Customer Reviews

Occidentalism

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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.)

In Occidentialism, Buruma and Margalit have produced an essay which offers a convenient starting point to an examination of why the West, and the United States in particular, is so hated by the rest of the world. They point to the debt anti-westernism owes to late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century German romanticism and to nineteenth-century slavophiliac thinkers: in particular, the despising of reason and calculation in favor of spirit and national character. But, and here they offer something of even greater value, they point out also the ways in which the current jihadism is radically different than earlier, predominantly western thought: it places westerners and western values flatly in the domain of Satan and provides jihadists with a rationale for all-out, no-holds-barred violence against the West.

The book is elegantly written from start to finish but much too short, enough too short that it is a serious weakness in an otherwise laudable book. There is little time to develop the ideas they throw out (many of themof great interest) and they rely too heavily on the products of writers and intellectuals like them. I wish Edward Said were still alive to engage in dialogue with the authors of this book: I the joining of the two viewpoints would be fruitful. Still, all in all, this is a book worth getting and keeping.

David Keymer

Modesto CA

Although a foil to Said's famous book "Orientalism" in its title, "Occidentalism" is less theoretical, not fully reflecting the academic and colonialist "sociology of knowledge," nor as lengthy. It is a quick read, a worthwhile long essay really, more than a book of analysis and comparison.

Provocative, suggestive, even fun, it does provide pointers and examples of a diffuse anti-Westernism from varied sources: Hindu, Chinese, Japanese, Muslim among them. There is less study of intellectual criticism and more reminders of actions expressing contest. A Japanese subway gas attack and Kamikazes, as well as Irish terrorists (not called "Christian terrorists" of course) remind one that fanatics (if that is a valid term at all) and terrorism are not uniquely Muslim. Brief notes about Tagore, Gandhi, Iqbal, and others peak at cultural and intellectual critics of the West.

People generally, perhaps Americans more so, get historical amnesia (especially when it comes to other languages, cultures, and geography) and may enjoy reminders through many examples mentioned of striking anti modern, anti-technological, and even feminist critiques included as "Occidentalist".

For those already paranoid the list of alternatives is at once somehow amusing while being a bit scary. The many pointers should be pursued with discussion of various anti-colonial criticisms, as well as current critiques of the "Washington consensus" on Globalism and even Capitalist `triumphalism" assessed. It is not the `end of history' and we do not have all the answers. The authors can see that "Occidentalism" is more than the bemused deception of turning the blame around when non-Western countries have problems. But that would be another, and longer, more analytical book. Amused and reminded, by this book maybe we can hope others will be so inspired.

To the growing literature which tries to decipher the current divide between Islam and the West, "Occidentalism" is a solid addition, which tells the history of the various groups and intellectuals who have, historically, challenged the Western way of life (even as they disagreed or were unclear about what exactly the West was supposed to represent).

Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, professors at Bard College and Hebrew University of Jerusalem respectively, have written an intellectual history centering around the four pillars of Occidentalism (inverting the term Orientalism coined by Edward Said a quarter century ago), which they define as the "dehumanizing picture of the West painted by its enemies." Occidentalism, the authors write, feeds on a chain of hostility-hostility towards the City and cosmopolitanism, towards the West's non-heroic and commercial ethos, towards its mind, and towards its infidelity.

The result is an elegant narrative that looks both at the broad picture as well as the nuances of the four critiques. One of the major themes is how anti-Western criticisms tend to have some elements of the West in them; another, is that many are driven by a distorted, confused or romanticized view of the past (or an alternative present).

Still, the book leaves something to be desired: to know that the death cult celebrated by Osama bin Laden has historical precedents in the Japanese Kamikaze or the Assassins of the eleven and twelfth centuries might not be as relevant as asking the question of how to overcome it. The authors turn to the question of "how to protect the idea of the West" in the conclusion, though the reader could have profited from a more lengthy treatment. All the same, "Occidentalism" sheds plenty light and adds historical context to some of the most important debates of the present.

It is unfair to sum up how the East views the West and coin up a term for this new hypothesis in an essay-long book. The idea of the book in itself is very interesting and deserves a long debate. The authors of this volume, however, survey bits and pieces of ideas from around the world by capturing general trends in non-Western countries while failing to offer any concrete examples material. The book is insightful but brief and very much editrialized.

When Edward Said offered his description of the way Westerners view the East, his point was focused because in the West, such an activity is mostly centralized and undertaken by academics in the anglophone world which counts less than 10 countries. Yet, reversing this trend, that is recording how the world views the West, is certainly not the same. The diverse world with more than 200 nations certainly has diverse ideas and perspectives about the West and it does not sound accurate if we summarize all of these diverse perspectives in such a brief work.

At any rate, the ideas offered in the book are valid, though not enough to put all of the non-Western nations in a single category. The style is rather dry and a reader might find him/herself struggling to keep up with the points the authors try to make.

It may sound as though I am damning this book with faint praise, but I believe that with a subject as complicated as anti-western feeling there are few better places to begin than with a good conversation opener.

Written in clear non-academic language, Buruma and Margalit have written a book-length essay which further elaborates on the article which they published several years ago in the New York Review of Books. The point of the project is to posit a hypothesis on the roots of anti-western feeling and use that to draw open the discussion as to how the gap can be repaired.

I notice that the original article sparked much less disappointment than the book. There is something about the translation to book form which implies a level of completion or comprehensiveness that an essay by itself cannot achieve. You will find that most reviewers (myself included) had a list of things that we missed in their overview. These omissions felt serious to me, but I notice that the lists have very little in common. It is truly not possible to please everyone or include everything, so perhaps it is just as well that they did not try.

If you already have an adament point of view in this discussion, then this book may well irritate you. Buruma and Margalit clearly do their best to be as objective as possible, given their own cultural bias. If, however, you are like me and mostly have a clear view about your own lack of answers then you will probably find this a valuable reading experience. Since reading it, I lent the book to a good friend (sorry, publishers!) and we have not been able to stop discussing the points that it raised. Quite an accomplishment, in my opinion, for a self-described short history.

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.

When receiving this book, I saw a small book with only 150 pages with a lot of line spacing and I was expecting a quick read, especially because this is a book that is on the bestsellers list for foreign affairs books. But after starting, that turned out to be quite a wrong impression, because it is quite a terse book, drawing heavy on history of philosophical ideas. But that also made it quite interesting.

The thesis of the book is that the perceived clash of civilizations, the West against the anti West (Islam), is a clash of ideas that is also found inside our own history and society. The Islamist are, whether they admit it or not, influenced by the West in that they borrow and use our own internal enemies. For example the old notion of the romantic rural as opposite of the harsh cite life or the brutal heroic idealist grandeur against the mediocrity reasoned life. To understand the current conflicts both external and internal, this is an enlighten read.

But this is not a book about the current world politics or an in depth description of Islam (I would recommend Bernard Lewis for that) nor does the book provide much practical solutions. The book is more a collection of philosophical ideas that describe the common cultural conflict between the modernity and its enemies, as an other reviewer wrote the book is a bit fragmented and could use some polishing. But never the less, I found it worth the read.

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.