orientalism explored
TRANSCRIPT
RELS 3990
Orientalism Explored
Taylor Webb
2/1/2011
1
The following essay is part of an independent study done through the
University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, for the Religious Studies
department. It is a 3000-level study that received a B+ before corrections
were made. This is the corrected copy that was also submitted. The purpose
of publishing this paper is to give other students and prospective students an
idea of what to expect as far as quality, subject, and quantity if they are
considering a similar field or an independent study at the University of
Lethbridge. This is the first of two essays that were researched
independently for the same study. This work can be copied or reproduced in
any way freely, however all regular plagiarism restrictions still apply. The
main area of study is Edward Said’s book Orientalism which can be found
free right here on scribd.
2
Introduction
Edward Said’s Orientalism is an immensely influential book because of
its impact on the intellectual world. Through the articulation of a basic mode
of human self-understanding and interaction Said touches on a common
undercurrent in many disciplines while elaborating on only a single
expression of the philosophy he explores. This paper will be an attempt to
extract and understand the theory that Orientalism is based on and its
application to the subject adopted by Said. I will proceed first through an
extrapolation of the contents of the book, pausing where necessary to better
define or outline important points. Having covered the content of the original
book I will then discuss some of the many criticisms faced by Said and their
bearing on his core ideas.
It seems Orientalism has come to signify something much greater than
originally intended. In his work Said defines the concept repeatedly in novel
ways underscoring the vastness as well as the ambiguity of the term. This is
not because he does not have a definite idea of what it is he is defining, but
rather because he is defining for the very first time a concept that has
existed unexpressed in the minds of men for generations. Said uses the
example of orientalism as an academic subject, but his revelations touch on
a broader undercurrent in human relations. By the time Said addresses his
subject it already has had a tangible history for millennia. He repeatedly uses
examples from ancient Greece to support his thesis, but the major part of his
3
work is on “modern Orientalism,” which occurs mainly from the eighteenth
century onward. The term “orientalism” is taken from a very well established
academic community and so Said must already work with a concept with
specific, sometimes dogmatic, understandings and then redefine it according
to a much more broad, and in many aspects opposing, view point. For these
reasons orientalism as a concept becomes very hard to define in one brief
sentence, and becomes even more difficult to deconstruct.
Orientalism
Said presents nearly an entire chapter of definitions and parameters
for his idea, and is open about his broad definition, he says on the very first
page “It will be clear to the reader (and will become clearer still on the pages
that follow) that by Orientalism I mean several things, all of them, in my
opinion, interdependent.”1 Said later goes on to describe the hegemony
involved in the propagation of orientalism, summed up very well in his
phrase “Orientalism lives on through its doctrines and theses about the
Orient and the Oriental.”2 This helps him to define more closely the nuances
of the concept, and get to the conclusion, what the hegemonic method has
created. He says “because of Orientalism the Orient was not (and is not) a
free subject of thought or action.”3 Through exploring and backing up this
claim Said describes orientalism as a form of oppression, but at the same
1 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 2.2 Ibid, 23 Ibid, 3
4
time he says “European Culture gained in strength and identity by setting
itself off against the Orient,”4 underscoring the oppressive nature of
orientalism but also importantly highlighting the fact that Orientalism is a
form of self-expression and identity creation for Europe. This was one of the
most important claims that Said made, it was this claim that was adapted
and re-adapted into hundreds of modes in historical analysis, and this was
one of the most criticized and praised ideas in Said’s career5.
Another very influential and important claim made by Said in the
beginning of his book is that political entities supersede other
categorizations. This implies that an American or British explorer of the
Orient must understand the orient through an orientalist mentality first and
foremost despite his personal goals or aims. This idea is expressed in no
uncertain terms when Said affirms that “all academic knowledge about India
and Egypt is somehow tinged and impressed with, violated by, the gross
political fact.” This idea permeates Said’s concept of orientalism and wins
him again a great number of critics. The implication that is taken from this is
that no Westerner, Orientalist or not, can understand the Orient properly,
and indeed their attempts to understand the Orient no matter how well-
intentioned will almost definitely lead to the oppression of that Orient.
A related and supporting idea would come up in the academic world a
few years later through the avenue of Anthropology. The Sapir-Whorf
4 Ibid, 35 Gaham Hugan, “(Not) Reading Orientalism” Research in African Literatures 36 (2005): 125
5
hypothesis includes the idea that “The structure of anyone’s native language
strongly influences or fully determines the world-view he will acquire as he
learns the language.”6 This theory seems to support Said’s assumption,
especially considering the fact that much of Said’s sources are in fact
examples of Orientalist literature, emphasising the role of language to form
the perspectives of a culture. This would imply that the French, English and
later American Orientalists were nearly incapable of understanding the
Orient in any way other than the way it had been presented to them through
the literature common in the era. Furthermore the Orientalists would also be
rendered incapable of knowing that they were misrepresenting the Orient as
any way of communicating this idea to them would have to be through the
very languages that trained them to think that way. Even if the Orientalists
took on the project of understanding their “subject” cultures in their native
languages they would still be educated through means that would lead to a
distinctly orientalist flavour of the language7. Said discusses this later in his
work at various points where he elaborates on the translation and language
instruction principles of the time, and when he talks about contemporary
understandings of the influence of language on culture.
The question of agency also challenges the way much of Western
academic research is done, and the claims to objectivity that it holds dear.
6 Paul Kay. "What is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis?" American Anthropologist 86, no. 1 (March 1984): 667 Some introductions into Oriental languages such as William Jones’s translation of the Sakuntala were
very wide-spread and would have been read by both those interested in learning about the language and
those simply widening their literary horizons.
6
The implications of this forced and sub-conscious bias exclude the West from
the ability to analyse and interpret foreign cultures within or outside the
Orient and invalidate much of the scholarship that is foundational to Western
hegemony. Said admits later that there were those engaged in the “career”
of the Orient during the publication of his book that quite agreed with him,
however, the implications of what he was saying would lead to a significant
devaluation of their professions were it to be accepted and so they attacked
him in defence of themselves rather than in pursuit of the truth8. Aside from
the academic world the implications of this statement become even more
tangible when it is taken into diplomatic and political arenas. The challenge
of the academic community to accept a new idea is great, but in the political
sphere where “tenure” is much more precarious it can be an even greater
challenge and much more dangerous to suddenly not know the world you are
involved with9. For this reason the criticism of Said’s ideas must be very
heavily scrutinized by those interested in what realities are imagined, which
ones are not, and how they relate to one another.
Furthermore it can easily be seen that there is a certain inertia to the
intellectual world that tends to oppress change, even progress, in favour of
the status-quo. This too is an important theme of orientalism, it can be said
that it is not because of the Orient’s inherent incapacities but rather because
of the oppressive incapacitation of the Orient through Occidental hegemony
8 Edward Said. "Orientalism Reconsidered." Cultural Critique, (1985): 99.
9 This can be seen today as the politics in the Middle East are being re-written in a way that Orientalists
are having trouble adapting to.
7
that the reality described in Orientalist literature is realized. This
incapacitation of the Orient provides a space for Orientalist academics to fit
into and contribute to society, and once they are there they are quite
opposed to re-evaluating the appropriateness or effects of their existence.
A related and final elaboration that helps to outline the concept of
Orientalism very well is that of agency. Said is careful to include in his
definition of orientalism the concept that the oriental is incapable of defining
himself or his history alone and is in need of the Orienatlist to define him.
This occurs repeatedly through orientalist history as expounded by Said, but
even comes up again after the publication of his book in the work of a critic,
Daniel Pipes. Said is quick to use this opportunity to outline his theory even
better when he says “Here, of course, is perhaps the most familiar of
Orientalism’s themes – since Orientals cannot represent themselves they
must therefore be represented by others who know more about Islam than
Islam knows about itself.”10 With this additional definition Said is able to
paint a relatively clear and full picture of what the many things are that he
means by “Orientalism.”
To finalize a definition of Orientalism according to the interpretations
of Edward Said: Orientalism is essentially a method used by European
scholars to define and promote a certain European identity. This identity was
created through defining Europe against the Orient, and therefore the
hegemony of this identity creates a lens through which all Western
10 Said, "Orientalism Reconsidered," 97.
8
scholarship must see the Orient. Because this lens is in fact a mirror, and
there is very little of the Orient to be seen through it, Orientalists are not
able to deal or interact with the “real” Orient in a meaningful way, but rather
must attempt to deal with a fabrication of inferiority and chaos. Because of
their subsequent methodologies and manners in dealing with the Orient it is
oppressed, incapacitated, and loses its agency in the eyes of the Orientalist
policy makers and overlords and is thereby oppressed, incapacitated, and
stripped of its agency in reality through their policies and rulership.
The history of Orientalism is described in detail in the later part of his
book, serving to illustrate many of Said’s illuminating observations.
Orientalism is then followed through many key players such as Renan, Stacy,
Flaubert, Lane and others. As he states in the beginning, though, Said traces
almost entirely British and French sources, concluding that any other sources
were essentially secondary11.
Said places the foundation of “modern Orientalism” around the
beginning of the nineteenth century12 with Silvestre de Stacy in France
largely because “he was a self-aware inaugurator13” of Orientalism. Said
does not, however, mean to imply that Orientalism was an ‘invention’ of
sorts by de Stacy. On the contrary Said explicitly states that his thesis in fact
was that “the essential aspects of modern Orientalist theory... can be
11 Said, Orientalism12 Ibid., 124.13 Ibid., 124
9
understood... as a set of structures inherited from the past.”14 He describes
de Stacy’s Influence in France, French policy in the Orient itself, including
very direct influence such as the contributions to the tableau historique15 but
maintains the link to the earliest Orientalist sensibilities.
Throughout his discussion of the history of Orientalism Said
continuously re-defines what it is the Orientalist academics were doing.
Through the practice of Orientalism Said shows the reader just how in many
very specific cases the Orientalists were intentionally or otherwise
oppressing the Orient. This background serves very well as an exposé of
Orientalist thought, bringing the reader to a closer understanding of the very
complex ideas that Said starts the work with. The history also sets up one of
the principles that Said is very interested in exposing: the continuity
between the religious and academic institutions of Europe.
Through establishing a firm link with the past Said is able to continue
with great continuity to the colonization of the Orient. In this way such
conquests as Napoleon’s in Egypt do not seem sudden or out of place, but
perfectly appropriate for an Orientalist state to pursue. Furthermore the
power structures that are set up in the Oriental colonies are quite easy to
understand, and even more importantly, easy to see for what they are, for
later when the current power structures of those colonies are discussed the
reader has an appreciation for the history and ideals behind the manipulation
14 Ibid., 12215 Ibid., 126
10
of the Orient. This leads the reader to be more capable of understanding the
complex links between Orientalist colonialism and Oriental power structures
such as the contemporary Egyptian ruling class.
Said’s last chapter is on the contemporary state of Orientalism, or
orientalism as it relates to the twentieth century. He describes the various
tensions that developed and changed as America came to power, as Turkey
fell from power, and as the first and second world wars changed the world
powers at large. Said expounds on the perceptions of anonymity and
tendency toward collectiveness that are tacked on to the image of the
typical “Arab”, and on how the mystique granted to the Orient helped to
subordinate rather than empower it after it had to be realized and “dealt
with” by the world powers.
The final chapter is devoted to the post-war period and especially the
Arab-Israeli conflict. The mystique and ambiguity of the Arab and the idea of
a single “form” of Arab are shown to be drawn up from the turn of the
century and adapted to modern Orientalist tastes. The idea of what an Arab
is and the immortal and unchanging nature of this generalization are
explored in great detail, and the follies of these interpretations are
demonstrated in such a way as to expose and discredit the whole practice of
Orientalism. Said spares no blows for example when he lashes out at the
11
generalizations regarding the Arab language16, and even goes after Bernard
Lewis for what he has left out of his literature as much as what he has in it17.
In total the final two chapters offer as much insight in the two of them
as the first one had alone, and much of it is repeated, though more carefully
articulated and very well illustrated. This leads the reader out of an obscure
and sometimes incomprehensible conversation based in epistemology and
philosophy and into a much more practical application of the ideas in
question where he can enjoy a relatively lucid and contiguous demonstration
of very complicated concepts. Furthermore the history of Orientalism as
interpreted by Said demonstrates the concepts he espouses very well, and
outlines the traps and problems faced by scholars who may be involved with
simply transmitting “idées, recues.”
Near the end of the book Said states that it is not his project to attack
the entirety of Western scholarship on Islam or the Orient in general, but
rather it is his goal to bring to light the aspects of it which are not in fact
borne out of an honest interest in the truth, but which are simply self-
replicating and constraining ideas that he calls the “straight jacket” of
Orientalism.18
Criticism
16 Ibid., 32017 Ibid., 31818 Ibid., 326
12
Orientalism is Said’s most heavily criticized and discussed book for a
variety of reasons. There are a few objections that are commonly made to
Said’s work, and they seem to repeat themselves in the innumerable books
and articles written about Orientalism in a context more familiar to each
contemporary audience as time goes on. The sheer number and frequency of
the criticisms against Orientalism show the great importance that the work
has in many varying fields of study and many varying cultures.
One criticism that turns up quite frequently is that Said was far too
specific in his application of Orientalism19. The accusation is that Said was
too narrow-sighted to realize the scope and impact of his theory, as he
focused instead on a very specific context in which Orientalism existed. More
importantly he focused only on that mode of Orientalism that was most
connected to his own life and identity. This especially poses a problem
because it seems to promote a sort of exceptionalism regarding the Oriental-
Occidental clash20, possibly passing a very important value judgement on
other civilisations and their conflicts.
Said does, however, recognize his narrow approach and he justifies it
by saying that a broader approach is not possible due to the sheer volume of
19 C.F. Beckingham. "Review [Untitled]." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42, no. 3
(1979)
20 Fred Halliday. "'Orientalism' and its Critics." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 20, no. 2
(1993): 158
13
evidence available21. Even in his justification of such a narrow approach he
does belie a very particular appreciation for the application of his idea only
to the interaction between Europe and the Orient. No matter how broad or
constrained, or how nuanced and subtle one makes these terms out to be
they are remarkably specific compared to how immense the subject could be
if it were applied (as it has been innumerable times since) to a situation
outside the interaction between Europe and the East. Orientalism, the book,
gets its name from the area of study that it critiques and opposes, however
the underlying criticism and the epistemological impact of the realization of
Said’s idea extends far beyond the constraints of “the European idea of the
Orient” which Said states is his original “guiding principal.”22
The hegemonic domination of one culture over another is a
characteristic in nearly every culture on the planet. Here in Canada we are
no strangers to defining ourselves based on what we are not (American for
example), and defining others based on what they are not allowed to be
(good hockey players to continue the example). Said’s focus on the Oriental-
Occidental clash is very illuminating, but the application of his principles to
dozens of other disciplines, and their use as a tool in illuminating the
conflicts and relationships of hundreds of other cultural exchanges illustrate
that it was not his focus on Orientalism that was his most valuable exploit,
21 Said, Orientalism, 16-1722 Ibid., 16
14
but the tools he created to better interpret and understand human power
structures in a more general sense.
Another critique regarding the imposed limits Said set on his study is in
his deliberate exclusion of German literature23. This has little relevance on
his core ideas, except that it displays again that his focus on a specific mode
or historical occurrence of the power systems he is analysing is not as
complete or useful as his comments on the broader principles that have
been taken from his work. The various problems that have been picked over
by critics in the method and historical nature of Said’s book could lead to the
conclusion made by Manzalaoui that “Inside this prolix and ill-considered
book there is a slimmer and genuinely excellent one trying to get out.”24 The
implication, to me, is that if Said were to have written a short, general study
of power structures and cross-cultural exchange illustrated and supported by
the institution of Orientalism it would have been a much more concise and
lucid read than his current book.
Said does acknowledge the potential for adaptation of his idea later in
his article Orientalism Reconsidered and he seems to approve of the very
diverse fields in which it has been applied. He says “There are many more
examples that one could give of analyses and theoretical projects
undertaken out of similar impulses as those fuelling the anti-Orientalist
critique.” It is obvious then that Said realized the full potential of his critique
23 Beckingham, “Review [Untitled]” 24 Mahmoud Manzalaoui. "Review: [Untitled]." Modern Language review 75, no. 4 (Oct 1980): 837
15
after all, but since he claims no responsibility for the origination of the basic
concept that has been so readily adapted and re-applied (that of the “anti-
Oriental critique”) it follows that he may have felt that he was in fact simply
contributing to an already existing academic tradition. The goal of Said’s
book it seems was to criticize the practice of orientalism in following an
academic tradition that already existed, hence his very simple title, however,
the ideas that Said put forward were not after all only applicable to
Orientalism, but to a large part of human interaction in general. Because
Said wished to reveal the basic drivers of orientalism, from identity creation,
to domination, to politicisation of perspectives, his book is justifiably
constrained only to the practice of Orientalism, but because of the way
Orientalism was exposed in Said’s work his ideas have become much more
foundational to understanding inter-cultural relationships in general, thus
creating a tension between the very specific content of the book Orientalism
and the much more broad application of its principles.
A further very common critique of Said’s work is that Said himself
exhibits and promotes orientalism through the book that bears that name.
This allegation of hypocrisy is based largely on conclusions about the agency
of the Orient that Said makes. In claiming that the Orient is truly
incapacitated by the Orientalists the implication is that Said himself is in fact
contributing to the incapacitation of the Orient in the same way the
Orientalists are. Said does not have a fatalistic approach to this concept
however, just as his conclusions about the Orientalists’ scholarship does not
16
lead him to declare them completely incapable of academic contributions
were they to address the faults inherent in their ideals.25
Said does, even in his rebuttal to his critics, tend to categorize others
quite openly. He systematically categorizes the opponents of Orientalism in
Orientalism Reconsidered by saying “Some attack Orientalism as a prelude
to assertions about the virtues of one or another native culture: these are
the nativists. Others criticize Orientalism as a defence on attacks on one or
another political creed: these are the nationalists. Still others criticize
Orientalism for falsifying the nature of Islam these are, grosso modo the
fundamentalists.”26 He then excludes himself from any of these
categorisations and says “I have always tried never to forsake a critical
sense or reflective detachment.”27 This method of categorization and then
implied self-exeptionalism seems to be the very root of the criticism Said
lays against the Orientalists. Here again we see the implication of moral and
academic inferiority of those who seem to hold opinions based on one of the
constructed categorisations of the author, while the author holds himself up
as largely untouched by those same categories, and capable by virtue of not
being a part of those categories to impose his own unbiased interpretation.
Instead of being based on a geographical and historical proximity as is the
case with the study of the Orient, Said’s categories are based on ideological
and academic proximity. Indeed even the term “Orientalism” is questioned
25 Said, Orientalism, 32626 Said, "Orientalism Reconsidered," 94-95
27 Ibid, 95
17
by Fred Halliday for possibly over-generalizing and “[identifying] such a
widespread and pervasive single error at the core of a range of literature.”28
Again, it must be seen that Said does recognize repeatedly in
Orientalism that the generalizations and categories used by all academics
are full of holes, generally flawed, and are far from absolute. One can
assume that the categories Said imposes are likewise generalizations, not
restrictive and neither entirely inclusive nor exclusive of a whole group.
There is still no method or language that academics can use to
constructively talk about the world they live in without including some form
of false category or generalization. Perhaps it is because of the effects found
in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and we are restricted by our limited
languages to speak in broad and inaccurate generalities, but regardless of
why we do it, as Said himself says “I would not have undertaken a book of
this sort if I did not also believe that there is a scholarship that is not as
corrupt… as the kind I have been mainly depicting.”29
Conclusion
28 Haliday, “Orientalism and its Critics,” 14829 Said, Orientalism, 326
18
Despite the criticisms, attacks, and errors faced by Orientalism, the
book has remained a foundational learning tool for decades. It often seems
that Said goes out of his way to make his work inaccessible by failing to
translate foreign phrases and repeating ideas in a language ever growing in
complexity. Despite this inaccessibility, decades of scholarship have been
put forward in an effort to understand it, challenge students and scholars by
it, and adapt it to an every growing number of areas of study. The book
recieves as much criticism or more than it does praise indicating that it is a
challenge; a challenge to read, a challenge to the status-quo, and it would be
a challenge to replace. Said has changed the academic world with this book,
and it may be the perfect way for the current changes in the political world
of the Orient to be understood.
19
BibliographyArkoun, Mohammed. "Rethinking Islam Today." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage Publications, Inc.) 588 (July 2003): 18-39.
Beckingham, C. F. "Review [Untitled]." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42, no. 3 (1979): 562-564.
Halliday, Fred. "'Orientalism' and its Critics." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 20, no. 2 (1993): 145-163.
Huggan, Gaham. "(Not) Reading Orientalism." Research in African Literatures (Indiana University Press) 36, no. 3 (2005): 124-136.
Kay, Paul. "What is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis?" American Anthropologist (Blackwell Publishing) 86, no. 1 (March 1984): 65-79.
Lewis, Bernard. Islam and the West. USA: Oxford University Press, 1994.
—. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: W.W. Norton $ Company, 1982.
Manzalaoui, Mahmoud. "Review: [Untitled]." Modern Language review 75, no. 4 (Oct 1980): 837-839.
Rice, James P. "In the Wake of Orientalism." Comparative Literature Studies 37, no. 2 (2000): 223-238.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Said, Edward. "Orientalism Reconsidered." Cultural Critique, 1985: 89-107.
Turner, Bryan S. Orientalism, Postmodernism & Globalism. Taylor&Francis, 1994.
Varisco, Daniel Martin. Reading Orientalism: Said and the unsaid. University of Washington Press, 2007.
Vtikiotis, P.J. Revolution in the Middle East, and Other Case Studies; proceedings of a seminar. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1972.
Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West. New York: Prometheus Books, 2007.
20