Rating: 
Summary: good introduction, but not much on direct cause of terrorism
Review: A good introductory book on the subject. Buruma has been written extensively on Japan, China, and other far east countries. So, it is a suprise to read a brief account on some of the historical figures from 19 century German and Russian occidentalists. Of course, examples are also drawn from Japan and China. It is weak and not very convicing on why Al Qaeda's attacks on the west and particularly on the US.
Rating: 
Summary: Terse but Illuminating
Review: A terse but brilliant book tracing the various strands of anti-Western ideology, many of which originated in the West itself. These ideas eventually penetrated Asia and the Middle East, where they were incorporated into supposedly authentic Eastern thought. How ironic that the fiercest anti-Westerners in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Japan, etc., owe such a huge intellectual debt to the very thing they hate so passionately.Mind you, the authors are NOT claiming that all (or even most) criticisms of the West are illegitimate or the product of irrational hatred. Contrary to what some reviewers have said, Buruma and Margalit define Occidentalism fairly clearly. It is an ideology that condemns Western civilization in toto, as inherently diseased, and advocates its complete destruction. It is characterized by an implacable hatred for a whole spectrum of modern developments that (rightly or wrongly) are associated with Western civilization: democracy, technology, individualism. The fact that this ideology is muddleheaded and borrows much from what it most hates does not make Buruma and Margalit's thesis muddled: It is simply a paradoxical fact about this ideology. (By the way, it is NOT "simply conflating enemies of the past and present" to point out Islamism's heavy borrowings from European fascism. The authors are, among other things, trying to dispell certain popular misconceptions and clarify the nature of a movement that has long been mistaken, particularly by many scholars [cough, cough, John L. Esposito] in our Middle Eastern Studies departments, as a misguided but proto-democratic grassroots phenomenon; or by many Christian and Jewish bigots as an inherent, ineradicable part of authentic Islam.)
Rating: 
Summary: Seductive, but shallow
Review: Based on an article that originally appeared in "The New York Review of Books," "Occidentalism" discusses the new anti-western ideologies that animate Al-Qaida and other hostile forces. Playing, rather obviously, on Edward Said's "Orientalism," Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit go out of their way to note an obvious irony. Al Qaeda, the Iranian Revolution and the Showa Dictatorship all attack the cosmopolitan, commercial, pacific, urban and democratic west, yet much of their demonizing criticism actually comes from Europe itself. A first look suggests the authors' wide reading as the two trace such themes as the hatred of cities from Babylon, the Tower of Babel, T.S. Eliot, Fontane, Engels and Herder, down to Mao, the Khmer Rouge to the ghastly totalitarian architecture of Pyongyang and Kuala Lumpur. We later move from Berlin and the Romantics, to Russia and the Slavophiles. A first look also suggests a power of nuance as Buruma and Margalit do distinguish, briefly, between Occidentalism and legitimate criticisms of the west. They also assert that guilt over colonialism won't help anything, but that organized religion can play a useful part in liberalizing the Middle East. This result is a work that appears sufficiently critical and deep to make this brief book momentarily popular. But ultimately, this is a shallow book. Buruma is a beneficiary of the unfortunate tendency of many American intellectuals to confuse internationalism with anglophilia. He has been a mainstay of the New York Review for two decades as its major Asia commentator, where he has benefited from the fact that his accounts are more conservative and more flattering to the Western mind than more scholarly treatments by Bruce Cumings, John Dower and Benedict Anderson. What he has and his coauthor have produced is ultimately lazy, luxuriating in the clichés of the struggle against totalitarianism, where citations of Alexis de Tocqueville and Isaiah Berlin run free and more disturbing questions are left behind. For a start, take their emphasis on the dependence of modern-day Occidentalists on European authoritarian and quasi-fascist themes. If the point is to argue that Islamism is somehow fascist, it is misleading. Nothing is served by simply conflating enemies of the past and present. If it is to argue that Islamism is somehow "inauthentic," then it is counterproductive since we want the Muslim World to be democratic and pro-Western and such pro-western democrats are not likely to succeed on an appeal to authenticity. Moreover, it is not entirely true. Buruma and Margalit note that Islam has a long tradition of urban civilization. But it also has a long tension between a "corrupt" urbanism and a "purer," more faithful nomadism. And consider the laundry list of potential influences on Occidentalism: Herder, Marx, Eliot, Tolstoy, Nietzsche. There is no coherent intellectual genealogy and precious little nuance. Do a common dislike of cities and international commerce make Bin Laden, Pol Pot, and Gandhi brothers under the skin? The authors conflate fundamentalist Afghanistan, nihilistic Kampuchea, Nazi Germany, Communist North Korea, commercial authoritarian Singapore and pluralist Malaysia. Does this make any sense other than as an expression of the authors' distaste? Nor do the authors pay attention to the vast problems of the Third world megapolis, where a sixth of the world's population is forced to hustle in the informal economy. Sex slavery, overcrowding, ecological catastrophe are all real problems, not simply reactionary flourishes that liberalism can blithely ignore. Elsewhere the authors write that Occidentalism really represents the fears of marginalized urban intellectuals, as opposed to any popular constituency. Oh dear. It's the return of Richard Hofstadter's status anxiety theory of social change, returning nearly three decades after American historians tossed it aside as a poor explanation. Still doesn't explain why Iraqis are so underwhelmed by their most pro-American politicians. At one point Buruma and Margalit link Occidentalism with anti-Semitism. But much anti-Semitism makes the argument that Jews, because of their language, religion and history, are unalterably Asian. Linking Occidentalism to Nazism and Fascism only blurs the Axis' attacks on Russia's "Asiatic" peoples and the wars against Ethiopia and Libya. Saying, as the authors do, that the Third Reich brought Occidentalism to the heart of Europe is not a paradox, it is merely sloppy thinking. For the authors, "the Occident" is an idealized Anglo-America (the Jacobins are blamed for the secularist "excesses" of Attaruk and the Shah), which is conflated with the West. At one point the authors argue that "Occidentalism" shows contempt for the west for its unheroic, but ultimately decent pacifism. I somehow doubt that many Palestinians confuse Israeli leaders with the Peace Pledge Union. Elsewhere the authors write that Islam and Marxism edged out liberalism in the Middle East. That implies that Eisenhower or Kennedy, Mollet or De Gaulle, Eden or Wilson, cared a fig for liberalism in the Islamic world. It ignores how from Algeria to Indonesia, from support of the Shah to support of the Maronite Phalange, from the blank cheque to Israel to the indulgence of oil-rich sheiks, many western "liberals" have betrayed democratic or secular movements for the pursuit of crass greed and strategic advantage. At one point the authors write "Liberal capitalism is by definition inegalitarian, for not everyone is equally gifted and equally lucky." So otherwise the West is a perfect meritocracy? Well, no say the authors, since the market does have a tendency to indulge the meretricious and vulgar. So the biggest problem with Western society is that it allows Britney Spears to make more money than Ian Buruma? I could think of worse injustices than that, especially since that one doesn't seem all that unfair.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful, yet incomplete
Review: Buruma and Margalit are writing largely in response to professor Edward Said's thesis of Orientalism. As I understand that concept, Western visions of the "Orient" are horribly inaccurate because of the stereotypes (the sexual harem, turbans and camels, flying carpets and genies, etc..) that have been propagated by an ignorant West. The problem I see with the opposing Occidentalism is that many of the components--hatred of the city, disdain for the bourgeois--are feelings that many Westerners have about their OWN societies. This would seem to make these criticisms less born out of ignorance and bias (as they are for Orientalism) and more out of simple disapproval. The crux of Orientalism is the ignorance of Westerners because they rely on images and faniciful stories to provide them an idea of the Orient. Many of the West's harsest critics come either from within or from those outsiders who have traveled or studied among us. One would do well to remember that critics like Sayyed Qutb visited the West personally. This is not to suggest that all anti-Western critiques are legitimate. The authors clearly outline many instances where the West's enemies have relied on fantastic Jewish conspiracy theories to spread their anti-Western agenda. Some of the points made herein are quite valid. It is an ambitious book and worth a read (it is, after all, less than 200 pages). Overall, however, this seems to be a fragmented thesis--it searches in vain for a certain cohesiveness. It also fails to solidify some basic points, such as a definition of the West: Buruma and Margalit suggest Hiterlite Germany was outside the West while modern Japan is portrayed as encroaching on "Westerness." The overarching concept is interesting, especially with the tide of global anti-americanism at its current highs. That said, Buruma and Margalit need to give this some polishing if they hope to provide a solid counterweight to Said's Orientalism.
Rating:
Summary: Worth reading it, dumping stereotyped perceptions
Review: For a non-specialist, this is the key to a wide range of (not so flattering) ideas about "Western culture" prevailing all over the globe. While reading it, I wondered how our Western democracies can frame any sensible policies that will shape our future without dumping our own stereotyped perception of "the rest" of mankind and, more importantly, learn how "they" view "us". (Well, "they", that could be close to 4 billion people on this globe, or those among them having the privilege of thinking - leave alone reading - anything beyond the exigency of raw, day to day survival). After reading it, I have become convinced that we can't expect sensible and just policies to take shape without the kind of insights the authors have gathered and placed before us without any trace of cynicism. In other words, it's high time we provide "non-Westerners" with some valid reasons to strive towards democracy and tolerance on their part. So, read and discuss it with others - fortunately, in the West, any well founded opinion (still) can make a difference!
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for understanding your world!!!
Review: In their concise, insightful and slim volume, Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit retrace the intellectual roots of Occidentalism from the Enlightenment all the way to the present. In their view, Occidentalism is not a uniquely modern or Islamic invention, but really "a tale of cross-contamination, the spread of bad ideas" from West to East and often back again. The book is well paced, interesting, and not too much on an extremely complex topic. It provides an excellent introduction to this subject, and covers considerable breadth to frame their ideas about the history and scope of Occidentalism. Watching images from the middle east flash across the television screen, I have often been baffled and amazed about the motivation of terrorists. This book sheds important light on their worldview, making their ideology both accessible and understandable to the general reader for the first time. Finally, the authors should be commended for their serious, thoughful insights on this subject. This is not a volume of apologists of terror; but an excellent study of just what makes those people tick, and of how bad ideas of both East and West contaminate one another to create the toxic, dehumanizing and often terrorist ideology of Occidentalism.
Rating:
Summary: Under Eastern Eyes
Review: In this short, but insightful, book Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit argue that in many parts of the non-Western world there is such loathing of everything associated with the West - especially America - that anyone living such a lifestyle is inherently depraved and somewhat less than human. This dehumanizing view of the West, as seen by its enemies, is what the authors call Occidentalism.
It is the reverse side of the idea of Orientalim described over twenty-five years ago by Edward Said. According to Said, the Orientalists constructed accounts of the East as a place where life was cheap and inferior to that of the West. These narratives served to justify Western domination. Occidentalism, however, goes a step further: whereas, the Orientalist wished to subjugate and colonize, the Occidentalist wishes to destroy.
This is a book about ideas rather than policy. It deals more with why they hate us for what we are, rather than why they hate us for what we do. The authors describe a "constellation of images" of the West by which its enemies demonize it. They (the enemies) see the West as " a mass of soulless, decadent, money-grubbing, rootless, faithless, unfeeling parasites."
The originality of this study comes from the discovery that many of the negative images that the present-day Islamists have of the West are derived, paradoxically, the West itself. The authors see a "chain of hostility" that goes back two centuries. The anti-Western impulse begins with Herder and the German romantics as a reaction to the rationalist, universalist ideals the Enlightenment and the materialism of the budding capitalist economy. Anti-Westernism was also the driving force of the slavophiles of late nineteeth century Russia; it was a reaction to encroaching modernization coming from the West. In the twentieth century, Nazi Germany and a militant Japan railed against, not the modernization that came from the West, but the destruction of their indigenous cultures, being overrun by the decadence and depravity of the West. This anti-Westernism again rears its ugly head in the late twentieth century during the Cultural Revolution in China and, again, in the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge. These where particulary murderous attempts to root out Western influence. The Occidentalist of today is exemplified by the Islamist suicide bomber.
Buruma and Margalit discuss four images of hatred that run through these movements of the last two hundred years: 1} the cosmopolitan city with its rootless, greedy, and decadent citizens; 2) the bourgeois merchant, seeking only profit and comfort, as opposed the self-sacrificing hero of the Occidentalist; 3) the Western mind, using only the faculties of science and reason, and neglecting faith; 4) and last of all, the infidel, the unbeliever, who must be crushed to make way for the true believers.
In Occidentalism's present-day manifestation, religion plays a central role. The jihadis of today hate, not only the West, but the secular regimes - such as Syria and Egypt - of the Middle East as well. They despise even the Saudis for not being sufficiently pure. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is one of the primary sources of the Wahhabism practised by Osama bin Laden. Jihadis see the West as cowardly and fearful of death. They, themselves, love death and wish to inflict it upon as many others as possible. Their search for weapons of mass destruction makes them an extremely formidable enemy.
From this excellent little study, one can only speculate whether the Islamist Occidentalists will someday come to accomodate the modern secular world or succeed in annihilating it. It is safe to say that the struggle will not end anytime soon.
Rating:
Summary: Misses valid criticisms
Review: No doubt the fundamentalists of Islam have inbred disdain for the western, or occidentalist, lifestyle. But their gripes are more than simply disliking nudey bars and gambling. As the authors, and many reviewers, have pointed out, many western Christian fundamentalists have these same concerns with modernity.
What distinguishes eastern and middle eastern fundamentalists is the utter hatred for the things we do TO them, namely, support their despotic unpopular regimes in order to extract natural resources, andsupport of Israel, which is viewed-- correctly or not-- as an oppressive occupying government which was set up and is supported by the west.
To simply make the point that asian terror directed at the US and the west is due to some vague "dislike for our way of life" is missing the finer point that we have abused the Arab street by neglecting the unintended consequences of our thirst for oil, among other things.
Overall, the book makes some good arguments, but tends to minimize the damage we do with our imperial foreign policy.
Rating:
Summary: What went wrong?
Review: One thinks of Bernard Lewis' book, What went wrong?, but applying its title to the West, instead of to Islam. Why would anyone oppose the great benefits of Westernization and concoct a thesis of Occidentalism? What would be the result if opposition to modernization disappeared? The results might be a catastrophe. Thus (perhaps)a kind of dialectic or play of opposites is at work.
"What went wrong?" is after all the question asked by Marx who tried to mediate the issue here in his classic fashion.
Then again, Rousseau, a seminal living contradiction mediating a critique of the Enlightenment and its realization as revolution, produced the core paradox, 'forcing freedom', and what went wrong with that is well known.
In any case, agree or not, this book fills a strange vacuum left by the very important book it echoes, Said's Orientalism. But the now classic Orientalism of Westerners toward, say, India has passed into a triumph of East over West, in one way, millions of Buddhists in America. And there a misleading postmodern strategy to completely undermine the whole basis of modernity as some phantom historical deviation. The pendulum swings and this text tokens one part of a vast discourse that might bring some sense to the play of opposites here.
Rating:
Summary: Preconceptions of the East about the West
Review: The book deals with the misconceptions about the West that are held by the East and its title is deliberately chosen to contrast with Orientalism, the misconceptions of the West about the East. People of the East tend to view the West as materialistic and devoid of spiritual values. A major
contribution of the book is to point out that such preconceptions are not limited to radical Islamists but have a long history in Europe. German Romantics of the 18th and 19th century felt the same way about France and England, the Russian slavophiles of the 19th century felt the same way about estern Europe, and so did Japanese intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century. The book points out that such views are often held by those defeated in a war and/or left behind in economic development so there is an element of sour grapes in the emphasis on the "spiritual" and the "heroic." The book has six chapters with the longest one dealing with the views of the East on the Western Cities that are seen as symbols of greed and corruption. Other chapters deal with the contrast between (western) merchants and (eastern) heroes, the effect of religious ideas and the views on women. In case it shows how the views of radical Islam have been influenced by
Europeans. That connection offers an explanation for the support radical Islam has been receiving amongst intellectuals of the left: "Far from being the dogma favored by downtrodden peasants, Occidentalism more often reflects the prejudices of urban intellectuals, who feel displaced in a world of mass commerce." The final conclusion is that "... the West is not at war against Islam. Indeed the fiercest battles will be fought inside the Muslim world." The fault lines in the war of ideas "do not coincide with national, ethnic, or religious borders." Also that the revolution of radical Islam "will have to be halted, preferably not by outside intervention, but by Muslims themselves." I would like to add that, ironically, the tirades against materialism and self interest are often found in societies that are oppressed with most people living in poverty with a tiny minority holding all the wealth.
|
