Reviewsı 571 Although, for Collingwood, historians could approach the inside of historical events through re-enactment of the thoughts of historical agents, for Surush, theologians could not play God and claim unmediated access to His intentionality. By displacing the locus of inquiry from the inaccessible essence of the Quråan and the shariça to the extra-Quråanic cultural capital that informs juristic expositions, Surush successfully introduced a Copernican Revolution into Is- lamic theology. Thus, in the Islamic Republic, he opened the sanctuaries of religious knowl- edge (hawzah-åi çilmiyah) to the scrutiny of contemporary scienti˜c views and promoted a radical rethinking of the curriculum of hawzah. Surush’s Cartesian turn could not have been more distasteful to the anti-humanist Heideggerianism of Davari and the traditionalist ulama who claimed access to the essence of Islam and the shariça. Seeking to transcend the humanism of the West, Davari believed that a person who submits to the will of God cannot simultaneously uphold the humanist will to subordinate the world. The political implication of Davari’s po- sition against the eclecticism of Surush was transparent. The conservative clerics who viewed themselves as the guardians of authentic Islam joined hands with Davari against Surush and his votaries, who included young seminarians aspiring to gain mastery of the world beyond seminaries. Capitalizing on Heidegger’s temporary concord with the Nazis, the disciples of Su- rush assaulted Davari’s “fascist” interpretation of Islam. In this controversy, as in others that included pre-revolutionary Iranian intellectuals, it was not nativism but the hybridization of divergent global intellectual traditions that constituted the hallmark of modern Iranian intel- lectual history. Nativism as an analytical concept suppresses this hybridity and imposes on that history a ˜ctional homogeneity. Despite these criticisms, Boroujerdi’s Iranian Intellectuals and the West is undoubtedly a signi˜cant event in the English-language scholarship on contemporary Iran. Boroujerdi intro- duces an unparalleled theoretical sophistication to the study of this contentious period of Ira- nian history. This high-caliber work, which has been translated into Persian, is essential reading for those interested in revolutions, Europology, and the modern Middle East. FATMA MÜGE GÖÇEK, ED., Political Cartoons in the Middle East (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Wiener Publications, 1988). Pp. 152. REVIEWED BY PETRA KUPPINGER, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mass. This short collection of essays provides new insights into the medium of political cartoons in the Middle East, where it has long played an important role. Drawing on materials from Turkey, Iran, and Tunisia, contributors “focus on the multiple cultural spaces that political car- toons in the Middle East create across societies” (cover text). In the introductory chapter, Fatma Göçek argues that cartoons are sites of representation and resistance. How, she asks, were cartoons introduced, received, and integrated into the Middle East? Refuting arguments that cartoons are “primary agents of Western cultural impe- rialism and alienation” (p. 7), Göçek insists they are sites of negotiation where “many local forms and meaning structures . . . contributed to the transformation of the medium” (p. 7). She stresses that political cartoons in the Middle East draw on existing symbols and characters. Palmira Brummet’s essay investigates how political and cultural paradoxes in the late Otto- man period (1908–11) were represented in female cartoon characters. Many cartoons of this era struggled with contrasts of “East and West, honor and shame, and glory and weakness, to produce a set of visions of the revolutionary situation” (p. 17). Brummet’s argument underlines Göçek’s stress on the well-integrated nature of cartoons and their reliance on available sym- bolism. While cartoons were dominated by male ˜gures, Brummet shows how questions of the