After some opening remarks by the chair and the organizer, whose content are summarized in the preceding posting, the seven participants in the roundtable commenced with their presentations. I have composed a brief, and most likely, imperfect summary of some of the points raised below based on my equally imperfect notes. Please feel free to have me correct or "re-describe" these summaries if I haven't gotten it right:
Erik Ohlander:
On Islamic “Mysticism” and the (re)Description of “Hagiography”
For a number of interrelated reasons, the field of Islamic studies in the Western academy is notoriously parochial and conservative when it comes to engaging larger intellectual, disciplinary, or interpretive trends in the humanities (and to some extent the social sciences as well). Viewed from the perspective of the field of Religious studies (which has, as of late, been undergoing a series of rather radical re-envisionings), Erik sought to address the problematic gap that exists between historical conceptions of Sufism and its exposition in the field of Religious studies, in particular the problematics of generating meaning (in an historicist sense) on or about the ‘nexus of Sufism and society’ as situated within the historical ambit of Hodgson’s “Later Middle Period” when faced with descriptive or analytic categories whose cogency have been questioned in recent years (e.g., “mysticism”). To take an example, while often doing truly groundbreaking work on heretofore little studied episodes, movements, and figures associated with the collective life of pre-modern Muslim societies, many of those working on Sufism from the disciplinary perspective of history have tended to not to question descriptive or analytic categories which, it should be noted, are directly derived from a discursive tradition (viz., Religionswissenschaft and its precursors) which has as of late been increasingly seen as, to put it forcefully, theoretically bankrupt.
In particular, Erik argued that we must learn to question the very terms we use to describe the materials and institutions we work with – categories as basic as “mysticism,” “hagiography” and “Sufism” all come out of a certain grounding in certain past academic discourses (which are becoming passé for many), and while we are not likely to discard them on a whim (which is unwise, and currently impossible in any case), the re-writing of the boundaries implied by these terms is likely to shift rapidly in the coming years (which is not only desirable but quite possible). Observing that many on this roundtable, especially in their creative use of a obviously fecund body of sources, have already begun to attend to this: exposing networks of meaning and significance through reading, for example, ‘hagiographies’ as literary sources analytically meaningful only inasmuch as they are embedded in the wider system(s) of cultural codes which framed both their production and their reception within and relative to the societies’ from, or into which, they emerged or re-emerged. What this does – and here the old hat parochialism begins to be subverted so that we ‘catch up’ with our colleagues working on similar phenomena in other geo-historical contexts – is to shift the descriptive, and thus interpretive, emphasis away from rigid and difficult categories such as ‘Islamic mysticism’ to ones much more pliable such as ‘Muslim mysticisms’.
As an example, Erik demonstrated that what was really important about the narratives surrounding the life and career of `Umar al-Suhrawardi (d. 1234) was not the narratives themselves, but the ever-shifting perceptions and interpolations to them that took place even during the latter years of the great master’s life. (Even Suhrawardi contributed to this re-interpretation of his own mission). Therefore, reflecting on Sufism and Sufi ideas in textual remnants of the past require that we seek out the diversions and changes over time as a reflection of the Sufi and social zeitgeist of the times—in this we find an element of primary historical value that can transcend the actual narratives themselves.
Erik’s presentation raised important questions regarding the relationship between the fields of history and religious studies (if not others). Seeing as he was the only representative of the field of religious studies present, the question must be raised as to how further connections should be built.
John Curry
"Exploring the Rural and Provincial Contexts of Sufi Hagiographies"
John described his work on the Sha`baniyye branch of the Halveti (Khalwati) order of dervishes, particularly in light of various manuscript and printed texts found in the Suleymaniye Library in Istanbul. After examining the literary production of their branch of the order, it became clear that the order’s leadership were not just working to define the legacy of their founding figure, Sha`ban Efendi (d. 1569), but also re-defining their order in an era of rapid change at the beginning of the seventeenth century. This period in Ottoman history witnessed changes such as a shift away from the conquest-oriented state, and growing dispute among Ottoman religious public and intellectuals over the proper practice of Islam.
What makes the Sha`baniyye literature especially interesting is its predominantly provincial setting in the northern Anatolian town of Kastamonu. There is a high prevalence of farmers and small artisan groups who appear in the hagiographies and other materials as narrators or protagonists for the story. Even Sha`ban Efendi himself was not of a prominent background, and seemed to have rural roots. Perhaps as a result of this background, the Sha`baniyye leadership proved adept at allowing the poorer and more humble members of the order to keep control. Attempts by wealthier or more powerful members of Ottoman society to gain control over the order often were resisted and did not meet with success. However, another theme that recurs in the material is that the order and its leaders are constructed as figures that can link together both the politically-powerful and the wider mass of society, especially to save the latter from financial want or life-threatening situations. These issues point to the didactic use of Sha`baniyye texts, in that they teach recourse to the Sufi saints for situations that require protection from danger, such as a story about Black Sea trader who is saved from piracy through the miraculous intercession of Sha`ban Efendi (who deflects a cannonball from the enemy vessels).
However, it is also notable that these texts also teach that one must never speak of the saints’ power, which points to another important social context that surrounds the writing of these texts—the emergence of a growing anti-Sufi feeling that marked the early modern period of Ottoman history. Sha`ban’s hagiography, for instance, is constructed as a rethinking the legacy of the mystical past to make it relevant to the present. Its author, `Omer el-Fu=adi, constantly comments on the narratives of Sha`ban’s life and acts of grace through the use of the “explanatory note” (layiha). This re-construction of Sha`ban’s life and times shows the Sha`baniyye leadership as fundamentally pragmatic, attempting to chart a course between puritanical and heterodox manifestations of the Islamic tradition. In particular, the narratives surrounding the construction of Sha`ban Efendi’s tomb demonstrate the growing power of puritanical forces in the early seventeenth-century Ottoman context even at the provincial level, as forerunners of the later Ottoman Kadizadeli movement sought to interfere with the order’s activities and censure their members. Interestingly enough, the appeal of the Sha`baniyye beyond just the Muslim population may have had something to do with the skepticism of the order’s detractors—both Christian and Muslim populations in Kastamonu paid visits to the shrine.
Curiously enough, the other notable branches of the Halveti order paid little heed to the development of the Sha`baniyye, despite the success that later followers of Sha`ban Efendi had in establishing themselves in prominent positions in Istanbul and other parts of the Empire. This included the career of Shuca` Efendi (d. 1588), who succeeded in becoming one of the personal confidants of Sultan Murad III both before and after his accession to the throne in 1574.
All this raises questions about how narrative texts reflect important components of the contemporary situation, sometimes even more than the historical past they purport to describe. To what extent can the Sha`baniyye we learn about from these manuscripts be called a construction of the order’s founder, or of a later generation addressing significantly different concerns?
Dina Le Gall
"Incorporating Sufism into History"
Dina surprised many of us by presenting a much more extensive conceptual project than we had originally expected. In short, she sought to establish a number of paradigms that could point toward a broader narrative for the role of Sufism during the period from its medieval formation up to the rise of Aneo-Sufism@ movements by the eighteenth century. In doing so, she raised a number of questions that should be considered.
Dina asked the question: what made Sufism so ubiquitous in Islamic societies during the period in question? In order to tackle this question, we have to ask questions about how Sufi orders succeeded in engaging other institutions and social frameworks in the various societies they operated in. It is especially worth considering issues of gender, as the participation of women in Sufi orders is still not fully understood, and prone to overgeneralization when it is addressed.
Dina’s own answer to the question suggested that Sufi orders had a great deal of flexibility, and a knack for building communal ties at an everyday level. In addition, their infrastructure was often well-suited for operating in both the contexts of the centers of Islamic societies and their peripheries and hinterlands. In particular, the period also witnessed a development of different levels of commitment for the broader population—one could opt for casual affiliation with Sufi orders without necessarily undergoing the full initiation process, which was often more than the average believer could effectively bear on a day-to-day basis. In sum, Sufism and Sufi orders could offer different kinds of promise for different people. For instance, some found comfort in the communal bonds and social life provided by the orders, others might find help through the mediation capacities of the order’s leadership, etc.
Dina hoped to eventually conceive of the framework of a monograph that could address various aspects of this phenomenon. One idea she raised was to create a chapter that could address the various ritual phenomena that came to be associated with the orders that might place them in the broader historical context of the period.
Daphna Ephrat
“The dynamic of the religious and social evolution of Sufism during the Earlier Middle Period”
Daphna sought to grapple with several issues, not only in the context of her own research on Palestine during the later medieval period, but also in a wider context of the history of Islamic mysticism as a whole. First among these was the issue of the miraculous in Sufi texts and contexts. While often dismissed by earlier historians as having no value in understanding the history of the orders, this runs the risk of doing violence to the very world-view of the peoples we are trying to study. In order to fully place Sufi leaders, orders and institutions within the constructs of their respective societies, we must recognize the importance and value that these narrative elements had, both for the order’s leadership and the audiences for these narratives. In particular, the narratives and works of Sufi orders could represent a form of universal Islamic standards to which a given Muslim community could gravitate. Since studies of the Middle Period as a whole assume a high probability of uniformity and continuity among societies distant in time and place, Daphna thought it might be most valuable to focus on the early phase in the transition from small circles of wandering mystic mentors with their disciples and other intimates into locally embedded Sufi-inspired communities—or, “the people of the Path.”
Her discussion of this issue revolved around three key questions: 1) What was the affinity between the Sufi guide’s teaching and the emergence of a following around him? In particular, how can we define the interrelationship between the institutionalization of Sufi orders as a Path to God and its consolidation in the form of a religious and social association? 2) What were the modes and frameworks through which the Sufi “friend of God,” the wali Allah, disseminated his knowledge and guidance and the character of the association that orbited around him? What were the modes of affiliation with the ahl al-tariqa and its meanings for the participants themselves? 3) How can we characterize the world around the shaykh and his circle? For example, what was the importance of the local governors' support of mainstream Sufism, or the spread of Sufi establishments under the regimes, for the growth of the ahl al-tariqa beyond its small core? In addressing these questions, Daphna stressed that we need to focus specifically on the figure and impact of individual shaykhs and the concrete historical realities, rather than seek some kind of universal tariqa-model.
Daphna concurs with the general assessment that since the biographies of the Sufis were composed for the most part in later periods than they describe, the accounts contained in them convey the image of "true" Sufi. It was an image that was shaped after his death; therefore, our methodology should be to read texts on their own terms in their entirety, rather than separating the portions considered historically reliable and interpreting them apart from the remainder. This holistic approach can afford insights into the concerns and practices of the society as they worked to interpret their own past, that might otherwise remain hidden.
Another important concern that Daphna raised was our over-reliance on attempting to impose a normative homogeneity on the various Muslim ascetics, mystics, Sufis or non-Sufi holy figures. Since the literature attempts to be didactic in constructing universal Islamic norms, we must shift away from the old classifications of fuqaha' versus fuqara', or high and popular forms of religion.
Daphna is especially interested in integrating an investigation of the local spaces that develop around Sufi institutions. We must do a better job of examining documents such as endowment deeds and other bureaucratic documents with the narrative sources, especially in places that are rich in architectural or bureaucratic documents. In addition, she suggested that travelers accounts might also be helpful in fleshing out our knowledge of the period.
Richard McGregor
"Sufi Elites and the Discourses of Power: Problems of Definition and Category"
As expressed at the beginning of his presentation, Richard aimed to “throw out a constellation of ideas” so as to begin to address some “nagging problems” concerning issues surrounding the larger theme of the “nexus of Sufism and society”. Focusing largely on what is most certainly the nagging problem of the discourse of power in late-medieval Sufism, Richard opened up his discussion of the Wafa’iyya and Shadhiliyya Sufi orders with a discussion of their public practices during the Mamluk period of Egyptian history. Specifically, he noted the prevalence of their public displays of power in Mamluk Cairo through public parades which, in its very physicality, acted as a public assertion of claims to authority and perhaps to power as well. He constructed this practice as a form of provocation toward the Mamluk rulers inasmuch as ‘parading’ was a practice already used by Mamluk (and earlier) rulers to publicly enunciate their status. The question, however, is this: how exactly were these types of enunciations, and more importantly the conceptions of authority/power they encoded, understood by those enacting and witnessing them?
To get at this, Richard went on to note the structural similarities between the rulers and the Sufi shaykhs in leadership positions. For example, the Sufi shaykh was often hidden from public view during these public displays, much as the ruler would be. The question then becomes: why didn’t the Mamluk rulers try to put a stop to this provocation? How did this public presentation, or “artistry,” work within the public sphere and in conjunction with its audience? Could the body politic perhaps accept two separate spheres of power?
Part of Richard’s presentation raised the interesting problem of when a period of “medieval Sufism” might “end” and a new construction emerge. Looming over the discussion was the role that Sufism may have played in the transition between Mamluk and Ottoman rule in the sixteenth century. In particular, the Wafa’iyya order proved especially adept in making the transition and made little distinction between the two regimes. In so doing, they maintained a basic continuity throughout the two periods that raises questions about how Sufism is to be periodized.
Jo-Ann Gross
"Sacred Space, Personhood and Historical Memory: Interpreting the Role of Shrines in Central Asian History"
Jo-Ann’s presentation focused on her ongoing research in Central Asia (Tajikistan in particular?). Her presentation was unique in grappling with the issue of how local oral histories should be integrated as a component of the historiography of shrines and shrine families in the Central Asian context.
Jo-Ann visually demonstrated to us the incredible diversity that can mark the shrine landscape in the region, even when located in the same general region. She showed us the discrepancy that could be seen between two types of Sufi shrines: one in an urban setting, and another in a more remote rural valley. The former might represent a more formal tradition of Sufi institutions in the region, while the latter displays a good deal more variation from standard Islamic traditions and has ties to movements that might have been considered heterodox by later generations. Certain challenges confront the researcher in assessing these physical remnants of Central Asian Sufism, not least the question of whether or not recent renovations of some of the major Sufi shrines are destroying or re-inventing their original character. It also raises the question of how contemporary people, even within the same general social context, could construe the basic practices and institutions of Sufism in very different ways.
Jo-Ann’s research raises difficult questions for us all. Should we discard, or study separately, the local lore on Sufi shrines and institutions, and place our focus on the “high shrine tradition” when discussing their history? Or is the local lore equally or more informative in reconstructing the past? How can we assess the relationship between a finalized tradition set into writing or some form of codification, and alternative oral traditions that exist outside of those boundaries, but are not necessarily excluded by them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment