The SSMEIC Revises its Name
During the latest General Assembly of the SSMEIC, held in Basel on February 16, 2024, the members unanimously approved, with the exception of two abstentions, a modification of the society’s name in its French and Italian versions. Consequently, the terms “civilisation islamique” and “civiltà islamica” have been substituted with “cultures islamiques” and “culture islamiche,” while the German and English versions remain unchanged.
This decision comes after extensive discussions within the committee, coupled with an initial consultation among members at the 2023 General Assembly. Although the revision may seem modest, its significance is profound. By revising the society’s name to resonate with contemporary realities, we are advancing alignment with SSMEIC’s vision as well as the scientific and epistemological views held by its members.
Symbolic Significance of the Name
The name of an organisation carries symbolic weight, impacting how it is viewed by members and the public alike, and ultimately moulding its credibility. As such, careful consideration must be given to SSMEIC’s name. Dismissing it solely because future name changes might be necessary would be short-sighted.
Necessary Self-reflection
Founded in 1990, the SSMEIC emerged in a geopolitical, intellectual, and scientific context vastly different from today’s. Thus, it is crucial to reassess the identity and mission of our society in light of contemporary developments while maintaining a critical perspective. Particularly, this involves staying attuned to the research and concerns of our members, grounded in the reality of our activities.
Evolving perceptions
The meanings attached to “civilisation/civiltà” have undergone significant changes in recent times, especially with the rise of theories like the “clash of civilizations.” This evolution calls for reflection. By refraining from using the terms “civilisation islamique/civiltà islamica”, the SSMEIC explicitly rejects simplistic and essentialist views on contemporary dynamics, which often categorize the world into discrete and homogeneous civilizations.
Evolution from 1990: Navigating Modern Disquiet
The SSMEIC was established in the early 1990s when a group of researchers, primarily consisting of mid-level staff from Swiss universities, recognised the need for a fresh perspective on research and education related to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as well as Islam. This initiative emerged in response to perceived gaps in existing academic discourse within Switzerland. The founding committee of the society aspired to foster novel disciplinary approaches drawn from social sciences, area studies, and linguistics. Central to their mission was the promotion of contemporary-focused research and teaching programs. Thus, the primary objective of the SSMEIC was to bolster academic endeavours in Switzerland pertaining to the MENA region and Islam. This encompassed supporting both teaching and research initiatives, fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange among scholars, and facilitating the dissemination of their findings.
Upon its establishment, the society engaged in lively discussions concerning its name, revealing disagreements regarding the scope of the region under study and the inclusion of a reference to Islam. Eventually, members settled on the designations “Schweizerische Gesellschaft Mittlerer Osten und Islamische Kulturen” and “Société Suisse Moyen-Orient et Civilisation Islamique.” Interestingly, there were no discussions about the English translation of the name at that time; it was introduced later as English became more prevalent in the communications of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
During the formative years of the SSMEIC, the society’s name didn’t provoke much discussion. However, recent deliberations within the committee have brought forth discomfort among several members regarding the expressions “civilisation islamique” in French and “civiltà islamica” in Italian. Additionally, insights and critiques from new members have enriched these discussions.
In 2023, the SSMEIC conducted a general survey among its members, providing an opportunity to assess their views on this matter. The survey revealed that while 37% of respondents found the name to be very good or acceptable, 44% expressed aversion or discomfort toward it. Furthermore, French speakers were notably more likely to disapprove of the name, with 75% expressing their discontent compared to speakers of other languages.
An Evolving Concept
The term “civilisation” or “civiltà” traditionally encompasses the broad spectrum of social, religious, moral, aesthetic, scientific, and technical characteristics of a society on a large scale. However, it is crucial to trace the evolution of its meaning. In the 19th century, the concept underwent significant expansion, largely influenced by an ideology that emphasised European superiority over previous civilisations and contemporary ones perceived as foreign. This Eurocentrism, along with the notion of hierarchy distinctions between civilisations, still lingers within the term (Bruneau, 2010).
A pivotal shift occurred in the 1990s, particularly with the publication of Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in 1993. Huntington argued that the post-Cold War era would see a shift away from ideological or political divides towards cultural and religious fault lines, which he considered the highest form of identification. He proposed a new division of the world into civilisations, conceived as homogeneous or ‘coherent’ entities at odds with each other (Staszak, Fall, and Girault, 2017).
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the concept of “civilisation” gained unprecedented traction, as it encapsulated the idea of fundamental or essential incompatibility between certain cultural spheres, particularly between the “West” and “Islam,” or the Islamic Middle East. The theory of the “clash of civilisations” was employed to justify the proclaimed ‘war on terror” and military endeavours against the “axis of evil,” notably through US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq (Roy, 2002).
Choosing Evolution
Today, there is a pressing need to reconsider the usage of the terms “civilisation islamique” or “civiltà islamica” due to the reductionist and Manichaean worldview it conveys. The term not only assumes coherent cultural blocs by obscuring internal contradictions and the diversity of practices and identities but also negates the exchanges and connections at the very foundation of any culture. Consequently, the term has largely fallen out of favour in contemporary social sciences discourse across the French-speaking worlds.
Furthermore, the term does not resonate with the approaches favoured by SSMEIC’s members who are invested in the study of Islam. Their focus lies in analysing practices and processes at local or regional levels, exploring the manifold forms and expressions of Islam worldwide, Switzerland included. Islam is viewed as a transnational or multi-situated phenomenon rather than a characteristic confined to any singular cultural area.
In this light, persisting with the terms “civilisation islamique” and “civiltà islamica” would perpetuate a flawed and potentially perilous narrative. For these reasons, the SSMEIC chooses to adopt the expressions “cultures islamiques” in French and “culture islamiche” in Italian. While other organisations have chosen to refer to “Muslim worlds” or ‘societies of the Muslim world,’ we believe that the term “cultures” – a staple in cultural anthropology and geography – allows for the consideration of spiritual, intellectual, or material aspects characterising social groups on a local scale. It stands apart from “civilisation/civiltà”, which, while denoting large entities, carries a homogenising connotation. Finally, the plural form used in ‘cultures’ accommodates the multiplicity of forms and practices within Islam.
Continued Reflection
It is essential to recognise that the diversity of approaches, research topics, and interests of SSMEIC’s members cannot be fully encapsulated by a single designation. Presently, our society wishes to maintain references to both Islamic studies and area studies in its name. In essence, we seek to preserve a formulation that combines analyses from a regional perspective – recognising the MENA region’s inherent diversity and interconnectedness with other regions – alongside the study of Islam as a multifaceted, transnational phenomenon rooted in myriad contexts.
Given the perpetual evolution of our analytical frameworks and points of references, the SSMEIC’s committee acknowledges that this adjustment represents just one step in an ongoing process of reflection.
Concise bibliography
Bruneau, Michel, “Civilisation(s) : pertinence ou résilience d’un terme ou d’un concept en géographie?”, Annales de géographie 2010/4 (n° 674), p. 315-337.
Mills, Amy et Hammond, Timur. 2016. "The Interdisciplinary Spatial Turn and the Discipline of Geography in Middle East Studies", in Seteney Shami and Cynthia Miller-Idriss (ed.). From the book Middle East Studies for the New Millennium: Infrastructures of Knowledge. New York, New York University Press, p. 152‑186.
Roy, Olivier, Les illusions du 11 septembre: le débat stratégique face au terrorisme. Paris: Seuil, 2002.
Schayegh, Cyrus and Casale, Giancarlo, “Mobility, Spatial Thinking, and MENA’s Global interconnectivity: a Primary Source Roundtable”, Mashriq & Mahjar: Journal of Middle East Migration Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2022), p. 1-8.
Staszak, Jean-François, Fall, Juliett, and Girault, Frédéric, “Les grands découpages du monde”, in J.-F. Staszak (ed.), Frontières en tous genres: Cloisonnement spatial et constructions identitaires. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2017, p. 147-168.