Linley Wareham

Historical Book Review: Orientalism

Edward W. Said’s seminal book Orientalism is a highly respected book which tackles

the major and continuing issue, particularly in contemporary politics, of ‘western

conceptions of the Orient’; first published in 1978, it is widely respected as the

foundation work for ‘postcolonial theory’: the study of the after-effects of colonial

rule, particularly those of a cultural nature.

While postcolonial theory encompasses the effects in both ex-colonial and ex-

colonist states, Said’s focus is the effect upon the West – the ex-colonists – ergo one

of the major praises of his book, and justly so, has been to encourage a whole new

field of study, despite considering only one area of what has come to constitute post-

colonialism. In particular, Said addresses the psychological impacts of colonialism

upon a post-Imperial Occident (most often Europe) and traces its development from

what he considers the primary Orient-Occident convergence of culture – namely,

Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt – to the modern day.

In order to facilitate an explanation of Orientalism, it is necessary to explain the

concept itself; Said describes the many aspects of ‘orientalism’ throughout the book,

but at its simplest it could be defined as a series of prejudices, or stereotypes, which

categorise, qualify and generalise the Orient, usually in an inferior position to that of

the Occident’. To expand on this point, the first chapter of the book, ‘The Scope of

Orientalism’, considers what Said perceives as the range of ways in which orientalism

was a defining factor in the way that Europe reacted to the Orient, with regards to the

ways in which orientalism was used, justified and hence reinforced within European

society.

-1-
 Linley Wareham

The ways in which orientalism changes in nature are dealt with in Chapter

Two: Orientalist Structures and Restructures, leaving Chapter One to focus on the

individual stages of orientalism. Said begins, not with the origin of orientalism as he

sees it, but with clear, uncomplicated examples of orientalism in what could be

described as its ‘dominating’ state. This is demonstrated through the quotes of Balfour

and Cromer, emphasising the aspect of orientalism which results in a superiority

complex amongst Occidentals. It also pays particular attention to the idea that the

concept of orientalism, which was already present, both justified the act of

colonisation and rationalised a continued presence in the colony (in this case Egypt).

This is key to Said’s theory on orientalism, in that it explain why orientalism has

endured without great contextual change: the West still considers itself superior to the

Orient because it always has been more advanced and should always be attempting to

encourage the Orient to develop and grow. In some ways, it is harder now to argue

with this point of view, particularly in the light of the United State’s continuing

campaign the spread American ideals across the world, testament to Said’s theory.

Said does not argue that orientalism is a geographically dependant version of racism,

a belief of ethnic and racial superiority, which in some ways detracts from his

argument today, however this should be forgiven since Said cannot have hoped to

predict the occurrence of 9/11 and the subsequent growth of paranoia towards the

East.

The rest of the chapter begins to reveal the style of the rest of Orientalism;

after the well constructed case study of Balfour, Cromer and the British occupation of

Egypt, Said looks at European ‘projects’ concerning the Orient. It is here that the

recurring case study of Napoleon’s Egypt is explained in detail and the ways in which

the control of an entire Oriental country fuelled (a) European ability to investigate;

-2-
 Linley Wareham

and (b) European desire, the study the Orient. With reference to the first of these, the

other major case study presented is that of the Suez Canal and the facilitation of

transport into the Near Orient; undeniably, this was a pivotal event which opened up

access to the East and distorted the concept of ‘the Orient’ as a greater expanse of

land became included in a study of what had previously only focused on Egypt and

Arabia. It is at this point that one of the major flaws in Said’s work is revealed.

The reader rarely feels as though the literary locale leaves the Middle East;

simply by flicking through the index, it is clear to see that the combined amount of

references to Oriental countries such as China, Japan and India are outweighed by

those of the Near Orient and Egypt. While it is understandable that Said’s background

might compel him to focus upon the countries geographically and culturally closest to

that of his birth, it demonstrates that Said has fallen into the very trap of which he

condemns orientalism: the huge generalisation of the Orient into a select group of

countries. While Said argues, quite fairly, that Egypt and the Near Orient have been

hugely influential upon Western understanding of the East, given that for much of

Europe’s history these were the most culturally alien areas known to Europeans, by

establishing the foundation for his argument in Asia Minor, he automatically excludes

the vast area of the rest of Asia from his study. The impacts of European relations

with Imperial and post-Imperial China, across the nineteenth-twentieth Century bridge

alone, are completely omitted, meaning that the largest, most diverse country in the

Orient is barely included in Said’s argument. Consequently, Said’s concept of

orientalism is probably more accurately referred to as ‘Near Orientalism’, despite any

similarities in Western conceptions of the peoples beyond Asia Minor.

Throughout the book, Said emphasises the lack of change in the nature of

orientalism; the driving causes of orientalism which maintain its presence in the

-3-
 Linley Wareham

psychology of European society are subject to change – Said argues reasonably that

Western desire to understand the Orient eventually translated into Western desire to

improve the Orient – but the effect of orientalism, the sentiment of superiority,

remains constant. The evidence Said provides to support this compares the attitudes

towards the Orient in Napoleon’s era, which mirrors the attitudes he has already

presented using Balfour. However, this transition is an example of the subject which

is not the focus of Chapter Two.

Chapter Two, ‘Orientalist Structures and Restructures’ lives up to its name in

that it analyses the actual study of the East (Orientalism, with a capital ‘O’), thus

drawing the distinction between the concept and the practice, but this change of focus

detracts from the qualities which made the first chapter so engaging, coherent and

provocative. The first part of the chapter considers the relationship between

Orientalists and their field of study; Said highlights the ways in which the attitudes of

Orientalists have contributed, even created, to the misconceptions of the Orient. By

selecting a variety of figures from Napoleon to Kant, Said reinforces the initial

comments he made of Balfour and Cromer (who were Orientalists in the way that they

‘knew’ the Orient); this should not be treated as Said criticising Orientalists as biased

– which is a given – but as him specifying their European backgrounds as to the

reason of their attitudes. In some ways this is simply reiteration of what he has already

described and unfortunately it forms the basis of the second chapter.

It must be said that it is Said’s intention to analyse Orientalism as an academic

field and, in passing, shed light on the development of orientalism, the concept. While

Said does return to consider the impacts of certain Orientalists upon orientalism, the

concept, the majority of his work at this point descends into studies of particular

organisations and figures related to the field, prominently Stacy, Renan and Lane, as

-4-
 Linley Wareham

well as criticisms of Orientalists in general, with regards to what he perceives as

negative influences upon Western stereotypes of the Orient. While his studies of these

figures may be interesting to some readers, his revelations add little to the ideas

presented in the first chapter, and act as unnecessarily long explanations of his

criticisms of the subjectivity within the field of Orientalism.

The final part, Chapter Three: Orientalism Now, redeems Said somewhat as he

returns to conceptual orientalism and places it within a contemporary context. Said’s

comments on Orientalism, this time, are highly relevant and enlightening as he

highlights the disadvantageous position of the Orient in regards to inter-regional

study. While the Occident has numerous societies geared towards the study of the

Orient, the Orient has comparatively few which target the Occident. In addition to

this, the net flow of peoples who have travelled with the intent of studying the

opposing region is highly West-to-East orientated. Combined, these have made

orientalism a phenomenon which is uncontested by the East and part of the norm in

the West.

This idea of orientalism being an integrated part of Western psychology has

been remarked upon throughout the book, but Said draws it to a conclusion with his

ideas of Latent and Manifest Orientalism (this review will refer to these as

‘orientalism’ in order to maintain a distinction between concept and academia, a

distinction Said does not make, per se). Latent orientalism is the underlying and

inbuilt stereotype of the Orient, while Manifest orientalism is process of acting on the

beliefs engendered by Latent orientalism. This is the reason, Said has effectively

argued, that orientalism has endured as a concept which, had it developed today,

would probably have been deemed as racist.

-5-
 Linley Wareham

In conclusion, Said successfully explains and supports his ideas concerning the

nature, role and longevity of orientalism; his ideas about the superiority nature of

orientalism are explained in detail with historic references, and anticipated recent

international events, though these events were largely centred upon the Near Orient

which, ironically, is also the area in which Said’s argument is largely based. Therefore

it is possible to criticise Said’s discourse as being too generalising for the Orient as a

whole, but very accurate with regards to the Near Orient.

With regard to Said’s criticisms of Orientalist’s and their work, Said focuses

on only a small number of figures whom he considers influential and significant;

some of Said’s critics have accused him of comparing figures of different types,

whose works are largely incompatible, on the basis that their Occidental upbringing

has provided them with similar understandings of the Orient, however it would

require a well informed reader to understand these criticisms to the fullest, and hence

be able to make an informed judgment of Said’s work on Orientalism.

Overall, while Said’s ideas concerning Orientalism as a field of study are less

convincing and overly critical, rather than analytical, his writings on the history and

nature of the concept of orientalism, as well as its continuing effect in modern society,

are compelling and provocative. Even though his theory could be said to revolve

around the Near Orient, the way in which it incite thought about the way West

considers un-Occidental cultures – and heralded the development of postcolonial

theories – is the true success of Orientalism.

Linley Wareham,

University of Sheffield, 2007

-6-