اولین بار کتاب را به انگلیسی خواندم و تصمیم داشتم دفعه ی دوم ترجمه ی فارسی را بخوانم که نزدیک به صفحه ی صدم به کلی منصرف شدم و به انگلیسی برگشتم. مطمئن نیستم که ترجمه روان نبود یا من زبان مادری ام را نمی فهمم ( و دچار این توهم هستم که انگلیسی را می فهمم) ولی بخش هایی از کتاب مفهوم نبودند، جملات طولانی و نثر فاخربرای کتابی که به نظرم ساده نویس و خوش خوان بود کمی زیاده روی به نظر می رسید
شناخته شده ترین بخش از کتاب ،نظریات سعید، موضوع ابداع مفهوم "دیگری" توسط کشورهای اروپایی تحت عنوان کلی"شرق" است، "دیگری" که کمک می کند فرهنگ غربی برتری خودش بر فرهنگ شرقی را توضیح بدهد و برای صد سال سیاست استعماری واشغال سرزمین های آسیایی و آفریقایی اش توجیه خوبی داشته باشد، در واقع این کشورها خود را تحت عنوان کلی غرب نماینده ی دنیای مدن، پیشرفت صنعتی-علمی و دارای عقلانیت و تمدن معرفی می کنند و در برابر خود شرق را می سازند که به صورت پیش فرض نشان دهنده ی جامعه ای ساکن، دچارعقب ماندگی، بی خردی و بی تمدنی است و البته تمام کشورهای آفریقایی و اسیایی را بدون توجه به تنوع فرهنگی و اجتماعی تحت این عنوان دسته بندی می کنند( که البته بعدا یک دور و نزدیک ومیانه هم به شرق اضافه می کنند تا مشخص تر بشود).
سعید در یک پاراگراف در همان اوایل کتاب این موضوع را مطرح می کند و بقیه ی کتاب تلاشی برای این است که ثابت کند چنین تصویری همیشه وجود داشته است و ابداع قرن هجدهم و نوزدهم نیست و به تبع آن هم شرق شناسی همیشه وجود داشته است و همیشه چنین ایده ی از پیش ساخته شده ای را نسبت به شرق داشته است.
به غرب انتقاد دارد که شرق شناسی ( و در قرن بیستم تحت عنوان مطالعات منطقه ای) را روشی علمی برای مطالعه و توضیح و تفسیر کشورهای شرقی نشان می دهند در حالی که همواره در حال بازتولید همان تصویر "ما" و "دیگریِ" نیازمند رستگاری و راهنمایی هستند، است، در واقع شرق شناسی را سیستم فکری می داند که هدفش تسلط بر شرق؛ تغییر ساختار آن و اعمال قدرت است و ادبیات مشخص و تصاویر مشخصی دارد که حتی در آزادانه ترین حالت هم پژوهشگرانش از مرزهای تعیین شده خارج نمی شوند. تصویری که در خوشبینانه ترین حالت نگاه رمانتیکی به فرهنگ و اجتماع شرقی دارد.
برای توضیح این سیستم فکری از تقابل امپراطوری ایران با یونانیان و بعدا امپراطوری روم شروع می کند( خیلی مختصر، در حد یک پاراگراف)، از جنگ های صلیبی و ترس مسیحیان از مسلمانان می نویسد و بعد با مثال زدن از نویسندگان مختلف در هر دوره ای سعی می کند که شکل شرق شناسی آن دوره را توضیح بدهد و در نهایت به قرن بیستم می رسد که از دهه ی هفتاد میلادی اسلام هراسی شدت می گیرد و در تمام این فصل ها تاکید می کند که چگونه نگاه کلاسیک هراسان و خودبرتر بین نسبت به شرق دیده می شود.
به نظرم ایده ی اصلی که دارد جالب است و تلاش زیادی برای ثابت کردنش داشته، آن هم زمانی که تازه مطالعات پسااستعماری شکل گرفته اند، اینکه سعید چنین نظریه ای ارائه می دهد واقعا مهم است اما خودش هم گزینشی عمل کرده است و از نویسندگان مشخصی نام برده که دقیقا همان نگاهی که سعید به دنبال ثابت کردن آن است را تایید می کنند. به نظرم برای چنین موضوعی باید نگاه جامع تری داشت که البته شاید امکانش وجود نداشته است.
موضوع دیگر هم این است که با وجود اینکه از کشورهای اروپایی انتقاد می کند که چرا شرق را توده ی بی شکلی که یک سری خصوصیات مشخص دارد در نظر گرفته اند ، در نهایت خودش هم فقط از عرب ها صحبت می کند، از عنوان کلی عرب ها، بقیه ی ملت ها کنار گذاشته می شوند و در فصل آخر هم نتیجه گیری به اینجا می رسد که ریشه ی این تصویر سازی شرق شناسانه ترس مسیحیت از اسلام بوده است و توضیحات زیادی درباره ی اشکال مختلف این ترس و نفهمی درباره ی اسلام می دهد، که خب البته اگر از اول مشخص می شد که شرق مد نظرش فقط عرب ها و مشخصا عرب های مسلمان هستند ( که باز هم کلی گویی است) راحت تر این چرخش ها را می شد پذیرفت.
در آخر هم این نگاه " ما" و " دیگری" را ما هم داشته ایم، ما به عنوان ایرانیان مسلمان ( بقیه ی کشورها هم حتما داشته اند) اگر سفرنامه ها و توضیحات ایرانی ها درباره ی اروپاییان را بخوانیم نگاه آنها هم سراسر نگاهی تحقیر آمیز همراه با تحسین حسرت آمیز نسبت به جنبه هایی از زندگی غربی است که از درک نکردن فرهنگ اروپاییان و نگاه بالا به پایین نسبت به غیر مسلمان سرچشمه می گیرد ( کمی هم تخیلات قاطی می شود به جای مشاهدات)، تنها فرقش این است که حدودا دویست سال است که آنجا که غرب می خوانیمش قدرت اقتصادی و سیاسی را در دست دارد و توانسته با این نگاه بکشد، غارت کند و تاثیر بگذارد اما ما نتوانسته ایم

به نظرم طنز ماجرا اینجاست که منتفدان اروپایی آمریکایی سعید که تاکید داشته اند شرق شناسی و پیش روی اروپا در "شرق" تماما به نفع شرقیان بوده است و برای نجات آنها صورت گرفته و او زیادی مبالغه کرده است معتقد بودند که سعید به اندازه ی کافی عرب یا خاورمیانه ای نیست که بتواند چنین کتابی را در نقد مطالعات شرق شناسی غربی بنویسد یا از
مصائب ملت های مورد استعمار و درگیر جنگ مثل فلسطین دفاع کند و از طرف دیگر محکومش می کردند که با پیش داوری و براساس تجربه ی شخصی درباره ی غرب نوشته است که به اینجا می رسد که آیا این آقایان عادل و منصف بلاخره اجازه می دهند که سعید عرب باشد یا اجازه نمی دهند؟

I started to pick at this foundational work while I was still in Iraq (2007). Things I saw from both Americans and Iraqis began to remind me faintly of some half-remembered ideas from Said's pen. Said's stated purpose of writing was to show how an intellectual study such as Orientalism can not be viewed independently from the influence of power dynamics on an author. Orientalism, he stated, responded directly to the West's need to possess and control an East that it considered inferior, doing so through "owning" it in academic domination as well as politically and militarily. This was accomplished by grossly over-generalizing "the Other" negatively, whether with a hostile or a benignly condescending mood. That's this book in a nutshell, and I'm OK with that. But it's over 300 pages of development of this concept throughout the history of the field of Orientalism. By the end, I just wanted to yell, "So if Orientalism is so wrong in its findings, what's the right approach?" By spending the whole work criticizing, Said neglects to give us a real counterposition. Though this isn't his stated purpose, it's no wonder many misinterpret his purpose to be one of wholesale condemnation of the West, despite his protestations to the contrary in the Afterword. Said claims Orientalism to be a study that purposely excludes the East from having a voice, but in a strange way, so did Said. We never actually read what the "complex realities" of the East are that Said faults the Orientalists from omitting.

how do i give this 6 stars

Mandatory reading if you're interested in post-colonialism, considering it's a seminal work of the field. It understandably focuses a lot on Orientalism's impact on Islam and Muslim cultures since the author is Palestinian, I might read some of the Indological and Sinological works recommended in it as well.

أخيراُ قرأت هذا الكتاب الشائك..

Wow, this was an enlightening read. If you’re like me, when you hear the word ‘oriental’ be used you might wince; this was the book that caused that in the popular consciousness. When I first started my degree in Japanese Studies at uni, Said’s Orientalism was the first book that was assigned to us for read. While it opened my eyes a great deal, I only read a handful of chapters at that time. ‘One day I’ll get around to reading it fully’ I’d tell myself, well that day has came.

It’s an incredibly well written deconstruction of how the Occident, Britain, France, and later the United States, fetishised and controlled views of the ‘East’ or Orient, or it can even be said that the entire concept of the Orient is an occidental invention. But it goes further, chronicling around 500 years of oriental study, its defects and shortcomings, but also its progress.

While of course an anti-imperialist book, I wouldn’t go into this expecting any long winded diatribes or hyper emotional language. Said is a measured author, guiding us through history and philosophy with an even hand. Now while the book itself almost entirely focuses on the Near-East to India, its lessons are relevant for the entirety of the non-white world, and how the predominantly white nations treated not only them, but their history and culture.

Being British, it can become slightly fatiguing to read about just how out of date we were, and all the terrible things we did(!), but that is just how history went and it shouldn’t be shied away from. Again, Said is not trying to make any reader feel bad, or turn them against their own history, he is simply showing us what happened.

I must say though, it wasn’t the easiest of reads. Said has a very expansive vocabulary, and is pretty comfortable writing in French and not always translating, the expectation being any reader would of course know this. Written in a different time! Also, some of the chapters do become more of a literary review. But there’s some gold in here, I loved learning about the start of Egyptology and Napoleons heavy influence on it.

All in all, 4 stars, absolutely recommend if you wish to learn something about how the West viewed, and still views, the East.

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.

Incredibly nuanced, beautifully written, most other academics wish they were on this level,

This is tremendously well-constructed and I enjoyed the occasional forays into dry humour. Some of it went over my head as I'm not familiar with many of the authors discussed, but I found the book an accessible read regardless.

In spots, Edward Said's Orientalism has its longeurs; but it does make a point, that there is little understanding in the West of other cultures. That is particularly true of where Islam is concerned. Most Arabist scholars in the West have been propaganda whores for their governments -- particularly in the U.S.

I particularly liked Said's discussions of authors of fiction, but these were few and far between. Most of his Bêtes-Noires are writers with whose work I am unfamiliar. He does a well-deserved hatchet job on Bernard Lewis, however.

This one has been on my list for decades.

I finally read it.

Part of me CANT BELIEVE I waited this long.

Another part of me is GRATEFUL I did.

This book is so POWERFUL.

It’s a KNOCKOUT.

I’m kind of speechless. And I’m DEFINITELY unqualified to comment on this field defining, historic, landmark piece of critical scholarship.

But (for the sake of me in the future, and maybe you if you become inspired to read it) I will attempt to cite some of the major ideas/themes.

Edward Said was a Palestinian-American scholar, literary critic, and public intellectual.

His work has had a MASSIVE impact on post-colonial theory and literary/cultural criticism.

Said brought attention to the Palestinian struggle and genocide throughout his career.

Said died in 2003, but his intellectual legacy endures through his writings (particularly this book) and the ongoing relevance of his ideas.

Orientalism is a term Said coined to refer to the derogatory stereotypical, and racist depictions of Arab and East Asian people and cultures by Western scholars, writers, artists and politicians.

Said argues that Orientalism sets up a TOXIC binary between the West (Occident) and the East (Orient), where the West is seen as rational, developed, humane, and superior, while the East is irrational, undeveloped, barbaric, and violent.

Said argued that Orientalist scholarship and cultural production served as a justification for colonial and imperial ambitions, providing a rationale for Western military and geopolitical domination, and cultural/economic exploitation of Eastern and Arab people and their resources.

Said was a RELENTLESS critique of racist scholarship that studies Arabs and Islam and which perpetuates antisemitic stereotypes.

Said posited that historically (and presently), Orientalist scholarship isn’t simply an academic pursuit, but also functions as a mechanism in the larger apparatus of anti Arab anti Muslim racism, exploitation, oppression, and genocide.

NOTE:

Said is NOT PRO/ANTI WESTERN.

Said is not PRO/ANTI ARAB/MUSLUM.

Said is DEFINITELY not PRO/ANTI JEWISH/ISREAL.

Said is a cultural critic and historical scholar.

Siad is PAINSTAKINGLY careful in his approach.

Said RESISTS the TOXIC BINARY of ORIENTAL/OCCIDENTAL

Said is ANTI RACISM/COLONIALISM/GENOCIDE.

Orientalism is NOT an ANTI WESTERN polemic.

Orientalism is a focused, well resourced deconstruction and critique of a particular racist ideology and practice.

GREAT BOOK.

IMPORTANT BOOK.

GREAT TIME TO READ IT.

5/5 ⭐️

Another post colonial cry baby . These academic books trying to define literature are nothing but fictions about fictions churned out in the academia by divinely untalented academics {who can't even write one single funny sentences ).