“The Battle for the Enlightenment”: Rushdie, Islam, and the West
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i “The Battle for the Enlightenment”: Rushdie, Islam, and the West Adam Glyn Kim Perchard PhD University of York English and Related Literature August 2014 ii iii Abstract In the years following the proclamation of the fatwa against him, Salman Rushdie has come to view the conflict of the Rushdie Affair not only in terms of a struggle between “Islam” and “the West”, but in terms of a “battle for the Enlightenment”. Rushdie’s construction of himself as an Enlightened war-leader in the battle for a divided world has proved difficult for many critics to reconcile with the Rushdie who advocates “mongrelization” as a form of life-giving cultural hybridity. This study suggests that these two Rushdies have been in dialogue since long before the fatwa. It also suggests that eighteenth-century modes of writing and thinking about, and with, the Islamic East are far more integral to the literary worlds of Rushdie’s novels than has previously been realised. This thesis maps patterns of rupture and of convergence between representations of the figures of the Islamic despot and the Muslim woman in Shame, The Satanic Verses, and Haroun and the Sea of Stories, and the changing ways in which these figures were instrumentalised in eighteenth-century European literatures. Arguing that many of the harmful binaries that mark the way Rushdie and others think about Islam and the West hardened in the late eighteenth century, this study folds into the fable of the fatwa an account of European literary engagements with the Islamic world in the earlier part of the eighteenth century. By complicating Rushdie’s monolithic Enlightenment with accounts of plural eighteenth centuries, Wests, and Islams, this thesis writes against the discourses of cultural incommensurability emblematised and catalysed by the Rushdie Affair. iv Contents Abstract iii List of figures v Acknowledgements vi Author’s Declaration ix Introduction Battle Lines and the Joined-Up World 1 Part I: Shame and Scheherazade 1: Scheherazade Embalmed 30 2: Scheherazade Submerged 48 Part II: Islamic Despotism and The Satanic Verses 3: Mahound and Mahomet 95 4: Thinking with Islam 110 Part III: The Fatwa and the Philosophes 5: Scheherazade and the Sea of Stories 137 6: The Enlightenment Affair 165 Conclusion Back to the Future: History as Futurity in The Enchantress of Florence 194 Bibliography 228 v Figures Figure 1: Michael Zilkha, “[M]e and the two Voltaires”: Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie with a bust of Voltaire (13th April 2011). 164 vi Acknowledgements The writing of this thesis was supported for three years by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which I acknowledge with thanks. In 2012 I was awarded a short-term research fellowship by the Manuscripts, Archives, and Rare Books Library at Emory University which enabled me to spend several illuminating weeks in Atlanta studying the Rushdie Papers. For this, and for the expertise and friendliness of the staff there, I am very grateful. In 2013 the Humanities Research Centre at the University of York honoured me with a Doctoral Fellowship in recognition of my work, for which I would also like to express my thanks. I would like to thank Jim Watt, who has shown me extraordinary intellectual generosity and personal kindness throughout my time at York. I could not have wished for a more inspiring and dedicated supervisor. I would also like to thank Harriet Guest for all the support and encouragement she has offered me over the years. She and Ziad Elmarsafy helped me a great deal as members of my Thesis Advisory Panel. Claire Chambers has also been a wonderful mentor and friend, and I am indebted to her for the many insights into Rushdie and Islam which she has shared with me. Richard Harris, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of Islamic history, Urdu, and Hindi, has been a source of knowledge and friendship throughout the writing of this study, for which I thank him. I feel very lucky to have been part of the vibrant research culture at the Centre for Eighteenth Century Studies, and would especially like to thank Alison O’Byrne, Emma Major, John Barrell, and Joanna de Groot for the many stimulating exchanges which have enriched my understanding of the eighteenth century. Clare vii Bond, the administrator of the Centre, has been a huge source of support, comfort, and fun, for which I would like to thank her too. Many of the ideas in this thesis coalesced in papers I wrote for conferences, and were informed by the valuable feedback I received. These conferences included the British Society for Eighteenth Century Studies 2012, 2013, and 2014 at Oxford, the Postcolonial Studies Association’s Re-evaluating the Postcolonial City at the University of Leeds and History, Postcolonialism, and Tradition at Kingston University, Post-Empire Imaginaries? at the University of Bern, Re-inventing the Postcolonial (in the) Metropolis at the University of Chemnitz, and Transnational Relations in the Eighteenth Century at Uppsala University. I am indebted to Uppsala University and to the F. R. Leavis Fund and the Department of English and Related Literatures at the University of York for the generous travel grants which allowed me to attend some of these events. I benefitted hugely from presenting and discussing work in progress at the CECS Postgraduate Forum, and I would like to thank the postgraduate students of CECS, past and present, for their inspirational scholarship and their kindness and encouragement. I am very proud to have shared my postgraduate journey with Arlene Leis, Joanna Wharton, and Sophie Coulombeau, and I must thank Ruth Scobie in particular for the support and friendship she has offered me throughout the process. Finally, I would like to thank Maureen Lambert and Michael Talibard for their kind and insightful commentaries on earlier drafts of this thesis, and my marvellous friends Ashley Mauritzen, Ian Godden, and Olivia Piercy, with whom I have shared many frolics, breakfasts, ups, and downs, and without whom I never could have made it this far. Above all, I thank Lis and Colin Perchard: the best of parents, and the best of people. They have shown me boundless love and support viii throughout my life, and my interest in many of the themes of this work grew out of the experiences we shared over the course of my childhood in Turkey and India. This study is dedicated to them. ix Author’s Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own work. It has not been previously published nor submitted for any other degree at the University of York or any other institution. 1 Introduction Battle Lines and the Joined-up World “Do we have to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again?” laments the headline of a 2005 Salman Rushdie article for the Independent.1 “Democracy is not a tea party,” it continues, “In the end a fundamental decision has to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not?”. The piece is protesting against the UK government’s Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which was later passed in 2006 – an “‘anschluss’ of liberal values in the face of resurgent religious demands”. The battle for the Enlightenment, we are told: was about the church’s desire to place limits on thought. The Enlightenment wasn’t a battle against the state but against the church. Diderot’s novel La Religieuse, with its portrayal of nuns and their behaviour, was deliberately blasphemous: it challenged religious authority, with its indexes and inquisitions, on what it was possible to say. Most of our contemporary ideas about freedom of speech and imagination come from the Enlightenment. We may have thought the battle won, but if we aren’t careful, it is about to be “un-won”.2 The bellicose rhetoric of the article proclaims this battle to be nothing less than the struggle for a free society, and yet the nature of the battle itself is slippery: the 1 Salman Rushdie, “Do we have to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again?” Independent, January 22, 2005, accessed January 24, 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/salman-rushdie-do-we-have-to-fight-the- battle-for-the-enlightenment-all-over-again-6154315.html 2 Rushdie, “Enlightenment”. 2 Enlightenment, within the space of a few sentences, moves from being the cause over which the battle is fought to being the battle itself. The thought-limiting force which this battle is to be waged against is no longer the Church but the British government – and “[p]rivately,” he tells us in an aside, the government will “tell you the law is designed to please ‘the Muslims’”.3 This notion of a Muslim-pacifying agenda partially concealed by the government, and of the fatal effect on freedom of expression this entails, has become something of a post-9/11 leitmotif in Rushdie’s non-fiction.4 In the same way, casually sensationalist, uninterrogated rhetorical parallels between Nazi Germany and Muslim machinations, like his reference to the annexation of Austria above, have been slowly gathering force in his essays and articles since the time of the fatwa: a flirtation with the discourse of Islamofascism brought to prominence by his friend Christopher Hitchens.5 This article begins with a despairing account of the devout Christianity of a group of Republican senators that Rushdie had met just before the beginning of the war in Iraq. It is written from the same anecdotal, first-hand perspective that allows the “privately they’ll tell you” account of British government policy above, and is bolted uneasily to the account of Britain that forms the main body of the text with the assertion that this is “another ‘anschluss’ of liberal values”.6 Rushdie positions himself as both political confidante and whistle-blower: emerging from the corridors of power with a secularist call-to-arms for freedom of expression.