EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Introduction: The Limits of Exile
David Kettler and Zvi Ben-Dor
In 1972 Paul Tabori (Pál Tábori, 1908–1974), a Hungarian émigré living in London, and "not an exile," as he was careful to write, conducted a unique experiment. Tabori, who set out to write a book on exile, was searching for a definition of the term that would serve as starting point for the project. Shortly after he began his search he realized that he was entering "an almost impenetrable jungle, a kind of super-maze". Facing this jungle, Tabori decided to present a "rough-and-ready version" of a definition of exile for comment by "several hundred exiles and international experts" (Tabori 1972: 26).
This experiment was, as far as our research can ascertain, the only attempt, "rough-and-ready" as it sounds, to define exile by surveying the views of a large number of individuals identifying themselves as exiles. Tabori, a prolific journalist, film critic, diplomatic correspondent, poet and novelist, was born in Budapest, and was educated in Switzerland, Hungary and Germany where he picked up Ph.D.s in economics and political science. Since the late 1930s he lived in London, but altogether, he lived in 17 different countries. Tabori was very familiar with the colorful world of émigrés and cosmopolitans, at least in London, Paris and New York. The definition of exile Tabori came up with after his survey ran as follows,
An exile is a person compelled to leave or remain outside his country of origin on account of well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion; a person who considers his exile temporary (even though it may last a life time), hoping to return to his fatherland when circumstances permit—but unable or unwilling to do so as the factors that made him an exile persist (Tabori 1972: 27).
Tabori himself was unhappy with this definition. In the introduction to the The Anatomy of Exile, the study of exile that he published in 1972, he wrote that his work "was not for the specialist or for the scholar, if it were, it would have to run to many thousands of pages and consist of a large series of monographs". Tabori was sure that "each exile community, national, geographical, or professional, will find various omissions" in his book which was going to show "only the very tip of the iceberg with thousand times the bulk left hidden". Tabori certainly felt the need to write a history of exile that will be at the same time an "anatomy" of it. An attempt "find a synthesis for the immensely varied and controversial semantics of exile" (ibid.: 11).
We begin this introduction with Tabori's curious book because his work is still one of the only few attempts to historicize and understand the meaning of exile in recent decades, as opposed to individual reflecting on the term, which is the more common practice. We also share Tabori's sense of the necessity to define the meaning of exile and his unease with the definition with which he himself came up even after his experiment. More than three decades after this experiment we think that the time has long come for another, perhaps similarly "rough-and-ready" and even more modest in scope, but equally serious in its call for a rethinking of exile. Unlike Tabori, perhaps, we are sure that such this rethinking should be a collaborative effort right from the start. It must be done as a collaboration among scholars of exile coming from different disciplines, and dealing with different regions and historical periods.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the word 'exile' seems both very simple to understand and too complex to grapple with. A critical view of world-historical events, taking place during the past century and half, shows that many paradoxes and problems have become attached to the term exile. One set of paradoxes, perhaps the most acutely sensed during the twentieth centuries, is connected with nations. On the one hand, the collapse of empires and rise of nation-states all over the world created many new "homes" for collectivities now defining themselves as nations. On the other hand, however, the creation of these homelands was accompanied by wars, deportations, and attempts of "ethnic cleansings," that left many other peoples and collectivities displaced, or in other words – in exile. That is to say, the inclusionary act of creating a homeland was accompanied by the exclusionary process of sending others to exile. An important part of this set of paradoxes is the one stemming from colonial legacies, as decolonization and retreating colonial powers, either left behind or brought back with them people that we might/should call, at very least, displaced. Another important element of the various legacies of colonialism is large diasporas that were created in it is wake. To sum up, the redrawing of the world's inner boundaries as national boundaries, and redefinitions of spaces and territories left many peoples displaced, dislocated, and in exile even without moving from their original homes. These boundaries raise another serious question concerning the moment of when/where does exile occur. Does it happen only when that national boundary is crossed? At least one recent study reminds us that many migrations within national boundaries have been seriously overlooked (McKeoen 2004).
A second set of problems and paradoxes is connected with the rise of modern, strong states. Citizenship granted by the modern state has become the most efficient way to ensure one's attachment to and rights concerning their home. But at the same time the modern state has infinitely more power to deny citizenship, expel, refuse entrance, and deny re-entrance and access to what was once one's home. Furthermore, since the beginning of the 19th century states have more powers and means to relocate (dislocate, exile) larger numbers of peoples.
It seems then, that exile, one of the most ancient recorded types of punishment and human suffering, is proliferating in modern times. Further, this proliferation in instances of exile, accompanied, as we stated above, by a culture of paradoxes and contradictions, has clearly produced an almost infinite trove of cases and kinds of exile. Exile, therefore, is highly relevant term in today's world, certainly more than in the early 1970s, when the cold war was still seen as the globally organizing, even stabilizing, principle.
However, the current age, the "age of globalization" as it is often labeled (cf. Stehr 2004), also presents us with phenomena that are thought to contradict these characterizations of exile in our times. Words, better yet, buzz words, such as transnationalism and transnationlity, globalization and global village, cosmopolitanism (in its contemporary guise) and cyberspace, seem to point in a direction different than the one sketched above. That is to say, the widely remarked supposed weakening of the state and the rise of a global age are thought to render meaningless concepts such a place and homeland. There are also the perceived homogenizing effects of globalization that seem to be rendering the political concept of exile irrelevant. How can one be in exile in such a world? Perhaps exile is no longer relevant? These considerations raise serious questions concerning the uses of the term exile, with the disputes often pivoting around the well-known views of Edward Said (Kettler 2004; Stephan 2005), which are especially challenging inasmuch as they do not simply ask questions about the present-day vicissitudes of the historical formation designated by the term, but about its conceptual core, about the aspects of experience that define the phenomenon around which a complex of ethical and epistemological expectations have clustered, notably in Jewish and Christian but also in civic republican discourses. Perhaps the historical obsolescence of exile in the sense circumscribed by Tabori's earnest researches is simply a prod to reconsider just what it is about "exile" that makes it such an elevated trope. Or, in other words, is exile only useful for a "Dante-esque" poetical writing, or reflecting, on the condition of displacement and dislocation? Or could it still be a potent analytical tool?
One significant emerging field of study, Diaspora Studies, shows both how pertinent the notion of exile remains and how it has been deprived of its familiar meaning. Diaspora studies emerged as a crucial tool in cultural studies and particularly in the study of the identity. The concept of diaspora is vital for the critique of essentialist explanations in cultural studies, since it reveals, again and again, the importance of "positioning," rather then "essence," in the shaping of cultural identity (Hall 1990). For this important reason, argues an important scholar of diaspora, the concept "should be cherished" (Gilory 1993: x). Following this conceptualization of the term, Theorizing Diaspora, a recent collection of essays of the subject, promises to show how "diaspora forces to rethink the rubrics of nations and nationalism, while refiguring the relationship the relations of citizens and nation-states," and how "diaspora offers myriad, dislocated site of contestation to the hegemonic, homogenizing forces of globalization" (Braziel & Mannur 2003: 7). The compilers of this reader remind us in their introduction that the term 'diaspora' was "first used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures […] to describe the Jews living in exile from the homeland of Palestine […] the term "diaspora," then, has religious significance and pervaded medieval rabbinical writings on the Jewish diaspora …" (ibid.: 1). Exile, therefore, is the first point on a spectrum of factors that give rise to a range of "diasporic" instantiations, the other pole of that spectrum stands "nostalgia" for a homeland. And so, "once conceptualized as an exilic or a nostalgic dislocation from homeland, diaspora has attained new epistemological, political, and identitarian resonances" (ibid.: 4). While we share the reasoning that considers exile a keystone in diaspora studies, we are concerned with the ease with which it is invoked and then quickly deserted for the sake of another concept with which its relationship is not clear (weren't we told that "diaspora" means "exile"). More specifically, we are concerned that exile is presented as a term subsumed by diaspora. Standing alone, exile appears to be stripped of any political dimensions; it becomes "politicized" only when it is examined through the lenses of diaspora studies. That is to say, we are concerned with the politicization of exile only through the trajectory of cultural-studies-turned-politics. But it is important to remember that the first exile, the one that was translated as diaspora, was itself, at least in the way it was recorded, first and foremost a political event – the deportation of the Jews following the destruction of their polity in Judea. Furthermore, this understanding of exile is still very much politically alive.
Israel Yuval has recently demonstrated the centrality of the myth of the Jewish Exile from the land of Israel in contemporary western thought. More importantly, he argued that this 2000 year old notion of exile, shared by both Christians and Jews throughout this period of time, is a crucial factor in shaping the western positions and policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the conflict in the Middle East in general (Yuval 2006). Perhaps the best testimony to the political dimension of the term exile is the way in which it is used in contemporary Israeli discourse: while the Jews were exiled from the land of Israel and left in exile, the Palestinians "left" Palestine and now live in the "diaspora." As Yuval points out, "the difference between leaving and being exiled is the difference between denying the right to return (to Palestinians) and granting law of return (to Jews)" (Yuval 2006: 18). This issue raises another point, while the study of diaspora is not always concerned with one's right to return to their homeland. The right of return, a quintessential political question, is always a key question in the study of exile, even if never realized.
The theme of return is consequently one of the recurrent motifs in the exploratory essays from various fields of specialization assembled in our collection. There are others. Although a common concern among the contributors is to illuminate the limits – and the powers – of exile as a concept, the studies are saturated with researched experiences, examined variously through the lenses of a number of disciplines. The contributors are drawn from different fields and generations, and the dialogue among them is at an early stage, requiring mediation by attentive readers. At a different level and in a different time, we are replicating Tabori's modest survey of conceptions and approaches, if also mostly at a remove from the testimony of exiles.
Rather than attempting to extract a common argument from the diverse experiments or to compete with the pieces being introduced – given especially that the co-editors are represented in the collection – we will simply say something about the background of the present effort and then lay out the rationale for the sequencing of papers, planned not as a systematic unfolding of a uniform argument or a "dialogue" in any stringent sense, but rather as an identification of issues placed on the table in a succession that permits productive negotiations at a later stage of the comparative study of exiles that we are introducing.
Limits of Exile arises out two earlier stages of a project initiated by David Kettler at Bard College to reconsider exile studies, No Happy End and Contested Legacies, beginning with the best-studied case, the intellectual emigration from Nazi Germany during the 1930s (Kettler 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a,b; Kettler & Wheatland 2004; Kettler & Lauer 2005). Zvi Ben-Dor's work on this theme has touched on widely different cultural and historical settings, expressions of a sense of exile among Muslims in China, living outside "House of Islam," and the state of Iraqi Jews in Israel (Ben-Dor 2002/3; Ben-Dor Benite 2005). The selection of collaborators beyond the disciplinary domains familiar to the editors was largely guided by word of mouth and serendipity, with some weighting in favor of generational succession. The regrettable absence of contributions by women is the accidental product of the pattern of acceptances and refusals and must be corrected at later phases of the project, especially in view of the gender issues largely neglected in the present collection (cf. Hammel 2003, 2005). There is no shortage, however, of fresh light on old questions to be derived from the new contrasts.
If many of the exile studies focused on the German case deal with the interplay between individual exiles and their host environments, while the prime motif in the most expansive metaphorical use of the concept is an almost autopoietic self-enclosure of the distantiated individual to whom exile is imputed, several of the papers presented here emphasize the importance of the differences among these modes, with special attention to experience in diverse groupings. Sebastiaan Faber offers a comparison between two Republican Spanish writers from this standpoint, one negotiating his exile in a manner familiar from many German studies and the other oriented to the Republican collective, adding a brief analysis of Edward Said's self-explication for purposes of comparison. Carlos Blanco Aguinaga probes the unique qualities of the collective mode of exile in the Spanish Republican case, with special focus on its highly political character and strong sense of mission. As Simon Lewis shows in the instance of a South African poet, an exile governed by intense political commitments need not assume the collective form: the sense of mission can be individual, and it can become purified to the point where witness precludes return.
To add perspective to our understanding of these interpretive themes, Alfons Soellner, reviews the historically diversified waves of reception of the German exiles, highlighting the variations of political interest in successive periods of Exilforschung. A theme of the most recent and perhaps least politicized period of such studies has been a recognition of the contributions made by exiles to the internationalization of science, as they encounter less restrictive intellectual settings, and the attendant dissipation of the status of exile of such contributors, whether or not they returned to their homeland. The studies of two academic Russian exile groups after the October Revolution of 1917 prepared by Alexander Dmitriev and Igor Martynyuk, however, illustrate the reverse trend. In both cases, the groups were strikingly internationalist in their intellectual orientations before their exile period, in conflict with advocates of inward-looking conceptions of Russian cultural possibilities, but became more national in their orientations and more inclined to ideological rather than scholarly types of communications in the course of their relations with the community of Russian exiles, especially in Germany – the very place where, as students and visitors, they had originally developed their internationalist perspectives.
Tibor Frank contributes a study that emphasizes the importance of the social characteristics of exiles prior to their departure, as well as the differences in degree of adaptability displayed by different exiles, individually or in groups. In the case in point, the exile is prepared by his background as an assimilated (and converted) Jew in urban Hungary for the need to negotiate his position from the outside, but he is also closely bound to the settlement he achieves before his exile and he is consequently constrained in exile by this mix of considerations, so that he cannot become a credible "internationalist," in the sense of the Communist ideology to which he pledges allegiance. A very different complex of Jewish assimilation strategies and ideological dis/location in exile is the subject matter of Zvi Ben-Dor's study of Iraqi Jews in Israel, where their persistence in thinking of themselves as Iraqis in exile does violence to the ideological myth of Israel as the land of "ingathering of exiles," the place of return, where all exile ends.
The relation between ideology and exile is more closely examined in Peyman Vahabzadeh's study of the present-day exile from Iran. Challenging the attempts by a powerful political group among the exiled to define the exile's paradigmatic meaning and mission for everyone as comprehended by Leftist political ideology, he explores the subtle relations between the diversity of rationales and designs for exile among women, gays, and other diverse groups, on the one hand, and, on the other, the sense in which it is nevertheless appropriate to speak of exile as a common and fundamental mode of experience. David Kettler is similarly interested in the contrast between the paradigm of exile put forward by the Left and its negation by others, except that in his case, a Dutch returnee from a three-year stay in a German concentration camp, having been integrated into the Left perspective, is denied all recognition upon his return for just this reason, except insofar as it becomes possible to render the experiences he shares with his comrades meaningful through various levels of mediation, but only as subjection to a trauma that rendered them entitled to treatment, at the cost of their political self-understanding in exile and return.
Kettler's study deals not only with the problem of return but also with the politics of memory that decisively conditions those outcomes and with the various cultural instrumentalities that may play a part, notably film. Jerry Zaslove concentrates on still photography as a feature of such interpretive work, focusing on a writer who plays his prose off against stills in doing the work of memory.
Several studies, including those of Lewis and Kettler, take up the question, whether there is a contemporary historical basis for the theme of unending exile, which figures so prominently in the cultural theory approaches mentioned earlier. Eduardo Subirats shows that the concrete historical approach most common among the contributors is by no means the sole contributor to the discussion about the concept of exile and its present application. He displays the vigor of a world-historical statement of the issues, in terms of macro-level social theory, and he maps a new location for the conception of an exile without bounds. The limits of exile remain contested in the work we are putting before you. But our principal aim is to place the contest on the agenda in a manner that is connected with human actions in past and present historical worlds.
Ben-Dor, Zvi 2002/3. 'Even unto China': displacement and Chinese Muslim myths of origin. Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (Winter): pp. 93–114.
Ben-Dor Benite, Zvi 2005. The Dao of Muhammad: A Cultural History of Muslims in Late Imperial China. Harvard University Asia Center.
Braziel, Jana Evans and Mannur, Anita 2003. Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gilroy, Paul 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London: Verso.
Hall, Stuart 1990. Cultural identity and diaspora. In Jonathan Rutherford (ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, pp. 222–37. London: Lawrance and Wishart.
Hammel, Andrea 2003. Gender and migration: a feminist approach to German-Jewish refugees and their texts. In Edward Timms and Jon Hughes (eds), Intellectual Migration and Cultural Transformation. Refugees from Ntional Socialism in the English-Speaking World, pp. 207–18. Vienna and New York: Springer.
Hammel, Andrea 2005. The kaleidoscope of elsewhereness in women's exile writings. In Alexander Stephan (ed.), Exile and Otherness. New Approaches to the Experience of the Nazi Refugees, pp. 199–226. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Kettler, David 2002. Contested Legacies: The German-Speaking Intellectual and Cultural Emigration to the US and UK, 1933–1945. Berlin and Cambridge, MA: Galda & Wilch.
Kettler, David 2003. Self-Knowledge and sociology: Nina Rubinstein's Studies in Exile. In Edward Timms and Jon Hughes (eds), Intellectual Migration and Cultural Transformation, pp. 195–206. Wien/New York: Springer.
Kettler, David 2004. "Les émigrés sont les vainçus": spiritual diaspora and political exile. Journal of the Interdisciplinary Crossroads 1(2): 269–82.
Kettler, David 2005. The symbolic uses of exile: Erich Kahler at Ohio State University. In Alexander Stephan (ed.), Exile and Otherness, pp. 269–310. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Kettler, David 2006a [in press]. Negotiating exile: Franz L. Neumann as political scientist. In Richard Bodek (ed.), Fruits of Exile. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Kettler, David 2006b [in press]. A German subject to recall: Hans Mayer as internationalist, cosmopolitan, outsider and/or exile. New German Critique 96.
Kettler, David and Lauer, Gerhard 2005. Exile, Science, Bildung. The Contested Legacies of German Exile Intellectuals. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Kettler, David and Wheatland, Thomas (eds) 2004. Contested Legacies: Political Theory and the Hitler Regime. Special Issue of the European Journal of Political Theory, 3:2 (April).
McKeon, Adam 2004. Global migration 1846–1940. Journal of World History 15(2): 155–90.
Stehr, Nico 2004. Nothing has been decided: the chances and the risks of feasible globalization. Journal of the Interdisciplinary Crossroads 1(3): 411–60.
Stephan, Alexander (ed.) 2005. Exile and Otherness. New Approaches to the Experience of the Nazi Refugees. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Tabori, Paul 1972. The Anatomy of Exile: A Semantic and Historical Study. London: Harrap.
Yuval, Israel 2006. The myth of the Jewish exile from the land of Israel: a demonstration of irenic scholarship. Common Knowledge 12(1, Winter): 16–33.
Zvi Ben-Dor Benite teaches in the departments of History and Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies at New York University. A specialist in Islamic, world, and East Asian history, he is the author of The Dao of Muhammad: A Cultural History of Muslims in Late Imperial China (Harvard Asia Center, 2005), and of articles, essays, and book chapters on topics ranging from contemporary Middle Eastern Politics to classical Chinese historiography. He is currently working on The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History, to be published with Oxford University Press..
Carlos Blanco Aguinaga, exiled as a child in Mexico after the Spanish Civil War, has taught at the Ohio State University, at the Johns Hopkins University, at the University of the Basque Country in Spain, and is now Professor Emeritus of Spanish and Latin American Literature at the University of California, San Diego. In addition to publishing numerous scholarly books and articles on Spanish, Mexican, and several other Spanish-American literatures, including a "Social History of Spanish Literature" (with Julio Rodriguez Puertolas and Iris Zavala) and a recent book on the literature of the Spanish exiles in Mexico, he is a known ficton writer.
Alexander Dmitriev is Editor of the New Literary Review (Moscow) and a Fellow of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg. He is the author of Georg Lukacs i ranniaia Frankfurtskaia shkola. 1920—1930-e gg. [Georg Lukacs and the early Frankfurt School, 1920 -1930's] (2004. His extensive periodical publications deal with the history and historiography of twentieth-century Russian academics and intellectuals,as well as disciplines and universities.
Sebastiaan Faber, Associate Professor of Hispanic Studies, has been teaching Spanish and Latin American literature at Oberlin College since 1999. His book Exile and Cultural Hegemony: Spanish Intellectuals in Mexico, 1939-1975 (Vanderbilt UP, 2002) studies the ideological evolution of Spanish Civil War exiles in Mexico. He has published around thirty articles on Spanish Civil War exile, Spanish and Latin American literature, Pan-Americanism, Pan-Hispanism, the institutional history of Hispanism, and the theory of ideology. Currently he is working on a book about the impact of the Spanish Civil War on Hispanism in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.
Tibor Frank is Professor of History at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary and author of Discussing Hitler: Advisers of U.S. Diplomacy in Central Europe 1934-1941 (Budapest--New York: CEU Press, 2003), Picturing Austria-Hungary: The British Perception of the Habsburg Monarchy 1865-1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), and Senkanki Hungary-Gaikoh to Seioh-Gensoh no Wana: Eibei to Suhjikukoku no hazama de" [The Trap of Western Illusion: Interwar Hungarian Foreign Policy between the English-Speaking World and the Axis] (Tokyo: Sairyu Sha, 2006).
David Kettler is Research Professor at Bard College (New York) and Professor Emeritus in Political Studies and Cultural Studies at Trent University (Ontario). Recent book publications include Karl Mannheim and the Crisis of Liberalism (with Volker Meja, 1995), Domestic Regimes, the Rule of Law, and Democratic Social Change (2001), Adam Ferguson: Social and Political Thought (2005), and Karl Mannheim's Sociology as Political Education (with Colin Loader, 2002), as well as three edited volumes arising out of the "Contested Legacies" exile studies project: Contested Legacies: The German-Speaking Intellectual and Cultural Emigration to the United States and United Kingdom, 1933-45 (2002), Political Theory and the Hitler Regime (with Tom Wheatland, 2004) and Exile, Science and Bildung: The Contested Legacies of German Intellectual Emigres(with Gerhard Lauer, 2005).
Simon Lewis is an associate professor of English at the College of Charleston where he teaches African and postcolonial literature. His book White Women Writers and Their African Invention (focusing mainly on Olive Schreiner and Karen Blixen) appeared in 2003 from the University Press of Florida, and he has also published numerous articles on contemporary South African literature, culture, and politics. As editor of Illuminations: An International Magazine of Contemporary Writing he recently published a collection of tributes to Dennis Brutus in honor of Brutus's 80th birthday. Lewis also directs the College of Charleston's program in the Carolina Lowcountry and Atlantic World.
Igor S. Martynyuk is Associate Editor and Editor of Reviews of Ab Imperio: Studies of New Imperial History and Nationalism in the Post-Soviet Space, Quarterly. Since 2001, he has been a Doctoral Candidate, Central European University, Budapest and a visiting research fellow at Russian and Eurasian Studies Centre, St.Antony's College, the University of Oxford (2003). His research interest covers Russian late imperial and early Soviet cultural and intellectual history; studies in identity and ideologies; modern diaspora and exile. His recent contributions are centered on the historiography of Russian emigration and nationalist mythologies in the studies of Russian philosophy.
Alfons Söllner is Professor of Political Theory and Intellectual History at the Technical University of Chemnitz. His publications include Peter Weiss und die Deutschen. Die Entstehung einer politischen Ästhetik wider die Verdrängung, (1988)and Deutsche Politkwissenschaftler in der Emigration: Ihre Akkulturation und Wirkungsgeschichte (1996), as well as some 50 scholarly articles on the social science emigration/return.
Eduardo Subirats is Professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese of New York University specializing in modern philosophy, aesthetics, critical theory and colonial theory. His book publications include Da vanguarda ao pós-moderno (Sâo Paulo, 1984-85-87-89; Madrid, 1985; Barcelona, 1989); Culturas virtuales (Madrid, 1988; México, 2001); A flor e o cristal (Sâo Paulo, 1988); El continente vacío (Madrid, 1993; Mexico, 1994), Linterna Mágica (Madrid, 1997), Memoria y exilio (Madrid 2003), and Viaje al fin del Paraíso. Un ensayo sobre América latina (Madrid 2005). He currently contributes cultural and political articles in the Latin American daily press.
Peyman Vahabzadeh left Iran in sorrow in 1987 and entered Canada where he has been living an exilic life since 1989. He teaches sociology and his books, papers, shorts stories, poems, critics, and edited journal issues have appeared in English, Persian and German. He is the author of Articulated Experiences: Toward A Radical Phenomenology of Contemporary Social Movements (SUNY Press, 2003), the guest editor of West Coast Line on "Writing Rupture: Iranian Emigration Literature" (2003) and the guest co-editor (with Jeffrey Robins) of the Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory on "Democracy in the Time of Fright" (2006).
Jerry Zaslove is Professor Emeritus Humanities and Literature at Simon Frazer University (British Columbia). He has written on European literatures, humanities and the social history of art from an outpost at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia and is currently co-editor of West Coast Line a journal of poetry, letters, and cultural criticism. Recent writing reflects on anarcho-modernism, memory and exile, the sociology of art, and photography and the city through, among others, Herbert Read, Jeff Wall, Kafka, geological poetics and the city, Siegfried Kracauer, the lost radical university.