Orientalism

Rating:
Summary: What about the Ottoman Empire?
Review: Edwards Said's book, Orientalism, is both a study on the origins, repercussions, and general history of the concept of "Orientalism" as well as an example of cultural history in action, and in many ways it is also evidence of how cultural history can go drastically wrong. The text itself investigates how Orientalism, or what Said also describes as "the distinction between Western superiority and Oriental inferiority," (42) expanded and proliferated in the years of Western expansion; namely, the 19th Century. Although it had existed before, Said argues that "Orientalism" was made concrete by scientists, explorers, and scholars and is mostly the result of these people quantifying and qualifying and making "rational" a concept they could not understand. Edward Said says that the original notion of the dividing line between East and West "is more than anything else imaginative." (55) Once Orientalism was conceptualized from this imagined line, Said argues, it offered a set of rules, descriptions and modes of behavior that generalized a wildly diverse population and made it easily attainable and exploitable by the West. Orientalism was also invented as a way for Europeans to reconcile their fear of the Near East and Islam, which is the topic most covered by Said and was a great influence on Orientalism because of its sheer magnitude and power. While Orientalism was originally conceived out of imagined misconceptions and a largely created body of evidence as realized in Barthelemy d'Herbelot's Bibliotheque Orientale (originally published in 1697), it was perpetuated in later "projects" best exemplified in Napoleon's accounts of travel through Egypt in Description de l'Egypte. From this point on, Orientalism had a "scope" and was available for future Orientalists to further generalize the Orient for scientific, literary, and imperialist purposes. Edward Said also argues that Orientalism benefited "professional scholars" and academic institutions because now an entire business based on the idea of Western superiority was created to help serve the above-mentioned scientists, anthropologists, and political thinkers. The modern Orientalist, Said argues, was "in his view, a hero rescuing the Orient from the obscurity, alienation, and strangeness which he himself had properly distinguished." (121) Orientalism not only flourished, but new assumptions made on the old ones only served to perpetuate further the untrue notions on which Orientalism was founded. After Said describes the endeavors of various Orientalists including Chateaubriand, Larmartine, and finally, Richard Burton, the reader is given exhaustive evidence of how Orientalism grew into what it is today; more Orientalism. Orientalism now, Said says, is only the same idea of generalizing and, in a sense, primitivizing the "other" through modern-day "area-studies." Because these area studies are from a long and established tradition of Orientalism, they are only an extension of, not reaction to, all the misconceptions encapsulated in Orientalism. Although Edward Said's Orientalism is an illuminating history of an idea (Orientalism) and how it was created, propagated, and continues to exist, his volume is nonetheless redundant and hostile in tone that made me immediately dislike it and put me on the defensive. In no instance did I find Said to be self--critical; his arguments were set forth like dogma. His extensive endeavors to list the faults generated by "Orientalism" are in some cases based on false assumptions. That is, there have been nations of Islamic people (i.e., the Ottoman Empire) who for over 500 years systematically enslaved and ruled over parts of Eastern Europe. These kinds of reverse atrocities are virtually ignored, probably because Said is only really documenting the past two centuries. In addition, I found very little in the area of proposals or alternatives to the way of conceptualizing the "Orient" other than what Said criticizes in his 300-plus-page book. I understand that Said's mission was "to describe a particular system of ideas, not by any means to displace the system with a new one" (325) but in my opinion a history of a subject should allow the reader to conceive of and interpret ideas for a new system and because Said fervently rejected to do so, so did I. In my opinion, Orientalism is also an example of where cultural history can become so subjective that unless the reader accepts the book without question, it serves little purpose other than as an outlet for anger on the part of the author and as testament to how tenuous a historian's job is when he or she lets a particular view so obviously overpowering the content of the text.

Rating:
Summary: Intellectual dishonesty
Review: Edward Said here unjustly attacks all scholars who criticize the Moslem and Arab worlds, taking special pain to berate award-winning historian Bernard Lewis, as he did in the October, 1976 New York Times Book Review piece that became this book. He argues--incorrectly, and without academic credentials in Middle Eastern studies--that Western Middle Eastern scholars represent "an unbroken tradition in European thought of profound hostility, even hatred, toward Islam." But according to Daniel Pipes, Said's term stuck. "Neo-orientalist" is now the worst possible insult one can hurl at any Middle Eastern scholar.

As Martin Kramer and Jacob Lassner show in The Jewish Discovery of Islam, however, it was a German-Jewish school that raised the study of Islam to an art and introduced it to the West. Far from promoting enmity for Islam, Western scholars including Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921), and Muhammad Asad, né Leopold Weiss of Lvov and Vienna (1900-92) created considerable tolerance for it. Hate? Asad even converted, advised the Saudi king, served as Pakistan's United Nations ambassador and translated the Qur'an into English.

The German-Jewish school's empathy for Islam prevails even today, as evidenced both by its importance to Arab scholars and by Arab and Turkish honors given to its most prominent apostle, Bernard Lewis. But Said writes only of what Pipes calls the defunct "Christian" approach, which saw in Islam a rival and inferior--and which scholars long ago repudiated.

Worse, Said fails to criticize historical or current Arab or Muslim tyranny that wiped out entire cultures, languages and faiths within the Christian nations of North Africa, from Syria to Egypt, all but eliminated Turkish Armenians in 1917, and even now plagues Egypt's Coptic Christians, Algeria and Morocco's Berbers, Lebanese Christians and Iraqi Kurds, women and Hindus in Taliban Afghanistan, Christians in Indonesia--much less Southern Sudan's Black Christians, the ongoing targets of an Arab government program of enslavement and genocide. Said decries the "evil" West, while remaining strangely silent about Arab and Muslim atrocities.

This book constitutes the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty. Alyssa A. Lappen

Rating:
Summary: A Materpiece!
Review: In this book, Edward said charts the representation of the "Orient" in Western literature. Very Foucauldian-as he mentions in his introduction- in his critique of the discourse of orientalism, Said argues that the West has fashioned its supremacist identity through promulgating a cultural "Orient" that is irreconcilably opposing the western world view. Said dwells on the representation of Islam and the Arabs in western literature, claiming that the western cultural discourse has constructed the Muslim East as a space of tyranny, unreason, and exoticism to justify its 19th century imperialist enterprise in North Africa and the middle East.Said's Orienatalism is a masterpiece fraught with an encyclopedic knowledge,an insightful argumentation, and a staggering political eloquence.

Rating:
Summary: R-E-A-L-I-T-Y
Review: Any book that raises as much controversy as this one does is worth reading on that account alone. Because of that and because the book requires some intelligence to understand, I rated it with 5 stars. It's simply good reading - excellent. The ideas, however, are simply untenable. As with so much that is modern or post-modern (or whatever), Dr. Said's theories simply fly in the face of the evidence. He is the true representative of Arabism in the modern world because it too simply refuses to face the facts.

1. The fact is, had it not been for western orientalist scholarship, Arabic literature would be nearly totally unknown, even to the Arabs themselves. All significant work done in this field has been done by westerners within the last 200 years.....all of it. The occassional brilliance of a Taha Hussein who dared to question, for example, the legitimacy of pre-Islamic poetry was savagely crushed....instantly... by his own people and caused major political and social upheavals in the Arab world. (Were a scholar in the west to question the legitimacy of Beowulf, he would cause gaffaws and then be ignored, period). It's as if all of English literature were completely unknown to residents of the British Isles and that all research on Milton, Shakespeare etc. had been carried out in Beirut or Cairo. That's what has been happening with Arabic literature. Books by controversial authors are routinely "barred" from public viewings such as at the annual NEW BOOKS EXHIBITION in Cairo. This happened again just a couple of months ago according to my sources in Cairo. Modern Arabic literature, like much of Arabic life, is characterized by almost a childlike, immature and superficial quality. It just cannot face reality.

2. It's as if the Arab people have been in a state of catatonia following the fall of Baghdad in the 13th century. For the last 700 years, they have just stood by like sheep contemplating I don't know what. It's almost embarassing to realize this. But this is what did happen. And it has been the "west" that has brought them out of their slumber.

3. The fact is, Arabism and Arab culture are dying institutions. In fact, they really has been dead for centuries. Most young people in the Arab world know this. They won't admit it to you, but they know it. That's why tens of millions of them try to emmigrate to the west.....anywhere, by any means. They realize that their civilization is no longer viable or relevant to the modern world. It simply doesn't work. The tragedy of the Middle East today is not the Palestine "question" which is really a side-show in the larger scheme of things. It's the utter and complete rejection by Arab youth of their traditions and heritage. It is the final blow. The mindlessness that characterizes so much of Arab life today, the rantings of their political leaders, the insipid mimicry of modern Arabic literature (which desperately tries to imitate the west), the hatred towards the west in general, the accusations and threats, are all the pathetic howls of rage, fear and disbelief of a drowning man. Dr. Said sums all this up most vividly in ORIENTALISM. Even he doesn't realize that that's what he's doing. But that *IS* what he's doing.

4. The Arab world and Arab civilization have made no contribution whatsoever to the betterment of the modern world in any sphere of life. This is a reality which it must face. If it doesn't, it will remain a curious, laughable and marginalized society not taken seriously by anyone. It has nearly reached the point of no return. Someone better do something fast.

5. Too bad I only have 1000 words to vent my spleen here. But so be it. Dr. Said remains one of my heroes for his watershed book ORIENTALISM, his superb command of the English language and his intellectualism. But I totally and utterly disagree with his findings and his characterization of the west.

Tom Pembroke

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: More Ignorance that Racism
Review: With but a few exceptions, I find most of the western so-called scholarly work to be misguided and plagued with ignorance rather than intentional racism. For instance, one of the major shortcomings of Western scholarship is passing judgments and jumping to conclusions concerning Islam and Arab culture according to a "Western" yardstick. The keyword is poor methodology, not racism. As to the issue of referring to the Arabs in ways that would not be done with Jews and Blacks, the case can be summed in two words: political clout. Arabs in the West do not have it. It is naive to believe that the Jews and Blacks are loved, while Arabs are hated, hence the singling out of the Arabs in this racist treatment. Professor Said was writing in different days (1970s), yet his book transcends time, thanks to the constant status of the Arabs at home and in the West.

Rating:
Summary: the one weakness
Review: orientalism is a seminal work by any account. Said not only conducts a deep and detailed analysis of the mental structure that envisages the east as exotic and inferior, but shows that literature and culture are, far from being innocently abstract, fundamental to the formation of policy, politics and identity. the discussion on representation in-itself, is challenging. yet there is an important shortcoming. Said associates orientalism with anti-semitism:"I have found myself writing the history of a strange, secret, sharer of Western anti-Semitism (27, 1979)." Now by any account, the most powerful islamic forces in the middle east in the modern era were Persia and the Ottoman Empire. yet neither turks nor iranians are semitic, as opposed to arabs, either linguisticly or racially. nevertheless, the way they are presented and represented in the West does not differ from that of the arabs. therefore the anti-semitic claim is unfounded. considerably little attention is paid to orientalist discourse on the ottoman empire and iran. islam, as opposed to judaism, sees itself not as a semitic but as a universal religion. orientalism then is not extant anti-semitism but a manifestation of how the West treats any culture which it defines as "the other."

Rating:
Summary: Immense Erudition for Very Delicate Subject
Review: I have to agree with some of the reviewers below. "Orientalism" was written in some of the most complex language I have ever come across. Often times, the arguments were difficult to follow and their relevence even questionable. However, upon completion of the book, the overall theme is well established and every point becomes clear and sobering.

Professor Said uses Michel Foucault's theory of a discourse to examine the development of attitudes of the "Occident" (Europe and the United States) to the "Orient" (Islam, Muslims, and Arabs) over the course of history. This development is not only rooted in European literature as a reaction to the Crusades, but continues even up to the present day through the apparatus of academic institutions. What began as an institutional phenomenon of colonialism continues today because of global economic expansion. Colonial powers (of which, in the context of world economies, the United States is today by far the leading "colonial" power) have always maintained a fascination with the Orient, whether it be a case of romanticism about the mysteriousness of Eastern culture or the more obvious interest in exploiting and dominating its land and resources. Especially when we consider the latter interest, we can understand why Western attitudes to the Orient have always been so condescending and domineering. Such attitudes were cultivated at an institutional level, beginning with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Professor Said explores a few examples of these attitudes at work, such as those of Ernest Renan, Benjamin Disraeli, Louis Massignon, H.A.R. Gibb, and, in our own times, the notorious Bernard Lewis. What passes as "scholarship" is nothing other than professional racism. This racism is of a very necessary sort, for it makes domination, as in the case of slavery, much easier when the humanity of a people is diminished. Furthermore, the importance of understanding this racism stems from the fact that it is the last form of socially permissible racism. To take the instances cited in the book of derogatory passages about Arabs and Muslims, and use them to talk about Blacks or Jews, would in our modern times incite the most uncontrollable outburst of anger and fury. However, such passages about Arabs and Muslims are not only part of traditional Western literature, but they continue to be permissibly used in contemporary discussions in political and social discourse.

Another major point of Said's thesis, especially with regards to Orientalism in institutions, is the phenomenon of a scholar's political allegiance to the state, which adversely colors his or her study of the Orient. The most extreme case presented in the book of this scholarly mischievousness is that of Bernard Lewis, who was placed in hot legal waters recently for denying the Armenian genocide in a publication in France. His example demonstrates that Orientalism was not just a phenomenon of colonialism, but is intrinsically part of Western academic discourse today. Orientalism is not just something of the past, but thrives as powerfully as ever in the present.

As insightful as his analysis was, Professor Said could have communicated the same message in a much simpler fashion, while maintaining his eloquence and sophisticated thought. Considering how convoluted some of the discussions are, I'm surprised that it became such a popular book. Then again, it might be difficult to appreciate the novelty of his thought, since it was published over two decades ago, when debates of this sort were almost nonexistent in public discussions. Thus, to reflect over the intellectual accomplishments in this book is to acknowledge his profound contribution to our understanding of a very subtle but ugly part of the real world.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent study but highly technical
Review: I enjoyed this book mainly because of its original insight into the causes and history of Orientalist thought. I have to add, though, that a good dictionary is essential unless you've memorized the Oxford English Dictionary. The language used is at times arcane but if you're interested in the subject it is definitely the best I have come across so far. Said is definitely an academic who seems to be targeting Orientalists since he refers quite frequently to other Orientalists and their literature. In short, it's an extremely well researched book and definitely worth a look for someone who likes to expand their horizons.

Rating:
Summary: Heavy reading
Review: This book is not for the faint of heart. It is very well researched and written, but it is not at all an easy read. It assumes a thorough familiarity with the literature of Orientalism. If you don't already have this familiarity, you may find many parts of this book difficult, at best, to follow. The author's main argument seems to be that the vast majority of Western authors of the Orientalist tradition wrote about their perceptions of the Orient rather than the reality. Said analyses many of these works and argues that their reporting was inaccurate, ethnocentric, or racist. His arguments would have more clear if he had provided more specific evidence for the invalidity of prior claims; instead, he tends to only question the findings of previous work, leaving it open for the reader to fill in the rest. A more interesting analysis might have been to look at the Orientalists as products of their times, and search for the motivation for their remarks rather than simply pointing out their invalidity. In any case, this book is extremely important in its field and so must be read by anyone with a scholarly interest in the Middle East.

Rating:
Summary: Seminal but Flawed Work on Colonialism
Review: When it was written, Orientalism administered a much-needed correction to the study of the Arab and Asian worlds. Any historian, social scientist or humanist working in related fields should own a copy.

The strength of Edward Said's Orientalism is its highlighting of the underlying assumptions of dominance and subjection in Orientalist scholarship. Said correctly points out that the British, French and United States have relied on the reduction of the Orient to an academic study backed by a mythical image of its inhabitants and cultures as more primitive, passionate, mystical and illogical. Complementing this has been a presumption of Western superiority that allows diagnosis of social ills and prescription of Western remedies for these ills.

Said also pointed out a secondary weakness in the Orientalist approach to its studies. If Westerners presume the Orient to be more passionate and mystical, they may assume that it provides absolute alternatives to the ills of Western culture and modernism. Thus the span of Western history scrutinized by Said has seen individuals and groups embracing ill-understood religions and cultural precepts. The anti-majoritan/left-leaning subcultures arising during the upheavals of the 1960's are particularly susceptible to this.

This leads naturally to Aijid Ahmad's primary criticism of Said. Orientalism doesn't consider the varied responses of the Orient/Third-World to its theories. In particular, Ahmad correctly points out that Orientalism over-focuses blames on the West and doesn't address the self-inflicted problems of "Oriental" societies. Based on this criticism, the proper approach is to balance the effects of Western Orientalism and the indigenous difficulties. Essentially, Ahmad advocates abandoning the simple depiction of the Orient for a complex and layered reality.

Orientalism's uncriticized weakness lies in its treatment of Europe. Said willingly admits his limited focus on Britain, France and United States may miss some important scholarship found elsewhere. This concentration has some logic to it. His trio of nations has been among the strongest if not dominant powers in the colonial and post-colonial world. A complete survey of European Orientalism could run for several volumes. Yet in this focus, Said misses those European nations who had had longer and more intricate relations with the "Orient".

Said mentions his lack of attention to German scholarship on the Orient. Beyond the loss in additional scholarship, he cannot take account of the direct influence of the German academic tradition on the rest of Europe and particularly the United States. Beyond this immediate effect, Said loses the transmitted experience of the German Reich's participation in the direct struggle against the Ottoman Empire. While he mentions the Medieval and Renaissance hostility to Islam based on direct threat and conflict, he ignores the extension of this conflict into the 18th and 19th centuries. Yet this conflict remained a dominant factor in the existence of the Austrian and Russian Empires. As long as the struggle continued, the Orient in the form of Islam would have a direct influence on the course of European history. The simple illustration of this is the European approach to independence for the Balkan states and occasional support for the Ottomans versus an opponent. While this support was partially based on the perceived weakness of the Ottomans and resultant manipulability, it also concedes the existence of some real and beneficial power.

Said's exclusion of other European states weakens his structure in a different manner. It's useful to consider the British and French perceptions of Austria and Russia. A simple interpretation of Orientalism presumes a unified Europe as opposed to the Orient. Yet this ignores the equally institutionalized denigration of Austria and Russia. We can refer to the image of the mythical Slavic province of Ruritania (cf. Anthony Hope's The Prisoner of Zenda), a den of intrigue and iniquity. Add to this Said's notes on the relative knowledge of the Near Orient versus the Far Orient. This suggests more of a subtle gradation in the construction of the Other than is represented by Orientalism's sharp division between Occident and Orient.

Other historical patterns also stress the need for the representation of a more complex Occident. For instance Said argues that European exploration and extension of trade routes to India and the Far East shows hostility to Islam. A simpler explanation may be mercantile concerns for lowering expenses and increasing profits. Direct trade was more profitable than relying on Arab middlemen. The Arab reaction to Portuguese penetration of the Indian Ocean reflected a concern with being excluded from the profits of trade with India rather than with the intrusion of a new power in the region. This concern with trade leads to different motivations for learning languages and examining cultures. A variety of motivations for scholarship argue for a more complex Occident. The need for more complexity does not necessarily invalidate Said's central points on the institutionalized domination common to Western European Orientalism. Rather it demands refinement of a useful critique of the study of colonialism.