“East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet”. (Rudyard Kipling)
Edward Said’s book, Orientalism (first published in 1978), is consistent with the very obvious frustration expressed by both common and wise men of east, some western scholars, who believe that the west has suppressed the east by different means, robbing the east off their resources and labeling them as neandertaler who can be subjected to any kind of treatment. The book recognizes orientalism as yet another hegemonic tool of western half of the world.
Orientalism is seen by Said as an extension of idea of “White Man’s Burden” that strategically positions west as why they should interfere in east or Orient. Orient encompasses, in the western view, a vast geographical area from East Asia to India to Middle East. Said’s book is an interesting and detailed account of why orientalism is a tool used by west for their political, economic and cultural benefits. The book has a number of examples that help shed more light on the subject matter. Finally, Said sees orientalism as a moral basis for colonialism and neo-colonialism and world domination of the west.
This book takes one to the heights and depths of west-east clash in scholarly circles. It is exploratory and explanatory of the concept of orientalism and the reasons behind its controversial nature. To understand the book well, one should understand Said’s explorations and take on the issue. Therefore, it is important to know how he defines orientalism, how he puts the whole concept in a historical perspective, what he feels about the scope and prevalence of orientalism, whether or not he sees orientalism as source of tension between the Occident and the Oikumene, and if he gets involved in any way in this tension or enmity.
Orientalism is yet another concept of western superiority over the east. Orientalism refers to the way in which western scholars, writers, thinkers, politicians and common men perceive the non-Western (specifically Asian) cultures. It is believed that Orientalism first surfaced during the 19th century, when furthering West’s colonial aspirations needed better knowledge of Asia. The term is believed to have been introduced more explicitly by the Palestinian cultural critic Edward Said in his book Orientalism which was published in 1978.
In his book, Said refers to process that has entailed the history and ideology which perpetrate myths and false metaphors about the Eastern or “oriental” world that are prevalent in various western discourses. These discourses usually involve a demeaning fiction. To avail Western superiority through Orientalism, a lot of deception and superstition was employed by the west to degrade the east or orient. For instance, Arabs were said to be loose at sex and their men were branded as feminine, extremely dangerous to white women though. Such systematic stereotyping of the orient is believed to enable the Europeans to colonize vast areas of the globe.
Said reduces the concept of Orientalism to its simplest form for precision and easy understanding and says: “there are Westerners, and there are Orientals. The former dominate; the latter must be dominated, which usually means having their land occupied, their internal affairs rigidly controlled, their blood and treasure put at the disposal of one of another Western power.” This epitomizes the present day dehumanization witnessed in the preceding times to mass killings and genocide. For example, the “hate radio” in Rwanda urged the Hutus to kill the cockroaches, the Tutsis. This made it easy for Hutus to commit extreme atrocities against Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Orientalism in the same manner made it easy for Western societies to despise the Orientals to the point that the Orientals were easily made objects to acute actions. The whole point of orientalism, in Said’s belief, is the thirst for control through degrading the “others”.
Said claims that “the structure of Orientalism is nothing more than a structure of lies or of myths which, where the truth about them to be told would simply blow away. I myself believe that Orientalism is more particularly valuable as a sign of European Atlantic power over the Orient than it is as a veridical discourse about the Orient.” Therefore, he believes that Orientalism is not merely an airy European fantasy. It is more a created body of both theory and practice in which a lot of investment has been made. Based on such a vigorous investment, Orientalism has turned into a system of knowledge about the Orient. It has become more into an accepted grid for categorization of Orient into the Western perception. The investment has multiplied several folds to portray Orientalism into a general culture. Orientalism is supposed to be the idea of Europe as a collective notion identifying the peoples of east. In a quite constant way, Orientalism depends for its strategy on this flexible positional superiority, which puts the Westerner in a whole series of possible relationships with the Orient without ever losing him the relative upper hand.
Now that I have established the definitions of Orientalism to some extent, it is important to talk of Orient and Oriental as well. Orient is one of the most significant constructions of Orientalist scholars. What is considered the Orient is a vast region, one that spreads across a myriad of cultures and countries. It includes most of Asia as well as the Middle East. The depiction of this single ‘Orient’ which can be studied as a cohesive whole is one of the most powerful accomplishments of Orientalist scholars. It essentializes an image of a prototypical Oriental–a biological inferior that is culturally backward, peculiar, and unchanging–to be depicted in dominating and sexual terms. The discourse and visual imagery of Orientalism is laced with notions of power and superiority, formulated initially to facilitate a colonizing mission on the part of the West and perpetuated through a wide variety of discourses and policies. The language is critical to the construction. The feminine and weak Orient awaits the dominance of the West; it is a defenseless and unintelligent whole that exists for, and in terms of, its Western counterpart. The importance of such a construction is that it creates a single subject matter where none existed, a compilation of previously unspoken notions of the Other. Since the notion of the Orient is created by the Orientalist, it exists solely for him or her. Its identity is defined by the scholar who gives it life.
The Attribution of Orientalism to a specific geographic area, Orient, is not where the whole notion stops, the actual target of the west through Orientalism is the peoples living in Orient, the Orientals. The stereotypes assigned to Orientals as individuals are very specific: Orientals are barbaric and have no regard for others but their own opinion. They live in clans. They are cruel and merciless when placed in positions of power. Should they serve in subservient positions, they become cunning and obsequious. Orientals are under no circumstances trustworthy. “They are capable of sophisticated abstractions, but not of concrete, practical organization or rigorous, detail-oriented analysis”. Their men are seen to bear feminine features, yet they are considered highly dangerous for Western women. They are seen as cowards who lock up their women behind bars. In short, Orientals are defined as strange. In his book, Said asks if anyone has seen this cunning, despotic, mystical Oriental. He does not believe anyone has met anyone who meets this description in all particulars. That is why, he believes it is the Europeans who have created a thought that Oriental is a particular type of myth.
Orientalism, Orient and Oriental, in Said’s analysis, are terminology of the work of Westerners for a comprehensive discourse to show the people in the east inferior so that the west can benefit politically, economically and culturally.
In Said’s view, Orientalism began in 19th century when the first ‘Orientalists’ started to translate the writings of “the Orient” into English, and when the colonial power subjugated more and more lands as their colonies. From 1815 to 1915, the percentage of the world under colony increased from 35% to 85% badly affecting the African and Asian continents. The two most important colonial powers, Britain and France, resorted to share despite extreme rivalry. Orientalists around this time assumed that a truly effective colonial conquest required knowledge of the conquered peoples. They believed that the West could own the Orient only when they knew it. Thus, the Orient was vigorously and constantly studied, seen and observed. In short, it became the object; whereas, the Orientalist scholars became the students, the ones who saw and observed. They were the subjects. This meant that the Orient was passive and the West was active.
As for present, Said argues that Orientalism can be found in the way the “Arab” culture is currently depicted in the West. Orientalist scholarship has evolved into ideas that the “Arabs” are irrational, menacing, untrustworthy, anti-Western, dishonest, and prototypical. The ideologies and policies developed by Occident are not simply informed by these notions but are rather based on these notions. Said is particularly weary of the institutionalization of these “instruments”. He says there is a strong support system in place to give staggering power to these notions. This support system is constituted in institutions. He believes that even state institutions have been penetrated this system. “To write about the Arab Oriental world, therefore, is to write with the authority of a nation, and not with the affirmation of a strident ideology but with the unquestioning certainty of absolute truth backed by absolute force.”
Another forceful example of contemporary Orientalism is the revelations of Henry Kissinger who sees the United State’s relationship with the industrial, developed West at much ease. He says the United States can deal with the industrial, developed West less problematically than the developing or third world. Kissinger divides the world into two halves; the developed and the developing.
Historically, Orientalism is traced back to the colonial times. However, its traits still exist across the world and there is proof that there is still the west-east divide there.
Orientalism seems to be gaining some coverage in different parts of the world. The notion is being researched and discussed in scholarly circles. For example, in UCLA, formerly of Ben-Gurion University in Israel, there is a Hebrew version of the book Orientalism available. The book has stimulated a great level of discussion and debate among Israeli readers and students. In addition, the book has been translated into Vietnamese under Australian auspices. It is believed that an Indochinese intellectual space seems to have opened up and broadening for the propositions of this book.
Orientalism seems to have not only divided the world but has also created some tension in particular quarters. Some even say that concept has contributed to the clash of civilizations. “Edward Said says that Orientalism, especially the academic study of, and discourse, political and literary, about the Arabs, Islam, and the Middle East that primarily originated in England, France, and then the United States actually creates a divide between the East and the West.” The mere fact that one side is considered weak, while the other is rated as superior, helps increase the tension. According to Said, “the West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the ‘Orient’. The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism. They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. To fill this void, the West has created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East.”
If Orientalism indeed promotes racism and prejudice, it would become a totally unacceptable notion for any civilized human being to accept. Since the notion has also divided opinion and has faced stark criticism from different quarters, particularly, the east, civilized individuals would rather stay away from it and even resist it. This means there is a level of hostility that exists between civilized individuals and those propagating Orientalism as described by Said.
The history of the world is full of bloody and destructive wars. It is full of atrocities humankinds have been inflicting on one another. History shows that the one reason that appears to make humans hungry for each others’ blood is pointing out differences in race, color, type of hair etc. Humans have suffered greatly because of categorization, groupings, attributions they could do little about in the first place.
The trouble with Orientalism is also that it categorizes certain people of certain color, origin and geographical location inferior to the people of another certain color, origin and geographical location. And there are forces that have fanned this difference over the course of history to achieve political power, control over resources or cultural supremacy. It is never late to right the wrong. Confession of the past mistakes and ill intentions could be a beginning; whereas, giving a helping hand to the affected could be a major mending step. If we were to suppose Said’s argument has any weight if at all, then, the so called “Orientalists” should come forward, abhor their past actions and start a new future together with everyone else.
Secondly, one could take a critical look at the work of Said as many have done and actually see Orientalism in a more positive light by giving credit to those who have spent precious time of their lives to study Orient, some of whom have even developed not only a huge interest on the part of their readers but also created a positive image for Orientals in their respective countries. Maybe, that is the reason some scholars have leveled stark criticism against Said and this particular piece of his work. For instance, in his book, For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and their Enemies (2006), British Historian, Robert Graham Irwin “criticizes Said’s thesis that throughout Europe’s history, ‘every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.”
Irwin points out that long before notions like third-worldism and post-colonialism entered the academia, many Orientalists were committed advocates for Arab and Islamic political causes. Another good example is of that of Goldziher who backed the Urabi revolt against foreign control of Egypt. Edward Granville Browne, the Cambridge Iranologist, lobbied hard for Persian liberty during Iran’s Constitutional Revolution in the early 20th century. The Italian Islamicist, Prince Leone Caetani, was against Italy’s occupation of Libya, attracting bitter criticism from his countrymen who even denounced him as a “Turk”. Louis Massignon took up the Palestinian Arab cause, though he was French.
I would agree under special circumstances that “the notion of Oriental homogeneity will exist as long as prejudice serves political ends, but to blame the sins of its current use on hegemonic intellectualism mires ongoing mitigation of bad and biased scholarship in an unresolvable polemic of blame. It is time to read beyond “Orientalism”.
(Bilquees Daud is currently teaching at Jindal Global University. She holds a Graduate degree in Social Sciences from the American University of Afghanistan and a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt Germany. She has extensive work experience with local and international organizations, universities and research centers in Afghanistan and abroad. She is the author of several research and analytical articles, published by different sources including Project for Democratic Union, The Diplomat, BBC Pashto and IIC Quarterly.)
