Search

I'm wondering if there is not a political, but rather an epistemological parallel to be made between the Orientalist grand narratives that Said critiques that were created by an earlier generation of scholars, and the master narratives of scholars today, particularly one which Kaya mentioned earlier. When we look at Said's legacies in Ottoman studies, we see a stark divide between scholars who work on the premodern period, and those who work on the modern era. Invoking postcolonial aims and reading practices, these scholars and others opened a wide-ranging debate on the usefulness of postcolonial methodologies like Said's for reading literature written prior to European imperial dominance. For those scholars who study the modern period, the work of Said and his followers is seen as indispensable. [Extracted from the article]

A review of the book "Nomads, Migrants and Cotton in the Eastern Mediterranean The Making of the Adana-Mersin Region, 1850-1908," by Meltem Toksöz is presented.

The book breaks new ground in the literature on lobbying in the European Union by offering a unique analysis of how lobbying works in the context of EU foreign policy-making, with particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the book "Autism and Developmental Delays in Young Children," by Gerald Mahoney and James D. MacDonald.

The article reviews the book "Family and Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in Late Ottoman Palestine," by Iris Agmon.

A review of the book "Reading With Patrick: A Teacher, a Student, and a Life-Changing Friendship," by Michelle Kuo.