Being Modern in the Middle East by Keith Watenpaugh is certainly not for those looking for an entertaining book to spend some nice time reading. It is a difficult read, but richly informative and intellectually rewarding. Once I completed reading the book I could not resist the temptation to call the author, congratulate him on his magnificent work, and get to know personally this academic who has dedicated a great amount of time and effort to research and inform his readers about my birthplace, the city of Aleppo.

My admiration for the book notwithstanding, I found many of the conclusions Mr. Watenpaugh has reached in this book in need of more serious scrutiny and an in-depth scholarly evaluation. This is something I will further discuss at a later stage.
The book is a masterly study of the Aleppo upper class; yes, the upper class, despite the fact that he considers it a study of the rising middle class of Aleppo – but this is really a minor detail. According to Watenpaugh, a rising middle class in the liberal professions, white collar employees, lawyers, doctors and businessmen had led to the emergence of a civil society in the early twentieth century in Aleppo in which new forms of politics, bodies of thought, and ways of engaging the various authorities (the Ottomans, the Arab Syrian kingdom, and subsequently, the French mandate) were created.
The strengths of this book, and they are many, are revealed when he uses the enormous amount of research and digging into historical resources he has done to reconstruct a vivid picture of life in Aleppo, and what being modern meant in the non-West in the first half of the twentieth century.
“Festive social gatherings...were places in which Aleppo’s doctors, lawyers, office workers, and clerks could congregate and perform their “middle-class-ness” in the eyes of another. These salons – like the more formal organizations and schools – acted as arbiters of tastes and sites wherein the middle class of Aleppo could be modern and convey their middle-class modernity to one another...They provided a place in which to create and maintain interclass networks of power and prestige”.
“Foremost of these [literary salons] was that of Marriana al-Marrash (1849-1919) ... she organized a salon in the home she shared with her husband. Habitués included the leading intellectuals of the city, most notably [Abdul-Rahman] al-Kawakibi...in the mixed evenings get-togethers literary topics were discussed...Chess and card games were played, and complicated poetry competitions took place; wine and ‘araq flowed freely; participants sang, danced, and listened to records played on phonographs” .
Watenpaugh reminds us in his book that the oldest Arabic-type printing press in the Levant was Aleppo’s Maronite Press which started its operations in 1701. He also mentions that al-Kawakibi founded the first independent newspaper in the region , al-Shahba’ in 1877. He believes that what happened in Aleppo was part of a larger process in which the East Mediterranean middle class (I would say upper class) formed clubs, founded newspapers and entered into complex critical-rational discourse with one another and government and revolutionary authorities. “Liberalism in its multiple forms was a recurrent theme of the discourse.”
After Watenpaugh details how the politically active Mutual Aid Society evolved into the Nadi Halab (Aleppo Club) in 1913, he writes: “While the Aleppo Club has survived into the twenty-first century and still hosts lectures, sponsors sports teams, and aids the poor, its chief function as a middle-class social club that self-consciously mirrors styles of European bourgeois sociability; it has no overt political presence in the politics of contemporary Syria. In the 1940s and 1950s it was the site of debutante balls and bridge tournaments, and now it hosts gala wedding receptions, karaoke nights, and cocktail parties”.
Some of the anecdotes told in the book are really fascinating. When US president Wilson decided to send a commission to Syria and Lebanon to gauge local opinion in the region, the French and British objected contending that public opinion did not exist in the region. However, the Syrians were already boiling with nationalistic fervor, and the Syrian National Congress was at its peak. When the American commissioners, Charles Crane and Henry King arrived in the region in 1919, they met with a highly enthusiastic and strongly opinionated population. In Aleppo, the population were rallied behind the ideals of a ‘United Country’ and the “natural boundaries of Syria”, which figured highly in the discourse that greeted the members of the commission. By the time the commission arrived to Aleppo from Hama by train on 17 July 1919, Aleppines had already formed a unified stance. King and Crane met with the mayor of Aleppo, Ihsan al-Jabiri and heard from him that what the people of Aleppo wanted was in complete agreement with the Syrian National Congress. The Americans were surely bemused when they also received a women’s delegation (remember, this is 1919) headed by Shukriyya Jabiri the daughter of Nafi' Pasha Jabiri. When they questioned Shukkriyya, they got the following response:
Question: Are you representatives of the women of Aleppo?
Answer: Yes. [Shukkryyia then presented the chairman with a written statement.]
Question: Are you aware of the activities of the women in Beirut and Damascus?
Answer: Not at all!
Question: Is this something [i.e. the written statement] you all want?
Answer: It is the only thing in our hearts and thus it is our only answer.
Question: Do you have political experience?
Answer: We do not. But our men have been oppressed and they work all the time to liberate the nation and we know this.
Having stated clearly how much I found the book rich and sophisticated, I think that Mr. Watenpaugh has got it wrong on one major finding in his book. In a way or another, he concludes that the actual people of Aleppo did not feel that they were Arabs or Syrians; they genuinely felt that they were Ottomans. According to him, it was the elite and the notables of Aleppo who led the city into the nationalistic movement and the arising Syrian identity. This statement can be easily refuted, and in the extreme, it can be described as controversial. I would say that in the very same period he has discussed, the vast majority of simple Alepines did not speak a single Turkish word, and only regarded their turkish rulers as feared despots. While their sense of belonging to a developed concept of an Arab nation may not be that conscious or sophisticated, Arabism was the only identification they used when describing themselves.
But if you take as an example, his astounding conclusions about Ibrahim Hanano the foremost Aleppo leader who fought against both the Turks and the French, and whose whole personal history is seamlessly interwoven with Syria’s national revival and struggle for independence, one cannot but feel surprised by how far Watenpaugh went in his conclusions. The author actually wants us to believe that Hanano's revolt against the French was not aiming at attaining freedom and independence for Syria, but actually to re-join Syria to the Turkish state. The fact that Hanano also struggled heroically against the Turks prior to the French occupation of Syria did not carry weight with Watenpaugh's analysis.
Despite my misgivings, I still believe the book to be of great significance and an important addition to the study of the socio-political history of Syria in the early decades of the twentieth century. Whether I agree or disagree with some of his conclusions does not mean that I have not found the book to be a remarkable piece of scholarship, and an indispensable read for any student of the evolution of modern Syria.