A Critical Analysis of Terrorism Discourse and Orientalist Thinking - Research Paper Example

?A Critical Analysis of Terrorism Dis and Orientalist Thinking Introduction Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism revealed to the world the ‘imaginative geography’ where in the West and East are divided; a division, though, that is “less a fact of nature than it is a fact of human production” (Battersby, 2007, p. 71). This Orientalism dominates the contemporary analysis of terrorism. This essay analyses the argument that “the analysis of the problem of terrorism represents, in many ways, a form of Orientalist thinking”. Orientalist thinking does not simply form a geographical consciousness but also preserves certain cultural, intellectual, and political perceptions of the East. Furthermore, it conveys an entire range of ‘interests’ to identify, rule, and manoeuvre the Orient (Ashcroft, 1995, p. 90): ... it is above all a discourse that is by no means in direct, corresponding relationship with political power in the raw, but rather is produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power, shaped to a degree by the exchange with power political (as with a colonial or imperial establishment), power intellectual (as with reigning sciences like comparative linguistics or anatomy, or any of the modern policy sciences), power cultural (as with orthodoxies and cannons of taste, texts, values), power moral (as with ideas about what “we” do and what “they” cannot do or understand as “we” do). Within this perspective, Orientalism is an ‘intended’ and ‘determined’ human effort. Through it Western civilisations became dominant both within and outside the Western hemisphere. The notion of supremacy of the West vis-a-vis all non-Western civilisations formed the basis of the relationship between the Occident and the Orient (Birkenstein, Froula, & Randell, 2010). What makes the relationship between the West and the East important is that “Europe was always in a position of strength not to say domination” (Cirakman, 2002, p. 11). Because the perception of the Orient was produced out of power, it also establishes the Oriental and the Orient. The texts concerning the Orient, which gained popularity and victory, have not simply produced ‘knowledge’ but also the core set of truths they seem to express. Said refers to this practice or structure of thinking a ‘discourse’ (MacKenzie, 1995). What makes Orientalism a discourse is the fact that it is largely ‘textual’. Texts regarding the Orient shape its core reality. Hence, Said believes that reality does not subsist outside or separately from human thoughts; in essence, it is a creation of the text. Orientalism as a mode of thinking also comprises the practical consequences of such textual interactions (MacKenzie, 1995). Because it is the texts that generate the Orient’s reality, western cultural and political systems are unavoidably influenced by the arguments of such texts, rather than by the observable or actual reality of the Orient in a particular place and time. Thus all cultural or political interactions are actually attributes of a textual interaction (Schmid, 2011). Hence, Orientalism as a structured ‘knowledge’ is not only portraying the Orient’s reality ‘misleadingly’ or ‘incorrectly’ but it produces acknowledged realities about the Orient upon which Westerners analyse, study, and control. Analysing Terrorism: An Orientalist Discourse Gaining popularity in Britain as a defence of colonialism, Orientalism argued that people of the Orient are immersed in a form of perpetual childhood, endowed with supernatural faith but deficient in the modernisation that the Western world would be capable of providing. To a great extent, the U.S. has taken the dominant role once possessed by France and Britain in regions of the world where Muslims make up the majority (Boehmer & Morton, 2011). And to a much greater extent, the U.S. has adopted an Orientalist thinking. Americans, in an Orientalist manner, particularly tend to consider every resistance originating from these regions of the globe as ‘Islamic’, even when the resistance are obviously created by human rights, economic, or political issues (Presbey, 2007). The U.S. has been eager to help ‘Islamic freedom fighters’ whose interests and goals support stronger American hegemony because, in any case, “’Islam’ is… what holds the West’s oil reserves….” (Griffith, 2002, p. 137). Yet, when it is the position of the United States that is challenged, the image of ‘Islamic terrorism’ is brought into the picture. The ‘Islamic terrorist’ is driven by spiritual, primeval desires to hinder the inescapability of progress, modernisation, and enlightenment. His spiritual instinct makes him doubly dangerous and particularly resistant to rational demands for negotiation and conciliation. His firm devotion to a restricted vision of convention makes other groups and civilisations susceptible to his rage. He worships ‘jihad’ because his religion requires it (Griffith, 2002). This is the image of a Muslim terrorist, a construction not of Islam or the Muslims themselves but of Orientalist discourse. This Orientalist thinking that has allowed the depiction of the Islamic terrorist has misrepresented the dominant theme of kindness or benevolence in Islam. Mohandas Ghandi, who experienced the injustice of Orientalism aimed at Hindus, found strength in the martyr Imam Husayn, and the encouragement he stumbled on was not a ‘lust for martyrdom’ but a devotion to a peaceful resistance: “From Husayn I learned how to be downtrodden and oppressed—how to rise up and be victorious” (Griffith, 2002, p. 139). In fact, the history of Islam presents several instances of Islamic tranquility and non-aggression. Moreover, terror is not innate to Islamic portrayals of God’s final judgment (Dabashi, 2011). Embedded in the Orientalist perspective is the issue of power inequality between the Orient and Occident. As Said stated (Lewis, 2008, p. 295): My contention is that without examining Orientalism as a discourse one cannot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage-and even produce—the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period. Moreover, so authoritative a position did Orientalism have that I believe no one writing, thinking, or acting on the Orient could do so without taking account of the limitations on thought and action imposed by Orientalism. In brief, because of Orientalism the Orient was not (and is not) a free subject of thought or action. Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma, in Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies (2004), explain how the Japanese pilots of Kamikaze, the original suicide bombers in contemporary history, were not remote from Western traditions and principles. They were not remote from Western traditions, but integrated in it. This integration resulted in the denunciation of the West as corrupt, insincere, degenerate, and individualistic—all of the features of Occidentalism (Mooney & Young, 2005, p. 113). Hence, as the Western world constructs an Orientalist discourse to portray the ‘other’, those ‘other’ formed a discourse of Occidentalism to refute that which maligns and debases them. The silence of the field of postcolonial analysis ever since Fanon with regard to terrorism could be attributed partly to the ways in which the analysis of terrorism is traditionally dominated by the model of Western imperialism. Hence, in an article written for the Egyptian periodical Al-Ahram, Edward Said perceptively emphasised how, in Western societies, there was “such repetitious and unedifying attention paid to Palestinian suicide bombing that a gross distortion in reality has completely obscured what is much worse: the official Israeli... evil that has been visited so deliberately and so methodically on the Palestinian people” (Boehmer & Morton, 2011, p. 10). This statement is important, primarily, because it explains the way in which an analysis of terrorism feeds the political motives of the government and its approaches towards others, and also of the American government that backs it up.Yet, it also suggests a historical linkage between the analysis of terrorism and the imperialist discourse (Tibi, 2009). What Said sees in the Western perception of terrorism is a current illustration of what Said refers to as ‘orientalism’ in his seminal research in 1978 (Benhayoun, 2006, p. 32): a “distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical and philological texts”. Said already witnessed in 1988 how terrorism had replaced Communism as the world’s greatest adversary in public discourse. Referring to a manuscript by Benjamin Netanyahu, the former ambassador of Israel to the UN, Said explained how the description of Netanyahu of terrorism was erroneous because it relied “a prior on a single axiom: ‘we’ are never terrorists; it’s the Moslems, Arabs and Communists who are” (Boer, 2003, p. 9). In the same way, for the government of the South African apartheid, adversaries of the government like Nelson Mandela were called terrorists whilst the administration’s advocates were extolled as courageous protectors of peace, law and order (Blain, 2009). Such were the analyses, the fatal orientalist thinking, through which regime oppression was validated and supported. In denouncing the analysis of terrorism, Said is not certainly disproving that terrorist activities occur and that their consequences are detestable. Instead he is challenging the manner in which the analysis of terrorism is exploited by hegemonic nations like the U.S. and its allies to define and denounce hostile acts of opposition against imperialism, rather than dealing with the hostility of imperialist act itself (Porter, 2011). In essence, the analysis of terrorism, expressed in common orientalists principles, is another technique of defining the anti-colonial entity and the one hand and justifying the colonial entity on the other. Just like in The Jurisprudence of Emergency by Nasser Hussain, on the colonial policy of Britain in India, colonialism generated ideas of otherness (Schmid, 2011). Another illustration of the orientalist features of the contemporary analysis of terrorism surfaces in how the formidable but anonymous image of the terrorism is cited as the basis of British military rule and of American expansion in the 21st century—and as demanding global disciplinary efforts. But the military invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan—two manifestations of these disciplinary efforts—are also totally driven by the economic, political, and military motives of Britain and the United States (Porter, 2011). Similar disciplinary efforts against terrorism also involve the support of Britain and U.S. for Israel’s takeover of Lebanon and West Bank, and , on the domestic arean, the strengthening of the postponement of habeas corpus, intensification of surveillance measures, and the expansion of detention rules. In each and every one of these instances the hazard of postcolonial terrorism is framed as a main justification for retaliatory measures (Porter, 2011). This underlying judgment represents a prominent case of what Spivak refers to as ‘metalepsis’ (Boehmer & Morton, 2011, p. 11), in which a consequence of colonial rhetoric is framed as a basis; or where an emphasis on the aesthetic and emotional implications of terrorism is raised intentionally to reverse knowledge of the imperial motives that provoked terrorist acts. Unintentionally, the Western world reacted to the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York in a sense that characterises the various implications of Orientalism. In the flood of media reports making sense of, criticising, and recognising the matters surrounding the hostilities, the perceived geography dividing West and East became quite evident. Islam was criticised for its aggressive character, believed to be a natural attribute of this religion, and The Clash of Civilisations by Samuel Huntington became the latest descriptive handbook for how basically distinct the Judeo-Christian is from Islam (Birkenstein et al., 2010). As regards the war in Afghanistan hostility was not confined to Afghanistan and the Middle East, but also emerged in numerous forms in the Western world. The arrest of civilians suspected to be terrorists, the restrictions inflicted on civil rights and liberties, and the activities in Guantanamo Bay encampments all demonstrate how simply Arab-looking people or Arab and terrorists can be associated (Dabashi, 2011). In another, but certainly biased perspective, the U.S. group Campus Watch launched its web page in 2002, and regards Orientalism “as a watershed polemic that equated modern Middle Eastern scholarship to racism, imperialism, and ethnocentricity” (Boer, 2003, p. 10). The organisation also demands the release of “reports on Middle East-related scholarship, lectures, classes, demonstrations and other activities,” (Boer, 2003, p. 10) in effect obliging students to disclose their professors. The war against Iraq in 2003, as the subsequent measure in the war on terror, is described by numerous detractors of American foreign policy as a way of controlling oil reserves in the Middle East under the guise of establishing democracy in the region and, more particularly, in Iraq. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and appointing a leader preferred by Europe and the United States can be viewed, in terms of Orientalism, in the same skeptical point of view: it is part of a long history of intrusion in the Middle East (Boehmer & Morton, 2011). These cases of contemporary politics reveal a persistent attachment and recurrence of Orientalist thinking in the strategies and policies of the Western world. Obviously, even in an era where in geographical limitations are persistently being negotiated by migration, global financial flows, and the World Wide Web, the perceived geography and Orientalist thinking shaping intercultural relations remains an almost insurmountable hindrance. In framing terrorism, the media provides a concrete account of the issue, which enables people to envision the danger against its own ‘secure’ place, and the uncertainty generally surrounding the real identity of terrorists. Slowly but surely, people who match this perceived identity become equated with this perceived identity. Thus, the 9/11 incident and its consequences created a defining moment for the image of British Muslims, which altered the image of ethnic communities (Birkenstein et al., 2010). The attention of the U.S. media on 9/11 and its consequences produced an ‘imagined identity’ of the Muslim, described not merely as threatening but in terms of several related conduct. Provocative articles like Islam in Britain: The British Muslim Community in February 2005 by the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and Londonistan by Melanie Phillips introduced a post-9/11 scenario where British Muslims endangered the stability and unity of British society (Birkenstein et al., 2010, p. 36). However, numerous media analysts have emphasised the ways in which responses to 9/11 should be analysed within the perspective of Orientalism: “the fear of the Muslim is an extension of the ‘othering’ of the Muslim subject throughout history” (Birkenstein et al., 2010, p. 36). Even though there are well documented weaknesses of Said’s theory of Orientalism, his explanation of the Orient as perceived threat remains applicable to current settings. Said himself stresses how Western media perpetuates Orientalist thinking in framing the ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ and the ‘threatening Arab’ (Paolini, 1999). As pointed out by Ziauddin Sardar (1999), “Orientalism is very much alive in contemporary cultural practice […] reworked […] from one historical epoch to another” (p. 107). New concepts such as Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiments, have surfaced. But Orientalism remains a valuable perspective, especially in a British setting where most Muslims are not from the Middle East, but from South Asia (Presbey, 2007). Their identification as Muslims has made them a part of the same image as that of the people of Middle East, making the application of Orientalism to explain the representation of this population most suitable. There has been inadequate attention given to how popular literature influences these perceived identities. Writing, awareness, and knowlede is integral to Orientalist thinking but Said concentrates mainly on 19th century literary accounts, and popular literature has been given only little attention in works influenced by the theories of Said. Popular literary works depicting the British Muslim has been largely inspired by American post-9/11 opinions of the possible dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and the resulting perceived Muslim identiy (Schmid, 2011). However, analysing literary works both prior to and after 9/11 places emphsasis on how knowledge of the ‘othering’ of Muslims and Islamic traditions, and British Muslims more particularly, should also be positioned within a broader knowledge of what should be called Orientalist attitudes (Dabashi, 2011). Thus, literary works reflect account of media rhetoric which has emphasised that, in contrast to the assumption that 9/11 embodied a ‘defining moment’, what actually post-9/11 discourse presented was merely a heightening of and approval of current perceptions of Muslims. As stated by Fanon, “It is the racist who creates his inferior” (Paolini, 1999, p. 65). Racial classifications are not predetermined, but are rather a historically constructed social concept. Racial identity is created as a way of establishing the hegemony of one entity over another. Fanon’s interpretation of the ‘racialised colonial subject’ is relevant to the analysis of the relationship between terrorism discourse and Orientalist thinking (Paolini, 1999, p. 65). Fanon’s theory of colonialism provides an explanation of the creation of the ‘colonised’ as a dual mechanism of objectification. Orientalist images of the ‘other’ are strengthened by an especially deep-seated essentialism that rbings all colonised groups together (Presbey, 2007). The racial rhetoric of terrorism proves how the perception of the coloniser is structured so as to substantiate the inferior position of the colonised. The discourse on the war on terror reveals that the war is not only about fighting terrorist activities, but about perpetuating the inferior status of the colonised. As stated by Blain (2009), the social theory of Fanon argues about the importance of viewing the war on terror from a global point of view. Conclusion and Discussion Besides its denigration of Islam, Orientalist thinking simply nourishes the historical self-importance of the Western world. Since the collapse of the ex-Soviet Union, there are apprehensions that a consolidated ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ could raise one of the several remaining threats to the position of the United States as the only superpower. In the history of the United States, an assertion has continually surfaced that the U.S. has been divinely tasked to bring ‘civilisation’ to those without it. It is a powerful assertion that effectively brings religious and patriotic zeal together. It is also an assertion that would adopt a muted perception of any opposing claims from those regions of the world that are presently receiving Islamic revival. The argument that “the analysis of the problem of terrorism represents, in many ways, a form of Orientalist thinking” is strongly substantiated by the theories and observations of postcolonial thinkers like Said, Fanon, Spivak, and others. Said thoroughly explained how the framing of terrorism by Western societies, scholars, policymakers, and the media has been largely informed by Orientalist attitude. Likewise, Fanon explained how racial classifications served the hegemonic interests of Europe and the United States, or how the injustices and prejudices of Orientalist thinking kept the colonised subject in its inferior status. Many other postcolonial thinkers argued for a reevaluation and reinterpretation of terrorism, for the current discourse is obviously biased against Muslims and Islam in general. References Ashcroft, B. (1995) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. London: Routledge. Battersby, C. (2007) The Sublime, Terror and Human Difference. London: Routledge. Benhayoun, J. (2006) Narration, Navigation, and Colonialism: A Critical Account of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century English Narratives of Adventure and Captivity. UK: Peter Lang. Birkenstein, J., Froula, A., & Randell, K. (2010) Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture and the ‘War on Terror’. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Blain, M. (2009) The Sociology of Terrorism: Studies in Power, Subjection, and Victimage Ritual. New York: Universal-Publishers. Boehmer, E. & Morton, S. (2011) Terror and the Postcolonial: A Concise Companion. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Boer, I. (2003) After Orientalism: Critical Entanglements, Productive Looks. UK: Rodopi. Buruma, I. & Margalit, A. (2004) Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies. New York: The Penguin Press. Cirakman, A. (2002) From the ‘terror of the world’ to the ‘sick man of Europe’: European Images of Ottoman Empire and Society from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth. UK: Peter Lang. Dabashi, H. (2011) Post-Orientalism: Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Griffith, L. (2002) The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God. Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Lewis, J. (2008) Cultural Studies: The Basics. London: SAGE. MacKenzie, J. (1995) Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts. UK: Manchester University Press. Mooney, J. & Young, J. (2005) “Imagining Terrorism: Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism Terrorism, Two Ways of Doing Evil”, Social Justice 32 (1), 113+ Paolini, A. (1999) Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity and International Relations. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Porter, P. (2011) Military Orientalism: Eastern War through Western Eyes. New York: Columbia University Press. Presbey, G. (2007) Philosophical Perspectives on the ‘War on Terrorism’. UK: Rodopi. Sardar, Z. (1999) Orientalism. Michigan: Open University Press. Schmid, A. (2011) The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. UK: Taylor & Francis. Tibi, B. (2009) Islam’s Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change. London: Routledge. Read More