Ira Dworkin on Schatz and Shorbagy

This essay puts Egypt, the “Arab Spring,” and Islamic activism into a broader perspective, arguing that a binary approach pitting “anti-Americanism” against “pro-Americanism” is problematic. It shifts the conversation away from what is central to organizations and movements like Kefaya. The notion that non-US critics of the U.S. are motivated by anti-Americanism serves the strategic purpose of diminishing the very substance of their criticisms. At its extreme, Dworkin argues, perceived anti-Americanism becomes a rationale for war. Hence, Dworkin here praises Mohammad Marandi for suggesting that some things ought to be seen as forms of anti-imperialism rather than forms of anti-Americanism, since criticism of a state does not make one “anti.” Ultimately Dworkin insists that the caricature of political movements as pro- or anti-American stifles dynamic civil society actors who are and need to be important critics of the state. For the field of American Studies, these debates about anti-Americanism (including differences between Schatz and Shorbagy) are important because they remind us that the challenge for the discipline (shared in some sense with the activists) is how to build a credible and critical space for American Studies scholarly work.