Historical Discourse. Studies in discourse analysis are strongly tied to history, for they also uncover the roots and origins of these discourses, their development, the evolution of various intellectual currents, and the differences among them in adopting certain discourses during certain historical instances. In general, by discourse we mean the conscious use of a group of ideas, concepts, and perceptions (concerning a given subject) aiming at constructing and promoting particular social norms, as well as justifying them. Discourse analysis is also associated with studying the origins of cultural and social stereotyping of a particular group in society, how and why such stereotyping evolves on the level of discourse throughout history, and how it clashes with a feminist perspective on women’s rights and issues of equality. In this issue of Letters from Memory we focus on “Muslim women” as a “topic” (or conceptualized category) of discussion within the so-called Islamist, secular, western Orientalist, or the national official discourses. This subject is considered a good example of the aforementioned evolution of discourses and counter-discourses, their roots and manifestations. Discourse analysis here exposes the assumed contradiction between opposed intellectual currents and uncovers latent common characteristics and ideas. This necessitates re-reading and reinterpreting the various historical stages and the discourses used around women (e.g. the subject of women in Islam) by the official state institutions or the intellectual groups of society throughout different periods.

Re-reading History. New ways of understanding and studying history differ from the traditional view in that they focus not just on events, hard facts, and historical figures as such, but also on social and cultural discourses that history produces and represents in its source texts. This constitutes analysis and a reinterpretation that would transform our understanding of a phenomenon or make us see it differently.

These new interpretations play the role of organizing and re-organizing the experiences of the past, hence interpreting past histories from the perspective of the present and for that present. Related to this is a view expressed by a contemporary historian that our modern societies with their official institutions present to us the past in a certain image that asserts the inevitability of the way things are. History is invoked by politicians and the media to naturalize hegemonic systems and dominant discourses in the eyes of the people. However, new historical studies in their analysis and re-interpretations of the past should de-mystify unjust cultural notions and practices, and destabilize social and political authoritarian institutions through exposing the history of their misrepresentations of the past. The goal is to distinguish between dominant and marginalized discourses in the histories that reach us, and discover attempts to conceal the alternatives in the past as a way of censoring proposed alternatives to the present.

Such views of history and the process of identifying discourses undoubtedly reflect on the study of women’s history in a way that also affects their present. New historical research is to disrupt the notion of fixity in cultural practices and discover the nature of power systems that lead to the appearance of seemingly timeless, unchangeable gender binarisms and imbalances. It is a kind of historicizing that applies critical scrutiny to all categories, assumptions, and frameworks usually taken for granted. An example from Arab cultural history are the recent studies that rethink the analytical categories of modernity, medieval and pre-modern times, and the assumed opposition between modern Islamism and liberal secularism concerning gender issues and patriarchy; these constitute topics in this issue’s articles by Mervat Hatem and Fatma Müge Goçek, as well as the subject of Judith Tucker’s book. The three mentioned researchers deconstruct historical discourses and re-interpret them for new meanings and significance. Contemporary historians now call for a new history of concept and category formation, of socio-cultural sediment, which are to be reevaluated and contested if necessary.

This Issue. The Arab Islamic tradition is rich with various forms of historical writings that act as sources in themselves conveying to us the past, as well as a record of the developing “awareness” of this past history, writing about it, and transforming it into a “subject” for categorization, explanations, and commentaries. For this reason we are presenting the two books by Tarif al-Khalidi (1994) and Abd al-Rahman al-Sakhawi (15th c.) to focus on this theoretical, analytical dimension. In this direction, al-Khalidi explains the intellectual roots of the development of historical thought during different times, and al-Sakhawi produces a small distinctive book on the philosophy of history and its use as a “science” to benefit “the two minds of human beings: the natural instinctive mind and the hearing mind, which is a developed addition acquired through experience.”

He presents definitions and discussions which resemble our current understanding of history discourses and cultural representations, and the importance of analyzing their use. In other words, the intellectual foundations in the Arab and Islamic tradition do exist and await more critical research, establishing links, and re-interpretations. An example is the need to add a new feminist/gender-sensitive perspective, due to the scarcity of women’s history on one hand, and the lack of an analytical gender lens to view the past or present, on the other. Awareness of women’s issues is now considered a site of polarization among contemporary contesting discourses.

This is what both Mervat Hatem and Fatma Müge Goçek attempted to demonstrate, not in defense of any specific orientation against another. They have two common goals:

(a) Criticizing the extreme polarization which makes each group believe that they are in total contrast to the other and that they alone are capable of providing the best emancipatory solution (the strict and “conservative” Islamic side relying on religious principles, and liberal secularism relying on Western democratic and civil model). The situation is turned into an expression of the so-called and presumed

“historical” enmity between the religious and the secular paradigms, and the settling of scores. Goçek explains that this characterizes the current Turkish scene, where no solutions are reached or progress achieved.

(b) Through in-depth analysis of these contemporary discourses, we discover that both agree on negative, “traditional” notions about the character of women and their roles in the home and in society, despite their apparent differences. This similarity demonstrates a discourse that is not defined as to whether it is Islamic or secular, but points to a Western/orientalist view of modernity that was internalized by both groups.

It is in fact a modern “conservative” and biased patriarchal vision which differs from the values and practices of the cultural and religious heritage in pre-modern times (again see Judith Tucker’s book report inside). In other words, the actual opposition is between the patriarchal and national/state modernity on one hand, and the formulations attempted by the Muslim women themselves in the Middle East in order to create a modernity that is non-Western and non-patriarchal or traditional, on the other hand.

As for Ebrahim Moosa’s article, it deals with the idea of re-acquaintance with the roadmap of thinking in the Islamic past, which in his opinion was flexible and diverse enough so as to allow for such re-constructions and emancipatory visions.

We consider such research orientation liberational on two levels: breaking from colonial and hegemonic viewpoints imposed during certain historical turns, and discovering in history alternative visions of gender relations, which might prove inspiring.

Lastly. We hope that this issue would contribute to producing epistemological and cultural material, with a positive impact on women’s issues and towards an emancipatory discourse of historical and indigenous legitimation. It is worthy to note that this issue of “Letters from Memory” is long overdue for reasons related to the finalization of all its material; we do apologize and hope to regain prompt continuation of future issues in their appointed times.