Acculturation in Modern and Contemporary Arabic Critical Discourse

Bouattit Amel[1]

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Abstract: Acculturation is fundamentally a cross-disciplinary term rooted in the human sciences, yet it was subsequently drawn into the discourse of cultural hegemony and the motives of historical, political, and technological domination on a global scale. This incorporation occurred through its placement within an open trajectory spanning literature and literary criticism, driven by inevitable interaction with modern innovations—specifically the critical methodologies and schools of thought imported from the West. Consequently, this intellectual engagement necessitated exploring appropriate means for interacting with and responding to these developments. Critical stances have diverged significantly: one path involves passive critical receptivity, which often sanctifies every theoretical import from the West, absorbing its vision as the essence of absolute knowledge and long-awaited scientific salvation. The other involves attempts to establish an Arab intellectual framework capable of scrutinizing what it receives from the writings of the Other and producing its own critical perspective. This study examines the experience of Arab criticism in its interaction with this acculturational trajectory, investigating its scope, significance, and the extent of benefit derived. It analyzes the dualistic paradigms that have characterized Arab cultural interaction—ranging from rigid self-enclosure to uncritical openness perpetuating alienation. The research demonstrates that genuine cultural exchange requires transcending mere imitation and instead activating creative civilizational engagement capable of generating authentic renewal. The ultimate objective remains laying foundations for a genuine and constructive form of acculturation that preserves cultural identity while fostering productive dialogue with global intellectual movements.

Keywords: critical acculturation, Arab criticism, cultural identities, globalization, the problem of heritage and modernity, crisis of terminology.

Introduction

Since the dawn of the modern era, Arab thought has undergone colossal civilizational transformations that have profoundly reshaped its cultural structure. The encounter with Western civilization, inaugurated by the notable French campaign in the Arab East (1798), constituted a pivotal and decisive turning point in charting its intellectual trajectories, following a period characterized by intellectual stagnation and epistemological closure under conditions of near-total civilizational isolation.

From this juncture, the initial harbingers of renaissance began to emerge, driven by the principle of acculturation (muthāqafa). This principle found a powerful manifestation within the domains of Arabic literature and literary criticism, exerting a cumulative and growing influence across their various facets and imprinting them with its dynamics and transformations.

Consequently, the majority of Arab writers and critics enthusiastically oriented themselves toward Western critical thought and literature. They engaged with its diverse output, capitalized on its methodological propositions, critical perspectives, and theoretical frameworks, and implemented its procedural mechanisms in their engagement with Arabic literary creations.

Hence, the central inquiry of this study pertains to the experience of Arab criticism in its interaction with this acculturational trajectory—specifically, its scope, significance, and the extent of the benefit derived. This inquiry is premised on the understanding that critical interaction with the Other necessarily entails participation in offering a worldview and shaping a distinctive mode of presence within it.

I. The Nature of Acculturation and the Pillars of Its Existence

The initial conceptualization of acculturation, as documented in Kazimirski’s Dictionary, suggests a conflictual dynamic characterized by inequality and imbalance between the opposing entities (Kazimirski, n.d.). Conversely, in the majority of its contemporary scholarly applications, the term acculturation designates the mechanism through which diverse forms of cultural exchange are generated among human civilizations, striving to establish a balanced epistemic and dialogic equilibrium.

This equilibrium is positioned as an intermediate state between two polarities: the first being unrestricted openness to the Other, which risks cultural dissolution, amalgamation, and identity erosion; and the second, a fatal self-enclosure characterized by complete isolation from the global sphere.

The World Encyclopedia traces the earliest scholarly usage of the term acculturation to the works of American anthropologists circa 1880. The encyclopedia also emphasizes the concept’s multifaceted nature and its Latin etymology, where it signifies ‘approach’ or ‘drawing closer.’ Nevertheless, English academics subsequently preferred the term ‘cultural change,’ while Spanish scholars adopted ‘transculturation’ (Naas Muhammad, 2008).

This terminological differentiation aims to divest the concept of connotations of domination or excessive zeal often associated with postcolonial discourse, thereby facilitating its operation within a reciprocal framework of mutual equality. The overarching objective is to serve a superior humanistic and epistemic purpose—namely, the advancement of knowledge and the realization of collective benefit—diverging from a colonial paradigm rooted in conquest and expansion.

In 1936, Linton and Herskovits provided a formal definition of acculturation as: “the sum of phenomena resulting from direct and continuous contact between groups of individuals belonging to different cultures, and the subsequent changes in the cultural patterns of either or both groups” (as cited in Kharmash, n.d.).

French scholars, however, adopted the expressions ‘civilizational intermixing’ or ‘civilizational interaction.’ This approach is exemplified by the definition offered by French researcher Michel De Coster, who characterized it as: “the totality of interactions resulting from some form of contact between different cultures such as influence, being influenced, borrowing, dialogue, rejection, assimilation, and others. This process leads to the emergence of new elements in modes of thought and in the ways issues are addressed and problems analyzed, implying that the cultural and conceptual structure can in no way remain or return to what it was prior to this process” (as cited in Kharmash, n.d.).

Nevertheless, the cultural and critical reality has underscored the considerable difficulty in achieving such humanistic and epistemic communication within a genuinely reciprocal global dynamic. This observation exposes the fact that the majority of these terminological commitments often fail to endure in practical application and tend to progressively erode.

These assertions are, in large measure, specious yet resonant claims—frequently deployed to project a façade of civilizational refinement that fundamentally conceals expansionist agendas and aspirations for global hegemony. The ultimate aim is the assimilation of diverse cultures into a dominant Western-centric paradigm, whether aligned with French or American lines of civilizational thought.

The French School of Comparative Literature initially emerged from the juxtaposition of national literatures, primarily investigating the historical relationship between influence and imitation among them, conducted strictly within the boundaries of the national language. Its core objective was the distinction of the influenced entity from the influencer, and the original work from the imitation.

Subsequently, this School expanded its purview, transcending national and geographic confines to explore intertextual relationships with literary texts composed in other languages (Makki, 1987). This broadening of scope sought to differentiate the original works of these literatures from those that were merely adopted or borrowed, thereby integrating both national and universal dimensions. This expanded service was, critically, intended to complete and fortify its own national literature. This specific orientation was prefigured in the early thought of Madame de Staël (1766–1866), as articulated in her famous exhortation to her compatriots: “If we wish to cure the barrenness that has afflicted French literature, we must graft it with a stronger sap” (as cited in Makki, 1987, p. 51). Thus, the initial phase of these studies was fundamentally designed to preserve the French national literature, revitalizing it through the incorporation of external elements that would renew its fertility and strengthen its essential vitality.

However, the academic discourse of comparative literary studies within the French School eventually became an instrument for promulgating value judgments that stratified various literatures and cultures into a binary classification—a positive/negative division. This dichotomy was closely correlated with the historical reality of colonialism, which effectively recast intercultural relations as a dynamic between colonizing and colonized nations. In this imposed classification, the literature and culture of the colonizer were positioned as the superior, exemplary, and perpetually influential model, whereas the literature and culture of the colonized were relegated to the status of the weaker entity, permanently confined to the orbit of influence (Aboud, 1999).

Consequently, French comparative literary studies devolved into a form of European cultural and civilizational centrism that exerted intellectual guardianship and authority over the rest of the world, particularly the Arab and African spheres. It positioned these cultures as intellectually deficient and dependent, contributing nothing of inherent value to global literatures and cultures (Aboud, 1999), surviving instead on the purported intellectual and civilizational beneficence of Europe. Thus, it becomes evident that this approach involved a motivated manipulation of history, while the very term ‘comparative literature’ itself engaged in a rhetorical deception—a mere strategic label. It failed to reflect the genuine scholarly meaning such studies should embody (Al-Khatib, 1992), but rather persisted in its obfuscation to reinforce the conviction that Europe is the sole fount of intellectual illumination and the epitome of civilizational perfection—and is therefore the most worthy of emulation, to which others must defer in absolute recognition of its capabilities and gratitude for its alleged benevolence.

The American School of Comparative Literature, prominently associated with the scholarship of René Wellek, positioned itself as a challenge to the cultural and ideological insularity perceived in the methodological approach of the French School. While initially influenced by the French tradition, this new orientation—spearheaded by Wellek—ultimately forged a distinct intellectual and methodological paradigm for comparative literary studies.

Wellek advocated for the abandonment of the French School’s strict prerequisite for establishing material and historical contact (i.e., verifiable ‘influence’ or ‘source studies’) between national literatures. He viewed this criterion as one that merely reinforced intellectual and cultural precedence, thus perpetuating notions of superiority and domination (Al-Bazghi, 1999).

In its place, Wellek championed a concept of universal literary unity, emphasizing the fusion of all literatures within a shared aesthetic framework. This framework ensures their coherence and growth upon common artistic foundations, opening new horizons for relationships among national literatures based on broad bridges of similarity (or ‘parallelism’) between two or more traditions (Abu Al-Saud, 1997).

Core Principle: Comparison should be based on aesthetic affinity and intrinsic literary qualities, without the necessity of historical proof of influence or actual contact (Abu Al-Saud, 1997).

Methodological Shift: From the positivistic and empirical study of facts (influence, sources) to a focus on literary theory, aesthetic analysis, and parallelism (Ibrahim, 1997).

Despite its broad historical and theoretical roots, the American School differed fundamentally from the French School in the conditions and criteria that governed its practical work. The methodological hegemony of the French School gradually receded, giving way to various alternative approaches, largely because the foundational experiences reflected by the two schools were fundamentally opposed:

French School Context: Rooted in a European context often characterized by linguistic and cultural homogeneity within the nation-state model, it tended toward a nationalistic and Eurocentric approach focused on documenting the outward influence of French literature.

American School Context: It emerged from the intrinsic plurality of American society—a nation characterized by profound ethnic, linguistic, and cultural heterogeneity following its modern formation (and the historical displacement of its Indigenous populations) (Istif, 2014).

This cultural composition was significantly shaped by the massive influx of immigrants to the United States. This movement, gaining critical momentum before, during, and after World War II, included numerous European comparatists who fled repression in Nazi and Fascist Europe. These scholars sought intellectual freedom, enriching American academia and contributing to the development of the non-nationalistic American School model (Istif, 2014).

The critique of the French comparative method, launched by René Wellek and his collaborator Austin Warren (notably in Theory of Literature, 1949), centered on its:

Commodification of Art: Reducing literary relations to a kind of “commercial accounting” (a ‘foreign trade’ of ideas) that constrains art within an exchange-based logic of “giving and receiving.”

Wellek and Warren argued that, in the absence of parity, such a framework inevitably serves as a conduit for the ideology of the colonizer, armed with political and economic power, furthering expansionist aims under the guise of civilizational enlightenment.

The American school of comparative literature formulated its methodology with an emphasis on artistic refinement and an analytic focus on relationships rooted in similarity, proximity, and influence. This approach seeks to “bring literature closer to other fields of expression and knowledge, or also to relate literary facts and texts—whether distant in time and space or close to one another—on the condition that they belong to different languages or cultures forming part of a shared heritage, in order to describe, understand, and appreciate them more effectively” (Brunel, Pichois, & Rousseau, 2000, p. 150). This conceptualization reflects a practical, culturally open vision directed toward globalism and civilizational advancement, deliberately free from racial discrimination or nationalist fanaticism. It purportedly aims to dissolve cultural boundaries between diverse peoples to achieve a unified culture under the banner of globalization, which perpetually strives to render the world a “small village.” However, in practice, this effort tends to dissolve the particularities of peoples rather than merely their cultural boundaries.

This inherent drive toward domination poses a substantial threat to cultural identities and precipitates their erosion. As argued, “it is impossible for nations to live under a single ideological outlook and within a uniform mold. Even if, hypothetically, this were to happen, it would mean nothing but isolation, rigidity, stagnation, and death for those nations, as they would cease to communicate with one another. Communication is, by its very nature, the product of difference, opposition, plurality, diversity, and the exchange of mutual interests” (Ibrahim, 2001, p. 374). Generally, the American discourse exhibits an internal contradiction: while advocating for cultural openness, it simultaneously insists on consolidating American national culture and positing it as the singular universal model for emulation. Consequently, it imposes a return to this culture as the sole economic and civilizational reference and source of inspiration, notwithstanding its recognized lack of historical depth, which paradoxically constitutes its primary source of complex (Ragheb, 2001).

This perspective, characterized by arrogance, obsession with domination, and the subjugation of the Other, has severely compromised the principle of mutual recognition among diverse cultural identities. This recognition is an essential prelude and firm foundation for genuine cultural exchange (muthaqafa). The perspective distorts the interactive nature of muthaqafa, as clearly evidenced by the precise linguistic markers defining its concept, thereby uprooting its necessary conditions. Its original participatory unity has been fractured, yielding an irreconcilable, fixed division between “us” and “them,” with no possibility of role reversal. Such a separation precludes any equitable form of encounter, imposing a single cultural reference that grants the “superior human” the prerogative of controlling and dominating the Other, while concurrently denying other nations the right to pursue a comparable civilizational and national trajectory.

Indeed, society in the United States is fundamentally “monocultural despite the plurality of races that migrated to and settled in it. There has always been a dominant and prevailing American culture—that of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite—which founded the United States as a state and has governed it ever since. It was a relatively open culture, in which Catholics, Jews, and others also participated” (Ragheb, 2001, pp. 377–378). As a result, the notion of reciprocity has become conflated with, and even eclipsed by, the element of exploitation. This is particularly manifest in the prevalence of postcolonial discourse, which has reinforced subordination and facilitated the dissolution of the being and cultural distinctiveness of the Other within the assimilative crucible, thereby intensifying the erosion of the constituent elements of its national identity.

The concept, despite highlighting the process of acculturation and framing it in terms of accompaniment and participation, has proven unable to constrain persistent tendencies to equate it with superiority and domination. These tendencies are further linked to the possession of technological/military power that governs the world and imposes submission to a French/Western chauvinism which regards its culture as the axis of the universe and the source of absolute truth.

This interpretation starkly contrasts with the foundational context of the concept of acculturation, which is formally defined as: “The mutual influence of cultures upon one another as a result of contact between them, regardless of the nature or duration of such contact” (Arif, 1994, p. 24)—implying the participation in a specific culture and reciprocal exchange between cultures. Also as “The moral and intellectual content that guides general behavior and determines the collective action shared by a specific population group” (Al-Mawsili & Safi, 2002, p. 100).

Accordingly, acculturation inherently embodies a general conception of interaction between the self and the other, seeking to offer a renewed formulation of the world grounded in a comprehensive and advanced civilizational vision. The scope of this vision extends to encompass an active reality open to cultural plurality, intellectual cross-fertilization, and coexistence within a framework of growth through difference. This framework is predicated on solid principles of implicit partnership that generate knowledge in its highest human dimensions, aspiring toward the elevation of humankind.

Driven by the conviction in the outcomes of conscious and fertile acculturation, a multitude of seminal intellectual and anthropological works and studies have been produced. As defined by Melville Herskovits, Ralph Linton, and Robert Redfield, acculturation is: “The cultural change that occurs in those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous firsthand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups” (as cited in Arif, 1994, p. 24).

Thus, the process is fundamentally governed not by a logic of dominance but rather by cultural influence, demonstrating an openness to diversity, renewal, and the inspiring and enriching transformation that sustains cultural vitality.

The persistent, vigorous attempts to distort the reciprocal and human trajectory of the acculturation process (muthāqafa) through an ideologically-biased mobilization, predicated on criteria of power and superiority, were met by the emergence of an opposing intercultural (muthāqafatiyy) concept. This alternative paradigm rejected the denigration of other cultures, emphasizing the appreciation of their achievements and the respect for their specificities. It was fundamentally grounded in a civilizational and dialogical principle that aimed to establish a comprehensive equilibrium between the two phenomena of human influence and receptivity. This development represents a form of civilizational enlightenment, evidenced in several comparative Arabic literary studies and reflected in the responses of numerous Arab scholars and critics who contested the inherent biases of Orientalist campaigns.

The Arab critical methodology constitutes a significant area of inquiry revived by Orientalist studies, whose influence became particularly pronounced from the first half of the twentieth century onwards, impacting Arab language, literature, and both modern and contemporary criticism. This context necessitated that Arab scholars engage with the substantial body of opinions and judgments presented by Orientalists—reading, analyzing, and discussing them as they required reconsideration and review due to their intrinsic link to processes of influence and interaction.

These Orientalist studies contain numerous examples that reveal a bias against Arabic literature and its criticism. For instance, Régis Blachère claimed that Arabic literature generally lacked the essential conditions for creativity, distinction, and the attributes of genius. He insisted that: “Literary productivity, in many periods indeed, in the most important ones—remains collective, devoid of any truly individual creation; and if we happen to find exceptions, a closer look will reveal that the phenomenon is a movement of renewal initiated by a group or literary circle, or it represents a particular regional feature… In short, Arabic literature—and we may add to it the literatures of the Near East—has known only fleeting flashes of that fertile, laborious need for renewal, distinction, and contrast” (Blachère, n.d., p. 164).

The only viable means of refuting and correcting such claims and falsifications was through “attentive engagement with the literary, linguistic, and critical publications of Orientalists and Western thinkers—studying, examining, and, whenever possible, responding to them—for it is we who are best suited to introduce our language, literature, and entire heritage to the Other, and it is our right to know what is written about us” (Abdelkrim, 2011).

“This crucial task was undertaken by scholars including Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, Muḥammad ʿAbduh, Muṣṭafā Ṣādiq al-Rāfiʿī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Muḥammad Kurd ʿAlī, and ʿAbbās Maḥmūd al-ʿAqqād, among others. They employed sound scholarly reasoning and persuasive argumentation, making concerted efforts to demonstrate the value of both Arab literary and critical achievements and the profound influence of the Arab-Islamic cultural identity on the formation of Western cultures. This engagement effectively mitigated the dangers of cultural dilution and civilizational dissolution towards which Orientalism had tended, and yielded substantial intellectual benefit to Arabic literature and criticism, thereby enhancing their recognition and reaffirming their place among world literatures.

The process of reverse acculturation operated along a prospective dimension, intensely critiquing instances of Arab critical withdrawal. This withdrawal sought refuge in silence and absence, characterized by a complacent acceptance of a position of cognitive receptivity toward all aspects of the Western paradigm. Consequently, the foreign cultural influx ultimately dominated and asserted its hegemony over most outlets of Arab-Islamic culture. This outcome persists despite historical research and civilizational studies consistently demonstrating, throughout the ages, the interactive nature that has governed relations among various cultures and civilizations, continually fueling their enduring vitality.

It follows from the preceding analysis that the fundamental problem does not reside in the essence of acculturation within either of the two aforementioned perspectives, even though each concept is intrinsically opposed to the other. Instead, the issue lies in the divergent outcomes they have produced: one outcome leads to positioning acculturation on its appropriate civilizational trajectory, rendering it a sound and balanced process; the other results in a unidirectional form of acculturation that perceives only its own perspective and resonates only with the echo of its own voice, thereby nullifying the very conditions requisite for its sustenance.

II. Acculturation and the Transformations of Contemporary Arab Critical Discourse

The presence of critical activity is intrinsically and essentially intertwined with creative activity, for criticism remains a fundamental tributary to literary production and a principal, active, and enduring force that stimulates it toward excellence. The ultimate aim of criticism is to elevate creative work, urging it toward refinement, delving into its depths, probing its layers, and encompassing its various levels through exploration, interpretation, and exegesis in order to reach its intended purposes. Such an endeavor cannot be achieved except through the adoption of a specific epistemological method that illuminates the path of this ongoing critical dynamism, guides it, and frames its interrogation of the literary text—seeking thereby to establish the boundaries of scientific rigor that grant it the utmost clarity and precision.

It is important to point out, before examining the stages and orientations of acculturation (al-muthāqafa) in contemporary Arab criticism, the ancient Arab historical roots of this concept. Acculturation was not a product of the Nahḍa (Arab Renaissance) period; rather, Arab cultural interaction with the Other began before Islam. Cultural pluralism emerged under the aegis of Islam, as translation was already known prior to and during the Umayyad period, though it was mostly limited to individual, sporadic efforts lacking systematic organization (Othman, 2013). The Abbasid era then witnessed the expansion and flourishing of translation movements and intercultural dialogue, within a comprehensive scientific and cultural project of translation. The phenomenon of pluralism in Arab-Islamic culture thus appeared in its most vigorous, radiant, and influential form.

Following this cross-fertilization among cultures, processes of blending, synthesis, and innovation emerged (Othman, 2013)—phenomena that collectively contributed to enriching and strengthening an entire civilization. In this context, the comparison among ancient civilizations was not meant as disputation or polemics—refutation and rebuttal as seen in the history of theological sects—but rather as an endeavor to view cultures through the mirrors of other cultures, in full appreciation of cultural pluralism and comparative civilizations. It was a vision that reflected an unbounded openness of mind, regarded as a methodological pathway for human development. By comparing the inherited with the incoming, the civilization of the Self with that of the Other, the supreme objective remained the reinforcement of the Self in facing the civilization of the Other—whether that Other was Eastern (Indian or Persian) or Western (Greek or Roman) (Othman, 2013).

Thus, it was an Arab perspective marked by depth and a broad awareness of the civilizational responsibility borne by the Arab self—one that accepts difference from a position of strength, highlights its distinctiveness, and fosters its growth and evolution.

The path taken by acculturation—in contemporary Arab criticism encompassing its adopted directions, experienced conditions, and undergone transformations—offers a revealing assessment. This trajectory illuminates the extent of the benefit and gain accrued by Arab critical scholarship from this cultural cross-fertilization, simultaneously exposing the obstacles, pitfalls, and directional risks that surrounded it, along with the challenges it encountered. The culmination of this process has resulted in a series of problems focused on two key areas: first, the examination of the current critical reality—its merits and shortcomings—within this acculturation process; and second, the assessment of the distance between its aspirations and its ultimate achievements.

The emergence of contemporary Arab criticism was contingent upon specific intellectual conditions that endowed its acculturation with a particular historical specificity. Its underlying structure did not arise from an internal intellectual evolution; rather, its cultural system rested upon fragile foundations. Consequently, it encountered an already ready-made Western cultural achievement, which it subsequently proceeded to borrow. This situation reflects the dynamics of a forced acculturation imposed by civilizational backwardness, leading to various difficulties and crises that produced a profoundly unequal exchange.

This imbalance has persisted since Napoleon’s campaign at the close of the eighteenth century—an action interpreted as “an attempt to bring Egypt, and the East in general, into the orbit of French-European cultural transformations to facilitate control over them” (Ayyad, 1993, p. 12). In most instances, this resulted in the suspension of any genuine mechanisms of exchange following that involuntary contact.

Stated differently, the phenomenon of acculturation—experienced by the Arab world at the end of the nineteenth century—possessed the potential for great benefit specifically, by opening up to a rich and diverse human knowledge—had it transpired under natural circumstances. However, amid such complex conditions, the Arab context engaged in fascination rather than progressive benefit, remaining confined to a consumptive, receptive position.

It is a logical outcome that such conditions would generate a bipolar dominance resulting in exploitative relations, wherein the stronger side imposed its culture upon the weaker one. Accordingly, acculturation was reduced to a relationship between colonizer and colonized (Europe and its Arab colonies), yielding a scenario marked by elements of confrontation, conflict, and caution.

It was therefore inevitable that Arab criticism would be subject to the same dynamics affecting other fields of knowledge, following the epistemological explosion experienced by the West. As noted, “The Western world was developing—and still develops—at a pace far exceeding ours; consequently, we find ourselves today facing the risk of extinction or marginalization” (Ayyad, 1993, p. 12). From this standpoint, the Arab critic became integrated into the trajectory of Western critical modernization, driven by the conviction that positioning oneself within the orbit of Western critical methodologies constituted the only available path toward modernization and progress.

Consequently, it can be asserted that what is currently denoted as modern and contemporary literary criticism is, in its foundational core, a Western intellectual construct imported into the Arab context. This import is detached from the classical critical tradition of which only traces remain among a few modern Arab critics amid prevalent calls to break free from traditional methodologies. These older methods, in this view, are deemed to lack the scientific conditions requisite for the modern age and, thus, the conditions of effectiveness; they are, therefore, no longer capable of being active or productive.

Hence, modern and contemporary criticism is the product of cultural interaction with the Other—both in its foundational structures and its intellectual orientations. The early manifestations of this criticism date back to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, largely following the long and arduous methodological journey undertaken by Western criticism, almost inseparably so. This Western journey was marked by a remarkable productive energy that culminated in a profound epistemological enrichment, revitalizing the critical movement as a whole in a striking manner. The outcome was abundant: numerous critical approaches emerged, crystallizing into two main directions.

The first was the contextual approach, which sought to interpret the literary text by linking it to its multiple and diverse external contexts—social, historical, psychological, and others. The second was the systemic approach, which arose as a reaction against the excessive reliance on the authority of the text’s external surroundings and the marginalization of the literary text’s intrinsic structure. From this perspective, systemic approaches focused on textual value, viewing the text as a closed and neutral linguistic structure that develops and takes shape according to its own internal conditions and governing rules.

However, the systemic orientation itself fell into the trap of excess when it isolated the text from external factors. This necessitated an effort to overcome such a deadlock, leading to the emergence of a new critical perspective that sought to reconcile the internal and external dimensions by: “making the literary discourse the fundamental document that the critical approach aims to interpret, through tracing its semiotic meanings across the basic levels on which the literary discourse is founded” (Blouhi, 2002, p. 134)—such as stylistics and semiotics.

These approaches, in turn, gave rise to other critical currents that called for renewed attention to the reader, considering them one of the three essential poles of the critical process. The reader was regarded as the missing link in previous critical theories, and Reader-Response Criticism as well as Reception Theory were entrusted with restoring their place.

In general, these approaches drew on a vast body of modern and diverse intellectual studies and perspectives, ranging from linguistic, social, psychological, and structuralist, to deconstructionist and feminist criticism. This diversity and multiplicity prevented their unification under a single direction or their attribution to a specific school.

Overall, the history of Arab critical interaction with the Western critical model has gone through two major stages:

A. The Foundational Phase:

This phase initiates the Arab interaction with Western cultural achievements. It is characterized by the epistemological astonishment—which escalated to a state of shock and fascination—of the Arab critical self toward Western critical brilliance. This reaction was a logical consequence of the intellectual decline the Arab world was undergoing at the time, as previously noted, which destabilized its balance and situated it within a historically and culturally fragmented critical context. Consequently, the dialectic of the dominant and the dominated emerged within the Arab critical sphere, subsequently dominating its activities and movements.

Many critics became profoundly absorbed in transferring all forms of the Other’s renaissance, demonstrating fervent influence from its artistic and scientific accomplishments, while simultaneously showing great eagerness to prove the efficiency of the Arab heritage and its capacity to be studied and examined through Western critical methods.

As one scholar observes, “Most of our critics, since Taha Hussein and al-Marsafi, have turned toward the Western literary repository in search of tools of analysis and interpretation. Even when they attempted to re-evaluate the masterpieces of the Arab heritage, they exerted great effort to demonstrate its value by showing the possibility of applying Western methodologies to its significant aspects so that it would not appear in any way different from the literary heritages of advanced nations” (Barada, 1985, p. 50). This statement reveals a profound underlying sense of inferiority and inadequacy.

The Egyptian academic missions during the reign of Muhammad Ali played a pioneering role in this regard, as he sought through them to catch up with the European civilizational progress. Perhaps the most famous of these missions was that of Rifa’a al-Tahtawi and his companions, who were dispatched to benefit from French culture and European civilization in general during the nineteenth century.

This enlightening trajectory continued intermittently; approximately a century later, in 1912, came the mission of Ahmad Dayf, a student specializing in literary studies, who is considered one of the earliest intellectual figures to establish the Arab critical engagement with European critical thought. He became acquainted with the principles of the French linguistic school and was significantly influenced by its ideas. His mission culminated in earning a Ph.D. from the University of the Sorbonne. Upon his return, he carried with him a new critical awareness and became the first to open the gateway to systematic criticism in modern Arabic literature. He introduced certain key critical terms and heralded the critical breakthrough of the historical method (Ayyad, 1993), which he learned under the French critic Gustave Lanson. He also advocated for the necessity of opening Arab criticism to European critical achievements with their new modes of thinking and modern methods in order to develop its concepts and invigorate its modes of thought, procedures, and analytical mechanisms for literary texts.

The core argument involves a critique of concepts, methodologies, and approaches that had become deeply rooted within the Arab intellectual sphere, commencing with the fundamental notion of literature itself (Al-Ruwaili & Al-Bazai, n.d.). This critique was concurrent with the proliferation of perspectives that demonstrated a profound alienation from the indigenous literary, critical, linguistic, and religious heritage, often asserting—with striking certitude—the irrelevance of this heritage to contemporary human endeavors. A central target of this critique was the attribution of perfection to the concepts and methodologies of the ancient Arab critical heritage, which had devolved into ossified, static, and fixed modes. Critics branded this rigid framework as a form of fossilized critical rigidity, evident in both its theoretical vision and its methodological application (Al-Ruwaili & Al-Bazai, n.d.).

This intellectual movement consequently induced a gravitation toward an internal void, which in turn amplified the fascination with all things Western. This process delineated the boundaries of a dualistic intellectual framework that counterposed the ancient Arab heritage against the modern European cultural achievement. Within this dichotomy, the concept of the modern in the Arab cultural-critical perspective became synonymous with European intellectual production, manifesting as an attitude of subordination. The underlying premise was: “Every advanced critical or intellectual opinion, every developed literary method, belongs to the West; the heritage has no virtue whatsoever (…).” Proponents of this orientation effectively erased the awareness that the heritage discourse continues to exhibit manifold manifestations—if not as an integral and influential component—within contemporary critical discourse. Indeed, it is undeniable that heritage extends its influence into modernity and postmodernity alike, as a difference in style does not imply a difference in essence (Jumaa, n.d.).

The crux of the matter, therefore, dictates that the Arab critic, operating within the modernization project, must recognize that heritage constitutes an essential and profound substance and an inseparable part of identity that necessitates re-examination, not rupture. Engagement with it should foster a creative reinterpretation, development, and rereading, without invalidating its fundamental essence. This approach seeks an optimal inspiration drawn from heritage for the purpose of transcendence. When thus reinterpreted and revitalized, heritage becomes an active element of the renewal process, and authenticity itself emerges as the very essence of the modernity project.

This Arab critical-modernist call for the utilization of European critical achievements was widely articulated by prominent literary and academic figures, notably Taha Hussein, Ahmad Amin, Amin al-Khuli, and Ahmad al-Shayib. Taha Hussein, for example, engaged in a form of cultural exchange with Western criticism, stemming from his interaction with the historical and sociological methodologies prevalent in Europe at the time, with the explicit aim of implanting them into the Arab critical tradition. The intellectual yield of this exchange is evident in works such as The Renewal of the Memory of Abu al-Alaʾ (Hussein, 1922) and On Pre-Islamic Poetry (Hussein, 1926), the latter of which was subsequently reissued—following the ensuing controversy—under the modified title On Pre-Islamic Literature (Hussein, 1977).

In this endeavor, Taha Hussein adopted the philosophical method of René Descartes, which originated at the advent of the modern era and posited doubt as the essential means, method, and pathway to knowledge and truth. He defended this methodological reliance, asserting: “Everyone knows that the fundamental principle of this method is that the researcher must divest himself of everything he previously knew and approach his subject with a mind entirely free of prior opinions. Everyone also knows that this method, which provoked the ire of the traditionalists in religion and philosophy when it first appeared, proved to be the most fertile, the strongest, and the most effective. It renewed science and philosophy, changed the approaches of writers in their literature and artists in their arts, and became the hallmark of the modern age” (Hussein, 1977, p. 157).

However, the philosophical framework he ostensibly utilized served as a façade for a deeper vision focused on investigating the origins of Arabic poetry to scrutinize its authenticity, distinguishing the genuine from the spurious through the application of modern scientific mechanisms. These mechanisms aimed to deconstruct the cultural centrality fortified by traditional sanctity and to confront it with the logic of life, which resists stagnation and rigidity. This necessarily implied responsiveness to “the method of social change that begins by confronting cultural inertia” (Sharaf, 1977, p. 157).

Consequently, Taha Hussein demonstrated a particular interest in the theory of the French philosopher and critic Hippolyte Taine, who linked the understanding and interpretation of literature to a triad: race, milieu, and moment. According to Taine, race encompasses the innate predispositions inherited by the individual from their nation, instilling national characteristics and traits. The milieu situates the individual within the context of historical conditions—conditions that are fundamentally evolutionary, connected to the past, and to the progress achieved within a dynamic, force-charged movement (Muhammad, 1993) that ultimately influences the trajectory of literary achievements across societies and propels them toward development.

These elements endow literature with the potential for external experimentation, alongside a distinct and exceptional artistic faculty that governs the creator and the trajectory of their literary output. This structure is intended to ensure that literary creativity keeps pace with the advancement of positive change and preserves its social value as a phenomenon that continually generates opportunities for life. Its very existence, equipped with its own inherent qualifications, expresses what is while constantly striving to create vast spaces for what ought to be.

Within this scientific framework, which is consistently anchored in the historical method, emerges Ṭāhā Ḥusayn’s interest in the criticism of Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve. Sainte-Beuve’s literary-historical criticism fundamentally rests upon the examination of the writer’s personality, familiarity with their biography, and meticulous investigation of both its general and minute details. This approach is rooted in the view that these elements constitute the key to understanding the author’s works and penetrating their most profound aspects. This is encapsulated in the principle of “knowing the tree before the fruit.” As Ṭāhā Ḥusayn states, this historical method is founded on a “kind of causal chain of equations: the text is the fruit of its author, the author is the reflection of his culture, culture is the product of environment, and the environment is part of history; thus, literary criticism is the history of literature through its environment” (Al-Masdi, 1994, p. 79).

Accordingly, literature originates from the author’s personality and is shaped within the matrix of their social and historical experience, their cultural tributaries, and their philosophical outlook—termed the “natural history of thought.” However, Hippolyte Taine links this totality to the psychological dimension grounded in taste and sincerity of expression. Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, for his part, judiciously employed the perspectives of both Taine and Sainte-Beuve to forge a critical vision. This vision draws upon the concepts of race, gender, environment, epoch, the author’s psychology, and the history of their life to understand and interpret their work. Crucially, he did so without succumbing to the writing of a mere biographical narrative of the creator, as Taine did, or reducing the author to fixed literary characteristics, as Sainte-Beuve sought (Muhammad, 1993). He thus succeeded in liberating himself from the authority of scientific determinism that dominated natural criticism and from the constraints of classifications derived from experimental scientific methodology, which aimed to homogenize creative texts into literary typologies characterized by generalized particularization.

Among the significant landmarks of Arab criticism connected with and indicative of this period was the formation of the Romantic emotional trend (al-ittijāh al-wijdānī al-rūmānsī), represented by three schools: al-Dīwān, Apollo, and al-Rābiṭah al-Qalamiyyah. These schools—particularly al-Dīwān—worked to consolidate the foundations of Romanticism within the Arab cultural landscape, thereby facilitating the introduction of the psychological approach into modern Arabic Critical Discourse. The broad acceptance of the Romantic tendency paved the way for this development, given its premise that the expression of life can only originate from within the human being. Hence arose the convergence and intersection between the two perspectives, both emphasizing the unconscious and free association, whether on the intellectual or emotional plane (Haidoush, n.d.).

The psychological method (al-manhaj al-nafsī) thus emerged as one of the most significant contextual approaches adopted by modern and contemporary Arabic Critical Discourse. It sought to utilize its mechanisms and procedures in analyzing and interpreting ancient poetic works. Such was the endeavor of ʿAbbās Maḥmūd al-ʿAqqād, a pioneering Arab critic in this field, who conducted psychological analyses of the personalities of Ibn al-Rūmī (Al-Aqqad, 1982) and Abū Nuwās (Al-Aqqad, n.d.). His conclusions were based on their poetry and the biographical reports transmitted in literary and historical sources. He concluded that the former suffered from neurosis and behavioral deviance, while the latter exhibited narcissistic traits.

Following his lead, Ibrāhīm al-Māzinī published an article examining Ibn al-Rūmī’s poetry in light of the psychological method’s premises (Akasha, 1985). Alongside these efforts were other individual contributions, such as those of Amīn al-Khūlī (al-Khūlī, 1961)—a leading critic who founded the hermeneutic approach to reading and interpreting the Qur’an within his serious reformist attempts in the mid-twentieth century, under the designation of “literary study” (al-dars al-adabī)—as well as Muḥammad Khalaf Allāh Aḥmad (Aḥmad, 1970) and Muṣṭafā Suwayf (Suwaif, 1981). These figures brought about a qualitative transformation in this domain, systematically framing the psychological critical trend within Arab scholarship, granting it academic rigor, and establishing its strong efficacy and high value within Arabic literary-critical culture.

Muṣṭafā Suwayf, in particular, critiqued both Surrealism and Existentialism for their descent into the abyss of individual isolation and withdrawal, which led to the prioritization of instinct over reason and the choice of the darkness of despair over the light of hope. He thereby distinguished their outlooks from his own approach, which is grounded in the psychological method. His method probes the depths of the human being while maintaining their connection to collective consciousness and civilizational belonging: “We are driven toward this inquiry that explores the inner self in the spirit of our age; yet, through it, we seek to reconsider social integration and to contribute to its reconstruction upon new foundations, for we see in it the path to freedom—not the reverse, as claimed by the proponents of Surrealism and Existentialism. We wish through this inquiry to cast some light upon the psychological foundations of literary creativity” (Suwaif, 1981, p. 13).

This perspective thus links the understanding of the self to communication with the external world—regardless of the circumstances—and demonstrates a mature critical awareness that scrutinizes and filters the intellectual currents and methodologies imported from the West.

It is undeniable that this foundational phase of acculturation between the Arab and Western entities evidenced a strong predisposition toward everything Western, alongside a deep commitment to Enlightenment thought, which was characterized by the deployment of reason instead of transmission and the liberation of thought from the determinism of tradition. According to the majority of critics, such an undertaking could only be realized by a wholesale adoption of Western culture, positing it as the sole and permanent foundation for renewal. However, reality swiftly exposed a lack of clarity in discourse and an inconsistency in maintaining a critical stance. The Arab critic’s perspective was marked by confusion and duality, coupled with a methodological vacillation that verged on disorientation—an advance toward the Western followed by a retreat and regression, which betrayed a palpable nostalgia for the Arab critical heritage and its aesthetic standards.

This fluctuation constituted a response to the call of origins emanating from the depths of the self, mandating loyalty to its stylistic and critical identity through the authoritative sources of Arab culture—namely, the classical literary, rhetorical, and critical heritage, as well as the poetic anthologies governed by the theory of the pillar of poetry (Amūd al-shiʿr), with all their inherent cultural biases (Al-Ruwaili & Al-Bazai, n.d.). Consequently, Ahmad Dayf affirmed that Arabic literature is by no means inferior to Western literatures, though it possesses its own distinctive characteristics and specific aesthetic features. He asserted: “Many writers will remain cautious and hesitant in using the terminologies of Western schools—Classicism, Romanticism, Realism, {etc.}—as if they fear for their own sense of identity. In our own days, the issue of narrative and dramatic forms will be raised in the name of seeking genres that emerge from our own culture, without any explicit acknowledgment unless by mere coincidence that this direction parallels the Western tendency toward experimentation in various domains, including the use of popular expressions that have not yet been domesticated” (as cited in Ayyad, 1993, p. 82).

This ceaseless oscillation between the two perspectives—Western and Arab—was clearly manifested in the critical readings of ʿAbbās Maḥmūd al-ʿAqqād, Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, and others. The latter’s critical studies, in particular, reflected extensive openness to Western culture, especially to French literature and criticism. His critical focus was oriented toward a European future for Arabic Critical Discourse and culture, and his primary concern was to strengthen the bond between Egyptian and European culture.

Nevertheless, this did not preclude his constant engagement with the Arab literary and critical heritage in his analyses—a fact evident in his reversion to impressionistic criticism and his attachment to its aesthetic character, richly adorned with the stylistic elegance of Arabic rhetoric.

The clearest demonstration of this phenomenon is observed in his study of al-Mutanabbī: on the one hand, he demonstrated interest in al-Mutanabbī’s poetry as a means of uncovering the poet’s life and times, adhering to the method of Sainte-Beuve and Hippolyte Taine; on the other hand, he was keen to communicate with readers through a descriptive, impressionistic, and simplified style that frequently deviated from any association with the dryness of critical theorization or the tools of scientific inquiry.

Consequently, the three major critical currents converged in his critical production: the realist trend in its historical form, the emotional (or romantic) trend represented in the focus on the author’s self or the self in general, whether that of the critic or the recipient through the impressionistic and formalist style that privileges the text itself over the self, history, or the world (Al-Ruwaili & Al-Bazai, n.d.).

In reality, this phenomenon of duality in critical stance—this intermingling and overlap—was not restricted to the critical project of Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, nor to that of al-ʿAqqād, who stands as one of the major figures representing the Romantic (emotional) trend in modern Arabic Critical Discourse along the Anglo-Saxon line (Al-Ruwaili & Al-Bazai, n.d.). Rather, it pervaded other critical works as well, establishing it as one of the defining features of the critical discourse of that period—an outcome necessitated by the historical phase through which Arab culture was progressing, with all its transitional complexities and expressive conditions.

B. The Stage of the Critique of Criticism and Positive Cultural Exchange

During this stage, Arab criticism witnessed a growing and intensified interest in Western criticism, manifested through both authorship and translation. A number of Arab academic critics meticulously applied precise methods for the understanding of Western critical approaches. Critical activity was no longer confined to merely absorbing the new knowledge produced by Western critical movements—chief among them the approaches of New Criticism (systemic and postmodern)—but extended to fostering a logic of profound dialogue with these approaches through meticulous study and the organization of critical research. Thus, rigorous methodological structuring converged with prolific authorship, a hallmark of several Arab critics such as Abd al-Salam al-Massadi (Al-Masdi, 2004), Jaber Asfour (Asfour, 1998), Mohammed Meftah (Miftah, 2000), Mohammed al-Daghmoumi (Al-Daghmi, 1999), Mohammed Faleh al-Jubouri (Al-Jaburi, 2013), Abd al-Malik Mortadh (Murtad, 2010), Mohammed Azzam (Azzam, 1996), Youssef Waglissi (Waghlisi, 2015), and Omar Aylan (Ailan, 2010), among others.

Their readings demonstrated mastery in the field of Critique of Criticism, which represents: “The domain most closely tied to the field of criticism itself. It is concerned with observing, analyzing, and deconstructing critical visions and positions, examining propositions and their applications, and assessing the effectiveness of methodologies—sometimes even proposing methodological alternatives. It is, therefore, an endeavor not directed toward engaging with creative texts but rather toward making the critical discourse itself both the subject and the object of analysis, through the revision of its methods and theories, the interrogation of its foundations, and the deconstruction of its orientations” (Jamouai, 2013-2014).

This orientation was reflected in a pronounced concern for identifying the methodologies underlying their critical approaches, examining the theoretical assumptions they contained, and subjecting them to rigorous critique and verification—all in the hope of constructing a positive and productive methodological awareness of cultural exchange. Within this endeavor, numerous books and theoretical studies were published, offering detailed expositions aimed at clarifying the methodologies employed in these critical readings. Many of them demonstrated such a scrupulous commitment to methodological rigor that they occasionally surpassed the works of Western critics themselves in their methodological precision.

Nevertheless, it cannot be claimed that most Arab critical works possessed such a degree of scholarly seriousness that reflects a passionate and meticulous engagement with the methods of the Other—an engagement characterized by the precision and discernment of the specialist. Indeed, many critical studies neglected the methodological dimension altogether.

In any case, what remains certain is that positive arab critical acculturation—has, in most cases, failed to achieve a distinct mark of particularity except in individual instances and has not yet reached a level of parity in terms of performance and method. This is evidenced by the recurring confusion in discerning the useful aspects of Western criticism, the limited enrichment of Arab critical discourse, and the inability to reconstruct Western propositions and methodologies in ways suited to the Arab social and cultural context.

Hence, overcoming these crises requires that the Arab critic develop a genuine awareness of his own literary reality and its specificity, and work toward producing scholarship in the field of Critique of Criticism. This should be employed to achieve a productive form of acculturation—with the Other—one that fosters authentic, rigorous, and profound dialogues with the intellectual and critical developments introduced by others. Until such awareness and engagement are realized, the Arab critic will remain entangled in an ambiguous, suspended state—one that remains open to numerous challenges and uncertainties.

III. Contemporary Arab Critical Discourse and the Problems of Acculturation

One cannot deny the contributions of Western criticism to contemporary Arab criticism, nor the major role it has played in developing its procedural and interpretive apparatus, which has led to remarkable achievements. Indeed, Western criticism provided Arab criticism with effective mechanisms and efficient tools for engaging with literary texts, causing a major shift in its intellectual orientation and aesthetic sensibility. Yet, this significant and distinctive critical advancement does not conceal the problematic reality that characterizes contemporary Arab critical discourse. What, then, are the most serious of these problems? And how extensive are their effects on its present and future?

The Dialectic of Heritage and Modernity

Contemporary Arab criticism has witnessed an ongoing and heated debate revolving around two crucial and interrelated issues: heritage and modernity. Numerous critical exchanges have sought to deconstruct this problem, relying on dialogic approaches to explore its causes. Questions have thus emerged regarding the extent to which these problematic motivations are linked to the Arab mentality—marked by suspicion, caution, and apprehension toward everything emanating from the Other. Other questions, in turn, have probed the relationship between this problematic situation and the foundations of Western critical theories and their methodological premises in general, following their transfer to the Arab cultural context.

In reality, the structure of modern Arab culture, across its various institutions, was built upon fragile intellectual foundations, which disrupted the process of acculturation and hindered the attainment of its intended benefits. This resulted in the formation of a critical sphere rife with fractures and intellectual contradictions, particularly in its stances toward European culture and modernity as a whole. Within the Arab literary and intellectual arena, diverse groups of intellectuals have emerged with divergent perspectives, split between supporters and opponents of Western culture and modernity.

While a broad segment was captivated by almost everything associated with modernity—embracing it wholeheartedly and seeking to emulate it in all aspects—another faction adopted a diametrically opposed stance. The latter was ever ready to attack any intellectual current originating from across the seas, deeming it a deviation or a form of heresy, while blindly defending its own civilizational heritage. This group became absorbed in venerating the past, transforming it into an immutable constant that must not be questioned, revised, or developed. As one critic aptly observed, “there exists a group of critics whose zeal and protective pride over heritage led them to portray Western thinkers merely as transmitters of what already existed in our heritage through notions of inclusion, borrowing, and adaptation, especially in the intellectual sphere—as though they added nothing worthy of revisiting” (Jumaa, n.d., p. 151).

Meanwhile, a third group expressed a genuine desire to preserve the Arab intellectual heritage alongside European culture, attempting to synthesize the two within a framework of harmony and complementarity. This approach represents the sound critical perspective, though only a few critics have succeeded in achieving such a fruitful synthesis.

Irrespective of the diversity of the inquiries circulating within this critical domain and the varied approaches employed to address the issue, no analyst can assert that their resolution is facile. The endeavor necessitates a comprehensive examination of the entire contemporary Arab critical experience; it demands a high degree of scientific precision, cautious investigation, and a careful awareness of a general critical reality marked by considerable confusion and ambiguity. Furthermore, it requires exploring the extent of its independence on the one hand, and the directions it has adopted on the other, as well as the implications of all this for the very essence of the critical text as the critic’s utterance—one that has (Ubaid, 2005), frequently, exposed a state of generalized intellectual alienation.

It is evident that acculturation is increasingly assuming the character of a human and civilizational imperative. Intellectual and human flourishing is contingent upon this ceaseless dynamism that disseminates the benefits of human creativity and its ingenious accomplishments universally. It is thus essential that the Self maintains an ongoing and renewed dialogue with the Other, enabling it to benefit from current scientific achievements, engage with emerging knowledge, and envision all that may intellectually develop the self through conceptual and cognitive mechanisms, within a context of deepening cultural aspirations.

Nevertheless, this should not function as a pretext for remaining circumscribed within the domain of reception, seeking refuge in its deceptive semblance of intellectual productivity. In actuality, such a posture induces a potent and peculiar numbness that obscures an unawareness of its own descent into dependency. This predicament has led contemporary Arab criticism into a severe and profound methodological crisis—one derived from a limited comprehension of these methods. Consequently, an interpretive crisis has emerged in the reading of the Arab literary text, as it has been approached through a series of Western methodologies alien to Arab thought and externally imposed upon it without genuine intellectual effort. This practice has divested those approaches of their effectiveness and efficiency, attributable to either methodological deficiency or the complete absence of a clear methodological vision among the majority of Arab critics.

To date, Arab criticism has yet to formulate a critical vision genuinely derived from its own intellectual and literary discourses. The critical method persists as an individual, creative practice—a conscious and purposive singularity mirroring the literary text as a singular creation that necessarily precedes criticism. Consequently, a blind methodological imitation of Western critical output is fundamentally irreconcilable with what is genuinely creative. Furthermore, the Arab critic has often demonstrated an insufficient grasp of many of the procedural instruments and concepts employed: “Even if I were to understand them in the best and clearest way, these standards were derived from the study of a literature whose nature differs greatly from that of Arabic literature” (Juma, n.d., p. 20).

The outcome has been a collection of restless, truncated critical practices, effectively severed from their own civilizational context—and, simultaneously, from the Western civilizational context. These approaches ultimately disable the faculties for differential and renewed thinking, as though the West represented the absolute embodiment of human and intellectual perfection.

This prevailing situation necessitates an effective, fruitful openness. Simultaneously, the enriching process of acculturation must pass through a filter of rationalization: “There is no shame in a country seeking assistance in the fields of science, literature, and art from the expertise of another country in order to achieve the progress it aspires to, so long as modern civilizations are the fruit of everyone’s efforts and therefore belong to everyone; but the shame lies in remaining intellectually and culturally subordinate to foreign cultures” (Al-Shubashi, 1968, p. 101).

Accordingly, it is essential to prioritize a logic of dialogue with the new cultural/critical current by establishing a novel methodology. This methodology must adopt a reading strategy that systematically re-examines the cultural and critical data it transmits or translates, subjects them to rigorous inspection, establishes precise criteria for selecting what genuinely enriches its discourse, and critically contemplates these within their specific linguistic and cultural contexts, which are governed by distinct logics. Stated differently, one must delve into their backgrounds and intentions, as these are epistemic achievements laden with concepts and ideologies produced by their particular historical and epistemological conditions, thereby expressing their own identity and difference.

We posit that translation fundamentally constitutes an act of creative artistry. The translator’s mandate extends beyond mere mastery of the source and target languages; it requires a profound awareness of the cultural dimension inherent in the original text, concurrently considering the cultural context of the translation’s intended audience (Othman, 2013). This dual awareness is crucial for mitigating grave epistemological contradictions where the translated concept might clash with its genuine context—the originating culture, its core questions, and its intrinsic needs—thereby instigating a form of disjunction (Ismail, 1991). Such deficiencies restrict the translational act, preventing it from realizing its ultimate objective: a reciprocal and fertile intercultural exchange beneficial to all parties. Without this balance, translation risks becoming a passive conduit for cultural invasion.

Consequently, this necessitates the development of analytical approaches that function as an open, dynamic movement. Such an approach must eschew infatuation, imitation, and conformity, meticulously operating along three principal axes:

The Line of Grounding: This involves not neglecting the richness and value of established critical thought.
The Line of Filtration: This is governed by a balanced consciousness that simultaneously appreciates the significance of comprehending the culture of the Other while discerning between valuable and trivial elements—a process that requires uncovering origins and tracing intellectual roots.
The Line of Creative Borrowing: This axis is characterized by assimilation, production, and innovation.

Undeniably, genuine and healthy cultural interaction is predicated upon borrowing the most positive elements from other cultures, followed by mutual exchange, assimilation, and integration. This comprehensive process facilitates the flourishing of cultures, and, by extension, all societies and individuals. There is no inherent contradiction between the local and the global, or between authenticity and modernity; rather, these represent synergistic forces that propel civilization forward (Ragheb, 2001).

Thus, the principle of the law of equilibrium remains steadfastly essential in shaping the cultural and civilizational composition of any nation. Every civilization is obligated to regulate its process of intellectual reception: it must neither retreat into isolation, thereby severing the essential channels of cultural ventilation maintained through balanced communication with other civilizations—a withdrawal that risks suffocation and loss of vitality—nor should it succumb to fascination with external possessions, lest it be swept away by foreign currents, resulting in the loss of its distinctive civilizational identity and dissolution into the features of other cultures.

If global orientations advocate for the respect for cultural diversity, this inherently mandates that every culture must preserve itself, vigilantly resisting penetration or domination by another culture—measures essential to prevent cultural dissolution and alienation from identity. This responsibility compels us—specifically within the Muslim context—to transcend a purely defensive posture against ongoing and persistent cultural invasion. Instead, we must engage in competition with others through our distinctiveness, actively producing intellectual and cultural works that articulate our unique cultural identity, moral values, and world visions. This proactive approach ensures our position as active participants, moving beyond the role of passive observers and consumers (Attia, n.d.).

In summary, a paramount duty of contemporary Arab criticism is to safeguard its cultural and civilizational identity—while concurrently adapting it to the requirements of modern reception and the accelerating pace of scientific development—and to ensure that its dialogue with the Other is consistently coupled with active engagement.

The Problematic of the Critical Term

The linguistic and critical upheaval that Europe witnessed during the 1960s generated a vast number of terms accompanying the new critical concepts and perspectives. Upon their transfer into the Arab critical environment, Arabic critical terminology experienced profound instability. The Arabic critical lexicon was inundated by an overwhelming influx of new terms as a result of its openness to Western linguistic and literary movements and their diverse methodologies. This terminological borrowing often led to a state of drift, amidst a regrettable and serious intellectual negligence in employing the immense potential of the Arabic language and in harnessing its great vitality in the field of translation. Consequently, Arabic Critical Discourse engaged in adopting these terms and importing many of their mechanisms in an attempt to enrich its terminological system and expand its operational scope.

It is self-evident that modern Western critical terms are inherently bound to the conceptual frameworks of the intellectual and philosophical contexts that produced them, as well as to their ideological orientations. Moreover, many of these terms were already surrounded by ambiguity within their original environment, and their definitions were often unstable. This rendered the task of the Arab translator particularly difficult, as they sought to grasp the intended critical universals through an accurate and well-regulated translation that simultaneously respects the specificity of the Arab cultural context and preserves its essential components.

This situation necessitates delving into the roots of Western critical terminology and understanding its original formation, “for it is difficult to isolate the literary phenomenon from its historical framework. Every critical term possesses its own literary and philosophical heritage that grants it meaning and definition. A lack of familiarity with the culture of the term or the stages of its development within its original context gives rise to numerous problems in finding accurate equivalents for that term in Western criticism” (Ayad, 2005, p. 33). Unless the Arab translator attains a deep understanding of the epistemological, philosophical, and civilizational references embedded within the term, they will not advance far in comprehending the translated theories or in probing their essence and dimensions.

This phenomenon pertains to the majority of Arabic translations, which has resulted in considerable ambiguity concerning the rendering and application of terminology. The complexity of this issue is exacerbated by the prevailing linguistic and intellectual duality that characterizes contemporary Arabic translation practices. This duality is predicated on two primary sources: translations undertaken by Mashreq scholars from English, and those executed by Maghreb scholars from French.

“Irrespective of whether this linguistic duality in the Maghreb nations is a consequence of deliberate choice or a shortcoming in the Arabization strategy, this linguistic environment—beyond impeding socio-economic progress in these countries—significantly damages translation itself. Translated material functions as a cultural commodity, subject to the dynamics of supply and demand, like other commodities. When the demand diminishes because readers can access the material in its original language, the necessity for its production is eliminated” (Al-Qasimi, 2008, p. 158).

The interrelation between terminology and methodology is both profound and inherent. Terminology is integrated within methodological structures and serves as a foundational element in the constitution of scientific disciplines, given that every field of knowledge possesses its own specialized terminological apparatus. Consequently, the endeavor to refine and regulate terminology effectively reflects an effort to exert control over the methodological intent and epistemological purpose being articulated.

To mitigate the perceived foreignness of translated terms and ensure their effective utilization without compromising the essential elements of Arab culture, several Arab critical initiatives—both individual and collective—have converged. Their goal has been to construct a repository of terms that leverages the inherent richness and generative capacity of the Arabic language while drawing upon its terminological heritage whenever feasible. Furthermore, these efforts have aimed to refine and standardize linguistic and critical terminology to align with the implementation of Arab cultural security strategies.

A number of these critics embarked on a selective process of adaptation for numerous critical terms that accurately and dynamically convey imported concepts. Their intent was to activate and contextualize these terms within the epistemological framework of the receiving civilization, adhering to the Arabization principles sanctioned by linguistic and scientific institutions (Al-Qasimi, 2008). Nevertheless, these undertakings have provided only a marginal amelioration to the terminological crisis that continues to afflict Arab criticism—an issue that has, in fact, been intensified by the persistent absence of terminological unification across the Arab world.

Conclusion:

The preceding discussion unequivocally demonstrates that the issue of openness to Western culture is a critical matter that warrants consistent academic scrutiny, given that the cycle of human civilization is perpetual. The process of genuine cultural interaction (al-Muthaqafa) will endure among human societies for as long as life exists, as it transforms intellectual and methodological legacies into a shared possession of all humanity, realized through an incessant and dynamic intertextuality at both the individual and collective levels of memory.

This phenomenon is precisely mirrored in the historical trajectory of the Arab movement of writing and documentation itself. At the apex of its own civilizational efflorescence, this movement engaged extensively with the Greek intellectual legacy. The Arab nation did not evolve in a vacuum, detached from the history of global civilizations and cultures. On the contrary, its civilizational lineage spans more than fourteen centuries, during which it experienced periods of intellectual advancement and decline, consistent with the historical experience of all nations.

Consequently, it is imperative for the Arab nation to transcend the current dualistic paradigm of cultural interaction—a paradigm characterized either by rigid self-enclosure or by a form of openness that perpetuates alienation. These restrictive dualities have constrained Arab thought within rigid binaries (such as the heritage/modernity dichotomy, the old/the new dichotomy, and similar oppositions). Such conflicts have historically consumed intellectual energies and resulted in the forfeiture of significant benefits that could have been derived from the act of cultural interaction. Instead of maintaining this pattern of loss without proposing a viable alternative, the recommended path forward involves engaging in cultural interaction with the Other in a conscious and mature manner. This engagement must decisively break free from mere imitation of the culture of the powerful, and instead activate a creative civilizational metaphorical logic capable of generating authentic renewal and intellectual vitality.

References

Abdelkrim, H. (2011, January 2). The impact of orientalism on modern Arabic critical discourse. Nashiri Electronic Publishing House. https://nashiri.info/index.php/articles/general-articles/4659-2011-01-12-09-27-09-v15-4659

Aboud, A. (1999). Comparative literature: Problems and prospects. Arab Writers Union Publications.

Abu Al-Saud, F. (1997). On comparative literature and other articles. Egyptian General Book Organization.

Ahmad, M. K. A. (1970). From a psychological perspective in the study and criticism of literature (2nd ed.). Department of Literary and Linguistic Research and Studies.

Ailan, O. (2010). New Arabic critical discourse: An approach to the criticism of criticism. Arab Scientific Publishers; Ikhtilaf Publications.

Akasha, S. (1985). Trends in contemporary criticism in Egypt. Publications Office.

Al-Aqqad, A. M. (1982). Ibn al-Rumi: His life through his poetry. Modern Library Publications. (Original work published n.d.)

Al-Aqqad, A. M. (n.d.). Abu Nuwas, al-Hasan ibn Hani. Modern Library Publications.

Al-Bazghi, S. (1999). Approaching the other: Literary comparisons. Dar Al-Shorouk.

Al-Daghmi, M. (1999). Criticism of criticism and theorizing contemporary Arab criticism. Al-Najah Al-Jadeeda Press.

Al-Jaburi, M. F. (2013). The semiotic approach in modern Arabic narrative criticism. Dar al-Aman Publications; Ikhtilaf Publications; Difaf Publications.

Al-Khatib, H. (1992). Prospects of comparative literature in the Arab world and globally (2nd ed.). Dar Al-Fikr Al-Mu’asir.

Al-Khūlī, A. (1961). Methods of renewal in grammar, rhetoric, exegesis, and literature. Dar al-Ma’rifah.

Al-Masdi, A. (1994). On the mechanisms of literary criticism. Dar Al-Janoub.

Al-Masdi, A. (2004). Literature and the discourse of criticism. Dar Al-Kitab Al-Jadeed Al-Muttahida.

Al-Mawsili, A., & Safi, L. (2002). The roots of the intellectual crisis in the Arab world. Contemporary Thought House.

Al-Qasimi, A. (2008). Terminology science: Its theoretical foundations and practical applications. Library of Lebanon Publishers.

Al-Ruwaili, M., & Al-Bazai, S. (n.d.). A guide for the literary critic.

Al-Shubashi, M. M. (1968). The journey of Arabic literature to Europe. Dar al-Ma’arif.

Arif, N. M. (1994). Civilization, culture, and urbanism: Studies in the development of the term and the significance of the concept. International Institute of Islamic Thought; International House for Islamic Books.

Asfour, J. (1998). Contemporary theories. Dar Al-Mada for Culture and Publishing.

Attia, M. (n.d.). Acculturation and communication: Dialogue of the self and dialogue of civilizations.

Ayad, H. K. (2005). Modern Arabic critical terminology, problems and solutions. Al-Nass Wal-Nass Magazine, (04-05), 33. Jijel University Publications.

Ayyad, S. M. (1993). Literary and critical schools among Arabs and Westerners (Issue 171). National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters, Alam Al-Ma’rifah Series.

Azzam, M. (1996). The space of the novelistic text: A structural-generative approach to the literature of Nabil Sulayman. Dar al-Hiwar for Publishing and Distribution.

Barada, M. (1985). Muhammad Mandour and the theorization of literary criticism. Arab Cultural Center.

Blachère, R. (n.d.). A history of Arabic literature (I. al-Kilani, Trans.). Tunisian Publishing House.

Blouhi, M. (2002). Contemporary critical discourse from context to system (Foundations and mechanisms). Dar Al-Gharb for Publishing and Distribution.

Brunel, P., Pichois, C., & Rousseau, A. M. (2000). What is comparative literature (2nd ed.). Armand Colin.

Haidoush, A. (n.d.). The psychological approach in modern Arabic critical discourse. University Publications Office.

Hussein, T. (1922). In memory of Abu al-Ala al-Maarri. Al-Hilal Library.

Hussein, T. (1926). On pre-Islamic poetry. Egyptian National Library Press.

Hussein, T. (1977). On pre-Islamic literature (2nd ed.). Dar Al-Maaref.

Ibrahim, A. H. (1997). Comparative literature from the perspective of Arabic literature: Introduction and application. Dar Al-Shorouk.

Ibrahim, N. (2001). The seven masks. Dar Gharib for Printing, Publishing and Distribution.

Ismail, F. (1991). Contemporary Arab discourse. International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Istif, A. N. (2014). From research to criticism: Transformations of the American school in its comparative study of literature. Al-Mawqif Al-Adabi Magazine, (524), 127.

Jamouai, S. (2013-2014). Critique of criticism in contemporary Arab culture, a critical study of the project of Muhammad Lutfi Al-Yousfi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation?]. University of Hadj Lakhdar.

Jumaa, H. (n.d.). The probe in literary criticism.

Kazimirski, A. de B. (n.d.). Dictionnaire Arabe-Français [Arabic-French dictionary] (Vol. 1). Maisonneuve et Cie.

Kharmash, M. (n.d.). Dimensions of interculturalism in contemporary Arabic literary criticism. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from http://manahijinaqdia.3olyoum.org/lt8-topi

Makki, A.-T. (1987). Comparative literature, its origins, development and methods. Dar Al-Maaref.

Miftah, M. (2000). The niche of concepts: Epistemological criticism and intercultural dialogue. Arab Cultural Center.

Muhammad, I. A. R. (1993). Trends in modern Arabic critical discourse: Applied studies. Youth Library.

Murtad, A. M. (2010). On critical theory (A follow-up of the most important contemporary critical schools and an examination of their theories). Dar Houma.

Naas Muhammad, R. (2008). Acculturation and critical acculturation. Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Arts and Educational Sciences, 7(03-04), 172.

Othman, A. (2013). The Arab-Islamic achievement and the dialogue of cultures, from Baghdad to Toledo. Egyptian General Book Organization.

Ragheb, N. (2001). The seven masks of globalization. (Published as part of Ibrahim, N., The Seven Masks). Dar Gharib for Printing, Publishing and Distribution.

Sharaf, A. A. (1977). Taha Hussein and the demise of traditional society. Egyptian General Book Organization.

Suwaif, M. (1981). The psychological foundations of artistic creativity, particularly in poetry (4th ed.). Dar al-Ma’arif.

Ubaid, M. S. (2005, September). The voice of the modern critic (The question of methodology and the dynamics of creative critical text). Amman Cultural Magazine, (123), 4.

Waghlisi, Y. (2015). Approaches to literary criticism (3rd ed.). Jusur for Publishing and Distribution.

[1] Bouattit Amel, Senior Lecturer(Lecturer-Class A) in Faculty of Letters and Languages, Badji Mokhtar-Annaba University El-bouni BP12, Annaba, 23000 Algeria. Email: amel.bouattit@univ-annaba.dz

Leave a Comment Cancel reply