Children of Jihad, by Jared Cohen

As promised earlier in the week, here are more comprehensive comments on Children of Jihad, which I finished reading yesterday. This book has been chosen as a common reader for first-year students at my college, so I am reading it through the lens of how I might use it in the classroom.

I have two major concerns about teaching from the book, and one additional stylistic, admittedly more personal, criticism.

Cohen's stated purpose is to give a first-hand account of the ideas, feelings, aspirations, etc. of the youth of the Middle East (from his time in Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Kurdistan). I feel that his account lacks nuance - young people tend to be painted with the same brush (they are just like "us;" they like to party and drink and flirt and dance). There is really no recognition that there, as anywhere, there is a whole range of people with different inclinations, likes and dislikes, and attitudes. For example, I think that Cohen is saying that in Iran, most young people despise the regime. But that's not really news, is it?

When I teach the geography of the Middle East, I want to break down the stereotypes too. But, unlike Cohen, I don't want to replace one stereotype (religious fanatics) with another (party animals). I think that he observed a particular segment of society that he approached or that approached him, and that he has not fully accounted for the diversity of attitudes and ideas that one can find in the youth of the Middle East.

My second concern is that the book, for all its historical background (in the form of digressions from the memoir), does not really do a very good job explaining how this region has come to have its current geopolitical configuration. Cohen obviously knows a lot, but he has trouble breaking it down in a way that college-age readers can digest. There is too much detail, too many names and dates, not enough signposting or overall summary and interpretation.

My last issue is perhaps a stylistic quibble - and that is that there is just too much of Cohen in the book. Gosh, isn't he daring and wonderful for undertaking this dangerous journey to help us understand the youth (and thus the future) of this region? And such a quick study too: it took him all of five days in Tehran to figure out how to outwit his government handlers to see the real thing. I would like MORE thoughtful analysis about the attitudes and ideas in this region, and less meta-narrative about how Cohen personally is processing it all.

I don't think my students will like this book -- it's too complex, there is not enough context, and there is not really much of a story arc. Also, I am not sure how to use it in a class - I'd want to contrast it with something else, perhaps. I am not comfortable relying on Cohen's view as the "Truth" - I'd want to set it up as "one peer's impression of how the world is."

Perhaps I'm being unfair - but the author of a book with no footnotes or sources or explicit methodology cannot expect his work to be taken as a serious academic endeavor. Show us HOW you got to the conclusions you draw! Otherwise, this is a bit of a travel memoir, and frankly, not a very compelling one at that, despite the great potential interest of the subject matter.