Orientalism Paperback – October 12, 1979

I like how Said uses literary texts in his analysis to show the historical origin of the concept of the Orient and the Oriental. Indeed, certain uses of words and sometimes certain expressions will reveal the underlying cultural bias. This book is an excellent practice of textual analysis. Although nowadays the concept of Orientalism has become so commonplace that many of the arguments given in this book seems outdated, it is to be emphasized that maybe it was exactly due to original research carried out in this book many years ago that Orientalism became widely known.

However I do have a few complaints. In many places in the book, the author sounds really repetitive and unnecessarily verbose. Actually his arguments are not exactly as complex as they seem. Big words, repetition and lots of rhetorics just resort to the readers emotions and sensations, rather than speaking to the sense or the mind directly. Also I do not know why the author ignores East Asia. Of course from his ethnic background, we might not expect him to have sufficient knowledge of the cultural contacts between the West and East Asia. But I doubt this. I am more inclined to think that the author is not interested in East Asia at all. Orientalism is just a channel for him to express his own pride and celebration of his own culture. So in this regard, what his grand theory amounts to might just be a resentment or complaint against the West, rather than a global theory of historicization of cultural stereotypes.

Orientalism, by Edward Said, is a controversial and extremely complex book that challenges the standard conventions through which the West portrays the Orient. Said, a Palestinian American who spent his childhood in British Palestine and Egypt, cites a plethora of reasons for assembling this momentous piece of literature. First of all, he seeks to show that the Orient is not a static, monolithic, and never-changing group, and that making such broad generalizations is harmful. In addition, he argues against basic Western imperialism, against the idea of separating East from West, Oriental from Occidental, through a humanistic approach, because all that fall under such grotesque categorizations are ultimately human. Finally, Said desires to provoke debate, "widen the field of discussion," and challenge commonly held views, such as the simplified version of the Orient promoted by the United States media, for "in the demonization of an unknown enemy, for whom the label terrorist serves the general purpose of keeping people stirred up and angry...media images can be exploited."

Throughout his book, Said defines "Orientalism" in several different ways. In essence, every time he discusses a certain aspect of Orientalism, he ascribes it a specific meaning. Most generally, Said calls Orientalism a "generic term...to describe the Western approach to the Orient." However, Orientalism can also be the combined study of imperialism and culture. Including as many of the characteristics Said mentions, perhaps Orientalism can be defined more decisively, for although he discusses dozens of different types of Orientalism, a few common themes are omnipresent. Originating in the West, Orientalism is the artificial categorization of an intellectually stagnant Orient that encompasses a vast body of often degrading Western literature and justifies imperialist Western policies by promoting a sense of inherent superiority over Orientals.

One must realize that such divisions have existed throughout human history. This process originates from the basic human tendency to separate one's own group from others as soon as one encounters another, different group. This was also done in Ancient Greece in regard to the Persian Empire and is exactly what transpired when Islam collided with Christianity in the seventh century BC. "Islam became an image...whose function was not so much to represent Islam in itself as to represent it for the medieval Christian." This misrepresentation of Islam to the West was deemed adequate and misconceptions like equating Muhammad to Christ were simply accepted. The view of the Orient, Said argues, then stagnated, for unlike other fields of knowledge, Orientalism did not advance, and the misconceptions and negative beliefs were thus engrained in Western thought. This lasted until 1798, when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, founded the Institut d'Egypte, and thereby exposed Western scholars to Oriental culture, which ultimately helped facilitate European imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Arthur James Balfour, British politician during this time, claimed that Egypt needs British rule because Egyptians could not rule themselves, while the infamously racist Lord Cromer goes so far as to say that "subject races did not have it in them to know what was good for them." In Orientalism, Said argues that these sentiments were largely imitated in American Orientalism after World War II. A great example of this is Henry Kissinger, who separates the Pre-Newtonian Orient from the Post-Newtonian West, and thereby argues that, "as thinkers, we are better off than they are." As such, the Orientalism once practiced Cromer and Balfour has not changed.

Said asks an important question in regard to the effect of Orientalism. "Can one divide human reality, as indeed human reality seems to be genuinely divided, into clearly different cultures, histories, traditions, societies, even races, and survive the consequences humanly?" The answer to this question is no, because of humanity's physical diversity. Difference, just as it causes the creation of distinctions, breeds contempt, and drawing a distinct dividing line between two groups only aggravates this feeling of being different, or in many cases, superior. This, in turn, exacerbates the issue of feeling hostile towards "others," because once one feels superior to another group, the innate desire to control this inferior group inevitably arises. Thus, the result of Orientalism, from a humanistic point of view, can only be negative.

While Orientalism has successfully challenged common Orientalist views and created immense debate among scholars, it is not without faults. For example, Said urges to stop the use of generalizations, but he grossly lumps all Orientalists into one, treating them all in the same derogatory fashion. In addition, his widespread use of French and German without translation is somewhat challenging to the unilingual reader, which can negatively impact his book's common appeal. Finally, Said thoroughly criticizes Orientalists' representation of the Orient, but fails to provide examples of scholars from the Orient to convincingly prove that these Orientalist representations are in fact misrepresentations. In the end, it would have been extremely useful and even more riveting if he had attempted to show his readers how the Orient actually views itself.

Perhaps even more relevant and essential a critique and study than before!

Said's frustration with what he considers as the West's misrepresentation of the "Orient" or Islamic culture is palpable. As he suggests, the connection between the power and the production of knowledge has been apparent in the "Orientalist" discourses, including the discourses on the East-Asian cultures and societies, throughout the human history. As a person who was born and raised in one of the Oriental societies, I understand Said's frustration and resentment. However, I am also aware that all knowledge is formed from a particular perspective, which may be contradicted by a different perspective. Knowledge is not identical to the "truth." Knowledge is made, remade, and destroyed constantly (from the perspective of the human history) depending on the need and desire of its users. Knowledge is not forever. In a way, I feel Said's work, originally published in 1979, is indicative of the changing mood of a particular historical time when the OPEC nations began to exercise their power over the oil-hungry nations. Nevertheless, I believe Orientalism, though at times repetitive, is an important work in the intellectual history of the West.

One last issue that I want to mention here is a glaring inaccuracy in his discourse regarding an incident in Japanese history. On page 73, Said wrote: "Islam excepted, the Orient for Europe was until the nineteenth century a domain with a continuous history of unchallenged Western Dominance. This is patently true of the British experience in India, the Portuguese experience in the East Indies, China, and Japan, and the French and Italian experiences in various regions of the Orient. There were occasional instances of native intransigence to disturb the idyll, as when in 1638 - 1639 a group of Japanese Christians threw the Portuguese out of the area..." This passage is so inaccurate that I did not initially recognize what he was talking about. (The Portuguese were never "dominant" in Japan. They were driven out of Japan by the Tokugawa Shogunate. A "group of Japanese Christians" revolted against the Tokugawa Shogunate that banned Christianity in Japan, but were defeated in a horrible manner. It is called the Shimabara Revolt.) I wish Said had been more attentive to the accuracy of his discourse.

Interesting and informative.

An essential read for the student or reader attempting to get into the field of post-colonialism or anyone interested in taking a look at global institutions on a deeper level.