Social Semiotics

ISSN: 1035-0330 (Print) 1470-1219 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csos20

Identity beyond borders: national identity and the

post-colonial alternative

Riad Nasser

To cite this article: Riad Nasser (2018): Identity beyond borders: national identity and the post-
colonial alternative, Social Semiotics, DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2018.1425317

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1425317

Published online: 18 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csos20
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1425317

Identity beyond borders: national identity and the

post-colonial alternative
Riad Nasser
Department of Sociology, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The study examines national identity in school curricula against the Identity; nationalism;
backdrop of globalization and its forces to create a universal global postcolonial theories;
identity beyond particular affiliations. To that end, the study education; school textbook;
Jordan; Israel; Palestine
examines the problematic nature of Wester notion of identity
formation, and simultaneously asks whether political socialization
in the nation-state school system is conducive of the
development of cosmopolitan identity, an identity beyond
national borders. Jordan, Israel, and Palestine are the three-case
studies discussed in this article. Theoretically, the study
contributes to the ongoing scholarly debate concerning the
question of identity, political socializations, globalization, and
nationalism. I make use of postcolonial theories to demonstrate
the shortcomings of the logocentric way of theorizing identity as
a binary twin, rooted in the relational formation between Self and
Other, and search for alternative strategies to identity formation.

Introduction
Close to seven decades after WWII, crisscrossing processes continue to dominate the world
system even today, drawing and redrawing boundaries between collectives and cultures,
rendering identities of individuals as well as of collectives in a state of everlasting flux of
becoming and being (see Bhabha 2004; Jenkins 2014; Venn 2006). Historically, in the wake
of WWII, decolonization was the dominant force in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. For a
moment, nationalism was perceived as a utopian universal remedy of helping former colo-
nized societies recover and regain their past histories, cultures, and identities. During those
years, nationalism was associated with democracy and socialism, a form of emancipatory
ideology (see Walzer 2003, 14).
Importantly, while it was in its embryonic stage, national liberation processes of former
colonies faced a new challenge, a counter force of a global scale. It was the beginning of
the Cold War that would redraw borders and boundaries, turning the geography of the
recently emerging nation-states (in addition to well-established ones) into a battle
ground between competing ideologies of East and West. Accordingly, many nations
had to fashion their economies, cultures, political systems, and their collective identifi-
cations along the lines of either the Western or the Eastern ideological templates. Interest-
ingly, the short-lived hopes that came about with the end of the Cold War in 1989–1991,

CONTACT Riad Nasser nasser@fdu.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. NASSER

for a better future and the possible emergence of a free global civil society of world citi-
zens, were soon dashed by the rise of a new set of conflicting forces. On the one hand, the
rise of transnational forms of identity marked by the global expansion of multinational cor-
porations, global media, the creation of the European Union, mass migration (especially,
from the south and east to the north), the re-emergence of global religious movements,
and feminist and environmental advocates. On the other hand, the return of local and par-
ticularistic demands by ethnic groups for self-determination, manifested in ethnic conflicts
in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and recently, the civil wars in the Arab states (see Friese
2002; Venn 2006; Jenkins 2014; Danahar 2015). In other words, in contrast to the 1950s,
when questions of national liberation, nation-state, and citizenship dominated and
shaped the contours of the international political and cultural discourse, now, questions
of transnational identity (civic, religious, cultural, etc.), women’s rights and identity, and
identity of indigenous people in Canada, Australia, among other geographies, dominate
the global scene (see Soysal 1994; Purvis and Hunt 1999, 458; Benhabib 2005; Kivisto
and Faist 2007; Jenkins 2014).
Moreover, due to technological advancement and the expansion of global capitalism,
identity has evolved into a commodity offered to consumers by advertising companies
attempting at creating a “‘new look’, a ‘make-over’, and a ‘new-me,’” through the con-
sumption of specific commodities designed to meet the expectation of every niche
market group (Turow 2011; cited in Jenkins 2014,29). Similarly, Herbert (2003) and Katzen-
stein (2010), emphasize the return of religion as a source of identity for both the individual
as well as the collective across the globe. Katzenstein (2010, 84), in response to the
growing presence of Islam/Moslems in Europe, asks that
[s]ome of the most difficult questions Europe’s second phase of civilization now faces are
whether it can integrate the Muslim “other” in its midst as “self” without ceasing to be
“itself,” and whether it can engage wider Muslim civilization beyond Europe’s shadowy and
expanding borders with practices of peaceful change.

For other scholars, the recent global/local developments render the question of identity
to unending conflict between “barbarism” and “civility” (see Huntington 1998). Others
believe that the emerging system is conducive to the rise of a global cosmopolitan identity
that is horizontally open to accept and negotiate differences with other cultures as equals
(see Kwame Appiah 2006). In contrast, scholars such as Silvia Nagy-Zekmi and Zabus
(2010) assert that the new world order stipulates new processes of Western (American)
colonization of the world’s culture, not necessarily of foreign geographies, but, certainly
of life-style, self-perceptions, and above all, colonization of minds.
Notably, the various discourses on identity, share a common theoretical predicament
which is the binary form of Western thought of identity conceptualization, for example,
the twin concepts of self/Other or similarity and difference (see Derrida 1981, 86). That
form of conceptualizing identity is problematic, although it has become universal with
Western colonialism and the global spread of its version of modernity. Some of the weak-
nesses of this model are that it stipulates the ranking of self as superior and the Other as
inferior. In addition, it diminishes our ability to understand identity formation – both on
the theoretical as well the practical level – outside the box of this twin binary form.
In “Identity beyond Borders,” I ask how these global processes affect political socializa-
tion of students through the nation-state sponsored school system. I start with discussing
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 3

the complex nature of identity and its application on the process of political socialization.
Next, I examine the strategies by which the educated class through its control of the state-
sponsored school curricula constructs identities of co-nationals and citizens in three
respective case studies of Jordan, Israel, and Palestine. An understanding of these strat-
egies of identity formation and political socialization can help in answering the question
whether state education system is conducive of forging identities complimentary to the
development of a global cosmopolitan society in which identities are detached from
the logocentric principles of Western discourse rooted in the idea of difference and alterity
(see Derrida 1981, 86).
This issue is of a growing significance, particularly due to recent global migration waves
and the emergence of diaspora groups of faith, ethnicity/race, culture, and nationality in
many societies across the globe. The risk of the continued use of the binary exclusive para-
digm in identity formation may increase social, economic, and political marginalization
and discrimination against those deemed as Other, and consequently, intensify intra
social conflicts, as recent ethnic frictions in Europe have shown.
Theoretically, I make use of postcolonial theories to demonstrate the shortcomings of
the logocentric way of theorizing identity as a binary twin, rooted in the relational for-
mation between Self and Other. In other words, postcolonial theories have been very criti-
cal of the Enlightenment project and the question of subjectivity as it has evolved in the
last two centuries or so. Therefore, by turning to postcolonial theories, I seek an alternative
way by which identities maybe formed and constructed. Importantly, the reader should
not confuse postcolonial theory with postcolonial states. My use of postcolonial theory
comes to help me analyze the complex nature of identity (e.g. national identity), away
from the dominant Western view of theorization.
The three-case studies Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, discussed in this article represent a
wider global phenomenon of the nation-state system and the idea of political socialization
through state public schooling system. Jordan is a postcolonial state incorporating within
its boundaries a mixture of ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. Israel is a migrant com-
munity (settler society)1 aiming at reconstructing a nation out of a diverse group of reli-
gious Jewish communities, while Palestine continues to be colonized by Israel, and its
education system remains subject to pressures from both Israel and other Western
countries. Again, the focus of this study is on the role of the education system in
forging collective identities. The main question I ask: what types of identity the respective
school curricula advance? Is it exclusively national or open and conducive to wider global
forms of identification beyond state and ethnicity?
Before turning to the case studies with which this article will engage, I will discuss the
question of identity from a postcolonial perspective, followed by an examination of the
role of mass education in the process of national identity formation under the nation-
state system.

Postcolonial theories and the question of identity

Postcolonial theories can be seen as forms of resistance to colonial practices and simul-
taneously as paradigms of emancipation aiding the colonized. They provide both intellec-
tual and practical ways to help the colonized, the silenced, the excluded, and the
oppressed understand the nature of the domination which has been imposed upon
4 R. NASSER

them and the ways in which their identities are constructed via regimes of power. Specifi-
cally, postcolonial theories are aimed at analyzing the legacy of colonial regimes of dom-
ination and their residual political, socio-economic, and psychological effects on formerly
colonized and postcolonial societies. Of special importance is how these theories examine
the manner in which postcolonial societies struggle with their collective identities and
how they incorporate or reject the Western norms and conventions, such as legal or pol-
itical systems, left in place after direct administration by colonial powers ended (see Said
1979; Bhabha 1983, 18–36; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2002; Bhabha 2004; Venn 2006).
Recently, postcolonial theories have expanded their inquiry to study questions pertaining
to the effects of global processes on the development of identity within diaspora cultures,
migrant and indigenous communities, economies, and life-style.
Significantly, postcolonial paradigms have provided an alternative approach to the
study of identity, one that is detached from the Western logocentric discourse of moder-
nity. Venn suggests that
[o]ne of the characteristics of modernity as a period … is that it imagined it would bring into
existence a particular concept of the subject, namely, the subject as (ideally) the unitary,
rational, autonomous, self- sufficient, masculine, and European agent of the history of human-
ity. (Venn 2006, 9)

He adds that the subject has dual attributes. On the one hand, he is part of the project
of modernity and simultaneously the agent of that project. As such, Europeans perceived
themselves as a civilizing force during the colonial era. Their encounter with peoples from
Africa, Asia, and Latin America turned the differences between them into a hierarchy in
which Europeans portrayed themselves superior to “the rest.” According to Bhabha
(2004, 72–73), the colonial discourse made difference ontological so that Europeans’ iden-
tity would appear as if it had organic qualities and was simultaneously portrayed as
superior to the uncivilized and invisible “Other.” In short, postcolonial theory has revealed
the process through which identities are constructed via difference and exclusion, and the
implications of this process for those deemed as “Others.”
During the 1990s, the difference became the dominant variable in postcolonial dis-
course, accounting for the process of identity formation (Butler 1990; Taylor 1994, 25–
74; Benhabib 1996; Hall 1996). According to scholars who discussed these issues in
terms of difference, it makes identities seem distinctive from one another, more than
any form of internal similarity within the same identity group. Benhabib (1996, 3), for
example, argued that, “since every search for identity includes differentiating oneself
from what one is not, identity politics is always and necessarily a politics of the creation
of difference.” Similarly, Derrida (1981, 86) explains that difference has always been part
of the logocentric binary mode of Western thought as an essential element in the identity
formation of the “I/we.” Wagner adds that “[d]ifference … is … always already preconsti-
tuted. One pretends to name a state immediately and positively that is always created
by the act of setting one thing apart from another one with which it is not identical”
(2002, 42).
In the linguistic paradigm, and according to poststructuralist approaches, meanings
develop in a relational manner. In the process of defining identity and social categories
and establishing boundaries between categories, the difference becomes represented
and placed as the polar opposite of self. Thus, identity is always “alterity identity,” that
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 5

is, identity dependent upon the Other to define self (Bhabha 1983). For self to have a “dis-
tinctive” identity it needs to gain such an identity in relation to the Other and not separate
from that Other, as if the self has “organic” qualities that make them seem as such (Friese
2002, 1–2; Wagner 2002, 35). Derrida believed that whenever linguistic and social identities
are said to be fixed or assumed to be stable and organic, this should be understood less as
a disclosure of truth than as an act of power (Derrida 1981). According to this view, identity
is an act of signification created by power relations within the language itself.
During the colonial era, difference was a core strategic element in identity formation. It
distinguished between East and West, black and white, backward and advanced, barbaric
and civilized, and other forms of identity. According to Foucault, it was the power of the
West that turned difference in identity formation into a hierarchy, where the Other is
always inferior compared to the superior West (see Foucault 1981, 48–78). The identity
of the Other was forged through Western discourse via difference as a manifestation of
essential inferiority. Bhabha, echoing Foucault, argues that “[t]he Other must be seen as
the necessary negation of a primordial identity – cultural or psychic – that introduces
the system of differentiation which enables the cultural to be signified as a linguistic, sym-
bolic, historic reality” (2004, 74).
Notably, in the colonial discourse, Europeans perceived themselves as agents of civili-
zation and the motor of historical change, bearing the burden of civilizing the uncivilized.
Part of their “civilizing”/colonizing mission was to set into motion a process of bestowing
identity on people who had hitherto lived in a void (see Chatterjee 1993; Hall 1994, 392–
403; Said 1994; Prakash 1995; Loomba 1998, 57, 145; Malik 1999; Bauman 2011, 9). In the
Palestinian case, for example, Zionist discourse had for decades claimed that the origin of
Palestinian nationalism was a by-product of Zionism (see Pappe 1999; Ram 1999, 55–80;
Shafir 1999, 81–96), an assertion which essentially argues that without Zionism Palesti-
nians would have no collective sense of self and would consequently be left behind in
the progress of civilization and the project of modernity. In a similar vein, Theodor
Herzl, in his book The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat), wrote to European leaders that “we
could constitute part of the wall of defense against Asia; [we would] serve as an
outpost of civilization against barbarism” (Herzl 1989, 52).
Postcolonial theorists such as Du Bois and Fanon provide an articulate discussion of the
impact of colonialism on black people’s identity and the relations between the colonized
and the colonial powers’ identity. Both authors have shown how the colonizers con-
structed an oppressed identity for their subjects; one of its foundations being the idea
of inferior black peoples compared to superior Western white races (Fanon 1967; Du
Bois 1990). Evidently, race in the colonial discourse makes the categories “black” and
“white” dichotomous and relational. The hierarchy established in this discourse turns
one of these identities into “superior” in contrast to an “inferior” other. Bauman argues
that Western colonialism had produced a
theoretical commentary in the form of evolutionary cultural theory which promoted the
“developed” world to the status of unquestionable perfection, to be imitated and aspired
to sooner or later by the rest of the globe. In the pursuit of this goal, the rest of the world
was to be actively helped and, in the event of resistance, coerced. (Bauman 2011, 9)

This explains Fanon’s statement in which he denounces colonialism, arguing that it had
distorted black people’s subjectivity. He says that “At the risk of arousing the resentment of
6 R. NASSER

my coloured brothers, I will say that the black man is not a man” (Fanon 1967, 8). In other
words, his view is that colonialism had stripped black people of their past, memory, and
culture and reduced them to objects without souls or identities of their own. He adds
that the essence of colonized peoples’ struggle should not exclusively focus on their
social and economic oppression, but also on their internalization of forced constructions
of self and identity (14–15).
Bhabha argues that the difference which creates a self-image of identity is an
image of post-Enlightenment man tethered to, not confronted by, his dark reflection, the
shadow of colonized man, that splits his presence, distorts his outline, breaches his bound-
aries, repeats his action at a distance, disturbs and divides the very time of his being. (2004, 62)

Moreover, Fanon writes that “[w]hat is often called the black soul is a white man’s artefact”
(Fanon 1967, 6). In other words, the black soul is the otherness of the self of the white
person, created and projected onto the black person, and does not say a thing about
the identity of black people.
Venn summarizes the impact of “othering” on the identity formation of those “othered”
and excluded, linking the European logocentric idea of identity formation and othering
during the colonial period to the process of colonial exploitation. In his view, othering
underlie[s] all forms of systematic exploitation, given that in order for a group to inflict persist-
ent suffering upon another group … a distancing, an estrangement must take place that
removes the other from the sphere of one’s concern or ethical responsibility … . (26).

He adds that “[c]oncepts of the ethne, class, caste, gender, nation, race, religious affiliation
have variously functioned as metonymic substitutes in this discourse of othering.” Conti-
nuing, he asserts that
the systematic denigration of the other in colonial discourse and the long period of … subal-
ternization has left a legacy buried in the psyche and at the level of cognitive grasp of the
world that continues to have effects for the problem of (postcolonial) identity.

This is evident in the difficulty “involved in breaking away from the hold of occidentalist
categories” (26). In this view, it is from these conditions that difficulty of postcolonial
societies in developing an identity detached from what the colonized had “assigned”
for them has arisen.
Other scholars reject the exclusive emphasis on difference as a prime element of
identity formation. Those scholars add identity is formed in the dialectical relation
between similarity and difference. However, they assert that any form of identity formation
leads to the creation of an excluded other. For example, Gilroy (1997, 301–302) observes
that
identity is always particular, as much about difference as about shared belonging … identity
can help us comprehend the formation of the fateful pronoun “we” and to reckon with the
patterns of inclusion and exclusion that it cannot help but to create. This may be one of
the most troubling aspects of all: the fact that the formation of every “we” must leave out
or exclude a “they”, that identities depend on the marking of difference.

Similarly, Bhabha (2004), for different reasons, rejects the logocentric notion of identity
formation. In his view, the twin concept of similarity/difference assumes the homogeneity
of those deemed similar: “Cultures are never unitary in themselves, nor simply dualistic in
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 7

the relation of Self to Other” (52). Likewise, Jurgen Straub (2002) agrees that collectives are
never unitary or homogeneous. In fact, he rejects the whole idea that collective identity is
even possible: “Whenever a nation is supposed to have its own ‘identity,’ we are dealing
with ideological language” (69). In his view, two forces act simultaneously to create collec-
tive identity, inclusion and exclusion, or integration and distinction, and both draw inward
and outward boundaries.
Bhabha (2004) adds to the binary concept of similarity/difference another concept
which he calls the “Third Space.” He explains that the “intervention of Third Space of enun-
ciation, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process,
destroys this mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is customarily revealed
as an integrated, open, expanding code” (54). Further, Bhabha explains that the Third
Space has
productive capacities … [which] may reveal that the theoretical recognition of the split- space
of enunciation may open the way to conceptualizing an international culture, based not on
exoticism of multiculturalism or diversity of cultures, but on the inscription and articulation
of culture’s hybridity … And by exploring this Third Space, we may elude the politics of polarity
and emerge as the others of our selves (emphasis in the original). (56)

The development of hybrid identities, and the elimination of the previous paradigm in
which identities develop in the dialectic between similarity and difference, seems a theor-
etical solution to the evolving contemporary world system in which, in the words of Eric
Hobsbawm (2003, 236), “international migration has created – or recreated – ethnic diver-
sity even in states which previously … had eliminated it.” However, the question remains,
as Hobsbawm continues, “Where does this leave exclusive ethnicity, exclusive nationalism,
the exclusive division of the world?” (236).
While Hobsbawm offers no answers to these questions, other scholars suggest the
return of civil society as a new kind of “utopia” which will enable the creation of new
spaces so that new forms of identity can emerge. Cohen (2003, 38) argues that
international
[c]ivil society proper is the terrain and target of this politics of identity. It is here that collective
actors defend spaces for the creation of the new identities and seek to render more egalitarian
and democratic the institutions and social relations in which identities are generated.

Evidently, the ramifications of the possible emergence of such a global civil society are the
weakening or suppression of other forms of hierarchy or exclusiveness such as nationality,
ethnicity, social class, gender, and race. The new global civil society will create a new space
in which identities are horizontal and non-sexist and “based on the principles of individual
rights and democratic participation in associations, and public” (Cohen 2003, 36).
Borrowing from several literary, cultural, and postcolonial theorists, such as Henry Louis
Gates, Stuart Hall, and Cornel West, Bhabha (2004, 256) explains the contours of the new
type of identity that may develop in the Third Space as hybrid:
Postcolonial and black critiques propose forms of contestatory subjectivities that are empow-
ered in the act of erasing the politics of binary opposition – the inverted polarities of a counter-
politics … there is an attempt to construct a theory of the social imaginary that requires no
subject expressing originary anguish … no singular self-image … no necessary or eternal
belongings.
8 R. NASSER

These two theoretical options, the global civil society and the possible emergence of an
identity without origins, history, or spatial dimension, pose a dilemma and a challenge to
the way identity has been theorized and constructed via various agencies of state, econ-
omic, political, and cultural forms of power. Both proposals call for the creation of temporal
identities, stripped of their history, and eliminate any type of continuous membership in
one collective. Implicitly, these theories valorize individuality and the universality of a hori-
zontal identity, beyond ethnic, national, or civic affiliation, and invoke a new strategy for
identity formation, an identity which is based on favoring the other in self, rather than a
strategy of identity based on the Other and Self. The question remains whether these
forms of identity without history and culture can sustain themselves in an international
system which is saturated with power struggles over domination, exclusiveness, and
distinction.

Mass education: history and the invention of a nation

With the emergence of the nation-state system (at the end of the eighteenth and the turn
of the nineteenth century), and the industrial revolution,2 mass education became a neces-
sity (Dussel 2013, 176–189; Hofstetter and Schneuwly 2013, 166). In the wake of the French
Revolution, elite groups in Western societies took upon themselves the mission of trans-
forming an aggregate of people into a nation. Bauman argues that
[t]he “enlightenment project” gave culture (understood as an activity akin to land cultivation)
the status of a basic tool for the building of a nation, a state, and a nation-state – at the same
time entrusting that tool to the hands of the educated class.

In its perambulations between political ambitions and philosophical deliberations, a twin goal
of the enlightenment undertaking had soon crystallized (whether openly or tacitly assumed)
into the double postulate of obedience of subjects and solidarity among fellow countrymen.
(Bauman 2011, 8)

In other words, the educated elite in the emerging nation states became an agent of
social engineering, aiming at turning the subject into an object that can be molded and
formed into an obedient citizen. In addition, it attempted to develop a sense of solidarity
among citizens beyond family, kin, faith, or locality, aimed at making the individual citizen
attached to a larger entity called the “nation”. Further, as citizens, members of the nation
were treated as equal individuals who became subject to state sovereignty. Notably, both
concepts, of co-nationals and citizenship, defined the political, spatial, and cultural-histori-
cal boundaries of the nation, boundaries formed following the binary template of Western
thought which organizes the universe and the life of societies around concepts such as
mythos and logos, rational and irrational, East versus West, and Us versus Them. Advan-
cing this line of thought made it easy for a citizen and a co-national to develop their dis-
tinctive sense of collective identity via exclusion of Others. Moreover, with the emerging
new world order of nation states, the state became the primary agent of the social and
political socialization of its citizens, and, through its control of most forms of knowledge
production and school curricula, made intensive use of history, geography, and civic
studies, among other subjects, as vehicles for the forging of citizen and co-national iden-
tity (see Althusser 1971, 146; Foucault 1977, 225; Gramsci 1979, 294).
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 9

Importantly, among scholars there is no agreement on the meaning of national identity

in specific instances and the ways in which it comes into being. Scholars distinguish
between civic or territorial and ethnic nationalism, among other categorizations. The
former portrays nations as units of populations which inhabit a demarcated territory,
possess a common economy, common laws with identical legal rights and duties for
everyone, and public mass education. The latter conceives of a nation as a human popu-
lation with a belief in common ancestors, shared solidarity, common traditions, and history
(Gellner 1983). Other scholars, such as Anderson, argue that nations are “imagined com-
munities” with “invented traditions” ([1991] 2016). Interestingly, regardless of the theoreti-
cal approach one adopts, the narrative of any national movement, almost without
exception, portrays the nation as immemorial, treating its past as a constitutive element
in its formation. Such emphasis on a nation’s past, as Smith argues, begs the question
of why the past is important if nations are imagined communities that have been engen-
dered by scientific and industrial processes of modernity (2004). Smith’s answer is that
unlike scholars of nationalism, people do believe that their nation has evolved from a
common ancestry and that their tradition is rooted within their ancient history. For this
reason, recovering the past seems vital to understanding the present, and is an act
which also allows people to maintain a sense of coherent and continuous identity. Mod-
ernity provides the academic and scientific tools for elite groups in a society to reconstruct
the collective’s past and turn it into a collective memory which constitutes the building
blocks of the national narrative of the imagined community (see Anderson [1991] 2016).
In this regard, the constructed narrative of a nation is aimed at forming its collective con-
sciousness, which is organized by binary oppositions of triumph and defeat, of Us and
Them, as Halbwachs ([1950] 1980) has argued. Such a narrative makes the nation
appear distinctive in its origins, culture, and history, in opposition to other collectives. Con-
sequently, it forces identity to develop in the dialectic between sameness and difference,
rendering it subject to continuous processes of becoming.
Equally importantly, the recoveries of the past, and the ability of a community to estab-
lish continuity, real or imagined, between its present generation and its ancestry, seem to
be at the core of the claims put forward by a collective to its political entitlement to land
and to self-determination. This issue becomes of special significance in a universal system
organized, as it has been since the end of the eighteenth century, around nationhood and
the nation-state system, or a system in which peoples and territories are divided into
states. Furthermore, although the idea of nation and nationalism are modern, for almost
all collectives the “nation” is a real historical entity, worth of recovering its past. Evidently,
the purpose of the construction of history, as Williams has argued, is to ratify the present
conditions and to legitimize the present-day boundaries of a collective, and to give it a
sense of continuity over time. The construction of a historical narrative makes it possible
for a collective to read through the past the evolution of the nation from its sacred or
mythical “origin” to the present (Williams 1989, 56–60).
Making history, Friedman (1994) argues, is a way of producing identity, insofar as it gen-
erates a relationship between what has supposedly occurred in the past and the present
state of affairs. Further, he adds,
[t]he construction of history is a construction of a meaningful universe of events and narratives
for an individual or collectively defined subject. And since the motivation of this process of
10 R. NASSER

construction emanates from the subject inhabiting a social world, we may say that history is an
imprinting of the present onto the past. In this sense, all history including modern historiogra-
phy is mythology (118).

Other scholars argue that the construction of history is a dynamic process that is in per-
manent evolution, open to the dialectic of remembering and forgetting, unconscious of its
successive deformation, vulnerable to manipulation and appropriation, susceptible to
being periodically dormant and periodically revived. Moreover, for a given collective,
the construction of history is the construction of their specific narrative, a narrative
about remembering and forgetting. In this regard, the constructed narrative of a nation
is aimed at forming its collective consciousness (see Nora 1989, 7–25).
A nation’s history is not an inclusive discourse of the various claims to that nation’s past.
It is a representation of the dominant group’s version of the past, which comes over time
to perpetuate that dominant group’s culture and values (see Crawford 1995, 433–456;
Philips 1998, 40–53). It continues to serve as the official narrative of a collective as long
as it succeeds in excluding alternative narratives, whether they be those advanced by
competing groups within a nation or other national narratives. It is not surprising, then,
that, in our contemporary modern nation-state system, schools have turned into arenas
for competing ideologies over the process of the construction of national narratives. In
particular, history curricula have become subject to those competing forces in societies
struggling to form the “official” past of their nation and its collective memory, which
has a decisive influence on individuals’ notions of belonging within a community (see
Epstein 2001, 186–204; Davies 2004).
There is an argument within academic history that what students study in schools is not
history, but rather national history or tradition. Eric Hobsbawm (1997, 270) puts it thus:
[A]ll human beings, collectivities and institutions need a past, but it is only occasionally the
past uncovered by historical research. The standard example of an identity culture which
anchors itself to the past by means of myths dressed up as history is nationalism.

Elsewhere in the same work, he comments:

Why … do all regimes make their young study some history at school? Not to [enable them to]
understand their society and how it changes, but to [encourage them to] approve of it, to be
proud of it, or to become good citizens of the USA, or Spain or Honduras or Iraq. … History as
inspiration and ideology has a built-in tendency to become self-justifying myth. (35–36)

In our case studies, mass education and history studies played a significant role in the
process of emerging nationhood for both Jordan and Israel, and, later, for Palestinians in
the territories under the Palestinian Authority (PA).3 While under British colonialism, his-
torical Palestine and Transjordan were mandate territories, granted to Britain by the
Council of the League of Nations in 1922 to manage and “assist” Jordanians and the
Jewish minority in Palestine (with the exclusion of the indigenous Palestinian majority
of Palestine) build their nation and their state institutions, and develop a self-governing
system. For several decades, with varying degrees of autonomy, the process of nation-
building and the creation of a state apparatus in both Jordan and Israel took place
under the watching eye of the British. In both cases, state institutions, particularly the
mass education system, were fashioned after British models of governance.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 11

Once Jordan became independent in 1946, and Israel in 1948, the state, in each
case, consolidated its power and assumed responsibility in the continued process of
forging a unified “nation” out of the complex ethnic, religious, and national groups
under their sovereignty. In both Jordan and Israel, public education has been one of
the critical agents of nation-building, in addition to the army (see Massad 2001;
Epstein and Uritsky 2004, 170). Similarly, following the PAs national elections in 1996,
the creation of state institutions, including education, began in the semi-autonomous
Palestinian enclaves which are part of the Israeli colonized West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In each of these regions, history studies continue to be an arena contested by local fac-
tions and regional forces, each of which seeks to appropriate the past as exclusively
theirs.

History school textbooks in Jordan, Palestine, and Israel

I have chosen my primary source of analysis school history textbooks which will be sup-
plemented with the examination of civic/national/social studies textbooks. The main
reason of focusing on history is due to several factors. First, textbooks in general carry
the authority and the legitimizing power of an established social, political, and historical
order (Cherryholmes 1988; Williams 1989, 58; Apple 1993). Apple asserts that
it is the textbook which establishes so much of the material conditions for teaching and learn-
ing in classrooms in many countries throughout the world, and it is the textbook that often
defines what is elite and legitimate culture to pass on. (Apple 1988, 81)

Similarly, Olson considers the power invested in textbooks to be analogous to that ema-
nating from religious rituals; both are conceived as devices above criticism (Olson 1989).
Further, Sleeter and Grant comment that
[t]he text[book] is a device for helping the child fit into his culture, but culture need not be
passed on unedited, good and bad aspects alike. In fact, the nature of the text itself …
demands that its maker be highly selective in the materials he [sic] presents. (1991, 80)

In the case studies, I will now discuss, textbook decisions are made at the national level.
Although, in the PA and Israel, ministries of education may outsource textbooks to non-
state committees or institutions, authors, and publishers, contributors are nevertheless
required to follow strict ministry-issued guidelines. In the case of Israel,4 for example,
non-ministry authors have to seek the approval of the Ministry of Education, Culture,
and Sport if they wish to have their textbooks included in the Ministry’s official list of
approved textbooks offered to teachers in schools. This form of control leads to homogen-
eity in content as well as in educational strategies and enforces uniformity of the history
and cultural experience passed down to pupils (see Nasser 2005, 2011; Nasser and Nasser
2008; Mazawi 2011; Alayan 2012, 2017; Peled-Elhanan 2012, etc.).
In the years 1948–1967, Palestinian students in the West Bank and Gaza used Jordanian
and Egyptian textbooks, respectively. Upon Israeli occupation of those territories, teachers
were authorized to use the same textbooks; however, they were subject to censorship by
the Israeli (military) Civil Administration. In 1996, after the signing of the Oslo Accord by
the PLO and Israel, the PA established an independent body, the Curriculum Development
Centre, whose remit was to draft the national curriculum for all Palestinian schools. The
12 R. NASSER

first set of textbooks to conform to this curriculum was introduced to schools in 1998, and
the completion date for all textbooks was set as 2006.
This study will focus on the history taught from years 4 to 12 of schooling, as this is the
stage in formal education at which students, having acquired mastery of basic competen-
cies such as language and arithmetic, begin to address questions related to their identity,
which are at the heart of school subjects such as history, civic studies, and geography. It is
worth reiterating here that my analysis focuses primarily on history with occasional refer-
ence to social/national/civic education textbooks in the three-case study countries. In
Jordan and Palestine, national education combines history and civic studies. My analysis
focuses on textbooks used by students in state schools.5 Furthermore, although previous
studies such as Alayan (2012, 2017), Mazawi (2011), Peled-Elhanan (2012), among other
scholars, have analyzed school textbooks in Palestine and Israel, most of these studies –
as important as they are – have focused on images of the Other (images of Palestinians
in Israel textbooks and vice versa). Very few if any, have conducted a comparative study
of national identity in school textbooks, and with the exception of a few studies,6 textbook
analysts have paid little attention to Jordan, and to the question of national identity. This
study, however, compares three national narratives and discusses the notion of national
identity in the context of global processes.

Jordan: nation and origins

A review of national education and history textbooks in Jordan’s schools reveals a complex
picture in relation to the issue of nation and origins. This complexity stems from the diffi-
culty of defining “a Jordanian.” Contemporary Jordanian society is a mixture of ethnic,
national, and religious groups. The largest community of Jordanians is of Palestinian
origin; other ethnic groups represented in the country include Circassians, Chechens,
and local settled and nomadic tribes. The year 4 national and social studies textbook
says that “Jordanian society is comprised of many collectives, most of Arab ethnicity.
There is a small number of Circassians, Chechens, Kurds, and Armenians” (A’bidat, Abu-
Shaikha, and Khlifat 2003, Vol. 2, 15).
Another issue is the fact that Jordan’s ruling dynasty is foreign, originating from a noble
Saudi Arabian family, the Hashemite. For decades, this was a source of friction between
indigenous Jordanians and their rulers. What complicated the matter further was the con-
tinuous influx of Palestinian, Iraqi, and Syrian refugees to the country due to civil and
regional wars. As a result, and primarily in order to resolve the conflict between rulers
and ruled, the state-sponsored national narrative has traditionally focused less on
nation-building, with “Jordan” as a distinctive collective, and more on similarities
between Jordanians and other Arabs in the region. In this way, Jordan’s narrative makes
the complex ethnic structure of the state less of an issue and facilitates the legitimation
and acceptance of rulers by their citizens as part of a larger whole, the Arab nation.
The emphasis in Jordan’s textbooks is on the multi-faceted nature of Jordanian identity.
Jordanians are presented as an integral part of the Arab collective and part of the universal
Islamic umma (nation). The political divisions of the Arab world into mini-states, which sep-
arate one collective from another, are portrayed as artificial and temporary and as conse-
quences of colonial powers’ past intrusion in the region’s affairs; the textbooks also
suggest that they are associated with the project of implantation of Zionism into the
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 13

heart of Palestine, which is an obstacle to Arab unity (11–15). Put simply, Jordan’s narrative
shifts the discussion of identity in Jordan from the local and territorial frame into the
regional Arab and the universal religious-Islamic context. This strategy of forced exclusion,
as I have mentioned, ultimately serves the political ends of the rulers rather than those of
the ruled.
The emphasis on the regional and universal aspects of identity in Jordan dominates the
textbook discussion of the issue. Thus, a year 6 textbook notes that “The Jordanian people
have their origins in the Arab race. Most of [Jordan’s] residents practice Islam, and its citi-
zens speak Arabic” (Al-Madani, Al-A’amaayyra, and Abu-Sal 2001, 11). Similarly, the year 5
textbook asserts that “We [Jordanians] belong to a great nation, the Arab nation, whose
place of origin is the Arabian Peninsula” (Khlifat et al. 2003, Vol. 1, 9). To explain the
relationship between Jordanians as a group and the larger Arab collective, the textbooks
introduce the distinction between people (sha’b) and nation (ummah). A “people” is
defined as a collective subject to the rule of a specific state, while a “nation is a large
group … that shares a common language, history, religion, tradition, and customs; an
example of this is the Arab nation” (Al-Madani, Al-A’amaayyra, and Abu-Sal 2001, 11–
12). This distinction seeks to demonstrate that Jordanians are a branch of a larger
whole, the Arab nation.
Importantly, the emphasis here on the multi-faceted nature of Jordanian identity (as
Arabs and Moslems), makes the issue of “imagined community” as a continuous histori-
cal entity in Jordan less significant, shifting the discussion from the identity of a people
to the identity of the rulers, who are presented as divinely “chosen.” In fact, the text-
books perpetuate the idea of a lack of historical roots to Jordanian identity in the geo-
graphical space Jordanians now occupy. A book for year 10 says that “Jordan has been
continuously populated since ancient times. Several civilizations had risen and fallen in
tandem [,] such as the Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, Aramaic, Assyrian, Greek, Persian,
Roman, Byzantine, and Arab Islamic” (A’bidat et al. 2001, Vol. 1, 8). On the same page,
the book adds that in ancient history there were several “[i]mmigration waves of
Semites [from the Arab Peninsula who] had settled in Jordan. [These tribes] formed
the racial [ethnic] foundation of the region’s population.” Although the textbooks do
mention the development in antiquity of a few Arab kingdoms in Jordan’s lands,
they make no effort to link contemporary Jordanians with these ancient civilizations;
on the contrary: the emphasis is on the eclectic nature of past civilizations, a depiction
which portrays Jordan as a region of transit for other nations passing through. This said,
the textbooks do emphasize the fact that Jordan was “liberated” by the Arab Muslims in
the seventh century C.E. This emphasis on Islam serves to create continuity between the
contemporary generation of rulers in Jordan and the Prophet Mohammad. The text-
books argue that the origin of the Hashemite goes back to the tribe of Hashem. A
year 11 textbook asserts that:
Quraysh came to Mecca for the first time in the second century C.E. Six generations later, the
first generation of Quraysh rose to power in Mecca when Qusai ibn Kelab took a leadership
position in 480 C.E. He was preceded by his grandsons from bani Hashem. Thus, they
earned the respect of all Arab tribes for the many good things they did to ensure livelihood,
security, and Arab unity. (Al-Masad, Al-Jaban, and Abu-Sal 2003, 71)
14 R. NASSER

The textbooks state that the Hashemite were driven by an internal call to save and
protect Arabs and their collective interests. They are portrayed as the upholders of Arab
glory, especially later in history, with the rise of Islam. This emphasis on their unique his-
torical contribution to the glory and progress of Arabs is repeated time and again in
numerous places in the textbooks (see Abed Al-Hai et al. 2001, 42; A’bidat, Abu-Shaikha,
and Khlifat 2003, 12; Khrizat and Ghanayim 2003, 74). Other textbooks suggest that the
origins of both the Hashemite and Quraysh tribes date back to Abraham. Claiming
Abraham, through his son Ishmael, as the founding father transforms the Hashemite
dynasty into one more deeply rooted in human history. In addition, the textbooks empha-
size that from their origins to the present, the Hashemite have been a distinguished
dynasty among Arabs, a deity chosen by a divine hand, specifically, the Prophet Moham-
mad (see Khrizat and Ghanayim 2003, 71). Other textbooks suggest kinship relations
between modern-era Hashemite leaders and the Prophet; the year 10 textbook, discussing
the origins of Jordan’s modern founding father, Amir Abdullah, claims:
He is Abdullah ibn al-Hussein ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Abed al-Moa’in ibn “Awan. Born to two
Hashemite parents in 1882 C.E. in the honorable Mecca; [born to a] a noble family that had a
title to the Emirate of Mecca. His kin extends to the Prophet (peace be upon him) (A’bidat et al.
2001, Vol. 1, 117).

In this way, the textbooks link the modern era and the contemporary Hashemite ruling
family in Jordan to their ancestors in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly to the town of
Mecca and the Prophet Mohammad himself. This lineage bestows on the rulers the
same religious and social status of nobility their ancestors had enjoyed among Arabs
and Muslims alike since the rise of Islam at the turn of the seventh century C.E. and into
its golden age later on. Pan-Arabism is another strategy Jordan’s narrative uses to legiti-
mize its ruler. Jordan’s textbook depicts Sharif Hussein as a trans-religious, pan-Arab ideo-
logue. On page 77 it cites Hussein’s rejection of British colonial officer, McMahon’s plan to
divide the Arab countries, and Hussein’s opposition to the Balfour Declaration, in which
Britain promised Palestine to the Zionist movement as its homeland (Al-Masad, al-
Jalaban, and Abu-Sal 2003, 77). Further, it cites Sharif Hussein thus: “I refuse to accept par-
titions and the Mandate. … I will not sign the treaty should it reject my conditions, inde-
pendence for all Arab regions” (Al-Madani and Abed Al-Latif 2003, 71).
In short, the emphasis in Jordanian nationalism of exclusive pan-Arabism and Islam
strengthens the textbooks’ claim of dynastic historical continuity in Jordan. The books
present the Hashemite family as encompassing and giving significance to the diverse
ethnic/national and religious groups in Jordan, turning them into one collective with a
meaningful identity. In this depiction, without the rulers, the nation as a political entity
has no actual distinct existence. In addition, the emphasis on Jordanians as being an inte-
gral part of the Arab nation renders the particular makeup of Jordan irrelevant. This use of
pan-Arab ideology helps the Jordanian narrative gain legitimacy and validity, as well as
representing the current state of Arabs, divided into mini-state entities (including
Jordan), as temporary. The Hashemite are presented as those who will achieve the
future dream of Arab unity. Out of all these dialectical forces, the national narrative of
Jordan, as represented in these textbooks, gives birth to Jordan as a territorial nation-state.
The textbooks do not discuss the discrepancies between Jordan’s official narrative and
its actual historical record. The collusion of King Abdullah with colonialism and Zionism is
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 15

transformed in the textbooks into an act of defiance and resistance, thus glorified. Second,
from a historical perspective, once colonialism created the artificial boundaries between
Arabs, they became real. Since Jordan’s independence, it continues to have border dis-
putes with both Syria and Saudi Arabia. Internally, in contradiction to the textbooks’ inclus-
ive narrative of the various ethnic and national groups in Jordan, in reality, the status of
Palestinians in Jordan continues to be contested. In fact, members of the Jordanian parlia-
ment, repeatedly question the status of Palestinian Jordanians and their civil and political
rights in the Kingdom. To close with an anecdotal point, visitors to Amman will notice the
large signs decorating the highways leading to the capital, with the banner “al-Urdon
Awalan”, that is, Jordan is (or comes) First.

Palestine: identity under siege

In contrast to those in Jordan, Palestinian history textbooks dedicate extensive space to
the territorialization of their collective identity as one which is separate from that of
other Arabs. A more significant challenge in Palestinian textbooks is presented by the
“decolonization” of Palestine’s history in the context of Israel’s continuous appropriation
of the country’s ancient past as entirely Jewish and rendering Palestinian ancient
history, culture, and society obscured and unspoken (Whitelam 1996, 11, 13). In the
context of contemporary history, Edward Said has asserted, in his introduction to The Ques-
tion of Palestine that “Israel itself, as well as its supporters, has tried to efface the Palesti-
nians in words and actions because the Jewish state in many (but not all) ways is built
on negation of Palestine and the Palestinians (Said 1992, xlii).
In the textbooks analyzed for this case study, discussion of Palestinian identity com-
mences by making a distinction between three interrelated concepts: society, people,
and nation. First, the textbook defines Palestinian society as “[a] collective of people
living in a [specific] geography called Palestine with a common language, religion,
customs, tradition, and future aspirations” (Said 2003, 6). The emphasis in this definition
of society is on the territory, or living space, which has helped a collective evolve into a
distinctive community. Both the past and the future are conceived as important elements
in constituting the present of society and in shaping its specific characteristics. In this case,
Palestinian society is defined as the sum total of historic processes of evolution and their
dynamics, the development of its tradition, religion, aspirations, and intra-group
communications.
The second concept defined here, and apparently more complex, is that of Palestinian
peoplehood, al-Sha’ab al-Falastini. In its definition of Palestinian peoplehood, the same
textbook we cited above starts by tracing this people’s origins: “The origins of Palestinian
people are Canaanites. And this land was called the land of Canaan” (19). On the basis of
this statement, on the same page, the authors conclude that “[A]l-Sha’ab al-Falastini [the
Palestinian people] are those who inhabited the land called Palestine, the [Palestinians] are
those who have created a society with distinctive customs and traditions, and [those who
are] part of Arab-Moslem society.” This claim that the roots of the Palestinians are with the
Canaanites and the depiction of the Palestinian people as part of the Arab-Islamic nation
establish two intersecting dimensions: There is a diachronic dimension of the historical
“rootedness” of the Palestinian people in their land, Palestine/Canaan; at the same time,
the definition synchronically – geographically and evidently culturally – links the
16 R. NASSER

contemporary Palestinian people with their surroundings, the Arab-Islamic nations. There-
fore, what seems to distinguish Palestinians from their fellow Arabs is their geographical
location and the specific history of that land. In this rendering, both the geography and
the local history of Palestine have contributed to the distinctive evolution of the people
from their Canaanite origins to the present. In simple words, Palestinian collective identity
is created in the dialectic between similarity to and difference from other Arabs and
Moslems in the region.
Another way in which these textbooks discuss Palestinian identity is via its depiction as
multi-faceted, an identity which shifts from one local circle to a second regional/Arab and
subsequently a third form, as part of a universal collective, the nation of Islam, umma. The
complex nature of this identity appears in the following definition, taken from one of the
textbooks, of nation:
A group of people that achieved unity throughout the ages, and developed a common
language, one history, and a common symbolic and material heritage; it has common inter-
ests, and has developed a sense of belonging to a specific collective. The nation could be
one state, or many states, similar to the Arab umma [nation] (19).

This discussion is followed by another which says that “all Arabs, throughout history,
were subject to the same historical influences, whether they before or after the rise of
Islam. Those historical forces contributed to the development of a common aspiration
for future unity among Arabs.”
The textbooks further incorporate the broadest circle of identity in this context, the uni-
versal Islamic. Religion, in this case Islam, is conveyed as a unifying factor: “There exists a
common shared religion among the majority of all Arabs in the Arab lands, Islam. Islam is a
religion, a culture, and a scientific enterprise shared by both Moslem and Christian Arabs
alike” (6). Similarly, language appears as another factor: “Arabic is the dominant language
in the region, and it is the language that helps in the development of social and political
solidarity among Arabs” (6). In addition, the book continues, Arabs share a common cul-
tural heritage which binds them together into one nation: “[This cultural heritage] is man-
ifested in all the cultural and scientific achievements Arabs have made during their history.
[Those achievements] have led to the formation of a distinctive cultural identity which
unites Arabs under one banner (6). Again, based on those definitions, the Palestinians
are a people – sha’ab – which is a branch of a larger whole, the Arab-Islamic nation.
Significantly, Palestinian identity is not limited to identification with Islam or Arab
Moslems; it also incorporates Christianity. On numerous occasions, the textbooks empha-
size Christian Palestinians and Christianity as integral parts of Palestine’s history and con-
temporary identity. The textbooks often contain images of Christian religious sites,
whether in Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or Nazareth, alongside Islamic historical and religious
sites across the country (Abu-Bakr et al. 2005, 64–73; Al-Qazzaz et al. 2005, 1–5). Of particu-
lar significance, is the explicit reference in the “Declaration of The Palestinian State”, cited
in one of the textbooks, to Palestine as the birthplace of prophets and the simultaneous
reference to churches, mosques, and (Jewish) places of worship as witnesses to the
declaration (Said 2003, 39).
We see, then, that the Palestinian national narrative simultaneously advances dual
identifications: a local territorial identity which is inclusive to all ethnic and religious
groups (including Jews until 1948), and a supranational one, rooted in the Arab-Islamic
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 17

culture which is viewed more as a civilization than as a religion. The textbooks’ main
concern appears to be the recovery of Palestine’s ancient history and the establishment
of territorial historical continuity between contemporary Palestinians and their ancestors
in the land. To this end, they trace the origins of the Palestinians back in time, as we
have seen from the depiction of the Canaanites as the founding fathers of the Palestinian
nation. Further, they portray the Canaanites as having been the first to arrive in Palestine in
antiquity. This emphasis on “being first” appears to be aimed at counterbalancing Israel’s
appropriation of Palestine’s past history as exclusively Jewish:
The Canaanite Arabs were the most ancient among the nations who [later] lived in Palestine
[and who came] to inhabit Canaan 3,500 before the birth of God’s prophet, Jesus the blessed.
The Canaanites built cities and villages in Palestine such as Jerusalem, Gaza, ‘Asqlan, Megiddo,
and Nablus. Jerusalem was named by many names, among them Jabus [Yabus] after the Jebu-
site Arabs who had built it. (Sa’adah et al. 2003, 50)

Many of the places mentioned in this quotation above continued to exist as Palestinian
cities until the destruction of Palestine in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians from their
homeland by Israel. Later, Israel renamed these cities and towns, reclaiming them as
ancient Jewish sites.
Importantly, the textbooks view Canaanite migration to Canaan as one of many waves
of migration of Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula to Palestine, with the last of these said to
be the Arab-Islamic conquest of Palestine at the turn of the seventh century CE. This type
of periodization is used in Palestinian textbooks as a way of establishing “Firstness” in the
land and a sense of historical continuity from time immemorial. Notably, the Canaanite
period is also portrayed as one of Palestine’s golden ages. Textbooks enumerate the
Canaanites’ contribution to human civilization, including the invention of the alphabetical
letters which contributed to the development of writing in Europe and elsewhere, and
emphasize the greatness of the Canaanite culture and its contribution to humanity:
The Canaanites [were] a nation that created a great civilization, mastered a language, intro-
duced the alphabet letters to the world, used mathematics … softened iron and manufac-
tured plows and weapons, disseminated knowledge [and ideas], created a golden age, in
doing so, immortalized [their] nation. (Abu-Bakr et al. 2005, 27)

Finally, the textbooks mention the entry of Jewish tribes to Canaan and their history in
the land (Al-Tarawni et al. 2003, 9–11). However, they argue that Jewish history and pres-
ence in the land was sporadic and short-lived, and above all that Jews never made up the
majority of the population. Overall, the textbooks assert that in spite of the numerous
invading nations (e.g. Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Crusaders, etc.) to which they refer
as colonial forces, the people of Canaan remained in the land and continued to develop
their own culture. Again, the textbooks portray Palestinian identity as multi-faceted, devel-
oping in the tension between differentiation and inclusion (similarity/difference), both
exclusively territorial, with its ancient Canaanite roots, and simultaneously interconnected
to the regional, and universal, history and cultures of the Arab and Islamic nations.

Israel: from diaspora to homeland

The question of “nation” in the Israeli case is unique and complicated. Unlike Jordan and
Palestine, where “nation” and “homeland” were carved out of a larger existing collective of
18 R. NASSER

the Arab people and lands, the Israeli Jewish people, homeland, and national history had
to be invented or (in the case of the homeland) colonized, a process which commenced
with the first wave of Zionist settlers in 1892 and continued with the support of British
colonialism (1917–1948), and their commitment to help the Jewish diaspora establish a
homeland in Palestine (e.g. Balfour Declaration 2 November 1917). In spite of this, Israeli
textbooks portray the Israeli Jewish identity as naturally rooted in Palestine and assert
that all diaspora Jews are related by blood ties to the ancient Jewish nation and its Pales-
tinian homeland (Eretz Yisrael).
An analysis of Israeli school textbooks reveals the strategies employed in defining the
nation and in establishing its rootedness in Palestine and continuity between contempor-
ary Jews and their ancestors in the Biblical homeland. The textbooks state that at the time
of early Zionism, a total of over nine million Jews lived in a number of countries in Eastern
and Western Europe, yet, these Jewish communities were persecuted and excluded from
their local communities, and as a result sought a national solution to the issue of Jewish
diaspora. Palestine was chosen because it is perceived in the Zionist discourse as the birth-
place of Jews in antiquity (Aden, Ashkenazi, and Alperson 2005, 10). But, in Palestine,
according to the textbooks, at the eve of the first Zionist migration wave to the country
in 1892, the total Jewish population of Palestine was a tiny minority, less than 5%
(20,000) of the country’s population (Pappe 2017, 4). In addition, in diaspora, each of
those Jewish communities had its own history, culture, local language, and specific reli-
gious tradition (see Ben-Baruch 1998; Horowitz 1998; Adiv 2003). Despite this, the text-
books put forward the view that the world’s Jewish communities comprise a unified
nation with many branches (i.e. the twelve tribes), each of which is directly connected
by blood ties to common roots in the Promised Land (Ben-Baruch 1996, 14, 16; Harpaz
and Shurek 1998, 7, 9, 127–128).
The textbooks cite common origins and religion as the principal pillars of Jewish nation-
building both in antiquity and in the modern era, and retrace the origins of the Jewish
nation to Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses, to mention a few. The latter figures are por-
trayed as the founding fathers in the making of the nation in antiquity. In fact, the text-
books devote extensive space to their biographies and contributions to the formation
of the nation. Significantly, in the absence of scientific sources, the textbooks use the
Bible as the main source in the Israeli textbooks for the retelling of the story of the
nation’s founding father.7 For that end, the Bible is transformed from a religious text
rooted in faith, into a “history” proof text for the “authentication” of Jewish history in anti-
quity. Harpaz and Shurek (1998, 14) assert that:
The most significant and rich source [of all] to understanding this period is the Bible [Old Tes-
tament] . … This rich source has no parallel in any other nation. We learn from it about our
fathers’ fathers, the leaders and the kings, the peasants and the merchants, about the military
people, their commanders and the masses; about the daily lives of people in antiquity.

It is not surprising therefore, that Jewish history in antiquity and the story of the founding
fathers are both fashioned after the Biblical narrative. At the epicenter of this story is the
Biblical Covenant which designates special status (Chosen) to the Jewish people and Eretz
Yesrael (Land of Israel, or the Promised Land) as their patrimony. Further, it establishes a
connection between the Promised Land as a “center” and the diaspora Jewish commu-
nities as a periphery. By that, it aims at establishing a Jewish identity, anchored in both
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 19

a diachronic historical past, and synchronic geographical present, manifested in the Jewish
diaspora communities across the world. It starts with a description of Abraham’s place of
birth, his departure from his town of birth, and finally his arrival in the Promised Land. It
commences thus: “Terah, the father of Abraham, first lived in Ur with his family, and
later all of them moved to Haran” (65). This statement in the textbook is followed by an
actual quotation of a number of verses from the book of Genesis (11: 31–32) as follows:
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter- in-
law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go in the
land of Canaan; but they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were two
hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran.

On the question of Abraham’s migration from his place of birth to the Promised Land,
the textbooks cite from Genesis 11 and 12, with God’s command to Abraham:
Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land … And Abram took
Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had gathered, and
the persons that they had gotten in Haran. (Harpaz and Shurek 1998, 65)

Notably, some textbooks describe the revelation to Abraham of the monotheistic God as a
main factor behind his migration into the Promised Land. Using the Biblical narrative, the
textbook mentions that “[a]fter our father Abraham came to acknowledge [the existence]
of one God, he no longer could stay in a place where people believed in idol gods” (66). In
simple words, Abraham’s religious revelation creates in him a new form of identity; an
identity that is in direct conflict with the people of Ur’s faith who worshiped multiple
gods and idols. Migration (Exodus)8 becomes the only alternative solution to the conflict
between these two forms of identity, and, guided by the Lord, helps Abraham transplant
his new identity into a new place chosen for him by God, the Promised Land.
Moses is a further figure discussed as a national and religious founding father of the
Jewish people. One textbook states that “[t]he formation process of the sons of Israel
from tribes into a nation was long-drawn-out. It began in the desert after leaving Egypt,
and continued in Canaan, the land allotted to the Jewish people” (28). The narrative con-
tinues: “During the period of wandering in the desert, Moses, the great man of all times in
our nation, headed the tribes” (28). Again, the main source of these assertions of origins
and kinship is the Bible itself.
Homeland is another concept the textbooks seek to construct. Canaan is described as
Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel), a land pledged by God to the Jewish people as an exclusive
patrimony for all generations to come. In reference to Jonathan Hyrcanus, who could
not tolerate non-Jews in the Land, a textbook comments that he “acted according to
the clear view that the entirety of the Land of Israel is a patrimony of the Jewish
people” (Ben-Baruch 1996, 77). Other textbooks refer to the Promised Land, not only of
the founding fathers, but of the modern-era sons of the Jewish nation who have “returned
to reclaim it as their patrimony” (See Ben-Baruch 1998, 128–150, 158; Dumka 1998, 131–
195). The civic education textbook, for example, refers to the main purpose behind the
1950s Israeli Law of Return, saying that:
[A]ll the [Jewish] people of Israel, in the entire world, have a part and a patrimony in Israel.
When a person from Israel wants to return to his homeland, to Israel, he is not [in the
status of] an immigrant, but [in the status of] a person returning to his homeland. … Therefore,
20 R. NASSER

a Jew returning to his homeland is returning by virtue of right and not goodwill. And if this is
his right, we have no authority to deny him the option of returning to his homeland. (Aden,
Ashkenazi, and Alperson 2005, 45)

The textbooks further justify Jewish historical rights over the land by advancing two
arguments. The first is the depiction of Palestine as “a sparely populated land,” particularly
in the modern era; the second is the claim that once the Jewish people had entered Pales-
tine – in both ancient times and the modern era – they became a majority in the country’s
population, thus, they have ownership rights in the Land. For example, one civic studies
textbook asserts that, “[s]ince the nation of Israel settled in its land and throughout the
period of the first and second Temple, for more than one thousand years, there was
[always] a Jewish majority in the country” (Mizorzki, Alfi, and Nahir 1994, 81).
The two-thousand-year Jewish absence from Palestine is ignored in these textbooks,
which turn to the present, arguing that Jews comprise a majority in Israel, and that the
land therefore belongs to the Jewish people. It is worth mentioning that the civic
studies textbooks do not specify by what means that Jewish majority (in the twentieth
century) was achieved, neither do they discuss the well designed, and executed Israeli
plans of Palestinian ethnic cleansing from their homeland (see Pappe 2006). However,
one of the textbooks makes reference to the Law of Return and its contribution to ensuring
continuous Jewish demographic dominance in the country through its exclusive practice
of permitting only Jews to migrate to Israel (Aden, Ashkenazi, and Alperson 2005, 47).
Importantly, the historical dwindling – to almost non-existence – of Jewish presence in
Palestine in the 2000 years before the establishment of the state of Israel remains a major
challenge to the Israeli narrative and its political claim to Palestine as an exclusive historical
homeland for all the world Jewry. To resolve the challenge and dilemma of lack of signifi-
cant physical Jewish presence in Palestine, the textbooks turn to symbolic religious
elements, such as “prayers” and “hopes for return” which they say, were common
among diaspora Jews. Thus, the textbooks ex-post-facto treat religious sentiment before
the rise of nationalism in the modern era, as sings of national aspirations in order to
advance the claim of Jewish links to the land, consequently, “establish” historical political
right over it. Further, the textbooks repeatedly assert Jewish links to the land through the
presence of a “dispersed Jewish community” in the country. Significantly, the textbooks
never make any reference to the aspirations, life, and identity of the Palestinian majority
in the land.9 The civic studies textbook asserts that,
[f]or nearly two thousand years, since the destruction of the second temple when the majority
of the Jewish nation lived in exile, a dispersed minority of Jews had lived in the country and
had maintained a continuous Jewish settlement in the country. Jews in the diaspora never
stopped yearning for the Land of Israel and they gave expression to this in their prayers and
customs. (emphasis added) (Mizorzki, Alfi, and Nahir 1994, 81)

Finally, to add to the construction of a distinctive Jewish collective identity, the text-
books advance the idea of community of blood and ethnic purity. Notably, and in spite
of numerous references in the textbooks to inter-ethnic and inter-religious Jewish mar-
riages with local and invading nations of Canaan (e.g. Moses, King Solomon, the Helleniza-
tion, etc.) the textbooks, citing Biblical sources in particular, assert the ethnic purity of the
Jewish people throughout their ancient history as well as in the modern era (see Brudi
1992, 7; Harpaz and Shurek 1998, 141; Bar-Hillel and Inbar 2008, 24–35; Tabibian 2008,
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 21

24). They add that following the “Roman expulsion” from Canaan, and in the last 2000
years, Jews in diaspora maintained their ethnic purity (see Ben-Baruch 1998, 65, 72). In
a similar vein, the textbooks argue that the Jewish returnees in modern history are the des-
cendants of the ancient Jews of Canaan and heirs of their founding fathers patrimony. This
emphasis on the biological/racial purity of the various Jewish collectives across the globe
renders cultural, territorial, and linguistic factors insignificant in the making of a nation. Iro-
nically, it was anti-Semite and colonial ideologies which for centuries had categorized Jews
as a distinct racial group, a classification employed to justify their persecution throughout
European history.

Conclusions
The analysis of the three-case studies reveals the strategies used in public school curricula
to construct the “nation.” Those strategies set apart the geography, history, and culture of
one collective from another, and dialectically, draw the boundaries between the exclu-
sively included and the “outsiders.” Often, this process of exclusion, turns difference
between nations into a hierarchy in which “my nation” is portrayed as superior to
others. Significantly, in the case of Palestine and Israel, history of the land is a contested
arena in which the Israeli narrative – after 2000 years of Jewish non-existence in the
land – appropriates the country’s past as exclusively Jewish. Similarly, in the case of Pales-
tine and Jordan, both use selective events from the Arab and Islamic history to draw the
boundaries of their collective, and by that, create an exclusive coherent narrative of the
“nation’s” past.
Another point, in discussing the nation and its collective identity, essentialism and
singular narrative are the main ideological tools by which each narrative attempts at por-
traying the nation as one organic homogeneous unit, moving in time as a complete whole,
connecting the present generation with its ancestry in antiquity. This is so in spite of the
historical evidence the textbooks present of cultural fusions between diverse cultural
groups within the same nation, and other processes such as inter-ethnic and inter-reli-
gious marriages. This point is in line with what Bhabha refers to as “the impossible
unity of the nation as a symbolic force, despite the attempts by nationalist discourses per-
sistently to produce the idea of the nation as a continuous narrative of national progress”
(2002, 2). Similarly, Stuart Hall (1992, 297), asserts that “[national cultures] are cross-cut by
deep internal divisions and differences, are unified only through the exercise of cultural
power.”
Furthermore, based on studies conducted in many nation-states across the globe of
the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research in Germany since WWII, it
seems that the case of Jordan, Israel, and Palestine are no exception to this general
phenomenon of nation-building and the exclusive strategies state education systems
use to construct their nations. In fact, as the finding in this study have shown, in
each one of these cases the state uses its exclusive authority to employ the apparatus
of political socialization, such as mass education, in the process of nation-building. Con-
sequently, the question of identity becomes a matter of identity politics. It renders the
identity of co-nationals subject to manipulation. This process leaves little choice for indi-
viduals as to how their national identity is constructed and shaped, and where their
loyalty should settle.
22 R. NASSER

Specifically, the findings of this analysis show that the messages transmitted to stu-
dents through state-sponsored school textbooks demonstrate that mass education is
deliberately designed to invoke in subjects a sense of selective loyalty and devotion to
one collective over another. National history – from the late eighteenth century to the
present – has been the focal point for the state educated elite to recover and reconstruct
as an integral part of the nation’s collective memory. Both national history and collective
memory have become the backbone of national identity, an identity reinforced through
the dialectic between similarity and difference. An emphasis on national history in particu-
lar leaves little space for individuals to choose their identity outside of the binary system,
to assume for instance, hybrid identities, or adhere to cosmopolitan identification across
national lines.
Furthermore, the centrality of national identity and the notion of nation in school text-
books renders any other forms of particular identity such as ethnicity, gender, social class,
etc., irrelevant. The nation is portrayed as a biological entity moving through history, con-
necting ancestors to the current generation, without being affected by the passage of
time. The boundaries between self and other are portrayed as inherent qualities that
mark differences and set boundaries between collectives. Above all, loyalty to, and identi-
fication with, the “nation,” surpasses other forms of identification. This seems to be the
case, in spite of the growing global similarity in modes of consumption across cultures
(e.g. media, music, dress, electronics, education, etc.).
The question remains as to whether there is an alternative to these identity politics
strategies in which the twin concepts of either-or, similarity and difference, are dominant.
One may speculate that mass education should be removed from state control and thus
from politics. Once it has been thus removed from state control and returned to civil
society, collective actors might be able to create and defend spaces for the creation of
new identities. They could seek to create more egalitarian and democratic institutions
and social relations in which identities are generated. Civil society may call for the creation
of temporal identities, stripped of their history, and eliminate any type of continuous
membership in one collective. In this way, we might come to realize and valorize universal
identity beyond ethnic, national, or civic affiliations and invoke new strategies for identity
formation, an identity based on favoring the other in oneself, over a strategy of Other and
Self, or replace essentialism as a strategy of identity formation with hybridity and the
“Third Space,” as Bhabha (2004) has offered. The question remains as to whether these
forms of hybrid identities in the Third Space or identity without history can sustain them-
selves in an international system dominated by power struggles over exclusivity and
distinction.

Notes on contributor
Riad Nasser holds a PhD from the University of Maryland at College Park, and is a Professor of Soci-
ology at Fairleigh Dickinson University, in Madison, NJ. He specializes in the study of nationalism,
ethnicity, citizenship and postcolonialism. He has published in British Journal of Middle East
Studies, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, and is the author of Recovered
Histories and Contested Identities, and Palestinian Identity in Jordan and Israel: The Necessary “Other”
in the Making of a Nation. He is a leading scholar in textbook analysis in Middle East school
systems. Currently, he is writing on women citizenship in Jordan, and race and racism in the
United States.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 23

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes
1. See Pappe (2017, 42, 56).
2. Anderson ([1991] 2016, 4, 11).
3. The PA has limited civil authority in parts of the colonized Palestinian lands in the West Bank
and the Gaza strip.
4. In the Israeli case, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports created three major school
systems: one for Palestinian Arabs (Arab Israelis); another for non-religious Jewish students;
and a third for religious Israeli Jewish students. The state has full control of these three
major branches of education by appointing Jewish educators to head each branch.
5. The textbooks analyzed in this study have been in use in all state schools in the three commu-
nities as of summer 2016. Last year, several textbooks (civic and national education studies) in
Jordan and Israel have been revised. However, these new textbooks are still in the trial period,
and yet to be finalized. More importantly, the revised Israeli civic studies textbook has received
numerous critique due to its emphasis on Jewish ethnonationalism and refers less to demo-
cratic and universal values. See Kashti, Or. 2015. “Education Ministry Okays New ‘Ethnocentric’
Civics Textbook.” Haaretz, December 23. Accessed 26 November 2017. https://www.haaretz.
com/israel-news/.premium-1.693339. In the case of Jordan, the analysis has shown more
emphasis on religion and patriarchy than cosmopolitan concepts. See Nasser, Riad. Forthcom-
ing. “Patriarchy, Religion and Citizenship: Women’s Civil Rights in Jordanian School Text-
books.” Most importantly, these revisions of textbooks confirm the general thesis of this
study, for example, the exclusive nature of national education and its inability to promote col-
lective identities beyond nation, ethnicity, and state.
6. See Anderson (2001). Also, Nasser (2005, 2011).
7. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (1858–1922), a Jewish Litvak lexicographer influenced by the language
revival of the Hungarian national movement, was the driving force behind the revival of
the Biblical language in the modern era as the Jewish national language, later to become
the official language of Israel.
8. This is one of several exoduses discussed in the textbooks. The second from Egypt, and the last
from Europe and other countries in modern times, culminating in the establishment of the
state of Israel.
9. Also, without any reference to the aspirations and rights of the remnant of Palestinian people
who have become a minority citizens in Israel after 1948.

References
Aden, Hanna, Varda Ashkenazi, and Belha Alperson. 2005. To Be Citizens in Israel: in a Jewish and
Democratic State. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Pedagogic Administration, Division of
Curricula.
Alayan, Samira. 2012. “Arab Education in Israel: Lessons from Positive Learning Experiences of
Palestinian-Israelis.” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education 6 (4): 214–229.
Alayan, Samira. 2017. “White Pages: Israeli Censorship of Palestinian Textbooks in East Jerusalem.”
Social Semiotics Journal 27 (3): 1–21.
Al-Madani, A. Ziyad, and Zuhair G. Abed Al-Latif. 2003. World History in the Modern Era. For the Eighth
Grade, Vol. I. Aman: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Althusser, Louis. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Lenin and Philosophy and
Other Essays, translated by Ben Brewster, 127–146. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Anderson, Betty. 2001. “Writing the Nation: Textbooks of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”
Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 21 (1&2): 5–14.
24 R. NASSER

Anderson, Benedict. [1991] 2016. Imagined Communities: Reflections on Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Revised Edition. London: Verso.
Appiah, Anthony Kwame. 2006. Cosmopolitanism. New York: W.W. Norton.
Apple, W. Michael. 1988. Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in
Education. London: Routledge.
Apple, W. Michael. 1993. Official Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and H. Tiffin. 2002. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-
colonial Literatures. London: Routledge.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2011. Culture in a Liquid Modern World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. “The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference.” In Democracy and
Difference: Contesting the Boundary of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib, 3–18. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 2005. “Borders, Boundaries, and Citizenship.” Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 673–
677.
Bhabha, Homi. 1983. “The Other Question: The Stereotype and Colonial Discourse.” Screen 24: 18–36.
Bhabha, Homi. 2002. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge.
Bhabha, Homi. 2004. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Cherryholmes, Cleo. 1988. Power and Criticism. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, Jean. 2003. “Interpreting the Notion of Civil Society.” In Toward a Global Civil Society, edited by
Michael Walzer, 35–40. Providance, RI: Berghahn Book.
Crawford, Keith. 1995. “A History of the Right: The Battle for Control of National Curriculum History
1989–1994.” British Journal of Educational Studies 43 (4): 433–456.
Danahar, Paul. 2015. The New Middle East: The World After the Arab Spring. New York: Bloomsbury
Press.
Davies, Lynn. 2004. Education and Conflict: Complexity and Chaos. London: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois, E. B. William. 1990. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Vintage Edition.
Dussel, Ines. 2013. “The Assembling of Schooling: Discussing Concepts and Models for
Understanding the Historical Production of Modern Schooling.” European Educational Research
Journal 12 (2): 176–189.
Epstein, Julia. 2001. “Remember to Forget: The Problem of Traumatic Cultural Memory.” In Shaping
Losses: Cultural Memory and the Holocaust, edited by Julia Epstein, and Lori H. Lefkovitz, 186–204.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Epstein, D. Alek, and Michael Uritsky. 2004. “Questioning the Role of the Army in Nation-building: The
Development of Critical Discourse on Civil-military Relations in Israel.” In Civil-military Relations,
Nation-building, and National Identity: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Constantine P.
Danopoulos, Dhirendra Vajpeyi, and Amir Bar-On, 169–182. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. “Two Lectures.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
1972–1977, translated by Colin Gordon, 78–108. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse.” In Untying the Text: A Poststructuralist Reader, edited
by Robert Young, 48–78. Boston, MA: Routledge Kegan and Paul.
Friedman, Jonathan. 1994. Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.
Friese, Heidrun. 2002. “Introduction.” In Identities: Time, Differences, and Boundaries, edited by
Heidrun Friese, 1–16. New York: Berghahn Books.
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nation and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gilroy, Paul. 1997. “Diaspora and the Detour of Identity.” In Identity and Difference, edited by Kathryn
Woodward, 299–346. London: Sage.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1979. Letters from Prison. Translated by Lynne Lawner. New York: University Press.
Halbwachs, Maurice. [1950] 1980. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 25

Hall, Stuart. 1992. “The Question of Cultural Identity.” In Modernity and Its Future, edited by Stuart Hall,
David Held, and Tony McGrew. London: Polity Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1994. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory,
edited by Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, 392–403. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1996. “Who Needs Identity?” In Questions of Cultural Identity, edited by Stuart Hall and
Paul du Gay, 1–17. London: Sage.
Herbert, David. 2003. Religion and Civil Society. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Herzl, Theodor. 1989. The Jewish State. New York: Dover Publications.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1997. On History. London: The New Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 2003. “Ethnicity, Migration, and the Validity of the Nation-state.” In Toward a Global
Civil Society, edited by Michael Walzer, 235–240. Providance, RI: Berghahn Book.
Hofstetter, Rita, and Bernard Schneuwly. 2013. “Changing in Mass Schooling: ‘School Form’ and
‘Grammar of Schooling’ as Reagents.” European Educational Research Journal 12 (2): 166–175.
Huntington, Samuel. 1998. The Clash of Civilization. New York: Touchstone.
Jenkins, Richard. 2014. Social Identity. London: Routledge.
Katzenstein, Peter J., ed. 2010. Civilization in World Politics. London: Routledge.
Kivisto, Peter, and Thoumas Faist. 2007. Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Loomba, Ania. 1998. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.
Malik, H. Iftikhar. 1999. Islam, Nationalism and the West. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.
Massad, Joseph. 2001. Colonial Effects: The Making of Jordanian National Identity in Jordan. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Mazawi, André Elias. 2011. “‘Which Palestine Should We Teach?’ Signatures, Palimpsests, and
Struggles Over School Textbooks.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 30 (2): 169–183.
Nagy-Zekmi, Silvia, and Chantal Zabus. 2010. Colonization or Globalizations? Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Nasser, Riad. 2005. Palestinian Identity in Jordanian and Israeli School Textbooks: The Necessary Other in
the Making of a Nation. New York: Routledge.
Nasser, Riad. 2011. Recovered Histories and Contested Identities: Jordan, Israel, and Palestine. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Nasser, Riad, and Irene Nasser. 2008. “Textbooks as a Vehicle for Segregation and Domination: State
Efforts to Shape the Palestinian Israelis’ Identities as Citizens.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 40 (5):
627–650.
Nora, Pierre. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire.” Representations 26: 7–24.
Olson, R. David. 1989. “On Language and Authority of Textbooks.” In Language, Authority and
Criticism: Readings on the School Textbook, edited by Suzanne de Castell, Allen Luke, and
Carmen Luke, 233–244. London: The Falmer Press.
Pappe, Ilan. 1999. The Israel/Palestine Question. London: Routledge.
Pappe, Ilan. 2006. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld Publication.
Pappe, Ilan. 2017. Ten Myths About Israel. London: Verso.
Peled-Elhanan, Nurit. 2012. Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.
London: I.B. Tauris.
Philips, Robert. 1998. “Contesting the Past, Constructing the Future: History, Identity, and Politics in
School.” British Journal of Educational Studies 46 (1): 40–53.
Prakash, Gyan, ed. 1995. After Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Purvis, Trevor, and Alan Hunt. 1999. “Identity Versus Citizenship: Transformations in the Discourse
and Practices of Citizenship.” Social and Legal Studies 8 (4): 457–482.
Ram, Uri Ram. 1999. “The Colonization Perspective in Israeli Sociology.” In The Israeli/Palestine
Question, edited by Ilan Pappe, 55–80. London: Routledge.
Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books Edition.
Said, Edward. 1992. The Question of Palestine. New York: Vintage Books Edition.
Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Shafir, Gershon. 1999. “Zionism and Colonialism: A Comparative Approach.” In The Israeli/Palestine
Question, edited by Ilan Pape, 81–96. London: Routledge.
26 R. NASSER

Sleeter, E. Christine, and C. A. Grant. 1991. “Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in Current Textbooks.”
In The Politics of the Textbook, edited by Michael W. Apple, and Linda K. Christian-Smith, 78–110.
New York: Routledge.
Smith, Anthony. 2004. The Antiquity of Nations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Straub, Jurgen. 2002. “Telling Stories, Making History.” In Narration, Identity, and Historical
Consciousness, edited by Jurgen Straub, 44–98. New York: Berghahn Books.
Taylor, Charles Taylor. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of
Recognition, edited by Amy Gutmann, 25–74. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turow, Joseph. 2011. The Daily You: How the New Advertisement Industry is Defining Your Identity.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Venn, Couze. 2006. The Postcolonial Challenge. London: Sage.
Wagner, Peter. 2002. “Identity and Selfhood as a Problematique.” In Identities: Time, Differences, and
Boundaries, edited by Heidrun Friese, 32–55. New York: Berghahn Books.
Walzer, Michael, ed. 2003. Toward a Global Civil Society. New York: Berghahn Books.
Whitelam, W. Keith. 1996. The Invention of Ancient Israel. London: Routledge.
Williams, Raymond. 1989. “Hegemony and Selective Tradition.” In Language, Authority, and Criticism:
Readings on the School Textbooks, edited by Suzanne De Castell, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke,
56–60. London: The Falmer Press.

Textbooks
Abed al-Hai, Walid S., Mubarak M. Al-Tarawnah, Muhammad A. al-Za’arir, Abedallah M. Odah, and
Salih A. al-Diri, eds. 2001. Contemporary Arab and World History for the Eleventh Grade. Amman:
Ministry of Education and Culture, School Curricula and Textbooks Administration.
A’bidat, A. Thouqan, Isa Abu-Shaikha, and Sahban Khlifat. 2003. National and Civic Education for the
Seventh Grade. Amman: Ministry of Education and Culture, School Curricula and Textbooks
Administration.
A’bidat, A. Thouqan, Muhammad S. A’bidata, Mahmoud A. al-Masad, Muhammad N. al-A’mayyra,
Khalil I. al-Hajjaj, Muhammad A. al-Za’atra, and Mahmoud al-Ruwaidi. 2001. Contemporary
History of Jordan for the Tenth Grade, Vol. 2. Amman: Ministry of Education and Culture, School
Curricula and Textbooks Administration.
Abu-Bakr, Amin, Khader M. ‘Audah, Nasser S. Hamudah, and Yusof Jum’a. 2005. National Education for
the Seventh Grade. 3rd ed. Ramallah: Palestinian Ministry of Education, Curricula Center.
Adiv, Zvi. 2003. Hope and Peace: The Jews and the World, 1870–1920. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center
for Israel’s History.
Al-Madani, A. Ziyad, Muhamad N. al-A’mayyra, and Musa A. Abu-Sal. 2001. National and Civic Studies
for the Sixth Grade. Amman: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Al-Masad, A. Mahmoud, Mustafa T. al-Jalaban, and Musa A. Abu-Sal. 2003. General Education for the
Eleventh Grade. Amman: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Al-Qazzaz, Hadeel, Malek al-Rimawi, Wisam al-Rafidi, and Omar abu al-Homos. 2005. Civic Education.
For the Eighth Elementary Grade. Albirah: Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Curriculum
Center.
Al-Tarawni, Mubarak M., Muhammad A. al-Za’ariri, Abedallah M. Oda, and Salih A. al-Diri. 2003.
Contemporary Arab and World History for the Eleventh Grade. Ramallah: Palestinian Authority,
Ministry of Education and Higher Education, General Administration for Textbooks and
Educational Prints.
Bar-Hillel, Moshe, and Shula Inbar. 2008. From People of the Temple to People of the Book. Lilach:
Petah-Tikva.
Ben-Baruch, Brurya. 1996. In the Era of Greece and Rome, for the Sixth Grade. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Books.
Ben-Baruch, Bruyya. 1998. The 19th Century, History for the Eighth Grade. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Books.
Brudi, Judith. 1992. Judea, Greece, and Rome: Society and Vision in the Ancient World. Jerusalem:
Ministry of Education and Culture.
 SOCIAL SEMIOTICS 27

Dumka, Eleazer, ed. 1998. Jews and the World in Recent Generations, Vol. I. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar
Institute.
Harpaz, Moshe, and Yhia’m Y. Shurek. 1998. Life of the People of Israel in Their Own Country During the
Biblical Era, Fifth Grade. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Horowitz, Dalya, ed. 1998. Home Country, Vol. I. Tel Aviv: Chechik.
Khlifat, Sahban, Ahmed Rabayya’, Abed Kharabsha, Suoad Shawafqa, Ghazi al-A’jlouni, Kamel Qaoud,
and Lafi A’thamna. 2003. Social and National Studies for the Fifth Grade, Vol. 1. Amman: Ministry of
Education and Culture, School Curricula and Textbooks Administration.
Khrizat, Muhammad, and Zuhair Ghnayyim. 2003. History of Arabs and Muslims, for the Sixth Grade.
Amman: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Mizorzki, Judith, Aster Alfi, and Hanna Nahir. 1994. A Journey Into the Israeli Democracy, a Civic Studies
Textbook for Public and Public Religious Schools. Jerusalem: Ma’alot Limited.
Sa’adah, Jawdat A., Majdoline al-Halaq, Mustafa al-Sayyfi, and Mustafa “Assidah. 2003. National
Education for the Fourth Grade, Vol. 1. Ramallah: Palestinian Ministry of Education, Curricula Center.
Said, A. F. Assaf. 2003. National Education, Student Worksheet, Fifth Grade. Ramallah: Palestinian
Ministry Of Education, Curricula Center.
Tabibian, A. Qzi”a. 2008. A Journey in Time: From a Temple State to People of the Book. Tel-Aviv: Center
for Educational Technology.