Maps and Magical Thinking

In a recent article, the always-interesting Robert Fisk asks: "Why are we trying to divide up the peoples of the Middle East?" He accuses Westerners of encouraging sectarianism, "divisions...suspicious...[and the] capacity for mutual hatred." How have we accomplished this feat?

Maps.

All this time, writers have been debating the impact of politics, history, economics, and theology on sectarian differences. But it seems that these factors pale compared to the malevolent influence of cartographers. In fact, Fisk writes, the color-coded demographic maps of Iraq and Lebanon found in the news media reveal not only Western "casual racism" but a "wish to promote civil war." Such maps are biased, Fisk explains, because neighborhoods, cities, regions, and nations are never demographically pure. A "Sunni" suburb of Beirut may have a substantial Druze minority; an "Ibadhi" quarter of Muscat may hide a great many Hindus.

To be sure, demographic maps may ignore minorities. Certainly, the real world generally lacks sharp boundaries. I have seen fences that zig-zag and climb wildly along cliffs and ravines, all to conform to a straight line on a map. But it seems far-fetched to argue that a map can be normative, or "Hitlerian" as Fisk puts it. Are we oppressing Republicans when we say that Berkeley is generally Democratic? Is it racist to say that Fruitvale (in Oakland, California) has few whites but many blacks and Hispanics? How can a demographic fact be anything but descriptive?

Fisk proposes that we refer to particular neighborhoods in Baghdad as "mixed." This would be as analytically fruitful as calling Berkeley "politically diverse." Is it "imperial" or "racist" of me to state that Sadr City is mainly Shi'a or that Berkeley is mainly Democratic? Fisk attempts to obscure his conflation of the descriptive with the normative by bringing up the issue of double standards, arguing that Western newspapers would "never" publish maps showing racial or religious demographics within major Western cities. Regardless of the merits of this claim, it is distinct from Fisk's contention that divisions in the Middle East were somehow invented, imposed, or developed by Western nations.

And since Fisk is so eager to accuse "we Westerners" of racism for drawing sectarian maps - what is "racial" about being a Sunni or Shi'a? It seems that "our potential enemies" - like people of all nations - are perfectly capable of dividing themselves.

Fisk's essay is of interest because, like much of his work, it has attracted popular attention and acclaim among many in the Middle East. (Bin Laden once referred to Fisk as one of the West's few "neutral" reporters.) It is also of interest because it is symptomatic of a general body of thought.

There are many, like Fisk, who eternally seek a Western bogeyman. Such bogeymen are easy to find, as Western governments and industry do not hesitate to pursue their interests. However, the extent of such groups' influence tends to be vastly overrated, as Jean-Francois Revel argues in his incisive "Anti-Americanism." Many intellectuals give national or corporate influence unique normative weight when it originates in the West. This is both a double standard and a form of magical thinking.

As Karl Rove once said, "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." By making everything "our" fault and denying agency to non-Western actors, Fisk continues to fight the good fight.