The Concept of Orientalism - Essay Example

? Orientalism Introduction Orientalism is a term that has long been implemented by scholars as a means of describing the people and cultural attitudes surrounding the Middle East and East Asian society. Notably the term is not intrinsic to these societies but instead a creation of Western culture developed as a means of both articulating and engaging with these regions. The term largely emerged in art historical scholarship and artistic practices in the 19th century (Mackenzie 1995). Many Western artists during the 19th specialized in depicting ‘oriental’ subject matter resulting in the increased use of the term as a genre (MacKenzie 1995). While the term had existed in a variety of forms, art critic Jules Castagnary as a derisive term for these art productions largely popularized it during this period. Still, the term has been implemented in professional usage since as early as the 18th century referring to Oriental Studies scholars. Today this discipline largely goes under the name Asian studies. This change accompanied broader range intellectual perspectives, most notably those of Edward Said, which criticized the notion of ‘orientalism’. This essay considers authors of differing perspectives, and uses various societies and historical periods in evaluating these arguments on orientalism. Analysis One of the seminal theorists on orientalism is Edward Said. Said’s text ‘Orientalism’ is regarded as a highly influential critique on the notion of orientalism, both in post-colonial investigations as well as in broader investigations of the Middle East and Asia. Because of Said’s centrality to the discussion his perspective is considered in-depth. From an overarching perspective Said’s argument is that the notion of orientalism is constituted by erroneous Western assumptions regarding the Middle East. More specifically, Said contends that these assumptions regarding Middle Eastern culture are not merely erroneous but also have been implemented by Western powers as a means of justifying colonial and imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, Said has criticized individuals within Middle Eastern culture who he argues have co-opted these Western perceptions of the ‘orient’. Said’s criticism of orientalism is not limited to a singular cultural epoch, but spans a wide range of theorists and histories. Indeed, his discourse has been noted to be as, “historically, politically, and philosophically diverse as Aeschylus, Dante, and Marx” (Malik 1995). Specifically, Said considers Aeschylus’ perspective on the barbarian, Dante’s perspective on the Arab, and Marx’ perspective on India; still, scholars have criticized such expansive historicism as rooted in falsified notions of a unified essence. While these concerns represent the backbone of Said’s argument there are further structural components that must be considered. It appears that within Said’s examinations is a strong emphasis on the post-modern dialectic, as established by Michel Foucault. Foucault has envisioned political and social structures primarily as embodiments of power. For instance, Foucault’s vision of Western law enforcement is that it is contingent on the notion of the panopticon, with individuals within society abiding by laws because of the random potential of them being enforced. For Said, Foucault’s understanding of this social order is recognized in the dialectic that has emerged surrounding orientalism. Said (2002, p. 204) writes, “My contention is that Orientalism is fundamentally a political doctrine willed over the Orient because the Orient was weaker than the West, which elided the Orient’s difference with its weakness....As a cultural apparatus Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth, and knowledge.” Within this context of understanding Said is indicating that rather than the notion of orientalism have emerged from legitimate scholarship or ethnographic research, instead it is the product of Western political or economic forces that have found it convenient to embrace falsified or antiquated cultural notions as a means of advancing specific interests. Said recognizes the emergence of notions of orientalism as early as Roman antiquity, but roots modern visions to the 18th century. Said argues that the very emergence of notions of orientalism was tied into notions of racism and cultural superiority. Essentially Said argues that rather being constituted from legitimate studies of the Middle East, notions of the orient were first collated by word of mouth through Europeans. The very process of articulating these experiences, however, necessitated that they be mediated through European ethnocentricity and values. Said therefore argues, “that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric” (Said 2002, p. 202). Here it’s clear that Said is working out of a post-modern milieu and has implemented this lens in his dialectic on orientalism, such that his criticism is as much about Western racism as it is about antiquated Western analytic models. Even as Said argues firmly within a post-modern dialectic, his criticism of orientalism isn’t limited to Western power, but also extends comprehensively into the geopolitical and aesthetic spectrums. To an extent his notion here seemingly goes against his earlier arguments that orientalism is ‘fundamentally a political doctrine.’ Instead, Said seems to have abandoned this bounded phenomenon as a means of extending his argument to more transcendental terms. Said argues, “It is rather a distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, sociological, historical, and philological texts…and as such has less to do with the Orient than with our world” (Said, 2002, p. 12). In this context of understanding, while Said is speaking slightly vaguely, it seems that he is implementing a structural analytical lens. Namely, his argument seems to be that the erroneous and racist assumptions that have been correlated together under the term and study ‘orientalism’ have permeated intellectual and political discourse to such an extent that they have had a corresponding impact on intellectual and political thought on a large scale. One possible explanation for such an occurrence would be the argument that it is impossible to think of nearly any discipline in the social sciences without comprehensively considering the nature and impact of an entire region of the globe. Ultimately then Said is arguing that the erroneous assumptions surrounding orientalism not only displays a lack of understanding of the Middle East, but also fundamentally hinders all academic disciplines in gaining a greater understanding of knowledge and the human experience. While Said’s criticism of orientalism is perhaps the most seminal, it is far from the only criticism that has been levied against the practice. Furthermore, there has been significant criticism of Said’s own perspective on orientalism (El-Azm; Ahmad 1992). In understanding criticisms of orientalism it’s necessary to consider perspectives on Said’s work as they establish the larger dialogue on the subject. Sadek El-Azm has been one of the most prominent critics of Said’s notion of orientalism, arguing that just as Said claims individuals are making blanket statements on the Middle East, so is Said making blanket statements on these individuals’ perspectives. Indeed, there appears to be a considerable amount of legitimacy to El-Azm’s claims. One of the distinguishing features of this debate is the very method by which such knowledge is determined. To a large extent it appears Said’s argument that his perspective on orientalism has a greater claim to truth than other’s is contingent on the efficacy of the lens with which he envisions it. While Said has the cultural turns of modernism and post-modernism at his disposal, the individuals leveraging assumptions against him seem to indicate that his methods of analysis are no more effective than individuals of earlier era. One considers that the very notion of a post-modern dialetic contains the dissolution of grand meta-narratives; to a degree one could argue that just as Said has used his contemporary lens as a means of justification for his critique, contained within this lens is the paradoxical notion of a lack of such understandings. Further recognitions consider that Said’s criticism of a unified notion of Western culture that has maintained a singular essence throughout the ages is also highly problematic (Malik 1995). While Said broadly criticizes the notion of orientalism other writers have criticized the means by which it has been expressed in modern discourse. Lewis (1996) has been one of the most prominent voices in the debate on orientalism. While Said rejects the notion outright, Lewis considers that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the term orientalism. Still she seems to recognize that many of Said’s contentions hold a strong amount of legitimacy. While Said’s recognition of the erroneous assumptions underlining much orientalist thought led him to critique Western hegemony, Lewis (1996) extends the discussion to consider the ways that such discourse should be constituted. Lewis (1996, p. 10) notes, “Orientalism, like any discourse, must be made regarded as multivocal and hetereogeneous, a formation made up of dissimilar and non-equivalent instances.” In these regards, Lewis is indicating that past visions of the orientalist too stringently implemented a modernist means of understanding. That is, scholarship on the regions or countries that make up the orient articulated notions of culture and society from a singular narrative. Such singularity -- as Said earlier argued -- when constituted within the Western cultural-dialectic resulted in an interpretation of this region within bounds that were favorable to Western imperial interests. Lewis contention then follows post-modern notions of culture in arguing that orientalist need not be entirely abandoned, but instead of a singular metanarrative on the topic and region scholars and theorists should embrace a plurality of discourse. Specifically, Lewis (1996, p. 10 argues) that such an understanding functions to establish, “counterhegemonic and subaltern (embryonically counter hegemonic) voices that may contest and to varying extents transform the power relations of hegemonic discourse.” This is a criticism of traditional notions of orientalism not merely in terms of erroneous assumptions, but also in regards to the very ways that the ‘truth’ claims are understood. For Lewis then orientalism is instead a concept that is fundamentally unstable; although she recognizes that generalizations are necessary and will emerge in academic discourse and intellectual thought, her argument is that it is necessary to juxtapose such interpretations with voices of the subaltern as a means of deconstructing hegemonic influences. Lewis is not the only theorist of orientalism to disagree while at the same time build on Said’s original criticisms. Behdad (1994) also considers that to a great degree that ineffectiveness of orientalism is that it is rooted in antiquated notions of cultural studies. In contrast to Said, Behdad argues that orientalism does not represent a discourse of Western hegemonic power but instead an already existing plurality of viewpoints. While Behdad would acknowledge that within these viewpoints are notions of racism, hegemony, and oppression, he also leaves the door open for potential notions of the region rooted in rationality; to a degree then it seems that Behdad is more open to traditional notions of orientalism than Lewis. Still, both writers share similar notions of where future investigations into orientalism should extend. Behdad (1994, p. 137) writes, “an effective critique of Orientalism must view itself as an interminable struggle and a perpetually revisionist project that constantly questions its theoretical assumptions and reconsiders its critical tactics.” Additionally, Behdad argues that in both the traditional perspective on orientalism and in future research into the region, it is necessary for scholars to not simply work towards the establishment of a singular narrative through repetitions, but to find the areas where discontinuities occur because these are ultimately the instances that allow for a true multicultural perspective. In conclusion, this essay has examined criticisms of the notion of orientalism. The debate has partially been centered on Said’s seminal contributions to the topic through his consideration of orientalism as founded in Western hegemonic discourse. Said’s main contentions are considered, as well as his critics. While most scholars agree with Said’s notion of traditional understandings of the orient as relying on erroneous assumptions, much disagreement has arisen as to the extent that such criticisms can be linked to Western imperial interests. Alternative critics have built on Said’s criticisms and argued that traditional notions of orientalism should be supplanted with investigations that implement a post-modern cultural dialetic that shares a plurality of perspectives. Ultimately, even while a stable notion of ‘orientalism’ is impossible to establish, scholars and theorists can advance investigations that carry within them cultural juxtapositions that establish this plurality of perspectives. References Aijaz Ahmad 1992, In theory: classes, nations, literatures. London: version. Behdad, Ali. Belated travelers: orientalism in the age of colonial dissolution. Cork : Cork University Press, 1994. Kenan Malik 1995, The Meaning of race Lewis, Reina, 1963-Gendering Orientalism : race, femininity and representation. London : Routledge, 1996. MacKenzie, John M. (John MacDonald), 1943-Orientalism : history, theory and the arts. Manchester ; New York : Manchester University Press, 1995. Sadek El-Azm Said, Edward W. (Edward William), 1935-2003.Culture and imperialism. London : Vintage, 1994. Said, Edward W. (Edward William), 1935-2003.Orientalism. Harmondsworth : Penguin, 2003. Read More