تويت
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
تحصّل لدي نص بحثي جيد عن "إتفاقية سايكس-بيكو" للبروفيسورة التركية بينار بيلجن، وقد ترجمه زميلنا الأستاذ الطيب جابر عطالله. وتبين من خلال المراجعة أن ثمة مصطلح إقتصادي أو إقتصادي-سياسي يبدو أنه محوري في البحث ألا وهو
Discursive Economy
ولم نعثر له على تعريب يطمئن له مترجمو النص بالتوافق مع السياق الجزئي والعام، ولا شرح دقيق باللغة الإنجليزية يوافق هذا السياق الوارد أدناه. فيرجى ممن له تجربة من زملائنا المترجمين أو أساتذتنا في الترجمة مشاركتنا الحل المناسب لتعريب هذا المصطلح، أو استدعاء المختصين في هذا المجال لفهمه والعمل على تعريبه تعريبا مناسبا ومنضبطا من الناحية الأكاديمية والعلمية، لعل الله تعالى يكتب فائدة من هذا النقاش للدارسين والمتعلمين ممن يواجههم هذا المصطلح. سأضع هنا سياق الفقرة الختامية للبحث حيث يرد فيها المصطلح في آخرها أكثر من مرة (عذرا قد تطول الفقرة قليلا لكن هذا ضروري لفهم سياقها). سأضع المصطلح بين قوسين [discursive economy] وباللون الأحمر تسهيلا للعثور عليه
Discursive Economy
ولم نعثر له على تعريب يطمئن له مترجمو النص بالتوافق مع السياق الجزئي والعام، ولا شرح دقيق باللغة الإنجليزية يوافق هذا السياق الوارد أدناه. فيرجى ممن له تجربة من زملائنا المترجمين أو أساتذتنا في الترجمة مشاركتنا الحل المناسب لتعريب هذا المصطلح، أو استدعاء المختصين في هذا المجال لفهمه والعمل على تعريبه تعريبا مناسبا ومنضبطا من الناحية الأكاديمية والعلمية، لعل الله تعالى يكتب فائدة من هذا النقاش للدارسين والمتعلمين ممن يواجههم هذا المصطلح. سأضع هنا سياق الفقرة الختامية للبحث حيث يرد فيها المصطلح في آخرها أكثر من مرة (عذرا قد تطول الفقرة قليلا لكن هذا ضروري لفهم سياقها). سأضع المصطلح بين قوسين [discursive economy] وباللون الأحمر تسهيلا للعثور عليه
Finally, claiming that borders in the Middle East are “artificial” is a Eurocentric move that asserts the agency of European colonial powers in wreaking havoc in this part of the world while underestimating the amount of agency exercised by regional peoples. This is not to underestimate the destructive consequences of divide and rule tactics employed by the colonial powers, which is considered as having “postponed the rise of a new order shaped from within the region”. Rather, my point is that the critics of the “artificiality” of Sykes–Picot boundaries, even as they seek to be self-critical (by virtue of
owning up to the colonial legacy), betray their obliviousness to the history o the region and its peoples. As Lorenzo Kamel has maintained, “modern-day Syria and Iraq have both several
meaningful antecedents in the pre-Islamic world” and that the claim that Iraq is an artificial creation concocted by the British after World War I overlooks the fact that…for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries…Basra, Baghdad and Mōsul were governed as a single entity with Baghdad as their
center of gravity. Already at the time numerous local intellectuals indicated the area as “Iraq”.This is not to claim access to “historical facts” about the region and its peoples. Rather, the
point is that self-styled anti-colonial subjectivity of ISIS betrays a Eurocentric notion of “artificiality” and “statehood” that presumes
states to have “natural” borders to make them “proper” states in a way that reminiscent of state “failure” debates of the 2000s. The difference between ISIS and its critics is that where
the former problematize a century of interventionism
in the affairs of the region, the latter only take responsibility for the Sykes–Picot moment of the early twentieth century.
Neither of the two challenge century-old topdown, military-focused, state-centric and statist regime of security governance. Arguably, it is that very regime of security governance, which is shaped by the [discursive economy] of the international society, that has allowed for military interventionism in the Middle East in present-day politics. The critics of the “Sykes–Picot order” do not challenge the [discursive economy] that allowed for that order to be enforced by the international society. Nor do they challenge
the regime of security governance that was instated as part of this order.
owning up to the colonial legacy), betray their obliviousness to the history o the region and its peoples. As Lorenzo Kamel has maintained, “modern-day Syria and Iraq have both several
meaningful antecedents in the pre-Islamic world” and that the claim that Iraq is an artificial creation concocted by the British after World War I overlooks the fact that…for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries…Basra, Baghdad and Mōsul were governed as a single entity with Baghdad as their
center of gravity. Already at the time numerous local intellectuals indicated the area as “Iraq”.This is not to claim access to “historical facts” about the region and its peoples. Rather, the
point is that self-styled anti-colonial subjectivity of ISIS betrays a Eurocentric notion of “artificiality” and “statehood” that presumes
states to have “natural” borders to make them “proper” states in a way that reminiscent of state “failure” debates of the 2000s. The difference between ISIS and its critics is that where
the former problematize a century of interventionism
in the affairs of the region, the latter only take responsibility for the Sykes–Picot moment of the early twentieth century.
Neither of the two challenge century-old topdown, military-focused, state-centric and statist regime of security governance. Arguably, it is that very regime of security governance, which is shaped by the [discursive economy] of the international society, that has allowed for military interventionism in the Middle East in present-day politics. The critics of the “Sykes–Picot order” do not challenge the [discursive economy] that allowed for that order to be enforced by the international society. Nor do they challenge
the regime of security governance that was instated as part of this order.
شـكــ وبارك الله فيكم ـــرا لك ... لكم مني أجمل تحية .
تعليق