The Relationships Between Imperial Europe and Colonized East by Edward Said - Research Paper Example

 Introduction Edward Said’s Orientalism is fairly regarded as the landmark in the development of global multicultural consciousness. Said’s book aimed at exposing the attitudes of Western countries and ideologies toward the East. Throughout the 18-20th centuries, the opposition between the East and the West was due to the lack of cultural and human awareness about the importance of the Eastern cultural traditions in the West. The latter treated Eastern countries and their cultural beliefs as secondary and subject to changes under the pressure of the dominant Western ideologies. It should be noted, that no book ever impacted international studies as much as Said’s Orientalism. Thirty years following its publication, the book remains the source of relevant knowledge about the interactions between the East and the West. Surprisingly or not, but the dramatic changes and the global shift toward multiculturalism and globalization did not change the situation. Like thirty years ago, Said’s Orientalism remains a relevant description of the unchangeably serious dichotomy between the two ends of the one world – that of the East and that of the West. Edward Said: The essence of Orientalism Thirty years ago, when Edward Said published his book Orientalism, the term itself became the determining element in the description of complex relationships between the East and the West. Said was, probably, the first to define, describe, and conceptualize the system of principles that had dominated the relations between the Western imperialist ideology and the Eastern failure to withstand the discussed imperialist pressures. In general terms, Orientalism can be described as “a manner of regularized writing, vision, and study, dominated by imperatives, perspectives, and ideological biases ostensibly suited to the Orient” (Hafez 2004; Sered 1996). In other words, Orientalism implies a combination of beliefs about the East, its history and culture, which originate in the West. Said (1979) is confident that the world is made of the two different worlds – that of the Orient and that of the Occident (p.873). His binary opposition is further supported by the discussion of the Civil War in Lebanon in 1975, the failure of the negotiation processes in Oslo, and the subsequent development of dubious meanings with regard to the East. Needless to say, the term Orientalism itself and the beliefs in the Orient-Occident divide were born outside of the Oriental world (O’Hanlon & Washbrook 1992). Orientalism is a set of beliefs, which are created in the process of reconsidering traditional Eastern values, beliefs, and attitudes from the Western perspective. The East and the West have historically existed in an opposition toward one another. The rapid expansion of European imperialism around the world and the submission of the eastern states to the Western thinking and ideology marked further shift of the pendulum toward West. For many years, Western countries and thinkers considered it appropriate and even necessary to present and disseminate the Oriental philosophy. Consequentially, thousands of people came to justify their military and political intervention to the East by the desire to establish and support stability and order in the Eastern lands. “Western nations as soon as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government… having merits of their own… You may look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-government” (Said 1979). Therefore, Western countries, as the principal carriers of order and civilized thinking, come to exemplify the principal source of positive effects on the cultural and political development of the East. Distorted and imperialistic as it may seem, this way of thinking about the world did not really change over the course of the last 30 years. Moreover, the globalization and integration trends have further reinforced the feeling of a colossal cleavage between the Eastern and Western parts of the world. The rise of “new orientalism” is easy to see through the changes in the Eastern legal order under the impact of the West and the sharpening distinction between Eastern and Western cultures as a result of globalization. Orientalism in the 16-19th century How Orientalism works in the global multicultural reality is impossible to understand without trying to look into the development of the East-West relationships in the 19th century. The current state of literature offers a profound insight into the expansion of the Orientalist trends in Russia. The choice of Tsarist Russia is justified by its unique geographical position and its political priorities (Beissinger 1995; Chatterjee 1986). That the development of the relationship between the Russian peoples and the peoples from the Eastern non-Russian territories contributed to the expansion of Euroasianism cannot be denied (Tolz 2005). At times of Tsarism, Russia sought to develop effective friendly relations with the Eastern nations. Such striving is at least surprising, giving the effects and hidden implications of the Russian policies against their non-Russian “friends”. At times of Catherine the Great, Russia adopted a policy of enlightenment and tolerance toward the Islamic culture (Morrison 2009). The principal goal of the policy was to create a multicultural vision of the Russian state, which would exist in the atmosphere of reconciliation between the Islamic muftiate and the state-controlled religious hierarchies in the Orthodox Church (Beissinger 1995). As a part of the policy, the state took a decision to dispatch a group of Islamic mullahs to the Kazakh steppes: mullahs had to enlighten their Muslim subjects, distributed sanctioned copies of Koran, and played an increasingly critical confessional role in the lives of Kazakhs (Morrison 2009). However, the middle of the 19th century witnessed a rapid shift in multicultural consciousness in Russia, which was due to the growing opposition between the Russians living in the Volga Region and the Tatars (Morrison 2009). The war in the North Caucasus further fueled the conflicts between the Islamic populations and the Russians in the Russia territory (Morrison 2009). The policy of adoption and acceptance transformed into a policy of rejection, fear, and antagonism. Tatars and other Muslim populations in Russia turned into a new form of colony, which Russia successfully utilized to meet its self-interests. The sense of “otherness” became the distinctive feature of the relations between Russians and non-Russians. Similar trends were observed in the relations between European countries and their Oriental colonies (Morrison 2009). Apparently, the development of the new, Orientalist thinking in Russia further affected the expansion of the dubious attitudes toward the East on the side of other European states. Their absolute governments were believed to reflect the higher form of civilization, education, and enlightenment which oriental states could hardly achieve (Said 1979). A common belief persisted that Eastern states could not exist in the form other than that of dependency from the European countries (Bayly 1996; Escobar 1995). The recent changes in the global reality and the rapid integration of cultures and ideologies at the beginning of the 21st century gave Eastern territories a hope to revive and re-establish their uniqueness and the right for equality in the eyes of global humanity. However, even globalization did not change the situation. Rather, globalization and integration of territories and technologies gave rise to “new Orientalism”. The latter displays a number of features that are specific and unique of the postmodern reality and, simultaneously, retains the basic characteristics of Said’s theory of Orientalism. Namely, new Orientalism works to preserve the authentic hierarchy and collision between the East and West, but applies to advanced instrument of distributing the dichotomous messages around the globe. For example, the Western fashion industry is a vital component of the global anti-Oriental machine, which poses itself as an aggressive instrument of disseminating the messages of “otherness” in Asia (Anonymous 2007a). Also, the political and military decisions of the American state in terms of the Middle Eastern region send a serious message of orientalism to other countries (Said 2003). The intervention to Iraq and the events of 9/11 were among the brightest examples of the stable opposition between the two parts of the world. Even years following the publication of Said’s book did not reduce the relevance of orientalism and its implications for the world. Orientalism: still relevant, still legal The development and establishment of the legal traditions in the East is, probably, one of the essential reflections of orientalist moods and trends in the postmodern world. The relationship between the legal order and orientalism is multifaceted. Yet, only two aspects of orientalism and its legal developments deserve attention. On the one hand, the Western legal order works for the benefit of the Western states, which is not surprising (Mickleson 1998). Through their legal decisions and systemic developments, the West is gradually acquiring a dominant position over the East (Allain 2004). On the other hand, the integration of the Western legal traditions with the Eastern cultural ideology creates a combustive mixture of attitudes and beliefs, which distorts the vision of the legal reality and turns Middle Eastern countries into the victims of their own striving to become more civilized. Recent developments in the Western legal practice resemble a series of capitulation agreements, which were designed to justify European colonialism – the process of physical and actual taking of the Orient (Allain 2004). The League of Nations and the UN Security Council produced significant effects on the development of the new, colonial thinking. In the hearts and minds of thousands of modern people, the world is being constantly torn between the two extremes: an alien colonial space and the civilized, Western reality (Ruskola 2002). Consequentially, the international law is being divided between backward territories and civilized nations (Allain 2004). Thus, the current system of international law is designed to support the orientalist intentions of the Western countries in their colonial expansion to the East. Moreover, the international law secures these countries from the legal failures and provides a multitude of instruments to ensure that “these imperial ventures could persist unimpeded” (Allain 2004). Suffice it to say, Western countries deem it appropriate to intervene with the traditions and affairs of the Eastern countries – the traditions and affairs which, in the Western ideology, are considered inappropriate and even discriminating. Let alone the attempts of the Western countries to impose new legal requirements on the Islamic world, particularly in the context of gender discrimination and female oppression in the East (Emberley 1993; Motobbagani 2009; Yegenoglu 1998). These are the features of the so-called Third World approach to the international law, which Allain (2004) describes in his paper. This approach applies to the rule of international legal scholarship, to de-legitimize the fundamental components of the Eastern Islamic tradition, e.g., wearing of hijabs in European universities (Allain 2004). At the same time, international law positions the Orient as a subordinate class, which lacks resources and knowledge to pursue its own legal traditions. In this sense, “class” can be defined as complex web of interrelations, which display unique economic, social and political features (Huggan 2005). Throughout years, the actions and decisions of the Oriental part of the world generated mixed feelings in the West. The most important among them was the lack of confidence that such acts and decisions were legal in the eyes of the Western public (Allain 2004; Ruskola 2002). The situation with the Suez Canal is just one of numerous examples of how Britain treated the decision of the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal Company (Allain 2004). Even if Nasser was acting legally, Western countries were reluctant to admit the value and legal purpose of Nasser’s nationalization decision (Allain 2004). Such subordination and the Western belief in the legal weakness and inconsistency of the East made the international law increasingly selective toward the Middle East. Put simply, whenever the interests of the Western powers in the Middle East collided with their legal obligations, the latter immediately lost their relevance or gave European powers a chance to forgo them (Mickleson 1998; Ruskola 2002). Similar behaviors were observed in the American decisions concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. The conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the European position in it also support the Orientalist assumptions in the system of international law. The law does not unite but, on the contrary, increases the cultural and political divide. The global mentality is strongly linked to the “us” vs. “them” distinctions and leaves no room for reconciliation. Contrary to earlier expectations, globalization and the gradual elimination of geographic borders did not erase the existing opposition between the East and West. On the contrary, the unification of the European territories around common goals and the rapid evolution of media and technologies contribute to the development of new orientalism. The latter works through (a) unprecedented rise in interest toward Islamic cultures; (b) regular representation of the Middle East as aggressive and uncivilized by the global media; and (c) rapid expansion of misconceptions and about the Islamic world (Al-Bahrani 2010). The tragic events of 9/11 increased the gap between the East and West. The whole world transformed into a stable geocultural dichotomy (Lau 2003). It is interesting to note, that many western countries find themselves in a unique position toward the Oriental and Occidental world. In this position, they can hardly choose Oriental culture over the Western cultural traditions, even if they are willing to do so (Lau 2003). The fear of rejection and isolation as a result of Oriental support are among the distinctive features of new Orientalism. The impossibility of free choice is another marker of orientalist moods in the contemporary society. For example, “to become an artist of the first rank in Occidental art may be as difficult as to achieve the same goal in Oriental art, but the former is more accessible than the latter to ordinary people” (Lau 2003). It comes as no surprise that people will choose what they can access without any difficulty – the current structure of the East-West relationships does not leave them much choice. Ultimately, even if individuals choose to follow the principles of Oriental culture, the Western world will hardly give them such an opportunity, as far as techologization, robotization and automation of the Western countries contradicts the basic principles of the Oriental tradition (Rastegar & Corr 2008). As such, globalization poses a dilemma of how technologically advanced Occidental culture can support Oriental countries in their striving to become more civilized (Lau 2003). Another question is in whether countries, which are called Oriental, are willing to celebrate technological advancement and what path they are willing to pursue toward these goals. Again, technological advancement presents a risk of further colonization, which Middle Eastern countries want to avoid by all possible means. Obviously, it is high time globalized humanity changed its attitudes toward Islamic countries, to take Middle East as equals. New Orientalism, ideal “otherness” and criticism The features of new Orientalism discussed above confirm the overall artificiality of the orientalist trends. They contradict to the principles of rationality and harmonization across countries. They further reinforce the sense of exteriority as the main element of new Orientalism (Anonymous 2007b; Said 1979). In other words, the existing dichotomy between the East and West is the product of the Western, not Eastern, thinking. However, even despite its relevance, Said’s orientalism is not without its problems. The fact is in that globalization and multiculturalism of the postmodern reality sharpen the cultural distinctions. The East-West orientalist dichotomy is not the only criterion of the cultural and political division of the global world. Western countries, too, display the growing trend toward becoming different from their European counterparts (Anonymous 2007b). The divisions and distinctions beyond the Orientalism discourse are numerous: they can be easily observed between white and African American races, between advanced European West and post-communist European east, etc. In this situation, Said’s theory of Orientalism can readily become increasingly reductive (Anonymous 2007b). Similar reductive trends are also present in the discussion of the Orient itself – the geographic span of the Asian world makes the Orientalism discourse extremely problematic (Anonymous 2007b). From what Said writes in his book, his principal concern is about Middle Eastern Islamic countries; therefore, he leaves other Asian countries beyond the scope of his discussion. Despite the fact that new Orientalism retains many of the features of Said’s theory, globalization calls for reconsidering Said’s conceptualization of the East-West divide. Diversity of perspectives must become the determining feature of the new theory of political and cultural globalization. The effects and implications of such oriental diversity need to be determined and discussed. In the meantime, the global community must reconsider its outdated approaches to the Islamic world and distance itself from the pervasive stereotypes about the outdated nature of the Eastern beliefs about reality. Conclusion Edward Said was, probably, the first to conceptualize the system of principles that had long dominated the relationships between imperial Europe and colonized East. The term Orientalism denotes a complex web of meanings, attitudes, and beliefs that originate outside of the Eastern world and position it as the secondary political and cultural force. Orientalism confirms and reinforces the sense of divide between the East and West. It creates and retains a binary opposition between the Islamic and non-Islamic cultural traditions. Thirty years following the publication of Said’s book, the Occident-Orient dichotomy continues to persist. Orientalism is particularly visible in the international legal order: on the one hand, Eastern countries are believed to have resources and knowledge needed to maintain a legal stability; on the other hand, the current system of international law favors slow colonization of the Middle East. Even when people or states are willing to choose Oriental over Occidental culture, they are hardly able to do so, fearing rejection and condemnation on the side of the dominant imperialist ideology. Even globalization did not erase but, on the contrary, sharpened the distinction between the two worlds – Oriental and Occidental. Simultaneously, Said’s idea of Orientalism does not always fit the new conditions of globalization. First, numerous distinctions and dichotomies exist beyond the Orientalism discourse. Second, European countries, too, are subject to conflicts and disagreements within their community. Finally, the geographic span of the Oriental world makes Said’s discussion increasingly reductive. Globalization calls for reconsidering Said’s conceptualization of the East-West divide. . In the meantime, the global community must reconsider its outdated approaches to the Islamic world and distance itself from the pervasive stereotypes about the outdated nature of the Eastern beliefs about reality. References Al-Bahrani, Z 2010, ‘Does Orientalism still exist?’, Voice of Unity, [online], accessed from http://www.voiceofunity.com/does-orientalism-still-exist Anonymous 2007a, ‘Orientalism now’, Tabula Rasa, [online], accessed from http://tabularasa0.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/orientalism-now/ Anonymous 2007b, ‘Orientalism: A critique’, The Imperial Archive, [online], accessed from http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/transnational/Orientalism-critique.html Allain, J 2004, ‘Orientalism and international law: The Middle East as the underclass of the international legal order’, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol.17, pp.391-404. Bayly, CA 1996, Empire and information: Intelligence gathering and social communication in India, 1780-1870, Cambridge. Beissinger, M 1995, ‘The persisting ambiguity of empire’, Post-Soviet Affairs, vol.11, no.2, pp.149-84. Chatterjee, P 1986, Nationalist thought and colonial world: A derivative discourse, London: Zed Books. Emberley, J 1993, Thresholds of difference: Feminist critique, native women’s writing, postcolonial theory, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Escobar, A 1995, Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hafez, S 2004, ‘Edward Said’s intellectual legacy in the Arab world’, Journal of Palestine Studies, vol.XXXIII, no.3, pp.76-90. Huggan, G 2005, ‘(Not) reading Orientalism’, Research in African Literatures, vol.36, no.3, pp.124-36. Lau, JK 2003, Multiple modernities: Cinemas and popular media in transcultural East Asia, Temple University Press. Mickleson, K 1998, ‘Rhetoric and rage: Third World voices in International legal discourse’, Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol.16, pp.361-3. Morrison, A 2009, ‘Applied Orientalism in British India and Tsarist Turkestan’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol.51, no.3, pp.619-647. Motobbagani, E 2009, ‘Islam and the West: A Saudi View of Orientalism’, Middle East Quarterly, Fall, pp.73-76. O’Hanlon, R. & Washbrook, DA 1992, ‘After Orientalism: Culture, criticism and politics in the Third World’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol.34, no.1, pp.161-63. Rastegar, K & Corr, S 2008, ‘Revisiting Orientalism’, History Today, vol.58, no.6, pp.49-51. Ruskola, T 2002, ‘Legal orientalism’, Michigan Law Review, vol.101, pp.179-234. Said, EW 1979, Orientalism, Vintage Books Edition. Said, E 2003, ‘Worldly humanism v. the empire-builders: Orientalism 25 years later’, Counter Punch, [online], accessed from http://www.counterpunch.org/said08052003.html Sered, D 1996, ‘Orientalism’, Emory, [online], accessed from http://www.english.emory.edu/ Tolz, V 2005, ‘Orientalism, nationalism and ethnic diversity in Late Imperial Russia’, The Historical Journal, vol.48, no.1, pp.127-150. Yegenoglu, N 1998, Colonial fantasies: Toward a feminist reading of orientalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More