April 10, 2006
Monday Musing: Al Andalus and Hapsburg Austria
One probably apocryphal story of the Alhambra tells of how Emir Al Hamar of Gharnatah (Granada) decides to begin the undertaking. One night in the early 13th century, Al Hamar has a dream that the Muslims would be forced to leave Spain. He takes the dream to be prophetic and, more importantly, to be the will of God. But he decides that if the Muslims are to leave Spain, then they would leave a testament to their presence in Spain, to al Andalus. So Al Hamar begins the project (finished by his descendants) that would result in one of the world’s most beautiful palaces, the Alhambra. Muslim Spain was still in its Golden Age at this point, but also just two and a half centuries before the expulsion/reconquest. The peak of the Golden Age had probably passed, with its most commonly suggested moment coinciding with the life of the philosopher ibn Rushd, or Averroes (1126-1198 C.E.).
Muslim Spain plays an interesting role in different contemporary political imaginations. For Muslim reformers, it is an image of a progressive, forward looking and tolerant period in Islam, where thinkers such as ibn Rushd could assert the primacy of reason over revelation. For radical Islamists, it’s a symbol of Islam at the peak of its geopolitical power. For conservatives in the West it is a chapter in an off-again, on-again clash of civilizations. For Western progressives, it is an image of a noble, pre-modern multiculturalism tolerant of Christians and Jews. That is, for the contemporary imagination, it has become the political equivalent of a Rorschach.
I see no reason why I should be different in my treatment of Al Andalus (In all honesty, I react fairly badly, I cringe, when people speak of past cultures and civilizations as idyllic, free of conflict, and held together by honor, duty, and understanding. The only thing I’ve ever been nostalgic for is futurism.) Morgan’s post last Monday on Joseph Roth reminded me of Andalusian Spain, of all things.
The Hapsburg Empire is the other Rorschach for the imagination of political history. The Austro-Hungarian Empire carries far less baggage from their involvement with the present than Andalusia does, but it certainly suffered its fair share. The break up of the Soviet Empire and the unleashing of “pent up” or “frustrated” national aspiration had many looking to the Hapsburgs as a model of a noble, pre-modern multiculturalism.
My projection onto these inkblots of history is something altogether different. In the changing borders and bibliographies of Andalusian and Austrian history, I see societies that reach a cultural and intellectual peak as (or is it because?) they are overcome with panic about the end of their world. A “merry” or “gay apocalypse”, is how Hermann Broch, the author of the not so merry but apocalyptic Death of Virgil, described the period. This sentiment echoes not just in literature but even in a book as systematic as Karl Polyani’s The Great Transformation. Somehow it’s clear, Karl Kraus’ Grumbler, the pessimistic commentator who watches the world go mad and then be annihilated by the cosmos as punishment for the world war in The Last Days of Mankind, was lying in wait long before the catastrophe, that is, during the Golden Age itself.
The early 13th century was hardly a trough for the Moors in Spain, just as the period before World War I was not a cultural malaise for the Austrians, or the rest of Europe for that matter. Quite the contrary. If there is an image that these societies evoke, it is feverish activity, even if it’s not the image that, say, comes across in Robert Musil's endless description of the society, The Man Without Qualities. Broch would write himself to death in some bizarre twist on Scheherazade.
The inscriptions on the Alhambra, such as “Wa la ghalib illa Allah” (“There is no conqueror but God”), are written in soft stone. They have to be replaced, and thereby they require the engagement of the civilization that is to succeed the Moors. Quite an act of faith. While it may be the case that some such as Kraus (or Stefan Zweig) expected the end of all civilization, Austrian thought and writing of the era show a similar faith despite the Anschluss. Admittedly, you have to really look for it. And it certainly did export some of the better minds of the time—including Broch, Polyani, Karl Popper, and Friedrich von Hayek, albeit for reasons of horror and that are to its shame.
It is harder to know what to make of these civilizations, for which an awareness or expectation of their end spurs many of their greatest achievements. There aren’t too many of them. They have in common the fact that they are remembered for relative tolerance, but that could just be a prerequisite to flourish in the first place. Their appeal is, however, clear—as close to an image a society can have of creating, thinking and engaging, even through despair, some way to survive the apocalypse.
Happy Monday.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:15 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83481709e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Monday Musing: Al Andalus and Hapsburg Austria:

























Comments
All the links seem to be messed up.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Apr 10, 2006 2:52:36 AM
Wow, that was really cool. Thanks.
Posted by: Bild | Apr 10, 2006 5:25:22 AM
Yes, your poignant piece brings up interesting questions, and you are (as usual) not afraid to say you don't have all the answers (or even all the questions!). Good going, mate!
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Apr 10, 2006 6:28:25 AM
The links are fixed.
Posted by: Robin | Apr 10, 2006 10:17:44 AM
I like this twinning of Al-Andalus and the Hapsburg Empire. But for me, they share one other essential trait. Both of them were destroyed from within.
In Al-Andalus, we can really trace the end of it from the ruinous civil war of 1009-1013. The taifa states represented a retreat from universalism, as did the appeals to the fundamentalist Almoravids and the even more fundamentalist Almohads. People stopped believing in openness and retreated to fundamentalism. That's what really did in Al-Andalus, not the Christians to the north. The Almoravids and Almohads also made sure that the tolerance for which Al-Andalus had been known became a memory, and materially added the Christians by forcing many minorities to emigrate.
Something similar happen in the Hapsburg empire. People stopped believing in the empire, retreated to their own ethnic and cultural niches, and that eventually assured the end of the state.
The first death is in the mind, the body can take a long time to die after that, but it is frequently unavoidable.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Apr 10, 2006 1:11:33 PM
"Something similar happen in the Hapsburg empire. People stopped believing in the empire, retreated to their own ethnic and cultural niches, and that eventually assured the end of the state."
True, but far sadder is that some others began to believe in another kind of empire, a thousand years Reich, and managed to ruin all of Europe, and took intolerance to new heights (or is it depths?).
Posted by: Robin | Apr 10, 2006 1:22:58 PM
proud to have played a small role in such a lovely piece.
morgan
Posted by: morgan meis | Apr 10, 2006 5:43:57 PM
Nice piece. The Sephardic Jewish communities of Bulgaria, Turkey and elsewhere (descendants of the Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492, alongside the Muslims), still spoke Ladino, a Jewish dialect of Spanish, until very recently, and Ladino songs are still sometimes played on Israeli radio.
You could add the Ottoman empire to the list (though it does not have the idyllic reputation of Moorish Spain): a visit to the old Sultan palaces in Istanbul reveals a storehouse of bribes from the foreign powers who brought along a nice present everytime they wanted something. sic transit gloria mundi.
Posted by: aguy109 | Apr 11, 2006 2:02:20 AM
Perhaps Robin the difficulty lies in ascribing individual psychology to an entire state or society. Experienced from within, states and societies are multi-layered and complex entities. Seen from the distance of time and written into popular history, they can seem to have the qualities of real people: i.e. Rome grew decadent, Islam grew anxious, the Hapsburgs became complacent, etc. States and societies neither think nor nor feel. But it is one particular kind of nostalgia, as you say, to claim that they do.
Posted by: jonathan | Apr 11, 2006 8:30:13 AM
Thanks for the note, Jonathan. I agree, having a bias towards a soft methodological individualism myself. But the sorts of claims that are made about these places is not quite a simple matter of anthropomorphizing large, abstract entities and believing they possess pyschological states, which when done is probably a short hand for something more defensible. The claim that a society is more tolerant or less sexist than another has a few practical, operationalizable meaninings. The distribution of attitudes towards minorities or women can be compared--that is we compare on the basis of different statisical abstractions that are meant to aggregate individual level phenomena. We can also compare say laws, the afforded rights, or other aspects of the institutional topography. These are often more persistent or "sticky" than attitudes. We can use relational properties such as "power". To be sure, we can expect to find serious bigots. The Umayyds did give way to the Almohads who were from within. And we all know what the Hapsburgs gave way to. And we can also find poor implementations of law, etc., different interactions with other laws that require we understand the operation of institutions in a richer way.
I don't think that these comparisons or measures inherently anthropomorphize. And yes, I was engaging in a something else. I don't know quite what to call what's happening when people ascribe a zeitgeist or a temper to the time. But I don't quite think that's anthropomorphosis either, though it is probably nostalgia or some other kind of wish.
Although, I have a hard time thinking of some better than you to work through those questions about culture and society.
Posted by: Robin | Apr 11, 2006 9:52:38 AM
Robin
I believe that Andalus's undoing had both external and internal origins; and none can be played down. The Azteks were obliterated because their weaponry was not nearly as good as the Spanish (which we may call internal reason) but they would not have been obliterated if the Spanish did not invade at all!
That's not actually what I wanted to say most.
My question is, given that no society is literally idyllic. But people in different societies feel different amount of pressure. And the type of pressure depends on what kind of person you are (belief, ethnicity, language) as opposed to the majority (you interact with) and the government.
So we can look up to some society where people were under less pressure. Can't we?
(Oh, and thoughts of cutting out “Wa la ghalib illa Allah” reminds me of something the Talibans did- the thing that earned them their name.)
Posted by: MS | Apr 14, 2008 9:18:03 AM
Post a comment