¹ Brown, Seyom, “The Nation State in the Year 2010.” Paper delivered at a meeting on the “Nation-State” convened by Shell Oil Company at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, January 10, 1989, p. 2.Google Scholar

² Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, trans. Manyon, L. A. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1961 [orig. 1939]), 148.Google Scholar

³ Canfield, Robert L., “Preface,” in Turco-Persia in Historical Perspective, ed. Canfield, Robert L. (Cambridge University Press, New York 1991) xiii–xiv.Google Scholar

⁴ Interview, Baku, September 18, 1991.

⁵ See Abduvakhitov, Abdujabbar, “Islamic Revival In Uzbekistan,” in Muslim Politics and Societies: Russian, Central Asian, and U.S. Perspectives, ed. Eickelman, Dale F. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, in press).Google Scholar

⁶ See the maps presented in Raufer, Xavier, Atlas mondial de l’Islam activiste (La Table Ronde, Paris 1991) 19–34.Google Scholar

⁷ See, for example, al-Azm, Sadik J., “The Importance of Being Earnest about Salman Rushdie,” Die Well dea Islams 31.1 (1991) 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, perhaps the most perceptive essay written on the Rushdie affair and one of the few to discussion in detail the responses of Muslim intellectuals.

⁸ Esposito, John L., “The Study of Islam: Challenges and Prospects” (Presidential Address, 1989), Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 24 (July 1990) 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Haddad, Yvonne Y., “Middle East Area Studies: Current Concerns and Future Directions” (Presidential Address, 1990), MESA Bulletin 25 (1991) 1–13.Google Scholar

⁹ Quoted in Eickelman, Dale F. and Pasha, Kamran, “Muslim Societies and Politics: Soviet and US Approaches—A Conference Report,” Middle East Journal 45 (1991) 632.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Binder, Leonard, “The Natural History of Development Theory,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 28 (1986) 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Exceptions include Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck, ed., The Muslims of America (Oxford University Press, New York 1991)Google Scholar, and Kepel, Gilles and Richard, Yann, Intellectuels et militants de l’Islam contemporain (Seuil, Paris 1990)Google Scholar.

¹² On France, see Davis, Natalie Zenon, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford University Press, Stanford 1975) 189–226.Google Scholar

¹³ Goldberg, Ellis, “Smashing Idols and the State: The Protestant Ethic and Egyptian Sunni Radicalism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33 (1991) 3–35Google Scholar. See also Eickelman, Dale F., “Mass Higher Education and the Religious Imagination in Contemporary Arab Societies,” American Ethnologist (in press)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Starrett, Gregory Steven, “Our Children and Our Youth: Religious Education and Political Authority in Mubarak’s Egypt,” Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, August 1991, p. iv.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For an excellent study of Algeria’s activist movement, see Rouadjia, Ahmed, Les frères et la mosquée: Enquête sur le mouvement islamiste en Algérie (Karthala, Paris 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Hunter, James Davison, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1987) 206.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Hudson, Michael C., “Democratization and the Problem of Legitimacy in Middle East Politics” (1987 Presidential Address), MESA Bulletin 22 (1988) 157.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Dwyer, Kevin, Arab Voices: The Human Rights Debate in the Middle East (The University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1991)Google Scholar, and Waltz, Susan, “Making Waves: The Political Impact of Human Rights Groups in North Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies 29.3 (1991) 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Kuhn, Thomas S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1977)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Berger, Morroe, “Middle Eastern and North African Studies: Development and Needs,” MESA Bulletin 1.2 (November 1967) 16.Google Scholar

²¹ National Council of Area Studies Associations [NCASA], Prospects for Faculty in Area Studies (National Council of Area Studies Associations, Stanford 1991).Google Scholar

²² Quandt, William B., “The Superpowers and Middle East Crises” (Presidential Address 1988), MESA Bulletin 23 (1989) 1–8.Google Scholar

²³ For example, Duben, Alan and Behar, Cem, Istanbul Households: Marriage, Family, and Fertility, 1880–1940 (Cambridge University Press, New York 1991).Google Scholar

²⁴ Humphreys, R. Stephen, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, rev. ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1991)Google Scholar.

²⁵ See Lambert, Richard D., Points of Leverage: An Agenda for a National Foundation for International Studies (Social Science Research Council, New York 1986)Google Scholar. This proposal was preceded by a wide-ranging study, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Defense but administered by the Association of American Universities: Lambert, Richard D., Beyond Growth: The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies (Association of American Universities, Washington 1984)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Heydemann, Steven, “The Near and Middle East Research and Training Act: Background and Current Status,” MESA Newsletter 13.4 (November 1991) 1, 4.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Cooper, Kenneth J., “Foreign Studies Expansion is Pressed,” Washington Post, November 26, 1991Google Scholar, p. A15, and Fessler, Pamela, “Bill Sent to Bush Would Create International Scholarships,” Congressional Quarterly, November 23, 1991, p. 3470Google Scholar. Senator David L. Boren, author of the act and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, describes the new program, part of the 1992 Intelligence Authorization Act, as the biggest expansion of international and foreign language studies in the United States since the National Defense Education Act of 1958. However, the language of the act risks undermining the very purpose for which it was intended. Proponents of the act maintain that recipients of grants from the program are prohibited from “conducting U.S. intelligence activities while participating in the program,” but it is difficult to envision why foreign governments, academic institutions, and foreign colleagues would accept such assurances of autonomy at face value when one purpose of the act is to increase the pool of applicants for U.S. national security agencies, and the board overseeing the act includes the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence. The 1984 Lambert Report and its critics earlier raised the problems of identifying subjects of scholarly research and university-based area studies programs with intelligence requirements. These concerns persist: see Przeworski, Adam, “The Lambert Report,” PS 19.1 (Winter 1986) 78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Eickelman, Dale F. and Waldman, Marilyn, “Defense Intelligence Agency Research Contracts: A Report to the MESA Membership,” MESA Newsletter 7.1 (Winter 1985) 8–11.Google Scholar