The question of the relations and mutual cultural influences between the West and the Muslim world focuses the attention of many contemporary scholars. This issue is important and delicate particularly in relation to current cultural and postcolonial studies and to studies on “Orientalism,” aimed at determining the influence of some Western representations on the approach to non-Western peoples, on the self-representation of these peoples, and on the definition of their historical identity.

In this book, we shall be dealing in particular with the Arab world and the West. For this reason, I will refer both to the more general framework of studies of “Orientalism” and colonialism, and, because of the tight link between the Arab world and Islam, to studies about the relationship between Islam and the West. This focus on the Arab world means that we shall not be considering Iran or any of the many other non-Arab Muslim countries.¹

The Arab world is an area where the problem of self-representation and historical identity is felt most deeply. Because of recent political events it has become a matter of urgency to consider the contacts that this area has had with Western countries during the era of their full “modern” development, when they were eager to expand their sphere of influence and their conquests to the territories of the Ottoman Empire. The focus of such studies is not to highlight what is supposed to properly and originally belong to the “Arab identity,” as if referring to an abstract idea of purity. On the contrary, on the premise that cultures and thoughts intertwine and are not isolated, these studies can contribute to the reconstruction of the history of the Arab world’s culture in the modern and contemporary era (or, more precisely, of defined areas and countries included in the very general definition of “Arab world”), by helping identify the various contributions to this culture, and their different sources. From this perspective, the very idea of “influence” must not be understood in a deterministic way or as the result of some imposition, but as an appropriation of concepts, which implies an autonomous choice, in this case on the part of the Arab intellectuals.

This study, which focuses on the thought of Hegel, is set in this frame and its purpose can be seen from two different perspectives. On one hand, it aims to shed light on the reception of Hegel’s thought and its interactions with the culture of countries that are generally considered “other” to the Western world. On the other hand, it transcends the perspective of studies on the reception of Hegel’s thought, and connects to the recent cultural and political debates. A better knowledge of the history of Arab culture may help in understanding recent events and conflicts and their actual dynamics, by seeing them in the context of the historical and cultural specificity of the Arab and Muslim world in general, as well as of the single countries which are part of it. In addition, a better understanding of the relationship between the Arab and Western worlds can help mutual understanding, by avoiding generalizations and essentialization.

It is important to note that the definition “Arab world” is very broad and general, encompassing many geographically, historically, and culturally different and distant countries (despite their linguistic unity), which, especially in the last two centuries, have not shared the same historical experiences. In this work, I chose to focus on Syria and Lebanon, and, to a lesser extent, Egypt. Syria and Lebanon can be considered representative as one of the cultural, and partly also political, “centers” of the Arab world, and present some homogeneity from the historical and cultural point of view (although with many differences). One important example of this role is the birth of Arab nationalism. Egypt represents a different area, but with many contacts and cultural exchanges with Syria and Lebanon, and with a role in the reception of Hegel which has become noticeable in recent years. The Maghreb is of course another important “center,” with a different history. In particular, its longer colonial history has exerted great influence from the linguistic and cultural point of view. Research on the reception and influence of Hegel’s thought in the Maghreb would therefore require a different method and approach (for example, the importance of translations would be minimal), and in most cases, it would need to be framed and interpreted in light of the debate within French philosophical, cultural, and political life. I am also not taking into consideration the states of the Arab Peninsula, which, although interesting from the viewpoint of their cultural features, are not central in relation to this study. Given the general premise however, it must be noted that in some cases it will be necessary to refer to thinkers and works belonging to different geographical areas. In fact, the linguistic unity of the Arab world allows books and ideas to circulate easily, and it is very difficult, and inadvisable, to mark rigid borders.²

The first part of this work is dedicated to the careful consideration of the positions and concepts that Hegel (1770–1831) expressed in his Lectures both on history in general and in particular on the Orient, Islam, and the Muslim peoples. His positions are examined in the overall context of his thought and also in relation to the culture of his time, so that their peculiarities can be highlighted. This brief preliminary survey aims to establish a frame of reference, from which it will be possible to discuss the various positions and concepts which I will deal with in the course of this work. For this reason, I also briefly mention the basic lines of the current debate on “Orientalism” and the role in it of the Hegelian consideration of the East and Islam.

In the second part I consider the reception of Hegel in nineteenth-century Egypt and “Syria” (Ottoman Syria).³ For this period, it is difficult to speak of direct reception, because there are no translations, citations, or explicit references to Hegel and his work. However, it is possible to speak with sufficient certainty of an indirect reception and influence. This idea is a result of the consideration of the work, the cultural background, and the educational policy of the two foreign universities founded in Beirut in the second half of the nineteenth century, namely the American Syrian Protestant College (now the American University of Beirut ) and the French Université Saint-Joseph, which formed a bridge between Western thought (American-Protestant and French-Catholic-Jesuit, respectively) and the thought of the Arab elite. Thanks to this privileged position, they played an important role in the formation of Arab anti-Ottoman and more specifically nationalist thought. They had different importance and transmitted different views, even in relation to the very idea of “modernity.” Through this analysis it can be shown that the position of the Protestant missionaries of the Syrian Protestant College in some respects was close to that of Hegel and that they may have had a role in transmitting ideas which can be traced back to his thought. The role of the Université Saint-Joseph appears not to be meaningful for the influence of Hegel’s thought, because it appears to be in general more distant from Hegelian views, representing as it does values—Catholic, French, and “revolutionary”—that Hegel only partly shared.

The third part of the book is devoted to the contemporary reception of Hegel in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Through interviews with some important representatives of the academic and cultural world, it shows that today in the Arab world Hegel’s thought is known and studied, in some cases subjected to criticism, and in others appreciated for its libertarian and critical power. Many of the works of Hegel have been translated into Arabic. The area including Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt has produced (and still produces) almost all of the translations of the works of Hegel, as well as some of the critical literature on his thought. The protagonists of this reception are mostly secular intellectuals, mainly, but not exclusively, in the universities. This consideration shows that, despite the linguistic unity which allows the circulation of knowledge in the Arab world, the reception of Hegel differs as a consequence of political and cultural situation of individual nation states. Particularly interesting is the case of Syria, which is still influenced by Marxism and by a “socialist” view, where Hegel is mostly seen as a philosopher of dialectic and freedom, closely linked to Marx, and his positions on the Eastern world in general and on Islam has not played a determining role in the reception of his thought. In contrast, in Egypt, which today is the center of translating activity, Hegel tends to be seen from a viewpoint which is more linked to international debate (in particular about “Orientalism”), so that he appears to be an authoritative representative of a kind of Western thought (and world) with which Egyptian intellectuals aim to confront and engage in dialogue.

Finally, I need to underline that this research cannot be, and it is not meant to be, an exhaustive consideration of the topic, but it is first steps on a new path, which I hope will be an encouragement for new research, on this or similar topics, and an incentive for discussion, so that it can contribute to the development of this field of study.