The Infamous Ajanib

The word for foreigners in Arabic is "ajanib." I have to say that I have encountered a number of them since my arrival in Amman, mostly Americans. To me, they fall into five distinct categories.

1. Academically affiliated researchers. There are a lot of these. They seem to be mostly anthropologists, archaeologists, and political scientists. I haven't yet met an American researcher in the "hard sciences" so to speak.

2. Wives of Jordanian businessmen or U.S. contractors in Iraq. Enough said. They hold parties and form women's groups.

3. Government employees. Diplomats, contractors, and spooks.

4. Journalists. There are a lot of New York Times reporters hanging around Amman lately, either covering Iraq itself or the refugee situation.

5. Busybodies. This category is comprised of U.S.-based NGO types and self-employed researchers.

It is category #5 that I wish to address in this post. I have encountered a number of these types since I arrived in Amman, mostly at social events held in the homes of other Westerners. Let me be frank: most of these people have a screw missing. They are here on a crusade to change the world, guided by some tripped out moral compass and an enormous collective ego. For people who claim to be working for the good of people in this region, most of the people in category #5 are self-aggrandizing megalomaniacs who don't know anything about the region because they quite simply do not read.

Most of these people in category #5 are drawn to Jordan for two reasons:

a. The war in Iraq. I think it is a good thing that NGOs are in Iraq to provide services that the state is currently incapable of providing. However, a number of the staff from these NGOs that I have met don't know anything about Iraq at all. They were drawn to it because it is a hot issue, and that's that. They just know that they think all of the killing is wrong, which is 100% true, but they don't do much more than go around saying this. In my opinion, just saying that something is "wrong" and expecting it to change is like kicking a wall repeatedly and expecting it to give. To get something done, you need to understand all of the players, their relative power, and their preferences. You need to find out who is directly responsible for the actions you disapprove of, and formulate a coherent strategy to either lobby them or to build up an alternative power base that can defeat the group responsible. I get the impression that many of these NGO workers are not trained in the area of aid formulation and delivery, and despite their connections to Iraqi civil society groups, they seem to do nothing with the data that they are allegedly collecting from their operations there. They also seem totally oblivious to the political imperatives that are driving the conflict within the country. And it's worse than just naivete and idealism; a number of these people seem to be active self promoters who would rather be fawned over at dinner parties about their exploits in Iraq than spending time reading up on the situation to do their job more effectively.

b. Areas deemed by Westerners as "hot issues" in Jordan, including honor killings and strengthening "civil society." I can't tell you how sick I am of the word "civil society." I think it has become a buzzword for all organizations seeking to siphon funds from U.S.-run democratization programs. Parliament isn't functioning as a democratic body? Strengthen civil society. There are honor killings in Jordan? Strengthen civil society as a solution. The streets are crowded? Strengthen civil society. According to these people, "civil society" is the solution for all the world's ills. In fact, the definition of "civil society" is quite vague, as it refers to all individuals and organizations separate and distinct from the state. In some cases, the term is used well. For example, I am aware of a paper that recommends the government include actors in civil society in the policy process; what this is is a veiled call for democratization, which makes sense because it introduces accountability into the policy process. However, when many Westerners use this term it is used in a very condescending manner, as if Jordanian "civil society" organizations only need to be taught how to organize and to be spoon-fed "the right" policy options from the West. Doesn't it occur to these people that these organizations may be well-aware of their policy preferences but are unable to translate them into policy because of more powerful groups in society?

Why I am I ranting about these people in category #5? I had two experiences today that really set me on fire. Let me recount them to you.

1. I was speaking with a colleague about their research project, and they mentioned that they had spoken with a staffer from an American NGO with a longstanding presence in Iraq. This staffer does not have training in international relations or economic development, and seemingly has no gainful employment back in the U.S. She provided very little substantive information to my colleague, and then bade my colleague "not to make me out as a martyr" in my colleague's final report. A martyr? Surely she was joking? Not only does this person to be making little substantive contribution, its seems as if she should be more concerned with Iraqis than self-promotion.

2. I attended a reception tonight in honor of International Women's Day, where the "civil society" term was used frequently, mostly by foreigners who are distressed by honor killings and the inability of women to secure citizenship for their children if their husband is not a Jordanian. For a good five minutes, these voices harmonized over "the need to strengthen civil society" as a solution to these ills: all women in Jordan want to see penalties for honor killings strengthened and for Jordanian women to have the right to pass on their citizenship to their children, they are just too disorganized to lobby effectively. Their faces were stricken with disbelief when a group of Jordanian women in the audience, who had been listening patiently, pointed out that many women in this country actually support weak penalties for honor killings in the name of "tradition," and the reason that the citizenship issue is stalled is because a certain group of East Bankers doesn't want East Bank women married to Palestinians to confer citizenship on them. These policies may all be "wrong" in the minds of some, and I would agree myself, but the fact that these women didn't understand some of the fundamental tenets of these policy debates was stunning to me, particularly since many of them have lived here for some time. Their response to the comments from the Jordanian women was that "more work with civil society" is needed to (insert here: to convince them that our value system is the best).

Also at the reception I was introduced to an American freelancer who has recently published a book on honor killings in Jordan. She asked me what I thought of Jordan and I told her that I found the society to be very diverse, and although I am enjoying my time here, I couldn't really say much in general terms. After digging a little further, she found out that I spend most of my time researching the professional community here (which makes sense because I am interested in policy reforms), that I have friends whose families live in Abdoun and Shmeisani, and that I had been to Starbucks. After stating somewhat condescendingly that "well, most Westerners in Jordan have to escape to their own little America after a hard day at work," she launched into the tiresome tirade that I hear at least once a week. I am sure that she thought she was being very original.

****Some background: Basically, foreign researchers studying modern Jordan fall into two distinct categories, although there may be some mixing depending on the research topic. The first is the type that goes to villages and frequents more traditional surroundings. The second is the type that spends most of their time with government bureaucrats and professionals. I fall into the latter based on the requirements of my chosen research topic, and I am getting really sick of other Western researchers claiming that I am not seeing the "real Jordan." WHAT? Because somebody works in government or business they are any less Jordanian than the taxi drivers or the farmers? The bourgeoisie and the managers are suddenly without a nationality purely based on their class or economic function? In the U.S., we also have an upper crust that generally does not mingle with the urban riffraff or attend good old fashioned American square dances. They don't make standard American handicrafts for a living, they go to the office. Does this make them any less American? Of course not. This "traditional society = Jordan" argument is total bullshit contrived by insecure Westerners who need to be surrounded by traditionalism to feel like they are in a foreign country.****

I would argue that Jordan has a seemingly dual society, one part traditional and one part with more western characteristics. This is oversimplifying quite a bit, but the point is that I acknowledge both parts as equally Jordanian. My new acquaintance rejected this claim, arguing that the more western professionals are not Jordanians! "I try to spend all of my time with traditional people," she proudly announced. At this point I swore I could hear the old bones of Orientalism rattling about the room.

Continuing her diatribe, she launched into a full-scale attack on Abdoun, the upscale suburb where they event was held, claiming, "I never come here. Being here makes me want to throw up." She criticized the Abdounis for "trying so hard to be Western, but as soon as you walk into one of their houses as an actual Westerner you know that it's just not right... They even frame the lids of chocolate boxes as artwork. And their lawns are too small." I couldn't believe what I was hearing (Hilde, take down our vintage chocolate posters in the kitchen and expand the size of our lawn; in our current state we are not real Westerners). THEN she went on to complain that Jordan should simply stick to local arts and crafts is its chief source of income, arguing that industrialization is destroying the traditionalism of the country. It was almost as if she was expressing a desire for Jordanians to continue weaving rugs and making Bedouin jewelry, rather than increasing their incomes through industry, just so she could have a quaint vacation destination or feel like she was really working in a developing country. Then after the speaker session was over and it was time for Q&A, she got up and started promoting her own book, arguing that she had a study saying that 89% of Jordanians are opposed to honor killings and that she had lobbied the Jordanian parliament with this statistic and she "just couldn't understand why nothing was being done."

Perhaps I am being too harsh, but I feel like if she really cared about this issue (more than telling people at dinner parties about her book) she would have conducted the proper research that would have led her to (1) question her statistic; and (2) understand why the parliament is not responsive to this statistic. Not to mention: why the hell is this woman lobbying the Jordanian parliament to begin with? She is not a citizen here; she does not vote; and she is not with an organization that works with the parliament.