POST COLONIAL LITERATURE

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC:ORIENTALISM (INTRODUCTION & 1ST CHAPTER)

In the introduction of Edward Said‟s book of Orientalism, Saidtakes the initiative by describing
Orient in order to expose the vital common Western misconception about the East. The term
orient is a western invention. He says that this misconception dwells in the Western mind in such
a way as if it were irrelevant that the Orient itself was actually sociologically affected. Said uses
the phrase “Other” to describe the Western fascination with theOrient” as one can only find an
idea of themselves through a contrast with an “Other.” This is a fitting comparison to Said‟s
topic,considering the emphasis he puts on “the Orient‟s special place in the Westernexperience.”
Said suggests that the Orient does not mean the same to American as it doesto the European
countries, which fits logically into the equation. This makes historical sense,since the Orient was
adjacent to Europe‟s earliest civilizations and the cultural exchangehas always existed.

Said analyses orientalism in terms of academic interprettation. Herefers it to the field of work of
anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches theOrient. This definition is generally too
indistinct as compared to the introductorydesignation. Although it incorporates the multiple
discourses of knowledge, it fails todistinguish the Orient as existing comparatively instead of just
being the subject ofexamination.

The second definition draws attention to this distinction and clarifiesOrientalism, while also
extending its breadth to all that is not considered west; TheMiddle East, India, Russia.
Said then proposes a third definition of Orientalism, using an analysissubstantially more
applicable in the historical context. Orientalism as the corporateinstitution for dealing with the
Orient, as the Western authority has done. He professes tobe motivated here by Foucault‟s notion
of a discourse. Michel Foucault‟s theories thathave come to bear on this discussion are his ideas
of the critical relationship under whichthe ontology of subject and object come to be known and
how these associations maycome to constitute knowledge. According to Foucault, the problem is
not isolating anyempirical conditions that may bring about this subjectivity, but to determine
what thesubject is and to what conditions it is subject. Said‟s application of this theory fits
histhird definition well, and provides a strong platform for the rest of his argument. TheOrient
has, for much of history, been the active object to the European missionary and scientist
positions.

He then lists his findings about the recent history of the Orient‟s relationship withthe West. Said
suggests that the balance of power from Franco-British involvement to alargely American
involvement has not had so great an effect Orientalism as would beexpected. This is because the
Orient is not nearly as sterile as effective Westerndomination would bring about; it is a thriving
entity just like those cultures that havepower over it. Additionally, his observations make sense
in the scope of colonialism,since certain sections of the Orient have been excluded from the
whole at certain times; The Middle East or India.
In his qualifications for interpreting Orientalism, Said includes several points ofinterest and
clarification. He agrees with Disraeli, in saying that the East is more than justan idea with no
corresponding reality. In fact, this is concurrent with the fact that manyWestern scholars have
dedicated their entire lives to studying the Orient.

Secondly, Saidreinforces that it is irresponsible to discount the control that the West exercised
over thesesocieties. The study of Orientalism could not exist had the East not been the victim
ofWestern power and domination.

Said differentiates between the types of society and how cultural influenceis derived. He cites
Antonio Gramsci as distinguishing between civil and political society,and the different
configurations and responsibilities therein. According to Gramsci, apolitical society is one in
which the citizen is directly dominated and imposed on by thestate, who create and maintain the
social institutions. Civil society, however, is made upof citizens voluntarily affiliating
themselves with certain social responsibilities. Onlyunder this type of society does the derivation
of cultural enterprise instantiate itself.Gramsci‟s main argument as that in any form of society
that is not totalitarian, certaintypes of culture will thrive. It is this societal happening that he calls
hegemony, whichSaid explains is the phenomenon that necessitates interest in cultural
„otherness‟ such asOrientalism.

After listing the three aspects of his contemporary reality, Said discusses andattempts to address
three realities that would bring the puzzle of Orientalism closer to asolution.

In differentiating between pure and political knowledge, he mentions thedifficulty of

distrusting political knowledge in the realm of a subject that is sointerconnected with politics and
international awareness. It seems to come through in thewriting that Said is finding it hard to
address a problem that is so deeply involved inimperialism, yet not trustworthy of political
knowledge. This sharp paradoxproblematizes his attempt to understand Orientalism in it‟s
historical situation.

The second step is the proposition of his methodological devices, which are inanswer to the
evident absence of the “problematic” in this study.Said uses these devicesto examine the
authority that is descriptive of the West‟s relationship with the Orient. Thefirst device is
strategic location, which describes an author‟s position in his study withregard to the Orient.
Every person who writes about the Orient must associate themselves with either the Orient or the
West (Their strategic location), therefore adding certainconnotations and themes to their
interpretations.

Strategic formation, the second device,incorporates the study of the Orient and the way in
which different intellectualstandpoints gain acceptance and credibility. Just as everyone must be
either associatedwith the West or the East, anyone who considers the Orient in their thoughts
must createa basis for whatever argument or position they assume. The intellectual basis of
theirposition is composed of referential knowledge that relates to other works (Their
strategicformation). At the end of this section, he reminds the reader that information that
ispopularly disseminated by a culture is only a representation of truth, not reality itself. Heuses
this clarification to elucidate the use of language as being culturally, not universally,expressive.

The final reality that must be addressed to bring a greater understanding ofOrientalism is what
Said calls the personal dimension. He quotes Gramsci as saying “The starting point of critical
elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, andknowing thyself.” This quote applies
directly to the subject matter at hand, and also toSaid‟sanalysis of it. He mentions his upbringing,
the pertinence of which relates back tothe aforementioned methodological devices considering
his particular background andprevious knowledge of those who are involved in the Orient. Some
elements of hispersonal reflection on Orientalism are the long history of prejudice against people
ofArab and Islamic descent, the struggle between the Arabs and the Israelis, and its effectson
American population. The one-sidedness of this struggle has to do mainly with thelargely liberal
American identification with Zionism and the reinforcement of stereotypesof the Orient in the
electronic and popular media.

Said delves further into the reasoning behind the futility of a positive view of Arab life in the
West. His remaining comments include thathis experiences as a person of Arab descent are what
motivated him to write aboutOrientalism in the first place. For someone who is so directly and
negatively affected byWestern perceptions of the Arab world and the Orient altogether, his
analysis is a fairlyobjective and sophisticated view of Orientalism. Perhaps it is because of his
experienceswith lifelong stereotypes and the apparent dichotomy of Western and Eastern
approachesto the subject. His final comment is somewhat of a plea to the reader in the hopes that
if agreater understanding of the topic is derived from reading, then an unlearning of theprocesses
of cultural domination can conceivably begin.

Throughout Said is attempting to lay out the foundations of how the concept of Orientalism is
understood through a historical analysis of Britain‟s relationship and experience of colonial rule
over Egypt. He reviews who is called “Oriental” and how we begin to label others. Said reviews
how knowledge and power creates the ability of one group to obtain authority over another group
and thus striping the autonomy away from “the other.” Moreover, Said continues by noting that
this dominance allows for the group with power and knowledge to accept the superiority as the
norm and takes for granted their position of authority. For example, the West will take their
position of dominance and analyze all beliefs and views, which differ from their own, as
abnormal. As Western nations, became more powerful, we automatically begin assuming
positive qualities towards the dominating group and negative qualities towards the “weaker”
group. Thus, all attributes, behaviors, and cultural norms are compared to the “western norm.”
This then allowed all Western thought to be rational and normal and all others thought patterns to
be irrational and strange. Said uses his first chapter to describe how the concept of the western
dominance over the east (Orient) created an ideological framework, which looks at the East as
least superior than West, this is what Said describes as Orientalism.

Said outlines his argument with several limitations as he States that it fails to include Russian
Orientalism and explicitly excludes German Orientalism, which he suggests had “clean “ pasts
and could be promising future studies. Said also suggests that not all academic discourse in the
west has to be orient list in its intent but much of it. He also suggests that all cultures have a view
of other cultures that may be exotic and harmless to some extent, but it is not this view that he
argues against and when this view is taken by a military and economically dominant culture
against another it can lead to disastrous results.

Said starts by analyzing public speeches and writings of two British imperialists of the early 20th
century about the Egypt, making an emphasis on how the stress that since the British imperial
authorities “know better” their country, they have a natural right to rule it:

British knowledge of Egypt is Egypt for Balfour, and the burdens of knowledge make such
questions as inferiority and superiority seem petty ones. Balfour nowhere denies British
superiority and Egyptian inferiority; he takes them for granted as he describes the consequences
of knowledge.

During his involvement in imperial affairs Belfour Serve a monarch who in 1876 had been
declared Empress of India; he had been especially well placed in position of uncommon
influence to follow the Afghan and Zulu wars, the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, the death
of General Gordon in the Sudan, the Russo- Japanese war.

Two great themes dominate his remarks here and in what will follow: Knowledge and Power.
As Balfour justifies the necessity for British occupation of Egypt, Supremacy in his mind is
associated with “our” knowledge of Egypt and not principally with military or economic power.
Knowledge to Balfour means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into Foreign and distant. The
object of such knowledge in inherently Vulnerable to scrutiny; this object is a “fact” which, it
develops, changes or otherwise transforms itself in the way that civilizations frequently do,
nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically stable.

Balfour is of the view that; it is a good thing for these great nations and headmires their greatness
that this absolute Government should be exercised by them. He think it is a good thing an
experience shows that they have got under it far better government that in the whole history of
the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but it undoubtedly a
benefit to the whole to the civilized west. Balfour states;“We are Egypt not merely for the sake
of the Egyptians/ though we are these for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at
large”.
Balfour produces no evidence that Egyptians and “the races with whom we deal.” Appreciate or
even understand the good that is being done them by Colonial occupation. It does not occur to
Balfour , however, to let the Egyptian speak for himself , since presumably any Egyptian who
would speak out is more likely to be “ the agitator (Who) wishes to raise difficulties” than the
good native who overlooks the “difficulties” of foreign domination.

England knows that Egypt cannot have self-government; and England confirms that by
occupying Egypt, and now governs; foreign occupation therefore become” the very basic” of
Contemporary Egyptian civilization ; Egypt requires, indeed insist upon, British occupation. But
is the special intimacy, between governor and governed in Egypt in disturbed by parliament‟s
doubts at home, then “the authority of what… is the dominant race and as I think ought to remain
the dominant race – has been undermined.” Not only does English prestige suffer;“ It is vain for
a handful of British officials, endow them how you like, give them all the qualities of character
the genius you can imagine , it is impossible for them to carry out the great task which in Egypt,
not we only, but the civilized world have imposed upon them.”

Balfour was of the view that Cromer made Egypt, as he states; “Everything he has touched he
has succeeded in … during the past quarter of a century have raised Egypt …. Stands among
oriental nation I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral.”British exports to
Egypt equaled those to the whole of Africa; that century indicated a sort of financial prosperity,
for both; Egypt and England.

Free native institutions, the absence of foreign occupation, self-sustaining nation sovereignty are
the demands rejected by Comer, who asserted; “that the real future of Egypt lies not in the
direction of a narrow nationalism, which will only embrace native Egyptians but rather in that of
an enlarged Cosmopolitanisms”.

Arabs (Orientals) are shown to be “devoid of energy and initiative,” intrigue, cunning, and
unkindness to animals; Orientals are inveterate liars, they are “lethargic and suspicious,” and in
everything oppose the clarity, directness, and nobility of the Anglo-Saxon race.

Balfour and Comer used many terms to explain the relation between the Orientals and
Orient.The Oriental is irrational, depraved (fallen), childlike, “different”; declaring that the
European is rational, virtuous, mature and different. In Cromer‟s and Balfour‟s language the
oriental is depicted as something one judges (as in a Court of law), something one studies depicts
as a discipline as in a school or prison and something one illustrates as in a Zoological manual.

In short, Orientalism is a set of constraints upon and limitations of thought than it is simply as a
positive doctrine. If the essence of Orientalism is the ineradicable distinction between Western
superiority and Oriental inferiority, then we must be prepared to note how in its development and
subsequent history Orientalism deepened and even hardened the distinction.
Orientalist ideas took a number of forms during the nineteenth and twentieth century‟s. As in
Europe there was a vast literature about the Orient inherited from the European past.Orientalism
can also express the strength of the West and the Orient‟s weakness as seen by West. Such
strength and such weakness are intrinsic to Orientalism because they are the view that divides the
world into two.

Kissinger is not value-free and he used words as “prophetic,” “accuracy,” “internal,” “empirical
reality,” and “order” throughout his description, and they characterize either attractive, familiar,
desirable virtues or menacing, peculiar, disorderly defects. Both the traditional Orientalist, as
Kissinger conceive of the difference between cultures, first, as creating a battlefront that
separates them, and second, as inviting the West to control, contain, and otherwise govern
(through superior knowledge and accommodating power) the Other.

Another critic, Glidden states: “It is a notable fact that while the Arab value system demands
absolute solidarity within the group, it at the same time encourages among its members a kind of
rivalry that is destructive of that very solidarity.” The purpose of this learned disquisition is
merely to show how on the western and Oriental scale of values,as the relative position of the
elements is quite different.

The argumentwas that, there are Westerners, and there are Orientals. The former dominate; the
latter must be dominated, which usually means having their land occupied, their internal affairs
rigidly controlled, their blood and treasure put at the disposal of one or another Western power.

Political domination had to be justified, therefore, in the course of the nineteenth century, a
bunch of theories turn up which persisted into the twentieth century and which constructed the
colonial subject as inferior to Europeans; in logic, culture, moral, etc. Many resources were
invented in this vision of Oriental people, as it justified and legitimized domination. The Orient
was viewed as if framed by the classroom, the criminal court, the prison, the illustrated manual.

The reason why this domination emerged was that at that time Britain and France, two leading
colonial powers, divide between them (and other powers) the whole world, but only between
them Middle East. In a way, they cooperated to secure cultural domination over these lands, And
share they (Britain and France) did, in ways that we shall investigate presently. In a sense
Orientalism was a library or archive of information, commonly and, in some of its aspects,
unanimously held.

The crux of it is that the West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the
romantic notion of the "Orient. The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism.
They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. To fill this void, the West has
created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the
study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East.