Martyn Frampton

On his book The Muslim Brotherhood and the West: A History of Enmity and Engagement

Cover Interview of May 13, 2018

The wide angle

In examining the evolving relationship between the West and the Brotherhood from the perspective of both sides, I was conscious of the fact that my subject did not fit easily within established historiographical boxes. I tried to engage with a range of literatures. First and most obviously, I hoped to provide a new perspective on the history of the Brotherhood itself and the worldview of Islamism more broadly. In this regard, the works I aspired to emulate were those classic studies of the Brotherhood by scholars like Richard Mitchell and Brynjar Lia. The first objective I set myself with this book was to understand better the mindset of the Brothers—to comprehend how they viewed the world.

Secondly, I think the book offers an insight into Anglo-American foreign policy-making towards Egypt, and in the Middle East generally, during the “long” twentieth century. One of the key themes of the book is the way in which the British and the Americans have deployed a particular “language of diplomacy” when trying to secure their interests. At the core of this is the effort to uncover, or anoint “moderates” with whom they can work, as opposed to “extremists” who were to be opposed or defeated. Reflections on the Brotherhood were usually framed with this paradigm in mind. And where once it was almost invariably classed as an “extremist” organization, latterly there have been a number of debates about its putative “moderation”. Often, these debates have involved a kind of “Kremlinology”—the attempt to delineate internal “moderates” and “extremists” within the Brotherhood. In all of this, we can learn something important about the Anglo-American method of foreign-policy making and force projection. And in this regard, my book built on important insights from scholars like Robert Holland and John Darwin (in the British context), and Matthew Jacobs and Peter Hahn (for the US). Relatedly, the book also offers a perspective on how both the British and American governments have considered â€˜Islam’ in policy terms—and in so doing, builds on recent invaluable studies by William Inboden and Andrew Preston.

history / united states / islam / egypt / united kingdom / middle east / arab spring / foreign policy / muslim brotherhood /

[T]he Holocaust transformed our whole way of thinking about war and heroism. War is no longer a proving ground for heroism in the same way it used to be. Instead, war now is something that we must avoid at all costs—because genocides often take place under the cover of war. We are no longer all potential soldiers (though we are that too), but we are all potential victims of the traumas war creates. This, at least, is one important development in the way Western populations envision war, even if it does not always predominate in the thinking of our political leaders.

Carolyn J. Dean,
Interview of February 01, 2011

The dominant premise in evolution and economics is that a person is being loyal to natural law if he or she attends to self’s interest and welfare before being concerned with the needs and demands of family or community. The public does not realize that this statement is not an established scientific principle but an ethical preference. Nonetheless, this belief has created a moral confusion among North Americans and Europeans because the evolution of our species was accompanied by the disposition to worry about kin and the collectives to which one belongs.

Jerome Kagan,
Interview of September 17, 2009