’s lifetime without the latter’s knowledge.

Dennis Walker is a PhD graduate of the Australian National University in Canberra and a leading scholar on Middle Eastern history. He has published numerous articles in leading journals and is currently conducting research on contemporary Lebanon.

Introduction

————

Described by Albert Hourani as “a man of courage, decision and powerful intellect”,1 Antun Saʾadeh differed from the ordinary folk of his country in the determination and inflexibility with which he held his political opinions. Much has been written about Saʾadeh, a controversial personality. The admiration he generated in some was equalled only by the antipathy, even hatred, he aroused in others. These conflicting emotions are perceptible to this day in the attempts to assess his thinking and his vocation as a political leader.

* * *

Saʾadeh began his political and intellectual activity in South America at an early age as a journalist working on his father’s weeklies, Al-Jareeda and Al-Majalla. In these first years, Saʾadeh, then in his late teens, displayed his independent thinking. Although Arabism was the dominant ideology among his expatriate Syrian peers in South America, Saʾadeh remained loyal to Syrian nationalism and spurned Arab nationalism. Second, many expatriates of Saʾadeh’s generation, including his father, seeking to fuse the national idea with the socialism that was then making inroads among the Syrian intelligentsia, adopted a socialist-national outlook. Saʾadeh, in contrast, was a devotee of nationalism and believed that nationalism had a political as well as a social and economic dimension.

Saʾadeh accepted the principle that the national idea was the one single and exclusive idea. All efforts must be devoted to political activity aimed at achieving the national idea. Economic and cultural interests that did not directly serve this objective would have to wait until it was realized. A perusal of Saʾadeh’s writings during this period reveals six broad principles:

1    a need to ameliorate wounded national pride nourished by Syria’s dismemberment into several states after World War I

2    a condemnation of religious fanaticism as a national disaster accompanied by a call for separation of religion from the state

3    an acceptance of the principle that the national interest supersedes every class or sectoral interest

4    an endorsement of nationalism as a revolutionary creed concerned with the preservation of the nation and changing the status quo in the social and economic domains

5    a recognition of the principle of force as an essential requisite for a people aspiring to national independence

6    a denunciation of Zionism and religious intolerance as a major threat to the political and moral dimensions of the nation (Syria).

Saʾadeh took up these principles as a matter of supreme urgency and pursued them relentlessly for the rest of his life.

Ignoring the critical substance in his writings, most writers have sought to portray Saʾadeh as a product of vintage post-World War I radical right tendencies. There is no evidence to indicate that Saʾadeh fell under the sway of this movement or that he endorsed its disposition toward extreme nationalism. Saʾadeh embraced the doctrine of nationalism as a basic requirement of his age, not as an instrument of aggression or chauvinism. The only occasion on which he indulged in radical-sounding phraseology was during a visit to Syria by the British politician Arthur Balfour, who gave his name to that infamous declaration:

Had there been in Syria one suicidal militant (fidaʾi) who would sacrifice himself for his homeland’s sake and kill Balfour, the Syrian cause would have changed from the Zionist viewpoint in a startling manner. The Zionists would see that the man who promised them Palestine met his death, and would realize that they were facing a real revolt against their illegal deeds and would know for certain that Syria was ready to defend every inch of her land with all her power and all the old and modern weapons at her disposal.2

In 1930, Antun Saʾadeh announced firmly to his father that commerce, although potentially profitable, was not for him. He could not meekly continue the émigré calling in which his compatriots had been trapped. So, in that year, despite the best efforts of colleagues to keep him in Brazil, Saʾadeh returned to Syria. Back in Syria, he began to wrestle seriously with the idea of forming a national party geared to the political interests of the whole community. Within three years Saʾadeh found himself leading a political party with branches in many parts of the country. Called at first the Syrian National Party, or PPS (henceforth SSNP), the nascent movement managed to survive because the authorities remained utterly in the dark about its existence and true purpose for three years.

Evaluating the historical significance of the appearance of Saʾadeh’s party, Hisham Sharabi has well noted: “The founding of the SSNP marked the end of the first phase of the nationalist movement of the older generation and the beginning of organized political parties.”3 The importance of the SSNP is not found in its record, but in the idea it represents. It was the first party in Syria to introduce sustained concepts of citizenship transcending traditional ethnic, familial and religious allegiances and loyalties. It was also the first party to offer a critical assessment of the national crisis in Syria and a vision of new possibilities outside the classical framework which, as Saʾadeh argued throughout his works, was theoretically confining and politically useless.

With every niche of the party firmly under his control, Saʾadeh emerged as perhaps the leading spokesman for Syrian nationalism. His speeches and writings went a long way in stirring the discontent among the intellectuals and ordinary supporters of the national cause. His words helped to bring about a revival in the independence movement – at least among the Syrian nationalists – and he played a key role in political struggles in Lebanon, Syria and, to some degree, Palestine. From this point on, Saʾadeh’s intellectual and political life – brief when compared with the long productive spans of his contemporaries – can be traced through three distinct phases. The first period spans the dramatic years 1932–1938, from the founding of the SSNP to his second departure from Syria. During this period a good deal of Saʾadeh’s energy was consumed by the concrete exigencies of the new party in a political context of urgent demands and rapid change. His writings assumed three directions. The first was novel writing, during which he was able to elaborate on a particular set of social issues and offer some personal reflections on the state of things in Syria through the eyes of ordinary people and the use of conversational language. The second direction dealt with the party, its ideology, philosophy and programme. It consisted of two major works: (1) Kitab al-Taʾalim, (The Book of Teachings) the first most comprehensive statement of the party’s political theory and strategy, and (2) Nushuʾ Al-Umam (The Rise of Nations) consisting of two volumes. The first volume was published in Damascus in 1937, but the second, which deals with the rise of the Syrian nation from the earliest time, was confiscated by the authorities and never was published. The work as a whole is intended to create a sense of national awareness of the unifying factors in the development and rise of nations. It is basically a sociological study of human history from nomadism to statehood engaging issues such as race and racial superiority, geography and cultural environment, the raison d’être of society and its evolutionary development, and, finally, the rise of the modern state. Because both books were written under harsh obstacles imposed by prison confinement, Saʾadeh was never in a position to develop fully the vast implications of his own ideas, and indeed he seemed to be quite open about it. The third direction, short-essay writing, touched upon immediate events and developments: the French mandate, the immobilism of the existing regimes, the shortcomings of state institutions, the problems of party politics in Syria, the looming menace of Zionism, the question of Alexandretta and Arab relations, to name a few. At the same time, Saʾadeh wrote about a broad range of topics that went beyond the political moment – most notably philosophy, culture, economics and history – but their journalistic format inevitably worked against any elaborate theorization.

The years 1939–1946, generally referred to as the period of forced exile, mark the second stage of Saʾadeh’s intellectual development. No longer engaged in immediate political activity, he could now adopt a much more contemplative or analytical viewpoint which enabled him to reflect more clearly and with greater depth upon certain topics. In the early 1940s, he wrote a series of 36 articles in the Arabic journal Al-Zawbaʾa of Buenos Aires. The articles were later published in two volumes. The first part of the series was called Junun al-Khulud (The Folly of Immortality) and the second part was called Al-Islam fi Risalateih (Islam in its two messages). Written in response to Rashid Salim al-Khuri (al-Qarawi), who maintained that Islam, as a superior religion to Christianity, was the only means of attaining the social and political revival in the Muslim world because of its ability to harmonize the spiritual and temporal affairs of society, the series casts a strong shadow of doubt on the individual motives of those who promote this line of thinking. The central and guiding theme of the series, which combines fragmentary notes and observations with systematic analysis, is that none of the three monotheistic religions is more dynamic than the others and that the single most important factor in their development is the different environmental and cultural conditions in which they arose.

Another work that appeared in installments in 1942 is Al-Siraʾ al-Fikri fi al-Adab al-Suri (Intellectual Conflict in Syrian Literature). It was published in Argentina in the same year in booklet form and reprinted in Beirut in 1955. Regarded generally as one of the most important contributions to critical Arabic literature, Al-Siraʾ still bears the mark of Saʾadeh’s brilliant and penetrating mind. Its basic theoretical discourse and driving spirit rest on the idea that literary flowering – and indeed human art in all its forms – is conditional not only on the existence of a cultured society but also on the existence of a philosophical outlook in society. Anwar Chejne puts it more succinctly:

[Saʾadeh’s] criticism is mainly directed against those who had objected to the melancholic and fatalistic poetry of the Orient, and who had recommended a new course of thought based on realism, at one time instructive and alive. While Saʾadah agrees that poetry, music and all literary forms are peculiar to a given society, he maintains that they should not be based on plots, subject-matters, and forms alien to their own society. For even Wagner, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Dante, who are masters in their own cultural set-up, would be the subject of boredom and misunderstanding to those aliens of other cultures. In the case of Arab poets, the trouble lies in the fact that those poets try to imitate the Arabs of the desert thus overlooking their own cultural milieu. To remedy this situation, particularly in Syria, poets and writers should be inspired by plots and subject-matters derived from Syrian life, past and present. This is the genuine and sure way for a real awakening and for poets and writers – if they aspire to a position of holding a torch of light in the dark corners of Syrian life. In this way alone, they will be able to bring out a realization of the real existence of man and his ultimate objectives in life.4

The third period, which covers the years 1947–1949, represents the ideological stage in Saʾadeh’s intellectual development. After almost ten years in exile, he was finally allowed back into Lebanon to resume his political struggle. On his return Saʾadeh found the party in disarray, more a provincial Lebanese faction than a national organization. His response to this “deviation” was swift. He purged the culprits, re-stamped his authority over the party, and initiated a series of explanatory lectures on its ideology in order to remove any further doubts about his intentions. The result was Al-Muhadarat al-Ashr (The Ten Lectures). Although this book is regarded as a kind of gospel for initiates, it also includes philosophical and historical analyses and a sustained exposition of Saʾadeh’s views on a variety of issues – fascism, international relations, Arab relations and the Arab League, and the Palestine question. Al-Muhadarat is a critical work not only because it contains Saʾadeh’s basic discourse but also because the concepts and ideas it elucidates have a universal significance beyond Syria. In tandem with this work, Saʾadeh produced numerous short essays on super-structural issues such as philosophy, culture, art, ideology, religion, politics and consciousness in a sustained attempt to define his philosophical system Al-Madrahiyyah.

Saʾadeh was executed in 1949 by the Lebanese regime after a protracted struggle that ended with his capture, trial and execution in less than 48 hours. Most students of Lebanese politics who are familiar with the circumstances of the trial are now prepared to agree that it was a gross error of judgement by the Lebanese government. The trial itself was a farce. Saʾadeh’s half-baked deeds may have precipitated his death, but it was not the actual reason for it. The real reason derives from the desire to destroy the culture of defiance he symbolized. Saʾadeh showed none of the customary deference to the state and repeatedly condemned its political mismanagement and other manifest deficiencies. He never swayed in any direction with public opinion. He wrote from the heart with the power of conviction and facts. His work bravely exposed worrying trends among his people but sought not to please anyone. Even in times of great personal danger Saʾadeh continued to hit back, to write, to speak out loud without fear in the true fashion of great thinkers who pursue the truth regardless of the consequences.

* * *

In certain respects, the years between 1936 and 1949 were the most intense and productive period of Antun Saʾadeh’s life. During these years Saʾadeh produced some of his most important works, and the truly prodigious and ideological writings that he was able to complete over a span of barely two decades before his death in 1949 constitute one of the most remarkable achievements in Arab intellectual history. Although his writings did not reach a very large audience even in Syria and were scarcely known elsewhere for many years, they have become generally recognized – both within and outside of the nationalist tradition – as a unique contribution to twentieth-century thought, with an impact beyond Syria and the Arab world.

Despite this, Saʾadeh has perhaps suffered more than any Arab thinker from under-exposure and partial politically motivated interpretations. From the moment he launched himself in the world he, alas, faced a ready supply of critics with an axe to grind: the authorities countered him by banning his party from political life and by vilifying it in the official media; the Arab nationalists denounced him as a modern-day Shuʾubist and an agent of British imperialism; the communists sought to portray him as a vestige of European fascism; and the Lebanese particularists succumbed to the equal and opposite error of imagining him as a traitor. This virulent campaign against Saʾadeh left little room for rational dialogue and created a vicious circle of misunderstanding and distortion. Timid attempts to rectify this sorry state of affairs were launched after his death in 1949, but much of it was marred by its uncritical and partisan character. In 1952, the “spiritual father of Arab nationalism”,5 Sati Husri, and the enigmatic Lebanese socialist thinker, Kamal Jumblatt, published two separate critical reviews of Saʾadeh’s ideas. Neither was sufficiently comprehensive or free of partisanship. Husri’s 79-page critique sought to explore Saʾadeh’s nationalist doctrine although only vaguely his social and philosophical views. It was not a very agreeable piece of writing but it was, in another respect, highly commendable of Saʾadeh’s intellectual power: “I cannot help but declare my great admiration for the energy and devotion of Saʾadeh, and my appreciation of most of his reform principles. His political and social ideas, which he ably supports with sound and logical dogmas, deserve the greatest admiration.”6 Even this intended compliment serves only to diminish Saʾadeh. Jumblatt’s critique, on the other hand, showed promising signs of theoretical openness, but lacked the depth and insights of his other works. Like Al-Husri, Jumblatt was inspired by purely circumstantial factors and his analysis, founded more in politics than in scholarship, suffered from all the drawbacks of instant history. Its saving grace, if there is one, may lie in its constant stream of references to Saʾadeh’s philosophical ideas and social views.7

After the publication of these two reviews the amount of scholarly and political attention devoted to Saʾadeh diminished. Instead, the intellectual pendulum swung towards other doctrinal systems – Nasserism, Arab nationalism and revolutionary socialism. Saʾadeh’s work, ignored or discarded, was evoked intermittently either to demonize him or to undermine his influence. However, after 1970 the pendulum swung back in the other direction. Hundreds of Arabic-language books and articles on Saʾadeh, plus many others strongly influenced by his work, appeared in Lebanon. At the same time, Saʾadeh’s motifs began to penetrate a number of academic principles – notably history, political science, sociology and education, as well as literature, art and anthropology. With this transformation, more concise and sympathetic accounts appeared that emphasized the basic thematic and continuity of Saʾadeh’s thought. The dictatorial Saʾadeh was succeeded by the egalitarian Saʾadeh, and the irrational, fascist Saʾadeh – never more than a phantom – by an acceptance of him as the pivotal philosopher in the transition to the modern state. There was Saʾadeh the cultural icon and Saʾadeh the intellectual powerhouse, representing a system of ideas sufficiently convincing to have provoked a counter-attack by those who did not like him. There was Saʾadeh the revolutionist and also Saʾadeh the literary critic whose analysis and discourse still require much greater operational articulation than it has received or perhaps could have received. It transpired that the neglect that Saʾadeh suffered in the preceding period was less the result of a reasoned intellectual judgement than the consequence of a concurrence of unfavourable historical and political events.

In contrast, published treatment of Saʾadeh’s work in the Anglo-Saxon world has remained static. The literature is guttered with bizarre images both of his life and work. A certain tendency has developed attributing to Saʾadeh political positions that are not justified by a close reading of what he has actually written or by a consideration of the problems he posed. Very often his concepts have either been reformulated or misinterpreted or used in a dogmatic way to justify or attack a variety of contemporary political positions. This inadequacy, particularly (but not only) in English, has also given rise to a plethora of interpretations of Saʾadeh, none of which are helpful. The first of these situates Saʾadeh in the historical context of Fascism and Nazism. It basically duplicates the classical Arabic discourse which sought to portray Saʾadeh’s work as a foreign contrivance and a symbol of Fascism in the Near East. The charge, often repeated without verification, rests on few resonant slogans (“long live Syria”) wrenched out of context, turned upside down and then cited as apparent justification for his “fascism”.

A second perspective has sought to impose upon Saʾadeh a more or less singular vision of him as “the architect of Syrian nationalism par excellence”.8 While this interpretation undeniably possesses a grain of truth, it tends to blind commentators to Saʾadeh’s other contributions. Indeed, the essential idea of nationalism, we would argue, is the basic theoretical point of departure for Saʾadeh, but his conceptual formulation of it clearly outstretched the concept of Syrian nationalism. If we are to appreciate what the latter actually meant to Saʾadeh, it is important to note some of the distinctive features of his wider theoretical work and to consider not only the objective determinants of his theory but also its subjective responses, particularly its comprehension of the dynamic of national consciousness.

The third schema is organized largely around a picture of Saʾadeh as a discredited, outmoded and irrelevant figure. The range of opinion in this schema has tended to associate Saʾadeh with a peculiarly Lebanese political tradition, one that is geographically parochial and historically limited. It basically caricatures him as a romantic and utopian holdover from an earlier phase of the nationalist movement. Saʾadeh’s thematic, I would suggest, stands for something much more important than this. The issues that concerned him, his approach to his subject matter, the types of arguments he used, the nature of his hypotheses, the broad scope of his insights – all these enable us to classify him as a bona fide political thinker and not merely as a polemicist or a quixotic politician.

This confusion in standard Western secondary sources is somewhat understandable. To begin with, the lack of primary resources in English has often impeded access to Saʾadeh’s works by Western academics. Until recently, virtually none of Saʾadeh’s major works had been translated into a foreign language outside his country. Although fragments have appeared in English from time to time, on the whole they have been inadequate and counterproductive. Selectively appropriated from Saʾadeh’s writings, these fragments have tended to undermine his theoretical consistency and to foster a general presumption that Saʾadeh lacked a coherent political theory, and that as a result his writings contain little of present-day value or significance.

Another reason derives from the disorderly publication of Saʾadeh writings. The problem is that, although some of Saʾadeh’s works did appear during his lifetime and, therefore, were accessible to scholars, most of them were not published in book form until after his death in 1949. Worse still, the first definitive edition of his writings did not appear until the mid-1970s – almost a quarter of a century after his execution. As for the works that appeared during Saʾadeh’s lifetime, they are as follows:

•    Id Sayyidat Saydnayyah (The Feast of Lady Saydnayyah, 1932)

•    Fajiʾat Hubb (Love Tragedy, 1932)9

•    Nushuʾ al-Umam (The Rise of Nations)

•    Kitab al-Taʾalim (The Book of Teachings)

•    Al-Siraʾ al-Fikri fi al-Adab al-Suri (Intellectual Conflict in Syrian Literature)

•    Junun al-Khulud (The Folly of Immortality) (see Appendix 1)

•    Al-Muhadarat al-Ashr (The Ten Lectures).

After Saʾadeh’s death, three of his works appeared in book form:

•    Shuruh fi al-Aqida (Commentaries on the Ideology)

•    Al-Islam fi Risalateih (Islam in its Two Messages)

•    Al-Rasaʾil (Correspondences).

Three editions of his works in collected form have appeared since 1950:

•    An-Nizam al-Jadid (The New Order, 12 volumes)

•    Al-Athar al-Kamilah (Collected Works, 16 volumes)10

•    Al-Aamal al-Kamilah (Complete Works, 10 volumes).

The latter includes his journal articles and short essays. It covers a vast range of topics and is perhaps the most useful and accurate primary source on Saʾadeh. Nonetheless, we are unlikely to see any significant rise in academic interest in Saʾadeh’s thought until this edition is translated into the English language.

Third, the perception of Saʾadeh as exclusively historical and atheoretical was fostered by the lack of published material on Saʾadeh in English itself. Apart from a general study by the present author,11 the only other source material on Saʾadeh in the English language has been Yamak’s redundant book The Syrian Social Nationalist Party: An Ideological Analysis.12 Many scholars, even some of progressive inclination, have shown considerable interest in Yamak’s study, even though it is no more than a simple introduction to Saʾadeh. The book is limited both by its brevity and scope – that is, by the emphasis that the author placed on clarifying some of Saʾadeh’s main concepts without adequately situating them within their proper historical or national tradition.

Tracing the development and change in Saʾadeh’s thought will remain a problem in the Anglo-Saxon world until his works are translated into English. This is because an analysis of Saʾadeh in his own terms is a necessary precondition for considering his place in Arab intellectual history, as well as of the relevance of his thought to contemporary times. In recent years several doctoral dissertations and numerous lesser ones have been written about Saʾadeh, and a small selection of his writings has now become available in English translation. The most significant development in this area has been the publication of his The Rise of Nations in Portuguese and, recently, in English. What’s more, the number of academic institutions stocking Saʾadeh’s works in Arabic has greatly increased, accompanied by a growing literature on various aspects of his thought – mainly, but not all, in English – on the Internet. These inclusions have helped to remove some of the limitations in the secondary literature and have served as a powerful corrective to specific problems. However, Western scholars will not gain a great deal of the flavour and richness of Saʾadeh’s writings until they read them in toto and in their original form: there can be no substitute for the real thing.

* * *

As with every thinker, in searching for the essential line of continuity in Saʾadeh’s thought, “it is constantly necessary to sift the chaff from the grain, to extract the deeper intuitions and main ideas from the mass of raw details and otiose digressions. Eventually a general design becomes visible.”13 This can be done in several ways: by tracing the development and change in Saʾadeh’s thought; by establishing the historical context of his ideas; by identifying the object of his work; and by defining the theoretical unity that permeates his entire range of contributions. Moreover, any attempt to impose a thematic structure on Saʾadeh’s writings must start from two basic rules.

1    It must try to locate the point where “historical context, intellectual vision, and political commitment”14 intersect in Saʾadeh’s thought.

2    It must address his work using the concepts and definitions he developed, not those developed by others.

This is one of the basic objectives of the present volume. It is an occasion to revisit an intellectual and personal itinerary that has been misinterpreted for more than 50 years. In contrast to the often crude and uncritical use of Saʾadeh’s work, this volume provides a critical introduction to Saʾadeh’s thought, centring on a broad range of topics. By consequence, then, it is neither a biography nor a wholesale interpretation of all his ideas. Rather, its task is to introduce readers to Saʾadeh’s concepts and categories and to try, through a critical review of his ideas, to rediscover the true efflorescence of his scholarship and explication.

Of course, one book cannot cover everything, but it can at the very least dispel some of the accumulated misconceptions that have grown up around Saʾadeh and point to areas of particular importance. The contributors to this volume discuss several aspects of Saʾadeh’s thought, thus providing a guide to further study and reflection. The essays deal with specific issues, the arguments and counter-arguments that have been voiced, and they try, whenever possible, to take a few steps further the various interpretations of various aspects of Saʾadeh’s thought. It provides a synopsis of the work hitherto done in the field, discusses the important studies published over the past 50 years (including the most up-to-date work) and at the same time identifies the main problems that have arisen in Arabic as well as English secondary sources. Thus, on the one hand, it provides a reference work summarizing previous research in the field and, on the other, it is an original work of synthesis and new interpretations. It is one of the first works on Saʾadeh to look on many aspects of his thought through leading authorities in the field.

Saʾadeh, as we shall see, barely resembles some of the portraits painted in the secondary literature. Rather, the portrait that will emerge is that of a man who valued highly the comfort and tranquillity of intellectual life; a man whose cultural tastes were conservative and classical; a man who took a deep interest in music and art, and whose chief form of recreation involved long, solitary walks in the woods, swimming and tennis; a man who suffered personal hardship but never wavered; a man who enjoyed a joke and was quick-witted himself; a man who spent his entire life in modest surroundings and on the margins of society. As we deconstruct Saʾadeh’s works and life, we shall discover in them nothing less than an attempt to provide a coherent explanation of basic trends and problems of a turbulent era and a range of topics which go well beyond both Saʾadeh’s time and framework.

Nonetheless, any study of Saʾadeh, however thorough, must be treated with a degree of caution and only as a first approximation of his thought. This is because its interpretations might be abandoned as a result of further research, and even the opposite might turn out to be more correct.

NOTES

——

1      Albert Hourani, Syria and Lebanon: A Political Essay, Beirut: Librairie Du Liban, 1968, p. 197.

2      Antun Saʾadeh, Al-Aamal al-Kamilah (Complete Works), Beirut: SSNP Information Bureau, 1980, 1, p. 118.

3      Hisham Sharabi, Governments and Politics of the Middle East in the Twentieth Century, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1987, p. 12.

4      Anwar G. Chejne, “The Syrian National-Socialist Party”, Islamic Literature, vol. 10, 1958, p. 47.

5      Bassam Tibi, Arab Nationalism: A Critical Inquiry, London: Macmillan Press, 1981, xi.

6      Ibid. p. 74.

7      One example is Kamal Jumblatt, Adwaʾ ala al-hakikat al-Qadiya al-Suriyya al-Qawmiyya (Lights on the Reality of the Syrian Nationalist Cause), Beirut: Progressive House, 1987.

8      Labib Z. Yamak, The Syrian Social Nationalist Party: An Ideological Analysis, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966, p. 10.

9      A third novel called Dumyah, written in 1937, remained in manuscript form.

10Al-Athar al-Kamilah consists of 19 volumes, three of which cover Saʾadeh’s personal letters and internal party directives to officials and members. It was assembled and published intermittently by the Information Bureau in the SSNP between 1972 and 1995. A more creditable attempt at reconstructing Saʾadeh’s works appeared in 2003 in a slimmer edition of ten volumes. What has excited interest in this edition has been its publication of Saʾadeh’s writings in something approaching the order and originality in which they were written so far as this can be ascertained, and this is obviously of consequence for those who are interested chiefly in what he produced rather than in what he did.

11    Adel Beshara, Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Saʾadeh, Beirut: Bissan, 1995.

12    Yamak, The Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

13    Joseph V. Femia, Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981, p. 14.

14    Ibid.

PART I

——

NATIONALISM

1 Saʾadeh and the Concept of Regional Nationalism

————

Nassif Nassar

The concept of regional nationalism, which started with Butrus Bustani1 and Rifaʾa al-Tahtawi2 in the nineteenth century, remained undeveloped until the 1930s.3 During this period, Egyptian nationalism felt no real need to modernize its main concepts, especially the concept of nationhood, because it prevailed over all other orientations based on linguistic or religious conceptions of nationalism. The Egyptian conception was chiefly political, based on the already established Egyptian state and on the struggle for gaining full independence from Britain. In contrast, Syrian nationalism lost much of the vigour and appeal it had once commanded due, in part, to the growth of linguistic nationalism, especially its racial aspect, and, in part, to the pressure of local sectarian conflicts and their international and political repercussions. Nonetheless, Syrian nationalism kept struggling to fulfil its aims in the face of partition designs by the European colonial powers and local religious, linguistic and racial visions of nationalism. The patriotic Syrians had to re-conceptualize the regional model of nation in order to regain a front-line position in the ongoing debate on the nature of nationalism, its elements as well as its corollaries.

The unique perspective of Antun Saʾadeh (1904–1949) was the outcome of this duality, in which the concept of regional unity was drastically renewed and tangibly crystallized. His achievements on these fronts broadened theoretical debate among the clashing nationalist movements in the Middle East and continue to do so to this day. For this reason, if for no other, Saʾadeh’s thought has to be more deeply analysed.

Saʾadeh’s place in the regional unitary debate

It is erroneous to view Saʾadeh’s thought as just another manifestation of the ethnical or idealist Irdawi unitary conceptions. In Saʾadeh’s view, the fundamental basis of nation is the territory or geographical region, not the ethnical bond. Nor is a nation a product of popular will or interest.4 This description, nevertheless, does not fully represent the total theoretical content of Saʾadeh’s definition of the nation. It creates the impression that he was a firm exponent of the theory of geographic determinism or that he regarded other non-geographic, nation-shaping factors as of no consequence at all.

Some interpretations have in fact classified Saʾadeh’s thought as another manifestation of geographic determinism. Ahmed Baydun, for example, writes: “Saʾadeh represents the extreme attitude which overstates the importance of the land and its role in the formation of national identity. This attitude is better called ‘Territorial Nationalism’, as it considers the land the only criterion upon which a national community is established.”5 Of course, a fuller and more detailed study of Saʾadeh’s nationalist thought would show that it is not that at all. Saʾadeh neither accepted the principle of geographic determinism nor gave the geographic factor an absolute role in nation formation. Any interpretation of Saʾadeh’s concept of the nation in strictly geographical terms would suffer from serious shortcomings.

The need for non-judgemental interpretations of Saʾadeh’s nationalist thought was recognized by Majid Khadduri. Explaining some contemporary views on nationalism, Khadduri writes:

Saʾadeh also denied the ethnic basis of the Arab nationalism that became evident to him when he had witnessed some Arab leaders claiming their Arab tribal origins. On the strength of the evidence of science, he said, he was not prepared to accept the ethnic origin of nations because every nation is a mixture of races, generated by migrations and intermarriages.6

Khadduri adds:

The ingredients of Syrian nationalism as recognized by Saʾadeh were three: geography, history and population. To geography he attached the primary importance in the emergence of nations and the formation of national character, although he conceded that geography is not an absolute factor because its effects diminish as civilizations grow. He maintained that in the history of every nation, especially in the initial stage, geography plays the most important role.7

Nonetheless, Khadduri’s elucidation is half-done because it ignores the keyword in Saʾadeh’s definition of the nation – “community”. For when Saʾadeh asserted that the “nation is the most complete community”,8 he did not ignore geographical factors or the importance of environment in human life and in the formation of national character. On the contrary, he re-incorporated them into the concept of community but in a way that justifies designating his conception as “communitarian”. His definition of the nation is based almost entirely on his definition of community, and since a community presupposes the existence of a specific geographical milieu, it is only fitting to designate it as a conception in communitarian regionalism.

From a purely structural perspective, Saʾadeh’s concept of the nation is distinguished by certain features. In fact, no writer or political activist in the history of modern Arab thought provides such an integrated and thorough theoretical study of the concept of nation as Saʾadeh. Even the views of Bustani, Tahtawi and others, who attempted before Saʾadeh to define the nation, homeland and nationalism, do not show the theoretical focus, systematic integration and detailed account of Saʾadeh’s views. This is because he studied a wide section of the history of European nationalist concepts and carried out a contrastive, critical analysis on its trends and definitions. His book Nushuʾ al-Umam (The Rise of Nations), published in Beirut in 1938, studies how nations are crystallized and the way “nation” should be defined. According to the book’s introduction, it was completed between February and March of 1936.9 But this was not the only occasion on which he tried to explain the concept of nation: an article entitled “The Meaning of Nation and its Characteristics” had previously been published in Al-Majalla magazine in 1933,10 along with other commentaries that included views on the same topic.11 Moreover, most of what he wrote after 1938 included references on the concept of nation. This means that, although The Rise of Nations is the primary reference point for studying Saʾadeh’s conception, we should not neglect the publications that appeared before or after it.

Geography as a primary factor

Where does one begin in evaluating the geographical factor in Saʾadeh’s writings, and what is its importance in his conception of a national entity? The answer to both questions should be based on Saʾadeh’s principle of genesis and evolution. It should acknowledge the fact that Saʾadeh was a sociologist in the first place. In The Rise of Nations, he devotes the third chapter to the issue of land and its geography, and remarks that if his research were on geophysics, he would have devoted the whole book to it.12 The issue of geography, therefore, should be considered in the context of Saʾadeh’s investigation into the rise of nations. As land is of primal importance to the existence of mankind, the relation between mankind and land must be clearly defined. Saʾadeh’s interest was in this relation and not in geography per se. In determining this relationship, it was not enough for him to state that land is of primal importance to life, in its diverse forms, and leave it at that. Advancements in awareness of the foundations of human life call for more in-depth study into the relation between man and nature:

The relationship between nature, animals and plants is different from the relationship between nature and man. The former is unilateral – that is, land meets the biological needs of plants and animals whereas no plant or animal carries out a deliberate action to condition land or prepare the necessities of life … On the other hand, the relationship between nature and man is reciprocal. It provides him with the materials necessary to fill his needs and, at the same time, it represents the scene of his achievements and aspirations.13

It is this difference which creates the foundations for human civilization. Man’s continuous effort to answer his needs distinguishes him from the other creatures and creates a complex relationship between humankind and nature. The latter provides the objective conditions for human life and man invents the instruments necessary to tame nature. These instruments are available if the raw material is available.14 In addition, as man exerts his effort to force nature to fulfil his needs, nature forces man to tailor his needs to its conditions. “The physical environment,” says Saʾadeh, “moulds man, who in turn and in response to its challenge adapts it to his needs. It is to this strong relationship between man and nature that we can attribute the superiority of man over all animals in the struggle for survival.”15

After stating this, Saʾadeh reflects on another fact, that the earth is divided into regions and environments over which mankind is distributed in groups. He accepts this division as a fact of life without paying much attention to the concept of region or carefully distinguishing between the concept of environment and that of region. However, he tried to highlight the causal relationship between the diversity of regions and the diversity of groups. In his opinion, environments play a vital role in diversifying human groups because of their different geographic characteristics. If earth were a flat valley, with the same level of temperature and moisture and no geographical barriers – that is, deserts, rivers, mountains or seas – mankind would be a unified large community.16 The reality, though, is that earth is made up of various regions and environments, and that mankind does, indeed, consist of various groups and civilizations. The diversity of regions and environments, therefore, is the starting point for understanding the diversity of civilizations. I say “starting point” because there are other reasons Saʾadeh attributed to the diversity of civilizations. We will return to this point shortly.

The environment determines the group. How is that? Saʾadeh, while trying to demystify the issue of definition, points to the impact of the geographical boundaries of regions, and to their nature and forms.17 The geographical confines of a region guarantee the unity of the community against the expansion of other communities. The nature and form of the region distinguish communities from each other by the resources, raw material, and physical and spiritual characteristics it offers each community in accordance with the two-way interaction process between man and nature.

The one example Saʾadeh offered in this respect is that of homogeneity. He states that flat land is generally more suitable for homogeneity than mountainous environments. The one with diverse forms produces “diverse homogeneity”. Across the generations, the interaction between the milieu and the community thus creates a unique spiritual and physical personality that also shares some of the general characteristics of mankind. “There is [a] strong connection between the personalities of communities and the land on which they live. Indeed, the very essence of their personalities is the homeland-environment.”18

The geographical milieu of a community represents only one side of the interaction between the environment and the community. The environment is indispensable, but is not the only factor that determines the character of the group and its history. A community is determined by its regional environment and the bonds and common qualities that unite its members and induce them to build a civil life. Certain environmental stimuli may not trigger the same response from every community. Here Saʾadeh introduces the factors of culture and psychology, drawing a sharp line between geography and history.

The geographical interpretation of history does not take into account the interaction between man and nature, between the group and the environment, and neglects the psychological factors, in their broadest sense, even though they are an important aspect of human development. In this context, Saʾadeh writes:

Nature and geography represent the yolk of human history. Even though they distinguish one community from another, in respect to history, they do not provide the imperatives, save in exceptional cases, but the possibilities. The land is not the only source of history although land is one of the premises upon which history is established. The most crucial factors in the evolution of life are the psychological and individual factors.19

The same point is made in the chapter entitled “The Rise and Evolution of the State”, in his book The Rise of Nations: “History is not the product of earth. It is not an absolute factor … The truth is that land provides the possibilities, but not the imperatives or the inevitabilities. Land is the positive, not the passive, side of history.”20

This is not the place to describe Saʾadeh’s view of history. But we think it is necessary to add one more observation about the role of psychological factors in history. Rejecting the geographical interpretation of history does not relegate its postulate to the metaphysical idealist side. Likewise, the historian who highlights the psychological and individual factors in the study of human history should not be classified as a psycho-liberal historian. Saʾadeh remonstrated against interpretations of history that pay no heed to the interaction between the community and the group or fail to see the process of interaction as a product of group peculiarities. For just as a certain environment has unique features that differentiate it from other environments, a certain community is, as well, characterized by many psychological traits that enable it to determine the extent to mould and exploit the environment and build its unique history in the general context of human history.21

This principle is applicable to the nation in the same way that it is to the group. This is because the group, as perceived by Saʾadeh, is not a faction of society but the whole society: it parallels the notion of society or complete community on which depends his definition of the nation.22This connection is clear in Saʾadeh’s writings, particularly in his general analysis of communities and environments and in his specific study of the nation and its regional territory. This specific exploration involves a greater emphasis on the dynamics and vitality of the nation as well as on the socio-economic environment.

From this perspective, the role of geographical boundaries becomes relative. They divide between communities or societies but only to an extent determined by group willingness for mutual communication and trade. A strong and budding nation, for example, can modify its geographical boundaries if it deems it necessary to protect itself through sheer socio-economic power if it is vulnerable. Saʾadeh summarizes this as follows: “A nation primarily exists on a piece of land with which a group of people interact and unite. As the nation acquires its own unique personality from its region, nutrition, culture and its unique social life, it acquires a national immunity and would modify its natural confines according to its resources and wealth.”23

This complex perspective, is in fact a reiteration and development of a concept that Saʾadeh had earlier declared during the founding of the Syrian (Social) National Party. In a lecture on the principles of nationalist education, he attacked both the racial and religious principles of the day because they denied the factor of popular interests and the “principles of popular nationalism”.24 In another lecture entitled “Practical Unity in the Lives of Nations”, Saʾadeh emphasized to his fellow compatriots the importance of national unity and its implications for the protection of the nation from imminent dangers. Saʾadeh also illustrates that the meaning of the nation and national independence depends on the establishment of “a common life based on a national geographical unit”.25 Further, in an unfinished study entitled “The Nation and its Characteristics”, Saʾadeh tried to propose a definition of nation totally different from the definitions that were generally accepted in his milieu. His starting point was political scientist Ernest Barker’s idea that a nation is a material foundation on which a spiritual entity is built and that the relationship between the nation and land is unbreakable, asserting that loss of land is more catastrophic for a nation than loss of its sovereignty.26

From this study, which can be considered a prelude to Saʾadeh’s book The Rise of Nations, comes the observation that: “[a] nation can only exist in its homeland. Often the region or homeland is the principal factor in the acquisition of different national characters. If not for the land, its nature, and topography, there wouldn’t be as many nations today.”27

There is no doubt that Saʾadeh’s awareness of the Zionist schemes in Palestine, and of the arbitrary nature of the nationalist struggle of the Syrian communities in South America (where he lived for some ten years from 1920 to 1930),28 played a crucial part in his emphasis on land or, to use his expression, on “environment-homeland” as a basic requirement for a nation to exist and to continue to exist. However, he did not wish for his views to be seen as reflections of his own position or that of his country, but as universal facts.29

It is clear then that, from Saʾadeh’s point of view, interaction with a certain region is an essential, but not the only or fundamental, prerequisite for a nation to be formed. A nation as a community with a special personality is a human entity that should be distinguishable from other communities. The methodology Saʾadeh utilizes to determine the decisive factor, after the geographic, in nation formation rests entirely on the concept of community. In his view, a community is a self-existent group of people, which differs from other communities not by a specific number of peculiarities or interests, but by the unity of life it enjoys within the limits of a certain geographic spot.30 The village or city is a community. But the region “as the community of the nation or the national community is the most complete of all communities”.31 This is the antithesis to doctrines that regard race, or language or other subjective factors as the uniting element in nation forming.

Saʾadeh and race

Saʾadeh addressed the issue of race and nation in The Rise of Nations and in writings prior to its publication. His conclusion was clearly negative. He explicitly attacked his contemporary nationalist writers for embracing what seemed to him to be obsolete racial doctrines and neglecting recent sociological and anthropological findings. His analysis centred on three primary issues: the concept of race, racial purity and racial superiority.

Saʾadeh was unequivocal about the concept of race. He argued that, contrary to common belief, race is a purely physical concept that has nothing to do with the psychological or social differences between human communities.32 People differ among themselves by their physical features – that is, colour, height, appearance – and are accordingly divided into races. Nationalism, however, cannot be founded on this reality. Every nation is made up of diverse racial groups, and none of them is the product of one race or one specific tribe. Hence, racial purity or national racial unity is a myth. Neither is attainable in this modern age of ours.33 In this respect, Saʾadeh stated:

We must clear out from our thought the concept of physical unity in the nation. Most sociologists agree that racial unity is an illusion and scientifically unacceptable. The nation then is not a physical or blood unit, but a rational and historical one. A deep chasm separates lineage from nation: a lineage is a general physical entity, while a nation is a general mental and rational faith. Race is a natural pre-historic fact. The nation, on the other hand, is something that evolves across time. It is a product of human thought, human emotion and human will.34

Admittedly, the superiority of one nation over another is never the work of lineal or racial differences. And if we glance through The Rise of Nations we will find the same basic ideas, except with further detail and elaboration. It is bizarre that Saʾadeh’s attitude to race has been misinterpreted as a racial attitude or lumped with doctrines that believe in the race principle and racial superiority.

Saʾadeh begins the second chapter of The Rise of Nations with a definition of race. Being different from genealogy it belongs to a different area of study. The scientific term “race” is the designation given to offshoots from a single kind which inherits their characteristics from their stems. Intermarriage among kinds hardly exists, but intermarriage among the branches of one kind is possible and productive. The criterion for distinguishing branches of the same kind is purely physical. Colour has been considered a criterion but scientists do not consider only one distinctive characteristic.

One of the most popular indicators used in this context is the skull – its shape, dimensions and size. But Saʾadeh was quick to point out that scientists have different interpretations on the origin of human races and their type number.35 For purposes of analysis he divided the human race into two groups. The first group is classified into primitive and civilized, and the second subdivides the civilized races into three classes according to skull types: rectangular head, average head and broad head. Saʾadeh uses this classification to prove that no relation exists between lineage and mentality. If lineage is a physical reality and if evolutionary differences have been detected among the primitive lineages, the truth remains that no special lineal or mental gifts are unique to one lineage. Advanced lineages, the ones belonging to the Euro-Asian civilization,36 do not show superiority among themselves by means of mental capacities and the ability to advance forward in civilization. Saʾadeh, thereupon, launched a fierce attack on the doctrines that claimed that the purity of a lineage is a prerequisite for development and civilization. He also chastises the doctrines that upheld the principle of racial superiority, debunking their corrupt ideas and political motives, and denouncing what he called “racial illusions” and “the deceitful linguistic evidence”, used by proponents of Aryan racialism. Within this framework, the relationship between nation and race is clearly and definitively defined.37

Every nation necessarily consists of individuals belonging to certain races, according to their physical features, but there is no necessary relationship between national unity and racial unity or racial purity. “From a racial perspective,” wrote Saʾadeh, “a nation is a racial compound, an amalgam of lineages.”38 In fact, the history of modern nations such as France, Italy, Germany and England indicates that lineal interrelation is the general basis on which history is woven. To quote Saʾadeh again: “No modern nation has a single racial or lineal origin.”39 The real unity upon which a nation is based is not the unity of lineage but “the unity of life across generations, whose cycle is reached within a specific region”.40

Saʾadeh and language