Orientalism

I think the problem with reading Orientalism today is that much of what he says (that was so revolutionary at the time) is so accepted now (at least among most academics). He's a brilliant writer, although he did irritate me at times (he constantly vilified anyone trying to represent anything, claiming, rightfully, that it is only possible to have a misrepresentation of anything built on one's own experiences and culture, and I did truly want to remind him that was what he was doing with Orientalism, too). Some of his scholarship is also a bit off (mistaking certain writers for other people with the same name, that sort of thing), but still, a seminal work. (One last aside--I would have also liked to have seen more women writers acknowledged by him, although at least in the case of Lucie Duff Gordon, he would have been more hardpressed to criticize her as he could some of the major Orientalists.)

n  God Bless Edward Said n

For those who may ask why one should pick up and read Edward Said's Orientalism, my response would be a difficult one to articulate. This was a book I knew I had to tackle; Orientalism started a whole intellectual counter-movement in the 1970's after all. However, the work I just finished reading was one I wrestled with intellectually throughout. The subject raised by Said is one that I agree with whole-heartedly; that wasn't the point of contention when reading this. In reality, I found this to be an incredibly difficult book to read. I agree with another reviewer here that this is a book primarily aimed at academics. This becomes clear in its long passages, intensely obsessive and detailed scrutiny of scholars previous work in the field (dating as far back to the 1700's, with names you will simply not remember unless you work in this field), as well as long expositions (philological laboratory are two words I will never forget for as long as I live), in which the author attempts to penetrate the mind of those, who in turn, had made it their job to penetrate the minds of those in the so called Orient.

Saids aim in these pages can easily be found anywhere on the internet. It does not seem worthy of repeating here again. However, having come out of this particular experience very exhausted - 70 pages in one day utterly annihilated me, to the point where I couldn't muster the same enthusiasm for the text again, and proceeded at a mediocre 10 pages a day - yet extremely grateful, and stimulated. I feel quite strongly about encouraging others to pick this up and finish it's 328 pages (354 if we include the afterword).

It wasn't until mid-way in this book, that I realised why I was so knackered with reading it. It wasn't solely the style of writing; I've read tough books before. It was the fact that I found myself mildly depressed at the topic. It was my first encounter with truly institutionalised, academised, racism in written form. I am not referring to Said, I refer to the work he exposes. For what another reader like myself will discover - one who would identify as a casual reader - is there is no limit to the absolute absurdities certain so called "intellectuals" will go to to try and justify a certain world view. It truly is the epitome of 'wilful ignorance' when contradictions are found in amply supply upon analysing western views of billions of people throughout different countries and cultures. I was exposed to utterly astonishing - farcical even - explanations of Islam, the Middle East, central Asian, and East Asian cultures and beliefs. No less shocking than the fact it was by individuals considered "well-to-do" in their day. It was truly ridiculous. Yet, it was at this moment that I realised what Said was doing, and grew a true appreciation for his work that went beyond simply reading out of respect for the fact that his work was the first to tackle this topic.

It can be boiled down to this well known phrase: "They were people of their time". This emerged in my head after reading a particularly subtle racist passage Said illuminates to the reader (something I must also thank him for, as he pointed out latent racism quotes that I missed, despite him preparing me before the passage was quoted, as well as me knowing what book I was reading and being of sharp mind), and it suddenly dawned on me. Why did people think that way, and within their own time more specifically? Where did their information come from? In this case, what informed them of their world view of the East? Said deconstructs the institutions that actually form the ideas that are then assimilated into the general knowledge of a particular time, culture and place. That unto itself makes for essential reading for anyone who wants to challenge or understand structures of power.

It is, finally, the new found knowledge I gained from his book, that gave me the nudge to rate it as 'must-read' in my own experience of reading non-fiction. We are sold the idea that social progress is always moving forward, linear, and unbreakable. Said exposes this as fraud. I learned - and hope you do to, if you choose to pick this up - that if ideas are institutionalised, guarded as borderline law, and sustained by succeeding generations of those attached to the institutions in question; then said ideas can be perpetuated, in theory, forever. Not only this, but they can lie dormant for years. They change, morph, and grow new faces to suit some urgent need by those using the institutions housing the ideas. Usually as justification for their own purpose, and ultimately making it nigh impossible to pin down in definition, the ideas first made popular, especially when they are written and re-written by many important names. For this I would draw attention to the shift from the mysterious and mystical Orient in the 1700's, to it becoming something described as backward, dangerous and barbaric in the 1800's, only to then morph into something useful for Orientalists to use as physical guiders of policy in the colonial era (overwhelmingly to justify oppression), only to then shift from European to American Orientalism mid 20th Century.

This is still so important for so many current day issues of our time. It doesn't bare thinking about where we would be if it weren't for writers like Said challenging the status quo.

السنة التي تقرأ فيها الاستشراق يجب أن تكون في أهميّة السنة التي تخرجت فيها، أو حصلت على أول عملٍ لك، أو تزوجتْ. سنة فارقة؛ لأن الكتاب يشكّل بالفعل علامة فارقة في قائمة القراءات.

يتناول الكتاب تحليل "خطاب" الاستشراق، وينقسم إلى ثلاثة محاور: نطاق الاستشراق، أبنية الاستشراق وإعادة بنائها، الاستشراق الآن. ثيمة الكتاب أو الفرضية التي يقوم عليها تتلخص في أن (الاستشراق مذهب فُرِض فرضاً على الشرق) وهو (جهاز ثقافي ينحصر في العداء والنشاط وإصدار الأحكام وفرض "الحقائق" والمعرفة).

بأسلوبٍ عميق، ونثرٍ آسر، ودقة لافتة يعرض سعيد تاريخ "التحيّزات" التي تكتسي طابعاً علميا زائفا، والرسائل المضمرة في الاستشراق، وتواطؤه المريب مع السلطة. وهو يكرر في صفحاتٍ كثيرة رفضه لتصوّر وجود جوهرٍ ثابت للشرق (أو حتى الغرب). (الاستشراق يقدم الشرق في صورة أنماطٍ ثابتة مجردة)، وبذكاء يلاحظ (الاختلاف المضمر والأقوى القائم بين المستشرق والشرقي، هو أن الأول يقوم بالكتابة، والثاني هو المكتوب عنه، والسلبية هي الدور المفترض للثاني، وأما الأول فيفترض فيه القوة التي تمكنه من الملاحظة والدرس وهلم جرا).

سيجعلك المؤلف في النهاية تنفر من لغة التعميمات الفضفاضة، والحشو والتطويل، والأحكام الساذجة، والصور الموغلة في السلبية، والقوالب الفكرية المغلقة، والمواقف العدائية المُغرِضة، وضيق الأفق.

إنه كتاب في (تهافت) الاستشراق، يمتاز بقدرة رهيبة على تفحص عيوبه ومساوئه، وسعيد يخلص إلى أن (الاستشراق رغم أوجه فشله، ورطانته المؤسفة، ونزعته العنصرية التي لا تكاد تخفى، وجهازه الفكري الهزيل، يزدهر اليوم. بل أني أرى ما يدعو إلى الانزعاج في انتشار تأثيره إلى "الشرق" نفسه، إذ تحفل صفحات الكتب والمجلات المنشورة بالعربية (وبلا شك باليابانية وشتى اللهجات الهندية وغيرها من اللغات الشرقية) بتحليلاتٍ من الدرجة الثانية يكتبها العرب عن "العقل العربي" وعن "الإسلام" وغير ذلك من أقوال في عداد الأساطير).

أخيراُ قرأت هذا الكتاب الشائك..

4.5 stars
This is a classic. If you're at all interested in international studies or anticolonialism, you should definitely read some Said. I've recently been compiling a list of international studies essentials that I've gotten into (or at least heard great things about) as an undergraduate in the major, and this was the first book I thought of.

With that said, this is a dense book. Said really only gets to the point by Part 3, "Orientalism Now." I definitely understand how the background of parts 1 and 2 is important for building his argument, particularly in the academic landscape of 1979, when it was published. But it is really hard to get through, and if you're not used to reading heavily academic texts, it might not be worth it. I consider myself fairly good at working through dense academic writing, and it still took me about nine months to get through it.

I think you could probably get the idea if you started around part 3, or just picked a few select chapters to read. So if you just want a general idea of Orientalism theory, that might be a better option. Still, I'm glad I personally read the whole book because I was able to learn about the whole background of the field that used to be called "Orientalism" (and that changed largely because of this book!), and having put in the effort to read all of it, I do think my understanding of Edward Said's brilliant ideas is much better.

In his conclusion and his 1994 Afterword, Said says part of the purpose of this book is to teach people to recognize orientalist trends and tropes in the scholarship and media they consume. I absolutely feel much more equipped to do that now, so for that, this book is quintessential.

Particularly in an era where we're seeing many orientalist tropes rising to the surface (for example, in the language of apologists for the genocide in Gaza), I absolutely encourage people to become aware of these ideas and how they influence our language and perceptions. A definitely must-read for anybody in/interested in academia, especially the humanities or social sciences.

The following is a true story:

Me, in a San Franscisco bar reading Orientalism.

The blonde girl next to me reading over my shoulder: "So what's Orientalism?"

I explain as best I can in a couple sentences.

Her: "There are so many isms in Asia - like Buddhism and Taoism. You know what book you should read? The Tao of Poo. It's sooo good. It's, like, the perfect way to teach Americans about Eastern Religion."

Horrified, I look back to my book and take a sip of beer.

هو تطوير تفصيلي ليس فقط للتمييز الجغرافي الأساسي الذي يقسم العالم لقسمين غير متكافئين شرق و غرب بل أيضا لسلسلة من المصالح التي يستعين في تحقيقها و الحفاظ عليها بشتى الوسائل مثل نتائج البحوث العلمية و إعادة البناء اللغوي القديم و التحليل النفسي و وصف الظواهر الطبيعية و المجتمعات و هو في حد ذاته إرادة معينة أو نية معينة أي إنه ليس مجرد تعبير عن الإرادة و النية لتفهم ما يبدو بوضوح أنه عالما مختلفا أو عالما بديلا و جديدا و للسيطرة عليه و التلاعب به في بعض الأحيان و ضمه إليه.

و هو و قبل كل شيء خطاب لا يرتبط مطلقا بعلاقة مباشرة بالسلطة السياسية السافرة و موازية لها

من الأخر و بدون فلسفات و تنظير طويل تمتليء به صفحات هذا الكتاب القيم فإن الاستشراق هو دراسة الشرق دراسة منحازة بوجهات نظر مسبقة و مدفوعة بأغراض استعمارية و نظرة فوقية لشعوب الشرق مهما تبين لنا غير ذلك و يدلل هنا إدوارد سعيد بوعيه كمثقف شرقغربي إن جاز التعبير على ذلك بدلالات عديدة يخلص منها بنتيجة أن على الشرق تمثيل نفسه بنفسه بدلا من ترك الساحة للمستشرقين للتأثير في الشعوب و صناع القرار.

من أصعب الكتب التي قرأتها أيضا كان هذا الكتاب

A Pioneering Study in Intellectual History
Make no mistake: this book is not about the East at all - no matter how you fill in that geographical-political-cultural term - but about the West, Western culture in the broad sense of the word (including its political, social and economic dimension). The essence of Said’s thesis is that in Western culture an image of the East was created very early on as the fundamentally different: mysterious, strange, exotic, somewhat attractive, but above all different and therefore threatening. He delves deeply into history, and devotes most of his book to how 'Orientalism' has evolved from a rather vague mythical-social concept to a concrete literary movement (after all Said was a literary scientist) and in the course of the 19th century also into a branch of scientific practice. In addition, he discusses concrete writers such as Dante, Chateaubriand and E.M. Forster, but also scientists such as Ernest Renan, Edward William Lane and Louis Massignon.

strengths
Said certainly has an eye for nuances: with each of these authors there are different accents, and throughout history the concept of the 'Orient' is constantly evolving, if only geographical: ranging from ancient Persia and Egypt, to Arabia and Islam, to India and even South East Asia, to shrink back to the Middle East and especially Islam in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Three things keep coming back: the orientalist discourse always has Western superiority as a starting point, and in the 19th century that even led to the overt mission to drag the 'passive and backward' Orient along in the advance of (Western) civilisation. Said was clearly inspired by the work of Michel Foucault and his thesis that any discourse is an expression of a power relationship, in this case colonialism and imperialism; Said adds that Orientalism also precedes that colonialism, made it possible, supported it and also was strengthened and influenced by it. A second characteristic of 'Orientalism' that is stressed is that it mainly says something about the West itself, because it is simply constitutive of Western identity: as there is a ‘different, retarded and strange’ East, it is also immediately clear that the West must stand for civilization and enlightenment. And a third important characteristic is that the concept of ‘Orient’ among the Orientalists is unchanging, does not allow nuance; it is a frozen concept (“the typical Arab always is lazy”).

So I certainly support the extensive praise that this work has received, which has led to a much more critical view of Western culture, both in the West itself and beyond. Of course, it also has something to offer for the view of the West on other cultures: the African, the native American, Chinese, Polynesian (and why not: the Russian, those of the Balkans), and so on. Edward Said only focussed on the ‘Orient’, because he is right that no other approach was as deep, elaborate, persistent and as fundamental to Western civilization in general as 'Orientalism'.

Since its publication, in 1978, this book also has received a lot of criticism. Said is said to have written a purely anti-Western book and has feeded the hateful movements against the West in their (sometimes violent) struggle. Anyone who has read this book thoroughly will have to admit that this reproach is unjustified. Said really does his best to elaborate his thesis from a nuanced theoretical framework (the relationship between culture and society), with a subtle eye for constant shifting, the fluidness of concepts and opinions, and at the same time placing ‘Orientalism’ in a context that immediately exposes how generally human that tendency is to reduce the other to a reductionist essence ("otherness").

weaknesses
But the book also contains elements that in a certain sense justify criticism. Said does not always write coherently, has been rather sloppy in the construction of this book, and occasionally is fiercely polemic (especially his criticism of the Arabist Bernard Lewis is extremely harsh). Ultimately, this book is an engaged piece of writing: it is an explicit position against ‘Orientalism’, that is to say, against reducing the East to an essence that is constructed and self-nourishing. Also in his personal life, Said did not shy away from polemics, and in the United States in particular, that - as an advocate of the Palestinian cause – has done his reputation much harm.

Detail criticism is certainly also possible on the selectiveness in this work: Said only focuses on authors who support his thesis. This can be scientifically justified at the level of hypothesis formation, but not in a final assessment of reality. I notice that very influential works such as Marco Polo’s report of his (alleged?) trip to Mongolian China and Montesquieu's Persian homage in “Lettres Persanes” are completely missing. And that is strange.

But for me, the weaknesses of this work do not entirely outweigh the strengths of it. Perhaps it’s best to view this book as a pioneering work: Said has shown us how the dominant position of the West in the 19th and 20th centuries found its inspiration and justification in a much longer existing way of looking at that 'other' East, and how that ‘Orientalism’ in turn was strengthened and inspired by concrete colonial and imperialist action. More nuances and more context may be appropriate, but you cannot ignore this fact. And a relevant evolution is that after Said, a whole scientific branch of post-colonial, "subaltern" studies has started that continue to feed the debate. That debate is also very varied: sometimes nuanced, sometimes very extreme, but at least it is an intellectual debate, and only through this a multifaceted, enriching view of history and reality can only be won.