It is perhaps not surprising that discussions on the topic of destruction gain the most traction in the work of heritage in public and academic discourses alike, since this is an instrumental part of the epistemology that constructs heritage as a subject of study—what is heritage if not a subject “at risk”? Concordantly, discussions of heritage destruction are a dominant theme in contemporary conversations and concerns for the fate and management of cultural heritage in the Middle East overall (i.e. Exell and Rico Reference Exell and Rico2013), a tendency that is associated with the persistence and visibility of conflict in the region during a time when heritage concerns are significantly shaped by various global “observers.” What is problematic, however, is first the way that the inherently negative mantle of destruction dominates every conversation about the heritage of the Middle East, and how easily academic debates have incorporated institutional and public discourses about destruction, empowering a monolithic debate that would benefit from a more critical—and ethical—analysis. Secondly, what is also alarming is the degree to which destruction is often associated with specific perpetrators in this region, notably, a caricaturized Islam whose main feature is a dislike for preservation that articulates through scandalous acts of iconoclasm across the broad Middle East region (witnessed through highly circulated vignettes of destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Mali, and other countries and regions). Yet, the representation of an Islam that is at odds with global heritage constructs has been extensively challenged academically, considering the varied and changing attitudes to non-Muslim forms of representation through time (Elias Reference Elias2012), individual variations (Flood Reference Flood2002), and their relationship to changes in political regimes (Elias Reference Elias2007; Flood Reference Flood2002), in such a way that a consistent or universal attitude to this type of representation cannot be supported. But, as I argue in this essay, the specter of the iconoclast unfortunately remains firmly established in popular discourse—and surprisingly, in some disciplinary discourses. But what happens outside of the realm of destruction in the heritage of the Middle East? Further, how can heritage studies support the integration of Islam in the heritage debates for the region in a way that circumvents the current misrepresentation?

As recently as February 2017, art historian Yael Rice called out the problematic tendency of misrepresenting Islamic heritage (in this case manuscripts) in a series of poignant tweets about Robert F. Worth's review of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery exhibition “The Art of the Qurʾan: Treasures from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts” (Worth Reference Worth2017). The review in question opens with the following line: “In the beginning, long before ISIS or al-Qaeda, before the smiling suicide bombers and black flags and all the other lurid signposts we have come to associate with Islam, there were manuscripts” (Worth Reference Worth2017). Rice argued that “by bracketing the Qurʾan exh. between ISIS and Wahhabism, the nyrb rev. casts Islam & its practices/histories in unequivocally unfair terms”Footnote ¹ (sic, Rice Reference Rice2017). She added: “imagine review of Christian art exh. opening w/Neo-Nazis” (sic, Rice Reference Rice2017). The problem, thus, does not only lie with public opinion but also with the way scholars react to it.

The critical turn in the field of heritage studies gained momentum since the late 1980s in response to a lack of support for marginalized modes of engagement and expertise in the work of heritage preservation and management. This turn considers that a crucial part of the work of this discipline is to bring awareness to a crisis of representation that has pervaded the very construct of heritage. Critical heritage debates, therefore, have focused on identifying the work and effects of hegemonic discourses (Smith Reference Smith2006) and ideologies (Byrne Reference Byrne1991) implicated in heritage expertise, management, and debates. While in other domains a concern with modes of representation by the hands of the discipline itself has been voiced critically and publicly, as in Rice's tweet, voices within critical heritage studies have remained dangerously silent about similar trends within its own scope of work and purview. And despite significant work put towards resolving this crisis through the growth of methodological approaches such as ethnographic heritage, the persistent characterization of heritage in the Middle East demonstrates that the discipline of critical heritage studies has yet to resolve its own crisis of representation.

As we came together at the Middle East Studies Association annual meeting, for example, to discuss—and search for—a venue and language to better address questions of alterity and difference in the heritage discussions about the Middle East, we aimed to historicize, critique, and redress established dichotomous and monolithic thinking about the heritage and the heritage practices observed in this diverse region. The debate that followed the panel and that was specifically intended to discuss “alternative” preservation practices in the Middle East, however, focused almost exclusively on a concern for acting on (and reacting to) so-called “destructive tendencies” in Islam. This is a recurring issue, considering that destruction persists as the backbone of heritage discourses and priorities (Rico Reference Rico2016), and gives way to a disciplinary tendency that puts inordinate amounts of effort into defining and understanding the roles and motivations of the perpetrator. The perpetrator, then, becomes the force against which heritage priorities and debates are created. Attuned to this issue, some critical scholars have raised a concern with the way in which “spectacles of destruction” are constructing disciplinary debates for the Middle East (Harmanşah Reference Harmanşah2015; De Cesari Reference De Cesari2015), while others in this conversation have in fact promoted a reading of heritage through the lens of the perpetrators that utilizes heritage concerns to better understand and characterize acts and trends of terrorism (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Burke, de Leiuen and Jackson2016). The latter, alarmingly, constructs the value of heritage against a rejection of its very heritage value, in a move that is not simply promoting the idea of heritage subjects as unquestionable victims of various atrocities, but also acts as an authoritative voice that defines the boundaries and nature of heritage subjects against their destroyers. From a critical heritage studies perspective, this kind of rhetoric gives the destroyer a privileged voice as stakeholder at the expense of other legitimate voices that could construct heritage value in “alternative” and legitimate ways as promoted by authors in this roundtable. But in succumbing to the tendency to raise alarm and formalize urgencies that may originate in the public and institutional rhetoric about the work of heritage (c.f. Rico Reference Rico, Lafrenz-Samuels and Rico2015), some heritage commentators from various disciplines reveal a considerable lack of ethical reflexivity.

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, all contributors to this roundtable were and are often confronted with resistance to the idea that there is, or should be, “alternative” preservation practices for the heritage of the Middle East as we have been presenting our ideas and case studies at a number of places to different audiences and disciplines. On the one hand, this resistance is rooted in an effective “patrimonial regime” which set in place a moral imperative to conserve that is challenging to question productively (Hafstein Reference Hafstein, Hemme, Tauschek and Bendix2007, 76). On the other hand, the search for “alternatives” could be interpreted as an orientalizing quest that seeks to “other” the region in question. Reinforcing the representation of Islam as a de facto heritage iconoclast is precisely one of the dangerous ways in which the study of “alternatives” has been appropriated—albeit, without consideration for the ethics and politics of representation that is core to the aims of a critical heritage turn. In contrast, searching for a space and language for the potential and eventual conversation about a resistance to hegemonic discourses and institutions in the heritage debates and practices of the Middle East provides an analytical exercise that opens up the study of heritage to the inclusion of otherwise marginalized voices—excluded forms of expertise, excluded territories, and excluded debates.

One can see the way in which this infinite sea of possibilities for the inclusion of marginalized voices and agendas enabled the practices of exclusion that a critical heritage turn was supposed to disarm. The heritage debates of the Middle East do not exist in a void or involve exclusive disciplinary circles, so the effort to redress its misrepresentation is a collaborative one. As a key participant in this endeavor, critical heritage studies struggles with embracing multi-vocality, recognizing that identifying the territories of “us” and “them” (disciplinary experts vs. other forms of expertise) is challenging, and defining the limits of expertise is elaborate work; in particular the role of disciplinary experts in the regulation of public debates about marginalized communities. Driven by the theme of loss and reliant on finger-pointing as a strategy for action that expertly defines this loss (c.f. Meskell Reference Meskell2014), the lines between sensationalism and critical debate can get truly blurred. But there remains a responsibility to articulate a concern for the privileged position that has been awarded to destruction in heritage discourses by the very hands of disciplinary experts (Rico and Lababidi Reference Rico and Lababidi2017). In closer examination of the heritage debates about the Middle East, it is clear that it is time to regulate the “work of heritage” in line with heritage ethics and in consideration of the way in which forms of knowledge and discourses are created and circulated. This means taking care to define and study heritage value independently of its apparent destroyers, with more attention put into revealing the marginalized voices that are being sidelined in these debates. It is time to take back the disciplinary responsibility that gave rise to the critical turn in heritage studies and resist a reincarnation of the idea of universal values under a call to arms spearheaded by a perpetrator's agenda. Critical heritage studies does not need to be shaped around—and can do better productive work towards the sub-altern—independently of destruction-driven agendas.