LAUSR

about religion and the city within this book, a fact that is somewhat surprising when one thinks of the extensive Christian missionary activity of the period and the contemporary modernization debates within Islam. The generalization about Cairo becoming a ‘more emotional’ and less rational space is also very difficult to sustain when one thinks of the aggressive colonial urban interventions after 1881, building on the extensive replanning of urban space that began in the 1860s. Indeed, short-term emotional outrage at prostitution, poverty and begging can, paradoxically, be read as an example of the city becoming more rational in special governance, with public figures becoming more sensitive to the city’s ills as the march of modernization forced social issues into sharper focus. There are also some very odd readings of Cairo’s urban history. For example, we see assertions that during the British period the state was absent from ‘the city’s future development’ and there was little regard for urban planning (p. 116). This position is very difficult to sustain, given the state’s role in general public improvements and its encouragement of urban expansion in the years up to 1914. Moreover, the new districts of Zamalek, Garden City, Maadi and Heliopolis were all meticulously planned settlements, constrained by complex building regulations and informed by the latest European town planning ideas. Overall, then, the book reflects many weaknesses of similar ‘histories of the emotions’. Without a clear methodology to categorize, map and explain public emotions, we are often left with selective readings and subjective interpretations. We end up with histories that focus on the individual manifestations of emotional symptoms, rather than the underlying causes of those symptoms or an evaluation of what is really happening in the city. While emotions can themselves have a role to play in causation, the processes that produce emotions must be properly understood if their power and impact is to be appreciated. Without this, we are lost in a world of comparative subjective assertions, rather than rigorous comparative history. As a piece of research, this is an interesting and readable history of specific public debate in two cities. For this reason, it will repay the urban historian’s attention, but its interpretations must be treated with caution. The book’s weaknesses are its willingness to make broad assumptions and generalizations based on limited evidence and its faith in a historical sub-discipline whose epistemological and methodological foundation is built largely on sand.