a) Overview In his seminal work Orientalism, Edward Said argues that western scholarship on the Arab and Muslim world and its history, culture, politics and institutions is tainted by subtle Eurocentric prejudices against Arab and Islamic peoples, whose world and...
Ver más
a) Overview
In his seminal work Orientalism, Edward Said argues that western scholarship on the Arab and Muslim world and its history, culture, politics and institutions is tainted by subtle Eurocentric prejudices against Arab and Islamic peoples, whose world and culture are depicted as inferior to the West. For Said, western “pseudo-scholars” who report on the Arab world portray the Arabs as exotic, temperamental and irrational, presenting the Orient through the colored, racist lens of Orientalism.
b) Critique
Said’s work is weak in several respects, namely in its criticism of scholars who objectively depict the reality of the modern Arab world and in its use of unnecessarily complex prose that obstructs rather than furthers Said’s message.
(1) Said’s Critique of Scholars Who Depict Reality
(a) Overview
Said may be disgruntled over how scholars of Middle Eastern studies depict and describe the Arab world’s modern state of disarray and disorder, but these scholars are doing nothing more than depicting reality. When scholars reference poor human development indices in the Middle East, high rates of illiteracy, political corruption, social instability, unemployment and economic underdevelopment, they are reporting on objective facts supported by institutions such as the World Bank. Oppression of minorities, violations of human rights and political freedom, usurpation of power by the use of armed force and political coups in the Arab world are not only well-documented by international human rights organizations, but candidly obvious to any objective observer. Therefore, when scholars depict these facts in their work, they are not selectively choosing that which most bleakly portrays the Middle East in order to justify a sense of Eurocentric superiority. Rather, they are depicting a political, economic and social reality.
If scholars of the Arab world were really out to discredit Arabs and Muslims, as Said suggests, then one would not find in their literature praise where praise is due. How then is one to explain, for example, Lewis’s praise on the learning, scholarship, tolerances and openness to scientific inquiry and invention that characterized the Muslim world of the Middle Ages? Lewis even points out that it was Muslim nations that welcomed persecuted minorities that fled Europe in the Middle Ages, including even Jews. Lewis cannot be so positive of the state of affairs of the modern Middle East. To do so would be to betray a reality of political violence, religious fanaticism and social and economic underdevelopment that cannot be denied by objective observation.
(b) Example: Said’s Critique of Bernard Lewis
As an example of Said’s misplaced critique of scholars for depicting reality, we can consider one of the book’s many attacks on Bernard Lewis. In one example, Said quotes Lewis’ essay “Islamic Concepts of Revolution,” which defines the Arabic word thawra (revolution), as follows (p. 314-15):
“The root th-w-r in classical Arabic meant to rise up (e.g. of a camel), to be stirred or excited, and hence, especially in Maghrabi usage, to rebel. It is often used in the context of establishing a petty, independent sovereignty; thus, for example, the so-called party kings who ruled in eleventh century Spain after the break-up of the Caliphate of Cordova are called thuwwar (sing. Tha’ir). The noun thawra at first means excitement, as in the phrase, cited in the Sihah, a standard medieval Arabic, intazir hatta taskun hadhihi ’lthawra, wait till this excitement dies down—a very apt recommendation.”
Said mounts an offensive against Lewis, claiming that Lewis’s definition of the Arabic term is “full of condescension and bad faith” (p. 315). He continues (p. 315):
“Why introduce the idea of a camel rising as an etymological root for the modern Arab revolution except as a clever way of discrediting the modern? Lewis’s reason is patently to bring down revolution from its contemporary valuation to nothing more noble (or beautiful) than a camel about to raise itself from the ground. Revolution is excitement, sedition, setting up a petty sovereignty—nothing more; the best counsel (which presumably only a Western scholar and gentleman can give) is ‘wait till the excitement dies down.’”
Said’s argument is flawed in several respects. Lewis, in describing the verb th-w-r as meaning “rising up” or being “stirred or excited” is simply setting forth the various definitions of the term as recorded in any standard dictionary. For example, the Fourth Edition of the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic notes that the verb can mean “to stir, be stirred up, be aroused, be excited… be unleashed, break out; to revolt, rebel, rise … to rage, storm … to fly into a rage, become furious … to agitate, excite … to stimulate … to arouse … kindle … provoke … infuriate … stir up dust … incite ... infuriate” (p. 130). Said may not be happy that the Arabic verb for revolt is associated these other, base meanings, but for this he should direct his anger at the Arabic language, not at Lewis, who is merely presenting the facts.
Second, Said sarcastically attributes the recommendation to “wait till this excitement dies down” to a “Western scholar and gentleman,” as though it is the scholar Lewis who is recommending that Arabs not exercise their duty of resistance to bad government. Yet Lewis is merely citing the Sihah, a standard medieval Arabic dictionary written by Isma'il ibn Hammad al-Jawhari, of Turkestan, which was later incorporated into Lisān al-ʿArab by Ibn Manzur, of North African descent. If Said is not happy with what Lewis finds in Arabic and Muslim sources, he should direct his disapproval at the sources, not at Lewis.
(2) Unnecessarily Complex Prose
A second flaw in Orientalism and of Said’s work in general is the overly complex style of prose that Said is apt to adopt. While scholars such as Lewis employ flowing, eloquent language that clearly expresses their views that is also a pleasure to read, Said employs verbose, unnecessarily convoluted sentences and ambiguous phrases that often require his audience to read and reread them before deciphering their meaning. His complex prose thus impedes rather than furthers his message. This is perhaps why Said’s impact has been largely restricted to academia, while several of Lewis’s books reached broader audiences and went on to be New York Times or National Bestsellers.
c) Said’s Qualifications in Middle Eastern Studies
Said’s volume repeatedly assails the scholars of Middle Eastern studies. He writes of Lewis, for example, that his “verbosity scarcely conceals both the ideological underpinnings of his position and his extraordinary capacity for getting nearly everything wrong” (p. 342). Said goes even further, challenging the credentials and objectivity of these scholars. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Said claimed that Bernard Lewis “knows something about Turkey, I'm told, but he knows nothing about the Arab world.”
One is left wondering about Said’s own credentials in Middle Eastern studies. With a PhD in English literature, Said’s qualifications prove to be relatively thin. While Orientalism draws on Said’s knowledge of colonial literature, literary theory, and post-structuralist theory, it is questionable whether Said has the necessary training or credentials to approach Middle Eastern studies against scholars who have been specifically trained in the field. Lewis, for example, holds a BA and PhD from the School of African and Oriental Studies in history with special reference to the Middle East and Islam and a Diplôme des Études Sémitiques from the University of Paris and has had a prolific academic career spanning sixty years of specialization in Middle Eastern studies.
Furthermore, the reader may be left wondering whether Said, an American of Palestinian origin, is balanced in assessing the Middle East and the question of Palestine, or whether his writing perhaps suffers from a similar degree of bias as the Orientalists that he attacks.
d) The Book’s Failure to Discredit Scholars of Middle Eastern Studies
While Said’s Orientalism has had a major polarizing and ripple effect over academia, the book does not succeed in discrediting western scholars of Middle Eastern studies. Rather, it often leaves Said looking oversensitive, fastidious and overly eager to pick a fight.
a) Overview
In his seminal work Orientalism, Edward Said argues that western scholarship on the Arab and Muslim world and its history, culture, politics and institutions is tainted by subtle Eurocentric prejudices against Arab and Islamic peoples, whose world and culture are depicted as inferior to the West. For Said, western “pseudo-scholars” who report on the Arab world portray the Arabs as exotic, temperamental and irrational, presenting the Orient through the colored, racist lens of Orientalism.
b) Critique
Said’s work is weak in several respects, namely in its criticism of scholars who objectively depict the reality of the modern Arab world and in its use of unnecessarily complex prose that obstructs rather than furthers Said’s message.
(1) Said’s Critique of Scholars Who Depict Reality
(a) Overview
Said may be disgruntled over how scholars of Middle Eastern studies depict and describe the Arab world’s modern state of disarray and disorder, but these scholars are doing nothing more than depicting reality. When scholars reference poor human development indices in the Middle East, high rates of illiteracy, political corruption, social instability, unemployment and economic underdevelopment, they are reporting on objective facts supported by institutions such as the World Bank. Oppression of minorities, violations of human rights and political freedom, usurpation of power by the use of armed force and political coups in the Arab world are not only well-documented by international human rights organizations, but candidly obvious to any objective observer. Therefore, when scholars depict these facts in their work, they are not selectively choosing that which most bleakly portrays the Middle East in order to justify a sense of Eurocentric superiority. Rather, they are depicting a political, economic and social reality.
If scholars of the Arab world were really out to discredit Arabs and Muslims, as Said suggests, then one would not find in their literature praise where praise is due. How then is one to explain, for example, Lewis’s praise on the learning, scholarship, tolerances and openness to scientific inquiry and invention that characterized the Muslim world of the Middle Ages? Lewis even points out that it was Muslim nations that welcomed persecuted minorities that fled Europe in the Middle Ages, including even Jews. Lewis cannot be so positive of the state of affairs of the modern Middle East. To do so would be to betray a reality of political violence, religious fanaticism and social and economic underdevelopment that cannot be denied by objective observation.
(b) Example: Said’s Critique of Bernard Lewis
As an example of Said’s misplaced critique of scholars for depicting reality, we can consider one of the book’s many attacks on Bernard Lewis. In one example, Said quotes Lewis’ essay “Islamic Concepts of Revolution,” which defines the Arabic word thawra (revolution), as follows (p. 314-15):
“The root th-w-r in classical Arabic meant to rise up (e.g. of a camel), to be stirred or excited, and hence, especially in Maghrabi usage, to rebel. It is often used in the context of establishing a petty, independent sovereignty; thus, for example, the so-called party kings who ruled in eleventh century Spain after the break-up of the Caliphate of Cordova are called thuwwar (sing. Tha’ir). The noun thawra at first means excitement, as in the phrase, cited in the Sihah, a standard medieval Arabic, intazir hatta taskun hadhihi ’lthawra, wait till this excitement dies down—a very apt recommendation.”
Said mounts an offensive against Lewis, claiming that Lewis’s definition of the Arabic term is “full of condescension and bad faith” (p. 315). He continues (p. 315):
“Why introduce the idea of a camel rising as an etymological root for the modern Arab revolution except as a clever way of discrediting the modern? Lewis’s reason is patently to bring down revolution from its contemporary valuation to nothing more noble (or beautiful) than a camel about to raise itself from the ground. Revolution is excitement, sedition, setting up a petty sovereignty—nothing more; the best counsel (which presumably only a Western scholar and gentleman can give) is ‘wait till the excitement dies down.’”
Said’s argument is flawed in several respects. Lewis, in describing the verb th-w-r as meaning “rising up” or being “stirred or excited” is simply setting forth the various definitions of the term as recorded in any standard dictionary. For example, the Fourth Edition of the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic notes that the verb can mean “to stir, be stirred up, be aroused, be excited… be unleashed, break out; to revolt, rebel, rise … to rage, storm … to fly into a rage, become furious … to agitate, excite … to stimulate … to arouse … kindle … provoke … infuriate … stir up dust … incite ... infuriate” (p. 130). Said may not be happy that the Arabic verb for revolt is associated these other, base meanings, but for this he should direct his anger at the Arabic language, not at Lewis, who is merely presenting the facts.
Second, Said sarcastically attributes the recommendation to “wait till this excitement dies down” to a “Western scholar and gentleman,” as though it is the scholar Lewis who is recommending that Arabs not exercise their duty of resistance to bad government. Yet Lewis is merely citing the Sihah, a standard medieval Arabic dictionary written by Isma'il ibn Hammad al-Jawhari, of Turkestan, which was later incorporated into Lisān al-ʿArab by Ibn Manzur, of North African descent. If Said is not happy with what Lewis finds in Arabic and Muslim sources, he should direct his disapproval at the sources, not at Lewis.
(2) Unnecessarily Complex Prose
A second flaw in Orientalism and of Said’s work in general is the overly complex style of prose that Said is apt to adopt. While scholars such as Lewis employ flowing, eloquent language that clearly expresses their views that is also a pleasure to read, Said employs verbose, unnecessarily convoluted sentences and ambiguous phrases that often require his audience to read and reread them before deciphering their meaning. His complex prose thus impedes rather than furthers his message. This is perhaps why Said’s impact has been largely restricted to academia, while several of Lewis’s books reached broader audiences and went on to be New York Times or National Bestsellers.
c) Said’s Qualifications in Middle Eastern Studies
Said’s volume repeatedly assails the scholars of Middle Eastern studies. He writes of Lewis, for example, that his “verbosity scarcely conceals both the ideological underpinnings of his position and his extraordinary capacity for getting nearly everything wrong” (p. 342). Said goes even further, challenging the credentials and objectivity of these scholars. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Said claimed that Bernard Lewis “knows something about Turkey, I'm told, but he knows nothing about the Arab world.”
One is left wondering about Said’s own credentials in Middle Eastern studies. With a PhD in English literature, Said’s qualifications prove to be relatively thin. While Orientalism draws on Said’s knowledge of colonial literature, literary theory, and post-structuralist theory, it is questionable whether Said has the necessary training or credentials to approach Middle Eastern studies against scholars who have been specifically trained in the field. Lewis, for example, holds a BA and PhD from the School of African and Oriental Studies in history with special reference to the Middle East and Islam and a Diplôme des Études Sémitiques from the University of Paris and has had a prolific academic career spanning sixty years of specialization in Middle Eastern studies.
Furthermore, the reader may be left wondering whether Said, an American of Palestinian origin, is balanced in assessing the Middle East and the question of Palestine, or whether his writing perhaps suffers from a similar degree of bias as the Orientalists that he attacks.
d) The Book’s Failure to Discredit Scholars of Middle Eastern Studies
While Said’s Orientalism has had a major polarizing and ripple effect over academia, the book does not succeed in discrediting western scholars of Middle Eastern studies. Rather, it often leaves Said looking oversensitive, fastidious and overly eager to pick a fight.
